Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
At the outset, the Examiner had examined a claim set which was prior to a preliminary amendment filed by Applicants. As correctly pointed out by Applicants, the examined claim set did not include claims 11-14 which were added in the preliminary amendment. As such, this Office action is non-final. Applicants have amended independent claim 1 to be drawn to a green organic electroluminescent device which comprises an anode, a cathode, and a functional layer between the anode and cathode which includes a compound of Formula 1. Applicants have also amended claim 7 in a manner which overcomes the objection and 112(d) rejection against claim 7. Last, Applicants have canceled claim 8. Applicants argue that the prior art rejection to Kang et al. (US 2022/0123223) should be withdrawn as all of the device examples taught by Kang et al. comprise a red light-emitting layer, which is exclusive of the instantly claimed green [light-emitting] organic electroluminescent device as instantly claimed. However, the reference to Kang et al. is still relied upon in an obviousness type prior art rejection as described below.
Regarding applicants arguments that green-emitting devices require host materials with significantly higher triplet energy (T1) than red-emitting devices, the Examiner nots that a materials performance in a red device does not, per se, preclude its suitability for a green device. While Kang et al. may utilize a red dopant in its specific working examples, the reference explicitly identifies green dopants as suitable for use with the disclosed host materials. Consequently, Kang et al. does not ‘teach away’ from green-emitting devices, as it does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the use of the disclosed hosts in such a configuration.
Furthermore, the host compounds disclosed by Kang et al. incorporate triazine moieties which are electron-deficient heterocycles well-recognized in the art for maintaining high triplet energy levels by limiting p-conjugation. Given the structural presence of these triazine groups, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success that the host materials of Kang et al. would possess a sufficiently high T1 to function effectively with the green dopants also taught therein. The selection of a disclosed host with a disclosed dopant to achieve a known color is an exercise of routine optimization, yielding predicable results.
Claim Objections
The preamble of all claims are objected to. Specifically, the claim preambles should be amended to “A green light emitting organic” for claim 1 and “The green light emitting organic” for dependent claims 2-7 and 9-14 so as to most clearly articulate the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 2022/0123223) as evidenced by Jung et al. (US 2015/0249224).
Claim 1: Kang et al. discloses organic electroluminescent devices comprising an anode, a hole transport region, an emissive region comprising a first host, a second host, and a dopant, an electron transport region, and a cathode. Included in the list of specific compounds which may be employed as the second host material includes compounds H2-22 and H2-27 which have the structures
PNG
media_image1.png
142
188
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image2.png
216
154
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, respectively (page 38). As applied to Formula 1 of claim 1, these compounds have X1 equal to O or S, all X2-X5 equal to C(H), L equal to a single bond, L1 equal to a single bond, and Ar equal to phenyl (left compound above) or biphenyl (right compound above). These compounds satisfy all of the structural limitations of Formula 1 of claim 1. While Kang et al. does not explicitly teach the employment of the above compounds as a host material in the organic electroluminescent devices taught therein, the selection of any one of the explicitly taught host materials, including the ones shown above is prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. The motivation to employ these compounds stems from the fact that they are taught as being suitable alternative host materials.
While Kang et al. exemplifies red-light emitting devices and the instantly filed claims are drawn to green [light-emitting] devices, Kang et al. is not limited to the working examples. In paragraph 0103 of Kang et al. are shown specific iridium dopants which may be employed as the light-emitting dopant. At least several of the iridium dopants explicitly taught by Kang et al. are known in the art to be green light emitting dopants. One reference which shows this is Jung et al. Jung et al. teaches green light emitting devices which includes as the green light-emitting dopant, the iridium complexes taught therein. Table 1 of Jung et al. shows all of the dopants to have a maximum emission in the green light portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. Dopant D-28 of Jung et al. is the same as dopant D-24 of Kang. Similarly, dopant D-9 of Jung et al. is the same as D-16 of Kang et al., dopant D-11 of Jung et al. is the same as dopant D-17 of Kang et al., dopant D-27 of Jung et al. is equal to dopant D-18 of Kang et al., and dopant D-16 of Jung et al. is the same as dopant D-20 of Kang et al. to name a few. So while a red iridium dopant [compound D-39 of Kang et al.] is employed in the device examples, Kang et al. is not limited to red-light emitting devices. A reference may be relied upon for all that it teaches, including non-preferred/non-exemplified embodiments. Kang et al. clearly envisages the use of green dopants such as those dopants mentioned above.
Kang et al. provides a finite number of preferred electron transporting host materials and a finite number of preferred iridium dopant materials. While no working example employs an electron transporting host material or a green dopant material which satisfies the instantly claimed invention, Kang et al. provides the building blocks necessary to arrive at the instantly claimed invention. Kang et al. teaches preferred host materials and preferred dopant materials which each individually satisfy the respective host material and green dopant material as claimed. Kang et al. is not limited to the specific working examples taught therein. The disclosure as a hole provides a defined set of materials which includes the claimed host/dopant combinations. Even if Kang et al. does not highlight this specific combination, it provides a limited number of options, and therefore the selection of an embodiment which satisfies the instantly filed claims is obvious. Additionally, it is well-known in the organic electroluminescent area that host materials and dopants are interchangeable components selected based on a desired emission color. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to pair any one of the disclosed green dopants to achieve a green light emitting device, which is a predictable functional result. For these reasons, Kang et al. renders obvious the preparation of a green light emitting device which satisfies all of the device and structural limitations of independent claim 1.
Claims 2-4: The electron transporting host compounds shown in claim 1 above also satisfy the structural limitations of claims 2-4 as both L and L1 are equal to single bonds.
Claims 5 and 6: In the electron transporting host compounds shown above, variable Ar is equal to an unsubstituted C6 or C12 aryl group, which satisfies claim 5 as well as the first and fourth structures of claim 6, respectively.
Claim 7: Compound H2-22 is identical to compound 112 of claim 7, thereby satisfying claim 7.
Claims 9, 10, and 14: As described in claim 1 above, Kang et al. renders obvious devices which are green light emitting devices where the emission layer of said devices is comprised of an electron transporting host material satisfying formula 1 of claim 1 above and a green phosphorescent dopant which are employed in the emission layer of said devices, thereby satisfying claims 9 and 14. Further, such electroluminescent devices are themselves an electronic apparatus, thereby satisfying claim 10.
Claims 11-13: Claims 11-13 serve to further limit the optional embodiment where there are substituent(s) present in L and L1. However, this is not a required feature and the compounds shown in claim 1 above may be properly relied upon to reject claims 11 and 12. Claim 13 serves to further limit the optional embodiment where there are substituent(s) present in Ar. However, this is not a required feature and the compounds shown above may be properly relied upon to reject claim 13.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT S LOEWE whose telephone number is (571)270-3298. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8 AM to 5 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-1302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Robert S Loewe/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights