DETAILED ACTION
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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, and 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 2015/0115205 A1) (hereafter “Kang”).
Regarding claims 1-4, 8, and 10-18: Kang discloses the compound shown below {(paragraph [0031]: The compounds of the disclosure of Kang have the structure of formula 1, which can be represented by one of formulas 2 to 7.), (paragraph [0041]: The compounds of the disclosure of Kang are exemplified by the Compounds C-1 through C-131.)}.
PNG
media_image1.png
560
634
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Where in the compound shown above: Y1 is N; the instant R1 is a group having the structure of the instant Formula 1-1; the instant R3 is a group having the structure of the instant Formula 1-2; X is S; R2 is in each case hydrogen; R4 is in each case hydrogen.
Where the structure being equated with the instant Formula 1-1 can be interpreted as having either:
L1 as phenylene, and R11 as a heterocyclic group, or
L1 as a single bond, and R11 as a benzene ring.
Kang does not teach a specific device comprising the compound shown above.
However, Kang teaches that the compounds of Kang are useful as host materials for a light-emitting dopant in a light-emitting layer of an organic light emitting device {paragraph [0045]}.
Kang teaches that the organic light emitting devices of Kang comprise a first electrode, a second electrode facing the first electrode, an interlayer between the first electrode and the second electrode and comprising an emission layer {paragraphs [0043]-[0044]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compound of Kang shown above by using it as a host material for a light-emitting dopant of the light-emitting layer of the device of Kang described above, based on the teaching of Kang. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices.
Kang does not exemplify a specific device in which a second host having the structure of the instant Formula 2 is used in the light-emitting layer.
However, Kang teaches that a second host material can be used in the light emitting layer of the device of Kang {paragraphs [0045] and [0056]-[0057]}. Kang teaches the compound shown below as a specific example {paragraph [0060]}.
PNG
media_image2.png
510
364
media_image2.png
Greyscale
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device of Kang described above by including a second host material having the structure shown above in the light emitting layer, based on the teaching of Kang. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices.
Regarding claims 5-6: Kang teaches all of the features with respect to claim 3, as outlined above.
Kang does not teach a specific device in which the light emitting dopant is a phosphorescent emitter.
However, Kang teaches that the light emitting dopant can be phosphorescent platinum complex {paragraph [0046]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a platinum metal complex as the light emitting dopant, based on the teaching of Kang. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices.
Regarding claim 8: Kang teaches all of the features with respect to claim 6, as outlined above.
The device of Kang meets the limitations of the current claim 8 wherein the light-emitting layer does not comprise a boron containing compound, but rather comprises a transition metal containing organometallic compound.
Regarding claim 18: Kang teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
A light-emitting device is an electronic apparatus.
Claim(s) 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 2015/0115205 A1) (hereafter “Kang”) as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Li et al. (“Tetradentate Platinum(II) Complexes for Highly Efficient Phosphorescent Emitters and Sky Blue OLEDs”, Chemistry of Materials (2020) vol. 32, pp. 537-548.) (hereafter “Li”).
Regarding claims 7 and 9: Kang teaches all of the features with respect to claims 1 and 6, as outlined above.
Kang does not exemplify a Pt metal complex having a tetradentate ligand that is used as the light-emitting dopant.
Li teaches Pt metal complexes for use as light-emitting dopants in organic light emitting devices {abstract and p. 545, Conclusions}.
Li exemplifies the compound shown below {Figure 2}.
PNG
media_image3.png
518
568
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Li teaches that the compound shown above has a peak emission wavelength of 471 nm {Table 5}.
Li teaches that the compounds of Li have good efficiency and good stability {p. 544, 1st col., final paragraph through p. 545, 1st col., 1st paragraph}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the compound of Li shown above as the light emitting dopant of the light emitting layer of the device of Kang, based on the teaching of Li. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices, which in this case means choosing a compound known to have good efficiency and good stability, as taught by Li.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 2015/0115205 A1) (hereafter “Kang”), as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Kim (US 2002/0149710 A1) (hereinafter “Kim ‘710”).
Regarding claim 7: Kang teaches all of the features with respect to claim 18, as outlined above.
Kang does not exemplify that the display device is a flat panel display or that the first electrode of the organic light-emitting device is electrically connected to a source electrode or a drain electrode of a thin-film transistor.
Kim ‘710 teaches flat panel display comprising organic light-emitting devices as the light-emitting elements {Figs. 3L and 4 as described in paragraphs [0056]-[0060]}.
The display comprises a thin-film transistor comprising a source electrode, a drain electrode, and an active layer {Figs. 3L and 4 as described in paragraphs [0039] [0059]: Element 265 is the drain electrode, Element 260 is the source electrode, and Element 220-3 is the active layer.}
The first electrode of the organic light-emitting device is electrically connected to a source electrode or a drain electrode of a thin-film transistor {Figs. 3L and 4 as described in paragraph [0059]: Element 265 is the drain electrode and is in electrical contact with the electrode of the organic light-emitting device, Element 310.}.
Kim ‘710 sought to provide a flat panel display produced using reduced mask processes, increasing manufacturing yield {abstract, paragraph [0019], and [0059]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the device taught by Kang by using the device as light-emitting elements of the flat panel display device of Kim ‘710, based on the teachings of Kim ‘710. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a flat panel display produced using reduced mask processes, increasing manufacturing yield, as taught by Kim ‘710.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 2015/0115205 A1) (hereafter “Kang”), as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2017/0287985 A1) (hereafter “Kim ‘985”).
Regarding claim 20: Kang teaches all of the features with respect to claim 18, as outlined above.
Kang does not teach that the light-emitting element taught by D1 is incorporated into a display device comprising a color filter.
Kim ‘985 teaches a display device comprising a substrate, and on the substrate, a red pixel region, a green pixel region, and a blue pixel region, an organic light emitting device corresponding to each of the red, green, and blue pixel regions {Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0041]-[0044]}. The display device additionally comprising a color filter layer corresponding to the red, green, and blue pixel regions and disposed between the substrate and the organic light emitting diode {paragraphs [0050]-[0052]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the device of Kang by including the device in the display device structure of Kim ‘985 described above, based on the teaching of Kim ‘985. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum device structures in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DYLAN CLAY KERSHNER whose telephone number is (303)297-4257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm (Mountain).
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) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DYLAN C KERSHNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786