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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The structural formulas in paragraphs [00123]-[00126], [00133], [00139], [00179], [00182], [00184], [00188], [00191], [00194], [00198], and [00201] have poor resolution and are difficult to read.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 10-11 and 20-21 are objected to because of the following informalities: The structural formulas of these claims have poor resolution and are difficult to read. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 19: Claim 19 recites “one or more derivatives of NPB”, followed by a list of specific derivatives of NPB; “tertiary amine-based compounds including”, followed by a list specific derivatives; “a compound including a pyrimidine group including” ”, followed by a list specific derivatives; “a compound including a triazine group” ”, followed by a list specific derivatives; and “a compound including a quinazoline group including”, followed by a list specific derivatives.
In each case, it is unclear if the type of derivative compound is limited by the list of specific derivatives, or if derivatives other than the specific derivatives listed would meet the claim limitations.
For the purposes of examination, derivatives other than the specific derivatives listed would meet the claim limitations are being interpreted as meeting the claim limitations.
Regarding claims 20-22: Claims 20-22 are rejected due to their dependence from claim 19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2008/0074038 A1) (hereafter “Kim”) as evidenced by Ju et al. (US 2005/0112403 A1) (hereafter “Ju”), Lin et al. (US 2002/0107405 A1) (hereafter “Lin”), Okamoto (US 2012/0305898 A1) (hereafter “Okamoto”), and Royster, JR. et al. (US 2009/0309487 A1) (hereafter “Royster”).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4, and 14: Kim discloses an organic light-emitting device comprising a first electrode; a second electrode facing the first electrode; and a light emitting stack disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode {Fig. 1 as described in paragraphs [0061]-[0067]}.
The light-emitting stack includes an organic layer, which includes a hole transport layer and a red light-emitting layer {Fig. 1 as described in paragraph [0062]: The light-emitting dopant is Irpiq3.}.
Ju evidences that Irpiq3 is a red light emitting dopant {paragraph [0031]}.
The hole transport layer includes a hole transport material {Fig. 1 as described in paragraphs [0062].}.
The red light-emitting layer includes the two host materials shown below {Fig. 1 as described in paragraphs [0067]: The host materials are TPBi and NPB.}.
PNG
media_image1.png
430
963
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lin evidences that TPBi has an absolute value of the HOMO energy level of 6.20 eV and an absolute value of the LUMO energy level of 2.70 eV {Table 2}.
Okamoto evidences that NPB has an absolute value of the HOMO energy level of 5.5 eV and an absolute value of the LUMO energy level of 2.40 eV {paragraph [0010]}.
Royster evidences that Irpiq3 has an absolute value of the HOMO energy level of 5.24 eV; an absolute value of the LUMO energy level of 2.63 eV; and a triplet energy of 2.12 eV {paragraph [0187]}.
The device of Kim additionally comprises an electron transfer layer {Fig. 1 as described in paragraphs [0061]-[0067]}.
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, 3-5, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2015/0069352 A1) (hereafter “Kim ‘352”) in view of Liao et al. (US 2009/0191427 A1) (hereafter “Liao”) and Ju et al. (US 2005/0112403 A1) (hereafter “Ju”), and as evidenced by Lee et al. (US 2019/0131557 A1) (hereafter “Lee”).
Regarding claims 1, 4-5, 14, and 19: Kim ‘352 discloses an organic light-emitting device comprising a first electrode; a second electrode facing the first electrode; and a light emitting stack disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode {paragraphs [0107]-[0113]}.
The light-emitting stack includes an organic layer, which includes a hole transport layer and a light-emitting layer {paragraphs [0107]-[0113]}.
The hole transport layer includes a hole transport material {paragraphs [0107]-[0113]}.
The light-emitting layer includes the two host materials shown below {(paragraphs [0107]-[0113]: The host materials are TCTA and B3PYMPM.), (paragraph [0054]: Compounds TCTA and B3PYMPM)}.
PNG
media_image2.png
614
646
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
430
634
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Lee evidences that B3PYMPM has an absolute value of the HOMO energy level of 6.7 eV and an absolute value of the LUMO energy level of 2.8 eV {paragraph [0079]}.
Liao evidences that TCTA has an absolute value of the HOMO energy level of 5.43 eV and an absolute value of the LUMO energy level of 1.88 eV {paragraph [0167]}.
The device of Kim ‘352 additionally comprises an electron transfer layer {paragraphs [0107]-[0113]}.
The hole transport layer consists of TCTA, and the electron transfer layer consists of B3PYMPM {paragraphs [0107]-[0113]}.
Kim ‘352 does not teach a specific device comprising a red light-emitting dopant in the light-emitting layer.
Kim ‘352 teaches that the light-emitting dopant is Ir(ppy)3 {paragraphs [0107]-[0113]}.
Liao teaches Ir(piq)3 as a light-emitting dopant that is an alternative to Ir(ppy)3 {paragraph [0222]}.
Ju teaches that Irpiq3 is a red light emitting dopant {paragraph [0031]}.
Liao teaches that Ir(piq)3 has an absolute value of the HOMO energy level of 5.24 eV; an absolute value of the LUMO energy level of 2.63 eV; and a triplet energy of 2.12 eV {paragraph [0187]}.
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 Kim ‘352 by using Ir(piq)3 as the light-emitting dopant in place of Ir(ppy)3, based on the teaching of Liao and Ju. The motivation for doing so would have been to produce a red light emitting device, based on the teaching of Liao and Ju.
Regarding claim 3: Kim ‘352 as modified by Ju and Liao teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Kim ‘352 teaches that the host materials of Kim ‘352 form an exciplex that has a triplet energy higher than the light-emitting dopant {abstract; paragraphs [0009] and [0039]}.
As described above, the unmodified device of Kim ‘352 comprises Ir(ppy)3 as a light emitting dopant.
Liao teaches that Ir(ppy)3 has a triplet energy of 2.54 eV {p. 22}. Liao additionally teaches that Ir(piq)3 has a triplet energy of 2.12 eV {p. 22}.
Thus, because the exciplex would have a triplet energy higher than Ir(ppy)3, it would also have a triplet energy higher than Ir(piq)3.
Claim(s) 6-9 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2015/0069352 A1) (hereafter “Kim ‘352”) in view of Liao et al. (US 2009/0191427 A1) (hereafter “Liao”) and Ju et al. (US 2005/0112403 A1) (hereafter “Ju”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Adamovich et al. (US 2007/0247061 A1) (hereafter “Adamovich”), and as evidenced by Lee et al. (US 2019/0131557 A1) (hereafter “Lee”).
Regarding claims 6-9: Kim ‘352 discloses all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Kim ‘352 does not teach that the light emitting layer additionally comprises a charge scavenger.
Adamovich teaches an emissive layer comprising a phosphorescent light-emitting dopant and a non-emissive dopant {paragraphs [0015], [0025], [0079]-[0083], [0088], and [0120]}. Adamovich teaches that this is accomplished through using a non-emissive dopant with a triplet energy equal to or greater than the emissive dopant, and a HOMO level between the HOMO level of the host and the HOMO level of the emissive dopant {paragraphs [0025]}. The non-emissive dopant affects the charge transport, charge trapping, exciton formation, and/or interaction of excitons with the charged species in the emissive layer {paragraph [0086]}. These effects enable improved device performance, including lifetime and stability {paragraphs [0086]-[0088], [0128], [0134], and [0140]}.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have modified the organic light emitting device as taught by Kim ‘352 by incorporating a non-emissive dopant such that the triplet energy of the non-emissive dopant was greater than or equal to the triplet energy of the emissive dopant and the HOMO level of the non-emissive dopant is between the HOMO level of the host and the HOMO level of the emissive dopant, as taught by Adamovich. The motivation for doing so would be to improve the charge transport, charge trapping, exciton formation, and/or interaction of excitons with the charged species in the emissive layer as taught by Adamovich.
The non-emissive dopant can be equated with a charge scavenger, because it affects the charge transport, charge trapping, exciton formation, and/or interaction of excitons with the charged species in the emissive layer, as taught by Adamovich.
Kim ‘352 as modified by Liao, Ju, and Adamovich, does not specify the non-emissive dopant.
However, Liao teaches that OEPPT has an absolute value of the HOMO energy level of 5.40 eV; and a triplet energy of 2.13 eV {paragraph [0187]}.
As outlined above, Liao teaches that Ir(piq)3 has an absolute value of the HOMO energy level of 5.24 eV; and a triplet energy of 2.12 eV {paragraph [0187]}.
Lee evidences that B3PYMPM has an absolute value of the HOMO energy level of 6.7 eV and an absolute value of the LUMO energy level of 2.8 eV {paragraph [0079]}.
Liao evidences that TCTA has an absolute value of the HOMO energy level of 5.43 eV {paragraph [0167]}.
Thus, OEPPT meets the energy conditions of Adamovich.
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 Kim ‘352 by using OEPPT as the non-emissive dopant (which is being equated with the instant charge scavenger), based on the teaching of Adamovich and Liao. 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 12-13: Kim ‘352 as modified by Liao, Ju, and Adamovich teaches all of the features with respect to claim 6, as outlined above.
Kim ‘352 as modified by Liao, Ju, and Adamovich does not exemplify a concentration of the non-emissive dopant.
However, Kim ‘352 teaches that the molar concentration of the light-emitting dopant is 10.5% {paragraph [0182]}.
Adamovich teaches that the non-emissive dopant can be present at a 1:1 ratio with the emissive dopant {paragraphs [0082] and [0120]}.
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 Kim ‘352 by including the non-emissive dopant (which is being equated with the instant charge scavenger) as a molar ratio of 1:1 with the emissive dopant, based on the teaching of Adamovich. 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 and relative amounts of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices.
Kim ‘352 as modified by Liao, Ju, and Adamovich teaches the claimed invention above but fails to teach that the doping concentration of the red dopant is in a range of 1 to 30% by weight, based on a total weight of the red host; that a doping concentration of the charge scavenger is in a range of 1 to 30% by weight, based on the total weight of the red host; and that the doping concentration of the charge scavenger is smaller than two times of the doping concentration of the red dopant. It is reasonable to presume that the doping concentration of the red dopant being in a range of 1 to 30% by weight, based on a total weight of the red host; that a doping concentration of the charge scavenger being in a range of 1 to 30% by weight, based on the total weight of the red host; and that the doping concentration of the charge scavenger being smaller than two times of the doping concentration of the red dopant is inherent to Kim ‘352 as modified by Liao, Ju, and Adamovich. Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials and like processes which would result in the claimed property.
As described above, the emissive dopant of Kim ‘352 is present at a molar concentration of the of 10.5%. Further, as outlined above, the emissive dopant and non-emissive dopant are present at a molar ratio of 1:1. Given the molecular weights of the compounds, the doping concentration of the red dopant would be in a range of 1 to 30% by weight, based on a total weight of the red host; the doping concentration of the charge scavenger would be in a range of 1 to 30% by weight, based on the total weight of the red host; and the doping concentration of the charge scavenger would be smaller than two times of the doping concentration of the red dopant.
The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once the Kim ‘352 as modified by Liao, Ju, and Adamovich product is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977). Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though the rejection is based on Section 103 instead of 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
Claims 15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2015/0069352 A1) (hereafter “Kim ‘352”) in view of Liao et al. (US 2009/0191427 A1) (hereafter “Liao”) and Ju et al. (US 2005/0112403 A1) (hereafter “Ju”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liao et al. (US 2003/0170491 A1) (hereafter “Liao ‘491”).
Regarding claims 15 and 17-18: Kim ‘352 as modified by Liao and Ju teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Claim 15 differs from claim 1 in that the organic light emitting device comprises multiple light-emitting stacks.
Kim ‘352 does not teach that the organic electroluminescent device comprises three light-emitting stacks.
Liao ‘491 teaches a white light emitting organic light emitting device that comprises three organic layers, each comprising a stack of layers, between the first organic layer and the second electrode {Fig. 7 as described in paragraphs [0071]-[0072]}.
The light is emitted from the device in the direction form the first electrode to the second electrode {Fig. 7 as well as the description of Fig. 7 in paragraphs [0071]-[0072] indicates that the light is emitted through the anode and the substrate—which is being equated with the instant second electrode}.
Each organic layer is an individual stack of organic layers {(paragraph [0072]: Organic EL unit 220.1, organic EL unit 220.2, and organic EL unit 220.3 are being equated with the organic layers of the instant claims.), (paragraph [0049] describes the generalized structure of a stacked structure of the disclosure of which Fig. 7 is a specific embodiment. Elements 220.1 to 220.N are the organic EL units and N is the number of organic EL units.), (paragraph [0054]: Each organic EL unit in the stacked OLED device can be the same and can comprise a multilayer structure.)}.
Each organic layer emits a different color light, one emitting blue light—the layer nearest the anode, one emitting green light—the middle layer, and one emitting red light—the layer nearest the cathode {paragraph [0072]: Organic EL unit 220.1, organic EL unit 220.2, and organic EL unit 220.3 are being equated with the organic layers of the instant claims and emit blue light, green light, and red light, respectively.}.
Liao ‘491 further teaches that the stacked configuration contains a charge generation layer between each of the organic layers {(Fig. 7 as described in paragraph [0072]: Doped connectors 230.1 and 230.2 are between the organic layers.),(p. 3, ¶ [0049]; Disposed between any two adjacent organic EL units is a doped organic connector 230.1 through 230.(N-1) where N is the number of organic EL units, which are being equated with the organic layers of the claims.), (paragraph [0050]; Electrons and holes are generated in, and separated from, each of the doped organic connectors.),(p. 4, ¶ [0059]; The doped organic connectors provide for efficient electron and hole injection into adjacent organic EL units.)}.
The charge generation layer can contain both a p-type doped organic layer and an n-type doped organic layer, where the n-type doped organic layer is preferably oriented toward the anode {paragraph [0059]}. The p-type doped organic layer can be equated with a p-type charge generation layer, because the p-type doped organic layer is described {paragraphs [0064]-[0065]} as comprising similar materials to the p-type charge generation layer of the published instant specification {paragraph [0220]}.
The white light emitting organic light emitting device is comprised in a display panel of a display device and are connected to thin film transistors connected to an X-direction driving circuit and a Y-direction driving circuit that control the light emissions of the organic electroluminescent devices making up the display panel {(paragraph [0073]: The white light emitting organic light emitting device is comprised in a full color display.), (paragraphs [0074]-[0075]: Figs. 8 and 9 describe an example display device comprising the white light emitting organic light emitting devices where the white light emitting organic light emitting devices are arranged in a panel and are connected to thin film transistors that control emissons.)}. Because the X-direction driving circuit and the Y-direction driving circuit control emissions of the display panel, they can each be equated with a driving element.
Liao ‘491 sought to provide an organic light emitting device with improved brightness through implementation of a stacked configuration {p. 5, ¶ [0070]}. A stacked organic light emitting device using Liao’s configuration further has high luminance efficiency, increased lifetime, easy color adjustment, decreased driving voltage, and provides a stacked OLED with decreased optical absorption {p. 1, paragraphs [0009]-[0013]}. The stacked structure allows for white light generation at improved efficiency and operational lifetime {paragraph [0072]}.
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 organic light emitting diode of Kim ‘352 by incorporating it into the stacked display unit of Liao ‘491 by stacking two additional organic layer stacks (the organic EL elements of Liao ‘491) in combination with the organic layer stack of Kim ‘352 as modified by Liao and Ju described above using the configuration of Liao ‘491 where one organic layer emits blue light, one organic layer emits green light, and one organic layer emits red light, as taught by Liao ‘491. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device comprising a white light emitting organic light emitting device with improved brightness through implementation of a stacked configuration, as well as to provide a whit light emitting organic light emitting device with high efficiency, and increased operational lifetime, easy color adjustment, decreased driving voltage, decreased optical absorption as a result of the stacked configuration, as taught by Liao ‘491.
Claims 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2015/0069352 A1) (hereafter “Kim ‘352”) in view of Liao et al. (US 2009/0191427 A1) (hereafter “Liao”), Ju et al. (US 2005/0112403 A1) (hereafter “Ju”), and Liao et al. (US 2003/0170491 A1) (hereafter “Liao ‘491”) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Adamovich et al. (US 2007/0247061 A1) (hereafter “Adamovich”), and as evidenced by Lee et al. (US 2019/0131557 A1) (hereafter “Lee”).
Regarding claim 16: Kim ‘352 as modified by Liao, Ju, and Liao ‘491 teaches all of the features with respect to claim 15, as outlined above.
Kim ‘352 does not teach that the light emitting layer additionally comprises a charge scavenger.
Adamovich teaches an emissive layer comprising a phosphorescent light-emitting dopant and a non-emissive dopant {paragraphs [0015], [0025], [0079]-[0083], [0088], and [0120]}. Adamovich teaches that this is accomplished through using a non-emissive dopant with a triplet energy equal to or greater than the emissive dopant, and a HOMO level between the HOMO level of the host and the HOMO level of the emissive dopant {paragraphs [0025]}. The non-emissive dopant affects the charge transport, charge trapping, exciton formation, and/or interaction of excitons with the charged species in the emissive layer {paragraph [0086]}. These effects enable improved device performance, including lifetime and stability {paragraphs [0086]-[0088], [0128], [0134], and [0140]}.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have modified the organic light emitting device as taught by Kim ‘352 by incorporating a non-emissive dopant such that the triplet energy of the non-emissive dopant was greater than or equal to the triplet energy of the emissive dopant and the HOMO level of the non-emissive dopant is between the HOMO level of the host and the HOMO level of the emissive dopant, as taught by Adamovich. The motivation for doing so would be to improve the charge transport, charge trapping, exciton formation, and/or interaction of excitons with the charged species in the emissive layer as taught by Adamovich.
The non-emissive dopant can be equated with a charge scavenger, because it affects the charge transport, charge trapping, exciton formation, and/or interaction of excitons with the charged species in the emissive layer, as taught by Adamovich.
Kim ‘352 as modified by Liao, Ju, and Adamovich, does not specify the non-emissive dopant.
However, Liao teaches that OEPPT has an absolute value of the HOMO energy level of 5.40 eV; and a triplet energy of 2.13 eV {paragraph [0187]}.
As outlined above, Liao teaches that Ir(piq)3 has an absolute value of the HOMO energy level of 5.24 eV; and a triplet energy of 2.12 eV {paragraph [0187]}.
Lee evidences that B3PYMPM has an absolute value of the HOMO energy level of 6.7 eV and an absolute value of the LUMO energy level of 2.8 eV {paragraph [0079]}.
Liao evidences that TCTA has an absolute value of the HOMO energy level of 5.43 eV {paragraph [0167]}.
Thus, OEPPT meets the energy conditions of Adamovich.
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 Kim ‘352 by using OEPPT as the non-emissive dopant (which is being equated with the instant charge scavenger), based on the teaching of Adamovich and Liao. 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As outlined above, over Kim et al. (US 2015/0069352 A1) (hereafter “Kim ‘352”) in view of Liao et al. (US 2009/0191427 A1) (hereafter “Liao”) and Ju et al. (US 2005/0112403 A1) (hereafter “Ju”), and further in view of Adamovich et al. (US 2007/0247061 A1) (hereafter “Adamovich”) is a representation of the closest prior art. None of the cited references teach compounds selected from a group consisting of the instant Chemical Formula 2-1, the instant Chemical Formula 2-2, or the instant Chemical Formula 2-3. Park et al. (US 2022/0209139 A1) (hereafter “Park”) teaches compounds that meet the limitations of the instant Chemical Formula 2-1, the instant Chemical Formula 2-2, or the instant Chemical Formula 2-3. However, Park does not teach that the compounds of Park are useful as charge scavengers. Furthermore, Park does not elucidate the HOMO energy levels or triplet energy levels of the compounds. Thus, it is not clear that the compounds of Park could be used as non-emissive dopants in a light-emitting device having the structure of Kim ‘352 based on the teaching of Adamovich, because both the teachings of Kim ‘352 and Adamovich require specific HOMO energy level relationships and triplet energy relationships with the materials of Kim ‘352 and Adamovich. Park is representative of the prior art in that the prior art does not teach compounds that meet the limitations of the instant Chemical Formula 2-1, the instant Chemical Formula 2-2, or the instant Chemical Formula 2-3 in addition to their HOMO and triplet energy levels in a way that would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to predictably combine a compound meeting the limitations of the instant Chemical Formula 2-1, the instant Chemical Formula 2-2, or the instant Chemical Formula 2-3 with Kim ‘352 and Adamovich.
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
Prosecution Insights