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
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to as the quality of the structures recited therein is poor. Applicants need to replace the compounds of claim 6 with legible chemical structures. Claim 6 is also objected to as “selected from a group consisting of” should be amended to “selected from the group consisting of”.
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.
Claims 1, 3-13, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Independent claim 1 recites that LB is a ligand of Chemical Formula 3. Chemical Formula 3 includes variables Z1 and Z2 which are not defined in claim 1, rendering claim 1 indefinite. Claims 3-13 and 17-19 are included in this rejection as they are dependent on claim 1. Claim 2 is not included in this rejection since claim 2 remedies this deficiency. Claims 14-16 are not included in this rejection as they are dependent from claim 2. Applicants may overcome this rejection by including the subject matter from claim 2 into claim 1.
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)(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.
Claims 1-4, 7-11, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kwon et al. (US 2022/0185834, cited on Applicants information disclosure statement, filed on 9/7/23). Kwon et al. was effectively filed before Applicants (unperfected) foreign priority date of 12/27/21 and qualifies as prior art under 102(a)(2).
Claims 1, 2, and 4: Kwon et al. teaches iridium complexes 136-139, 149-152, and 157 (paragraph 0178). These complexes anticipate chemical formula 1 of claim 1 as they all have the formula Ir(LA)2(LB) where LA is a ligand which anticipates one of Chemical Formula 2-1 through 2-6 and LB is a bidentate ligand which anticipates Chemical Formulae 3 and 4 of claims 1 and 2. For example, the iridium complex 149 has the structure
PNG
media_image1.png
164
256
media_image1.png
Greyscale
anticipates Chemical Formula 1. As applied to Chemical Formula 1, variable m is 2, variable n is 1 (which anticipates claim 4), LA is represented by Chemical Formula 2-1 with R1-1, R1-2, and R1-4 equal to hydrogen, R1-3 equal to isopropyl, R2-1, R2-2, R3-1, and R3-2 equal to hydrogen, X equal to O, and R4-1 and R4-2 being joined together to from an unsubstituted benzene ring. Ligand LB anticipates chemical formula 3 of claim 1 and Chemical Formula 4 of claim 2 with R5-1, R5-2, and R5-4 equal to hydrogen, R5-3 equal to an isopropyl group having one deuterium atom, R6-1 and R6-4 equal to hydrogen, and R6-2 and R6-3 being joined together to form an unsubstituted benzene ring.
Claim 3: For claim 3, the iridium complex 137 may be relied upon. Complex 137 has the structure
PNG
media_image2.png
172
254
media_image2.png
Greyscale
. This complex anticipates Chemical Formula 2-4 of claim 1. As applied to Chemical Formula 2-4, complex 137 has all R groups equal to hydrogen atoms except for R4-1 and R4-2 which are joined together to from an unsubstituted benzene ring, and X is equal to O. Ligand LB is the same as in complex 149 as described in claim 1 above. In complex 137, m is 1 and n is 2 which anticipates claim 3.
Claims 7-9: The iridium complexes taught by Kwon et al. are employed as phosphorescent dopants in organic light-emitting devices. The devices are comprised of an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an emission layer which emits green light in all examples and comprises a host and a green phosphorescent iridium dopant, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode (paragraphs 0319-0322). The exemplified devices anticipate all of the device limitations of claims 7-9. The employment of any one of the explicitly taught complexes of Kwon et al., including those recited in claim 1 above, in the manner exemplified, is at once envisaged. Devices comprising any one of the iridium complexes cited above therefore anticipate all of the structural and device limitations of claims 7-9.
Claims 10 and 11: While Kwon et al. does not exemplify a stacked light-emitting device having two or three light-emitting stacks, Kwon et al. teaches that when the organic light-emitting device is a full-color organic light-emitting device, the emission layer may be patterned into a red pixel, a green pixel, and/or a blue pixel. Alternatively, the light-emitting device may be a stacked structure including a red emission layer, a green emission layer, and/or a blue emission layer, and the emission layer may emit white light (paragraph 0250). Given this teaching, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have prepared a stacked/tandem white-light emitting device having a red, green, and blue light-emitting stack. Employment of the compounds taught by Kwon et al. would serve in the green emitting stack. All of the exemplified phosphorescent dopants in Table 3 have a maximum emission wavelength between 500-570 nm which is what is considered to be the green emitting portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. It would be expected that the compounds taught by Kwon et al., including the compounds recited in claim 1 above, would also inherently be a green emitting compound, if for no other reason, that it satisfies all of the structural limitations of claim 1. A chemical compound and its properties are inseparable.
Claims 14-19: Claims 14-16 correspond to claims 7-9 but they are dependent on claim 2 instead of claim 1. Claims 17-19 correspond to claims 7-9 but they are dependent on claim 3 instead of claim 1. Because Kwon et al. anticipates compounds which satisfy both claims 2 and 3 as described above, employment of such compounds in the manner exemplified by Kwon et al. is at once envisaged, thereby anticipating each of claims 14-16 and 17-19.
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 of this title, 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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. (US 2022/0185834) ) in view of Choi et al. (Nature Communications 2020, 2732), as applied to claim 7.
While Kwon et al. does not explicitly teach a display device comprising a substrate and a driving element with the organic light-emitting device connected to the driving element as recited in claim 12, the teaching that full color displays which comprise individual red, green, and/or blue pixels as taught by Kwon et al. in paragraph 0250 render obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art given the teachings of Choi et al. Kwon et al. and Choi et al. are combinable as they are both from the same field of endeavor of organic electroluminescent display devices. Choi et al. teaches that for stacked light-emitting devices thin-film transistors are electrically coupled to the light-emitting device. The thin-film transistor serves as a driving element which allows for control of each individual pixel, allowing for one to adjust the brightness of each individual pixel. The device construct shown in Fig. 5 of Choi et al. has been echoed in the prior art countless times and a teaching for preparing a display device renders obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to employ a driving element so as to control each individual pixel in said display device.
Claim 1-5, 7-9, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ji et al. (US 2019/0233451), as applied to claim 1 above.
Claims 1 and 2: Ji et al. teaches ligands LA which anticipate Chemical Formulae 2-1 through 2-6. Specifically, ligands, LA87 through LA92, whose structures are taught in paragraph 0098, satisfy Chemical Formulae 2-1 through 2-6 of claim 1. As applied to Chemical Formula 2-1 through 2-6, the ligands recited above have X equal to O, all R groups equal to hydrogen, with the exception of R4-1 and R4-2, which in all six ligands above are joined together to form an unsubstituted benzene ring. Ji et al. further teaches ligands LB and LC which have the general structures shown taught in paragraph 0104, with more preferred ligands LB and LC being taught in paragraph 0109, and specific ligands LB and LC being taught in paragraph 0111. The preferred metal M is Ir as shown in all working examples. The overall teachings of Ji et al. render obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art the preparation of iridium complexes which satisfy Chemical Formula 1 of claim 1. For example, the employment of any one of the explicitly taught ligands LA above in combination with any one of the explicitly taught ligands LB or LC as taught by Ji et al. is prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. This includes embodiments where LA is a ligand which satisfies one of Chemical Formula 2-1 through 2-6 and where LB is any one of ligands LB and LC of claims 1 and 2. Ligand LB of Ji et al. includes many ligands which overlap in scope with Chemical Formula 4 of claim 2 and ligand LC includes ligands which satisfy Chemical Formula 5 of claim 2. The motivation to prepare different combinations of specific ligands LA with a ligand LB is rooted in the teachings of Ji et al.
Claims 3-5: Ji et al. teaches metal complexes which comprise a ligand LA, where ligand LA satisfies LA of Chemical Formula 2-1 through 2-6. While Ji et al. does not explicitly teach homoleptic iridium complexes where m is 3 and n is zero as required by claim 5, the preparation of such complexes is prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art given the overall teachings of Ji et al. Specifically, Ji et al. teaches the metal complexes taught therein may have the formula M(LA)x(LB)y(LC)z where x is 1, 2, or 3; y is 0, 1, or 2; and z is 0, 1, or 2 and x+y+z is the oxidation state of the metal, which when M is Ir, is 3 (paragraph 0099). Ji et al. further teaches that in some embodiments the compounds have the formulae Ir(LA)3, Ir(LA)(LB)2, Ir(LA)2(LB), Ir(LA)2(LC), and Ir(LA)(LB)(LC) (paragraph 0100). These teachings clearly render obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art iridium complexes in which m is 1 and n is 2 as required by claim 3, where m is 2 and n is 1 as required by claim 4, and where m is 3 and n is 0 as required by claim 5. The motivation to prepare iridium complexes of these types of formula are rooted in the teachings of Ji et al.
Claims 7-9: The iridium complexes taught by Ji et al. are employed as phosphorescent dopants in organic light-emitting devices. The devices are comprised of an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an emission layer which emits green light in all examples and comprises a host and a green phosphorescent iridium dopant, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode (paragraphs 0199-0200 and Table 1). The exemplified devices satisfy all of the device limitations of claims 7-9. The employment of any one of the iridium complexes taught and suggested by Kwon et al., including those described in claim 1 above, in the devices taught therein would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. Such devices comprising any one of the iridium complexes cited above satisfy all of the structural and device limitations of claims 7-9.
Claims 14-19: Claims 14-16 correspond to claims 7-9 but they are dependent on claim 2 instead of claim 1. Claims 17-19 correspond to claims 7-9 but they are dependent on claim 3 instead of claim 1. Because Ji et al. teaches compounds which satisfy both claims 2 and 3 as described above, employment of such compounds in the manner exemplified by Ji et al. is prima facie obvious, thereby satisfying claims 14-19.
Comment on Patentability
While all claims stand rejected, claims 6 and 13 are free from any prior art rejections. The prior art simply does not teach or suggest the iridium complexes recited in claims 6 and 13. In the ligands recited in claims 6 and 13, all of the ring systems which comprise X consist of four fused rings, while those taught in the prior art rejections above consist of five fused rings. The prior art does not teach or suggest compounds which consist of four fused rings in the manner shown in claims 6 and 13.
Relevant Art Cited
Additional prior art documents which are relevant to Applicants invention can be found on the attached PTO-892 form.
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