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.
Election/Restrictions
After a search of the prior art, it is apparent that there is no search burden. This is evidenced by the cited prior art Kim et al. (US 2019/0036042 A1) (hereafter “Kim”). Therefore, the Species Election of 3 June 2026 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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) 1-6, 11-13, 15-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2019/0036042 A1) (hereafter “Kim”).
Regarding claims 1-6, 11-13, 15-17, and 19: Kim discloses a light-emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode facing the first electrode {paragraphs [0426]-[0429] and Table 2: Example 7}.
The light-emitting device comprises an interlayer between the first electrode and the second electrode, the interlayer comprising an emission layer {paragraphs [0426]-[0429] and Table 2: Example 7}.
The emission layer comprises the compound shown below as a light-emitting dopant {(paragraphs [0426]-[0429] and Table 2: Example 7), (p. 11, structure of compound 21)}.
PNG
media_image1.png
844
836
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The compound shown above emits blue light having a peak emission wavelength of 449 nm {paragraphs [0426]-[0429] and Table 2: Example 7}.
The emission layer additionally comprises the compound shown below as a host material {paragraphs [0426]-[0429] and Table 2: Example 7}.
PNG
media_image2.png
462
856
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A light-emitting device is an electronic apparatus.
Regarding claim 3: Kim discloses all of the features with respect to claim 2, as outlined above. The device of Kim meets the limitations of claim 3 where the instant second compound is not selected.
Regarding claim 4: Kim discloses all of the features with respect to claim 2, as outlined above. The device of Kim meets the limitations of claim 4 where the instant fourth compound is not selected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kim et al. (US 2019/0036042 A1) (hereafter “Kim”).
Regarding claim 20: Kim discloses all of the features with respect to claim 11, as outlined above.
Kim discloses the claimed invention above, but fails to disclose that the organometallic compound has an energy level of triplet metal-centered (3MC) state greater than or equal to about 0.5 kcal/mol.
Paragraph [00232] of the instant specification describes that the triplet metal-centered (3MC) state of the compound of the disclosure is due to the linker including the ring CY5. As described above, the compound of Kim possesses the linker including the ring CY5. Furthermore, the compound of Kim has the structure of Formula 1 of the instant disclosure. Thus, the compound would have an energy level of triplet metal-centered (3MC) state greater than or equal to about 0.5 kcal/mol.
Given the close structural similarity between the product taught by Kim and compound having the structure of the instant Formula 1 and possessing the claimed property, any structural differences between the two products would have been indistinctive and known in the prior art.
Therefore, at the time of the invention, in the case that the compound of Kim and the compound of the instant claim 20 have indistinctive differences, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have modified the organic electroluminescent device of Kim to have the same structure of the compound of the instant claim 20. Any such modification would have been known in the prior art.
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 7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2019/0036042 A1) (hereafter “Kim”) in view of Kim (US 2002/0149710 A1) (hereinafter “Kim ‘710”).
Regarding claim 7 and 9-10: Kim discloses all of the features with respect to claim 10, as outlined above.
Kim 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 modified the device taught by Kim 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 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2019/0036042 A1) (hereafter “Kim”) in view of Kim et al. (US 2017/0287985 A1) (hereafter “Kim ‘985”).
Regarding claim 8-9: Kim discloses all of the features with respect to claim 10, as outlined above.
Kim does not teach that the light-emitting element taught by Kim 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 Kim 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.
Claim(s) 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2020/0199164 A1) (hereafter “Kim ‘164”).
Regarding claims 11-20: Kim ‘164 discloses the compound shown below {p. 114}.
PNG
media_image3.png
798
730
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Kim ‘164 does not teach a compound similar to the compound of Kim ‘164 shown above except for having a ring corresponding to the instant CY5.
However, Kim ‘164 teaches that the compound shown above has the structure of Formula 1-1 of Kim ‘164 {paragraph [0055]}.
PNG
media_image4.png
500
680
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Where T11 of Kim ‘164 can be NR19 of Kim ‘164 {paragraph [0094]}, and R19 of Kim ‘164 can be
PNG
media_image5.png
230
624
media_image5.png
Greyscale
in addition to optionally being
PNG
media_image6.png
194
834
media_image6.png
Greyscale
. Therefore, carbazole was a known alternative to phenyl.
Kim ‘164 teaches that the compounds of Kim ‘164 have good thermal stability and relatively small full width half maximum {paragraph [0427]}. Kim ‘164 further teaches that the compounds of Kim ‘164 are useful as light emitting dopants in organic light emitting devices and enable devices having good driving voltage, good efficiency, and good color purity {paragraphs [0425]-[0427]}.
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 Kim ‘164 by substituting carbazole in place of phenyl as R19 of Kim ‘164—corresponding to the instant CY5, based on the teaching of Kim ‘164. The substitution would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). The selection of carbazole would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (the exemplified groups R19 of Kim ‘164), with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and beneficial combinations of substituents used to make compounds having good thermal stability and relatively small full width half maximum—as taught by Kim ‘164—for use in an organic light-emitting device in order to produce good performing organic light emitting devices.
Kim ‘164 teaches that the maximum emission wavelength of the compounds of Kim ‘164 can be between 420 nm and 520 nm {paragraph [0229]}. 520 nm is within 5% of 500 nm, thus, 520 nm is equal to about 500 nm.
Kim ‘164 teaches the claimed invention above but fails to teach that the compound would have an energy level of triplet metal-centered (3MC) state greater than or equal to about 0.5 kcal/mol. It is reasonable to presume that the compound having an energy level of triplet metal-centered (3MC) state greater than or equal to about 0.5 kcal/mol is inherent to Kim ‘164. Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials and like processes which would result in the claimed property.
Paragraph [00232] of the instant specification describes that the triplet metal-centered (3MC) state of the compound of the disclosure is due to the linker including the ring CY5. As described above, the compound of Kim ‘164 possesses the linker including the ring CY5. Furthermore, the compound of Kim ‘164 has the structure of Formula 1 of the instant disclosure. Thus, the compound would have an energy level of triplet metal-centered (3MC) state greater than or equal to about 0.5 kcal/mol.
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 ‘164 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.
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