DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an
application filed in China on March 31, 2022.
3. Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C.
119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the
foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and
41.202(e).
4. Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded
for the non-English application.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The references provided in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on March
28, 2023 have been considered. Signed copies of the corresponding 1449 forms have
been included with this office action.
Drawings
6. The drawings are objected to because Figures 1 and 3 have low resolution and are difficult to read. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
7. The claims are objected to because the lines are crowded too closely together, making reading difficult. Substitute claims with lines one and one-half or double spaced on good quality paper are required. See 37 CFR 1.52(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
8. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
9. Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
10. Independent claim 1, and its dependent claims 2-9, require an organic electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a cathode, and at least one emissive layer disposed between the anode and the cathode, wherein the at least one emissive layer comprises at least one luminescent material.
11. Claim 1 requires that the at least one luminescent material has a peak wavelength λmax, wherein 500 nm < λmax < 700 nm.
12. Claim 1 does not further define the luminescent material by a specific structure or general formula. Thus, as the luminescent material is so broadly defined, the luminescent material may contain any number of compounds, and the compounds may be small molecules, oligomers, or polymers, and may be purely organic, organometallic, or metallic compounds.
13. The instant description includes a description of what materials may be suitable as the luminescent material in the organic electroluminescent device (based upon exciton lifetime and comparisons of triplet energy levels with a host material; see ¶ [0073]-[0074], [0078]-[0082]). The description only provides four examples of luminescent materials that meets this requirement (Compounds D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4, ¶ [00110]; see also Table 1, Examples 1-5). The specification further provides exceptionally broad guidance on what materials might be useable as the luminescent materials of the organic electroluminescent device but provides no further description of which structural features are required beyond peak wavelength λmax, exciton lifetime, and triplet energy levels. The limited number of examples described in the written description does not provide a representative number of species sufficient to show that Applicant was in possession of the claimed genus (see MPEP 2163-II-A-1-ii).
14. Dependent claims 2-9 are also rejected as they do not remedy the aforementioned issue as discussed regarding claim 1.
15. 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.
16. Claims 2-8 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.
17. Regarding claims 2-8, the phrases "preferably" and, in some instances, “more preferably” render the aforementioned claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following those phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.
18. For the purposes of examination, only the clauses preceding the phrases
“preferably” and “more preferably” will be interpreted as the limitations of the claimed
invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. Claims 1-3, 5-6, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai et al. (US 2020/0251666 A1; hereinafter “Cai”) in view of Tsai et al. (US 2021/0054010 A1; hereinafter “Tsai”) and Lee et al. (US 2019/0363261 A1; hereinafter “Lee”).
24. Regarding claims 1-3, 5-6, and 8-9, Cai teaches organic electroluminescent devices comprising organometallic dopants with cyano-substituted ligands as light-emitting materials that exhibit narrower FWHMs, lower driving voltages, and higher quantum efficiencies ([Abstract]).
25. Cai teaches dopants of a structure according to Formula 2-a (¶ [0101], see below) wherein:
PNG
media_image1.png
329
537
media_image1.png
Greyscale
at least one of R3 and R4 is a cyano group (¶ [0108]); and
R4 can be selected as a substituted or unsubstituted aryl group having 6-30 carbon atoms (¶ [0107]).
26. Cai teaches that, in the electroluminescent device, the organic layer is a light emitting layer that comprises the organometallic dopant of Formula 2-a and at least two host materials (¶ [0142]-[0145]).
27. Cai specifically teaches the example of an organic electroluminescent device, which is a bottom-emitting single-layer device, comprising:
an anode (¶ [0211]); and
a cathode (¶ [0211]); and
at least one emissive layer disposed between the anode and the cathode, wherein the at least one emissive layer comprises at least one luminescent material (IrLa293(Lb3)2, see structure below ¶ [0223]; see also Table 1, Example 8).
PNG
media_image2.png
312
503
media_image2.png
Greyscale
28. The organic electroluminescent device of Cai, as described in Table 1: Example 8, has an external quantum efficiency (EQE) of 26.23% at a brightness L1 of 1000 cd/m2 (¶ [0225]; see also Table 3, Example 8).
29. The organic electroluminescent device of Cai (Example 8) has a peak wavelength λmax = 531 nm (which satisfies the limitation 500 nm < λmax < 700 nm, ¶ [0225]; see also Table 3, Example 8).
30. Cai fails to teach any additional EQE values at different brightnesses L2 and L3 and fails to teach a roll-off coefficient as defined by EQE3/EQEmax.
31. Tsai teaches organometallic complexes comprising a ligand of Formula I (Tsai, see below, [Abstract]) wherein:
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
ring A can be selected as pyridine (Z1 is a carbon atom and Z2 is a nitrogen atom, ¶ [0056]); and
RA, RB, RC, and RD can be selected as fluorine, alkyl groups, or aryl groups (¶ [0044]-[0046], [0054]); and
can be selected as an oxygen atom or a sulfur atom (¶ [0055]); and
X1-X8 can be selected as carbon atoms (¶ [0059]); and
Ring D can be selected as a substituted or unsubstituted 6-membered aromatic ring (¶ [0063]).
32. Tsai teaches organic electroluminescent devices, comprising organometallic
complexes with a ligand of Formula 1 as dopants in the emissive layer, that exhibit
narrower FWHM and higher efficiencies (¶ [0168]-[0171]; and Tables 1-2). Specifically, Tsai teaches that the inclusion of a biphenyl group (indicated with a circle) provides the organometallic dopant with better transition dipolar moment alignment, as demonstrated with the inventive and comparative examples shown below (¶ [0168]-[0171]; see also Tables 1-2).
PNG
media_image4.png
295
516
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
395
552
media_image5.png
Greyscale
33. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the hydrogen atom at the para-position of the phenyl group of compound IrLa293(Lb3)2 of Cai with an additional phenyl substituent to form a biphenyl group, based on the teaching of Tsai. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain an organometallic dopant with better transition dipolar moment alignment, which, when incorporated into the emissive layer of electroluminescent devices, affords narrower FWHMs and higher efficiencies (¶ [0168]-[0171]; see also Tables 1-2), as taught by Tsai. The structure of IrLa293(Lb3)2 of Cai, as modified by Tsai, is shown below.
PNG
media_image6.png
531
1091
media_image6.png
Greyscale
34. The organic electroluminescent device of Cai, comprising IrLa293(Lb3)2 of Cai as modified by Tsai, also fails to teach any additional EQE values at different brightnesses L2 and L3 and fails to teach a roll-off coefficient as defined by EQE3/EQEmax.
35. Lee teaches a compound represented by the combination of Chemical Formula 1 and Chemical Formula 2 that is useful in organic electroluminescent devices ([Abstract]).
PNG
media_image7.png
271
403
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
341
596
media_image8.png
Greyscale
36. Lee teaches that organic electroluminescent devices comprising compounds resulting from the combination of Chemical Formulae 1 and 2 exhibit improved device performance (lower driving voltage, higher efficiency, and longer lifespans, ¶ [0044]; see also ¶ [0179]-[0184] for device examples).
37. Lee teaches that the compounds formed from the combination of Chemical Formulae 1 and 2 can be used in conjunction with compounds defined by Chemical Formula 3A to form a composition of two host materials (¶ [0084]).
38. Lee specifically teaches the combination of compound A-1 (¶ [0066]) and B-99 (¶ [0081]) as host materials in an organic electroluminescent device exhibiting improved efficiency and lifespan (Table 2, Example 11).
PNG
media_image9.png
363
368
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
578
377
media_image10.png
Greyscale
39. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the host material composition in the light emitting layer of the organic electroluminescent device of Cai with a host material composition of compound A-1 and compound B-99, based on the teaching of Lee. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain an organic electroluminescent device with improved performance (lower driving voltage, higher efficiency, and longer lifespans, ¶ [0044]), as taught by Lee.
40. Per claim 1, the organic electroluminescent device of Cai, as modified by Tsai and Lee, with an emissive layer comprising:
the modified compound IrLa293(Lb3)2 of Cai, as modified by Tsai; and
the host material composition comprising compounds A-1 and B-99 of Lee;
fails to teach any additional EQE values at different brightnesses L2 and L3 and fails to teach a roll-off coefficient as defined by EQE3/EQEmax.
41. However, since the prior art combination of Cai, with the aforementioned modifications of Tsai and Lee, teaches substantially the same organic electroluminescent device structure as disclosed by Applicant in Table 1, Example 5, the properties of:
EQE2/EQEmax = 90% when L1 < L2, and L2 > 5000 cd/m2; and
the roll-off coefficient r ≥ 0.91 when r = EQE3/EQEmax; and
the brightness L3 = 11500 cd/m2 when 500 nm < λmax < 600 nm
are considered to naturally flow from the product of the prior art combination (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be present. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims.
42. Per claims 2, 3, and 5, since the prior art combination of Cai, with the aforementioned modifications of Tsai and Lee, teaches substantially the same organic electroluminescent device structure as disclosed by Applicant in Table 1, Example 5, the properties of:
EQEmax ≥ 27% (as per claim 2); and
the brightness L2 ≥ 6000 cd/m2 (as per claim 3); and
the exciton recombination zone located in the emissive layer on the side close to the anode within a region of less than 50% of the emissive layer thickness when EQEmax is reached (as per claim 5)
are considered to naturally flow from the product of the prior art combination (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be present. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims.
43. Per claims 6 and 9, since the prior art combination of Cai, with the aforementioned modifications of Tsai and Lee, teaches substantially the same luminescent material structure (IrLa293(Lb3)2 of Cai, as modified by Tsai) as disclosed by Applicant in Table 1, Example 5 (see compound D-4 below), the properties of
PNG
media_image11.png
154
231
media_image11.png
Greyscale
the exciton lifetime being less than 2 microseconds (as per claim 6); and
the luminescent material is a phosphorescent material (as per claim 9)
are considered to naturally flow from the product of the prior art combination (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be present. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims.
44. Per claim 8, since the prior art combination of Cai, with the aforementioned modifications of Tsai and Lee, teaches substantially the same organic electroluminescent device structure as disclosed by Applicant in Table 1, Example 5, the property of the roll-off coefficient, r, wherein r = 0.92 (see Table 2, Example 5) is considered to naturally flow from the product of the prior art combination (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be present. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims.
45. Additionally, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties (ex. r = 0.92 is close enough to r ≥ 0.95). Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05.
46. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai et al. (US 2020/0251666 A1; hereinafter “Cai”) in view of Tsai et al. (US 2021/0054010 A1; hereinafter “Tsai”) and Lee et al. (US 2019/0363261 A1; hereinafter “Lee”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kaiser et al. (US 2018/0019397 A1; hereinafter “Kaiser”).
47. Regarding claim 4, while Cai, as previously modified by Tsai and Lee, is silent with respect to the conductivity of the hole injection and hole transport layers, Kaiser teaches that the preferred conductivity of these layers is between 10-4 and 10-3 S/m (¶ [0012]), which overlaps with the claimed range.
48. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the conductivity of the of the hole injection layer of the organic electroluminescent device of Cai, as modified by Tsai and Lee, to within the claimed range because Kaiser establishes that it is a predictably suitable and preferred level of conductivity for the hole injection layer in organic electroluminescent device.
49. Kaiser also teaches that a lower lateral conductivity, as demonstrated by the previously prescribed conductivity range between 10-4 and 10-3 S/m, affords organic electroluminescent devices with lower leakage currents, which is a beneficial property as pixel size decreases (¶ [0014]).
50. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the conductivity of the of the hole injection layer of the organic electroluminescent device of Cai, as modified by Tsai and Lee, to within the range of 10-4 and 10-3 S/m based on the teaching of Kaiser. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain an organic electroluminescent device with a lower lateral conductivity and lower leakage currents, which is a beneficial property as pixel size decreases (¶ [0014]), as taught by Kaiser.
51. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai et al. (US 2020/0251666 A1; hereinafter “Cai”) in view of Tsai et al. (US 2021/0054010 A1; hereinafter “Tsai”) and Lee et al. (US 2019/0363261 A1; hereinafter “Lee”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gao et al. (WO 2021238975 A1; hereinafter “Gao,” English machine translation obtained from WIPO).
52. Regarding claim 7, while Cai, as previously modified by Tsai and Lee, is silent with respect to difference in the triplet energy levels of the host material and the luminescent material, Gao teaches that triplet excitons are better confined to the luminescent material when the difference in the triplet energy levels of the host material and the luminescent material is greater than or equal to 0.65 eV (¶ [0108]), which overlaps with the claimed range.
53. The better confinement of triplet excitons to the luminescent material also improves the emission properties of the luminescent material (¶ [0108]).
54. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the host material composition in the emissive layer of the organic electroluminescent device of Cai, as modified by Tsai and Lee, such that the difference in the triplet energy levels of the host material and the luminescent material is greater than or equal to 0.65 eV, based on the teaching of Gao. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain an organic electroluminescent device with improved emission properties from the luminescent material (¶ [0108]), as taught by Gao.
Conclusion
55. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brandon J. Cooper whose telephone number is (571)272-0005. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
56. 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.
57. 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.
58. 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.
/JENNIFER A BOYD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1786
/B.J.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights