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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Satou (US 2008/0054799) as evidenced by Managaki (US 2024/0215278).
Claim 1: Satou teaches organic electroluminescent elements which comprises an anode, a hole transport layer, a light-emitting layer, an electron transport layer, and a cathode. The light-emitting layer comprises at least two light emitting materials having different Ea (electron affinity) or Ip (ionization potential) values which emit phosphorescent having the same color as each other (abstract). Inventive Sample No. 4 of Satou is comprised of an anode, a hole injection layer, a first and second hole transport layer, a first light emitting layer comprising mCP as a host material and Pt-1 as a phosphorescent dopant, a second light emitting layer comprising mCP as a host material and Ir(ppy)2(ppz) as a dopant material, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode (paragraphs 0194-0202 and Table 4). The first emission layer comprises a first transition metal compound and the second emission layer comprises a second transition meal compound with the transition metals being different from each other (Pt and Ir). Table 1 of Satou teaches that Pt-1 has an emission wavelength of 503 nm and Ir(ppy)2(ppz) has an emission wavelength of 511 nm. The difference between the emission wavelengths of these two dopants is 8 nm, which falls within the about 0 to about 30 nm range of claim 1. While Satou does not explicitly teach that the absolute value of the HOMO energy level difference between the first compound and second compound is about 0.05 eV to about 0.4 eV, Satou does explicitly teach the ionization potentials of Pt-1 and Ir(ppy)2(ppz) (Table 1) are both equal to 5.8 eV. However, the ionization potential is also referred to as the HOMO energy level (just as the electron affinity is also referred to as the LUMO energy level) as taught in paragraph 0079 of Managaki. Managaki represents one out of many hundreds of prior art documents which teach this. Therefore, the HOMO energy level difference between the platinum and iridium complexes employed in inventive sample No. 4 is very close to each other (both at 5.8 eV)1. It can be said that the absolute value of the difference between the HOMO energy levels of Pt-1 and Ir(ppy)2(ppz) is about 0.05 eV, thereby satisfying claim 1. In summary, inventive sample No. 4 of Satou anticipates all of the device and structural limitations of claims 1, 6, and 13.
Claim 2: As stated in claim 1 above, the absolute value of the difference between the HOMO energy levels of Pt-1 and Ir(ppy)2(ppz) is about 0.05 eV, which anticipates claim 2.
Claim 3: For claim 3 Comparative organic EL element No. A3 of Satou is relied upon. This comparative embodiment employs Ir(ppy)3 as the first dopant and Pt-1 as the second dopant. This embodiment satisfies all of the device and structural limitations of claim 1 for the same reasons as described in claim 1. Additionally, the ionization potential of Ir(ppy)3, which serves as HOMO(1), is approximately -5.4 eV, which satisfies claim 3.
Claim 6: The difference in emission wavelengths of Pt-1 and Ir(ppy)2(ppz) is 8 nm, which falls within the about 0 to about 10 nm range of claim 6, thereby anticipating claim 6.
Claim 7: The emission wavelengths of Pt-1 and Ir(ppy)2(ppz) are taught in Table 1 to be 503 nm and 511 nm, respectively, which are both “about 510 nm” so as to anticipate the limitations of claim 7.
Claims 9 and 10: Both Pt-1 and Ir(ppy)2(ppz) are taught by Satou as being green emitters, thereby anticipating claims 9 and 10 (paragraphs 0088 and 0091).
Claims 11 and 12: Since claim 1 does not definitively state the order of the first and second emission layers, one could arbitrarily assign the first emission layer of Satou as the second emission layer of independent claim 1, which necessarily means that the second emission layer of Satou is the first emission layer of claim 1. Alternatively, one could arbitrarily assign the second emission layer of Satou as the second emission layer of claim 1, which necessarily means that the first emission layer of Satou is the first emission layer of claim 1. In so doing, depending on how the emission layers of Satou are assigned, the limitations of each of claims 11 and 12 are anticipated.
Claim 13: The first emitting layer of Satou comprises a platinum-containing complex and the second emitting layer of Satou comprises an iridium-containing complex, thereby anticipating claim 13.
Claim 20: The device examples of Satou are inherently an electronic apparatus which anticipates claim 20.
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.
Claims 8, 14-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satou (US 2008/0054799) as applied to claim 1 above.
Claim 8: While Satou does not explicitly teach any device examples where both the first and second compounds are green dopants having a maximum emission wavelength within the about 540 nm to about 570 nm as required by claim 8, the overall teachings of Satou render obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art the employments of such green dopants. Satou is not limited by the first and second dopant, only that they emit light of the same, or substantially the same color. The difference in emission wavelength is taught by Satou to preferably be 20 nm or less (paragraph 0073). Additionally, Satou teaches that the difference in ionization potential between the first and second dopant is preferably between 0.2 and 0.4 eV (paragraph 0022). Satou mentions a few green, blue, and red phosphorescent dopants but it is understood to one having ordinary skill in the art that Satou is not limited to the specific dopants taught therein. Satou teaches that the phosphorescent emission material is not particularly limited but they generally include phosphorescent transition metal containing complexes (paragraph 0074). Because the entire visible light gamut spans from about 380 nm to about 780 nm2, one having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the emitting layers taught by Satou may be selected to emit visible light at any desirable portion of the visible spectrum so as to achieve a desired color output. This includes light having a wavelength range within the about 540 to about 570 nm as required by claim 8. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to employ dopants which emit light within the range required by claim 8 as such ranges are implicitly taught by Satou; the motivation to employ such dopants would be to achieve a desirable color emitted by the device. No one color is more or less obvious than another color.
Claims 14 and 15: The device taught in Satou above comprises 2 light emitting units which satisfies the light-emitting unit limitations of claim 14. While the devices taught by Satou does not include a charge generation layer located between the two light-emitting units as recited in claim 14, Satou explicitly teaches that the organic electroluminescent element may have an electric charge-generation layer provided between the plurality of light-emitting units for a purpose to enhance luminescent efficiency (paragraph 0097). For this reason, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have included a charge generation unit located between the first and second light-emitting units taught by Satou as described in claim 1 above, thereby satisfying claim 14. In such a device, the charge generation unit separates the first green light-emitting layer form the second green light-emitting layer, thereby satisfying claim 15.
Claims 16 and 17: The same logic applied in the rejection of claims 11 and 12 above applies to claims 16 and 17. Since claims 1 and 14 do not definitively state the order of the first and second emission layers, one could arbitrarily assign the first emission layer of Satou as the second emission layer of independent claim 1, which necessarily means that the second emission layer of Satou is the first emission layer of claim 1. Alternatively, one could arbitrarily assign the second emission layer of Satou as the second emission layer of claim 1, which necessarily means that the first emission layer of Satou is the first emission layer of claim 1. In so doing, depending on how the emission layers of Satou are assigned, the limitations of each of claims 16 and 17 are anticipated.
Claim 19: While Satou does not explicitly teach a device which comprises at least two emission layers separated by a charge generation layer where at least one of the emission layers emits blue light as required by claim 19, the overall teachings of Satou render obvious such embodiments. For example, in table 1 of Satou, the combination of FIrpic and Pt-3 or FIrpic and Pt-2 are embodiments where both the first and second light-emitting layers emit blue light, and wherein FIrpic and Pt-3 or FIrpic satisfy the HOMO(1) and HOMO(2) and lmax(1) and lmax(2) requirements of claim 1. Including a charge generation layer between either of FIrpic and Pt-3 or FIrpic and Pt-2 is prima facie obvious for the reasons recited in claim 14 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, and 18 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. Satou does not teach or reasonably suggest to one having ordinary skill in the art to employ a second dopant which has a HOMO energy level within the about -5.00 eV to about -5.30 eV as required by claim 4. The second dopant of Satou is required to have a higher HOMO level than the first dopant and all of the exemplified second dopants have a HOMO level (ionization potential) which is mutually exclusive from the range required by claim 4. Further, Satou is silent regarding the dipole moments of the dopants employed. It cannot be stated with any degree of certainty that the dopants taught by Satou would satisfy the dipole moment requirements of the first and second compound as recited in claim 5. Satou also does not teach or suggest tandem light-emitting devices where one of the light-emitting units comprises the first emission layer and the second emission layer of claim 1, a charge generation layer and a second light-emitting unit as recited in claim 18. At best, any tandem light emitting devices taught by Satou would only have either the first or the second compound present in each light-emitting unit.
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
1 Only two significant figures are taught in table 1 of Satou. It would be expected that the HOMO energy levels are not truly identical but very close to each other.
2 This is well-known in the art.