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
Response to Arguments
Applicants arguments and amendments, filed on 7/13/26, have been fully considered but they do not confer patentability on the instantly filed claims. Applicants have amended independent claim 1 to distinguish the teachings of Tang et al. Independent claim 1 has specifically been amended such that when the first emitter is an organometallic compound represented by Formula 1A, the first emitter must have a non-hydrogen substituent present on the right-pyridine ring (that is, one of Y31-Y34 must include a non-hydrogen substituent). This amendment overcomes the 102(a)(2) rejection to Tang et al. (CN-109824659) as evidenced by Beers et al. (US 2014/0131676) has been withdrawn. However, Tang et al. is now relied upon as an obviousness type reference in a new 103 rejection as described below.
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 1-10 and 17-20 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. The limitation “W11 to W14, W21 to W27, W27a, W27b, W31 to W34, and W41 to W44 may each” as recited in independent claim 1 renders the claim indefinite since it raises the question as to whether or not the groups which follow are required or not. For purposes of further examination, it will be interpreted that these W groups are selected from the Markush group recited in claim 1. Applicants may overcome this rejection by amending “may each independently” to “are each independently”, which is how independent claim 11 is worded. Claims 2-10 and 17-20 are included in this rejection as they are dependent on claim 1.
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, 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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (CN-109824659), as evidenced by Beers et al. (US 2014/0131676), further in view of Zeng et al. (US 2017/0069848).
Claim 1: Tang et al. teaches organic light-emitting devices (OLEDs). Device example 1 described a light-emitting device comprising an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer, a green emission layer comprising two green hosts (GH1 and GH2) and a green phosphorescent dopant comprising iridium (GD-1), an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, a cathode, and a capping layer comprising compound 2, which is an amine-containing compound, in that order. The chemical structure of dopant GD-1
PNG
media_image1.png
96
184
media_image1.png
Greyscale
is disclosed on page 63 of Tang et al. While Tang et al. does not explicitly teach the emission peak wavelength for GD-1, Beers et al. teaches that compound II-49, which is structurally identical to GD-1, exhibits an emission peak wavelength (lmax) of 530 nm (Tables 4 and 5). Therefore, GD-1 is a green dopant having an emission peak wavelength within the claimed range of approximately 520 nm to 550 nm.
Tang et al. differs from the independent claim 1 in that GD-1 does not include a non-hydrogen substituent on the pyridine ring of the 2-phenylpyridine ligands in the manner required by claim 1. However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have employed iridium complexes which does satisfy all of the limitations of Formula 1A, including the requirement that at least one of the groups Y31 through Y34 is a group equal to C(W31) through C(W34) where one or more of W31 through W34 is not equal to a hydrogen atom given the teachings of Zeng et al. Tang et al. and Zeng et al. are combinable as they are both from the same field of organic electroluminescent devices. Zeng et al. teaches light-emitting materials and devices, and explicitly teaches and exemplifies the same iridium complex GD-1 (complex D13 on page 126). Additionally, Zeng et al. teaches many other structurally similar iridium dopants. These specific dopants are taught in paragraph 0124 of Zeng et al.. The dopants taught in paragraph 0124 share a common core structure, specifically, they all comprise two phenyl-pyridine-based ligands and one pyridine-substituted dibenzofuran or azadibenzofuran ligand. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have employed any one of the structurally similar iridium complexes taught by Zeng et al. in the devices taught by Tang et al., as Zeng et al. teaches such iridium complexes as functional equivalents or art-recognized alternatives. One having ordinary skill in the art would have further been motivated to do so because Zeng et al. teaches that dopant D13 (which is identical to GD-1) and the other dopants taught in paragraph 0124 belong to the same class of structural related iridium emitters possessing similar optoelectronic properties. A person having ordinary skill in the art would routinely select or substitute art-recognized equivalent iridium complexes from Zeng et al. into the devices taught by Tang et al. in order to optimize device performance parameters. This includes employing any one of the iridium dopants taught by Zeng et al. where the non-dibenzofuran ligand includes alkyl-substituted pyridine groups, of which there are many taught by Zeng et al. Specifically, complexes D84 through D278, E14, E15, and E18-E21 all comprise ligands where one or more of W31 through W34 in chemical formula 1A of claim 1 is an alkyl group. One would have been motivated to employ an iridium complex which is further substituted in the manner of complexes D84 through D278, E14, E15, and E18-E21 as required in Formula 1A of claim 1, in order to optimize the device properties, including but not necessarily limited to, the reduction in p-p stacking, or to adjust the sublimation temperature of the complex. A person having ordinary skill in the art understands that the various peripheral substituents on the phenyl-pyridine and dibenzo- and azadibenzopyridine ligands do not significantly affect the HOMO and LUMO energy levels as the predominant emission from iridium complexes arises from metal-to-ligand charge transfer. The aliphatic alkyl groups do not play any significant role in this mechanism. However, the alteration of these iridium complexes with such groups is known to alter the p-p stacking or to modulate the sublimation temperatures of these compounds during their deposition and incorporation into light-emitting devices.
The capping layer of Tang et al., (compound 2) has the structure
PNG
media_image2.png
120
112
media_image2.png
Greyscale
as taught on page 10. Figure 2 of Tang et al. illustrates the refractive index of Compound 2 as a function of wavelength. Based on the data plotted in Figure 2, the refractive index R(cap) is approximately 2.12 at 530 nm. It is submitted that the structurally related iridium complexes taught by Zeng et al. would all have a maximum emission wavelength equal to, or close to, the emission maximum of GD-1. While Tang et al. does not explicitly calculate an RCR value according to Equation 1, it is the position of the Office that Device Example 1 satisfies this limitation. Per Equation 1, the RCR value is determined by RCE = (CIEy/Rcap) x 100. Substituting the calculated Rcap of 2.12 and the claimed RCR limit of 38, the threshold for CIEy is 38 ≥ (CIEy/2.12) x 100. In order to satisfy this equation, CIEy must be less than or equal to 0.806 (0.38 x 2.12).
A comparison between Applicant’s working examples and Tang et al. supports this inherent finding. The six green dopants (GD-1 through GD-6) exemplified in Applicant’s specification (page 137) share a common iridium-based core with Tang’s GD-1, which is the structure
PNG
media_image3.png
132
188
media_image3.png
Greyscale
. Applicant’s GD-2 (the core structure without additional substituents) exhibits a CIEy value of 0.724-0.725 (Examples 4-6). Applicants GD-1 and GD-3 through GD-6 utilize various substituents (alkyl, phenyl, etc.) but maintain CIEy values within a narrow range of 0.720 to 0.726 (Table 6). Many of the complexes taught by Zeng et al. satisfy Formula 1A of claim 1, as described above. The iridium complexes having various alkyl and deuterated alkyl groups at the periphery of the complex would not be expected to shift the emission spectral profile to any appreciable extent, as evidenced by the minimal variance across Applicant’s own diverse examples. Furthermore, the anime-based capping layers in Tang et al. possess a high refractive index 2.12, consistent with the preferred capping materials (CP01-CP12) described in the specification. Given the high structural similarity of both the dopants and the capping materials, it is concluded that the resulting CIEy for the dopants taught by Zeng et al. which satisfy Formula 1A would not exceed 0.806. Consequently, the RCE value of Tang’s device would inherently fall below 38, satisfying the requirements of claim 1.
Claim 2: It would be expected that any of the structurally similar compounds taught by Zeng et al., including those which satisfy Formula 1A as described above would exhibit a maximum emission wavelength of 530 nm, thereby satisfying the limitations of claim 2.
Claim 3: It would be expected that any of the structurally similar compounds taught by Zeng et al., including those which satisfy Formula 1A as described above would exhibit a full width at half maximum (FWHM) of about 60 nm. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable.
Claim 4: The compounds disclosed by Zeng et al. are green light-emitter, thereby satisfying the functional requirements of claim 4.
Claim 5: The iridium complexes taught by Zeng et al. includes ligands which satisfy the limitations of claim 5.
Claim 6: Tang et al. discloses capping layer 247, the structure of which incorporates a benzoxazole group as recited in claim 6.
Claims 7 and 8: While Tang et al. does not explicitly provide values for CIEy or RCR in Device Example 1, the Office maintains that these values inherently fall within the claimed ranges. This is based on the structural identity between the iridium dopants and capping materials of Tang et al. and those exemplified in the instantly filed specification, as well as the nearly identical refractive index profiles.
Claim 9: The refractive index (Rcap) of compound 247 in Tang et al. is 1.997, as confirmed by Applicants own measurement of the identical compound, CP01, thereby satisfying claim 9.
Claim 10: The Rcap of compound 247 (identical to CP01) is 1.997, which falls within the claimed range of “about 1.85 to about 2.5”, establishing a prima facie case of anticipation.
Claims 11-15: The rejection of claims 1-5 above are wholly incorporated into the rejection of claims 11-15. Claims 11-15 include all of the device and structural limitations of claims 1-5 as described above.
Claim 16: The refractive index of compound 247 at 530 nm is 1.997. As this compound is identical to Applicants CO01, this limitation is anticipated.
Claim 17: Device example 34 of Tang et al. constitutes an electronic apparatus that satisfies the limitations of claim 17.
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 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (CN-109824659) as evidenced by Beers et al. (US 2014/0131676), in view of Zeng et al. (US 2017/0069848), further in view of Yamazaki et al. (US 2005/0073247).
Tang et al. teaches an electronic apparatus which satisfies the limitations of claims 1 and 17, as described above. While Tang et al. does not explicitly disclose the specific structural elements recited in claim 18, the inclusion of at least a color filter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art in view of the teachings of Yamazaki et al. Tang et al. and Yamazaki et al. are analogous art, as both belong to the same field of organic electroluminescent devices. Yamazaki et al. teaches that color filters are standard components used to enhance color purity and improve the reliability of light-emitting devices (paragraph 0017). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the color filter of Yamazaki et al. into the device of Tang et al. to achieve these known benefits. Therefore, the combination of Tang et al. and Yamazaki et al. renders the subject matter of claim 18 obvious.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (CN-109824659), in view of Zeng et al. (US 2017/00069848), and evidenced by and in view of Beers et al. (US 2014/0131676).
Tang et al. teaches that the disclosed organic electroluminescent devices are suitable for use in illumination of display elements and specifically notes that these compounds possess “good application effect and industrialization prospects” (see page 6 of the machine translation). While Tang et al. does not explicitly name the specific consumer products recited in claim 20, the transition from an OLED component to a finished consumer product would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art in view of Beers et al. Tang et al. and Beers et al. are combinable as they are both address the optimization and application of OLED technology. Beers et al. explicitly teaches that consumer products may be prepared from such electroluminescent devices (paragraph 0041). Given that the primary and most well-known application for OLED technology is in consumer display electronics, it would have been a matter of routine design choice to incorporate the devices of Tang et al. into a consumer product, such as those disclosed by Beers et al., to achieve the stated goal of commercialization.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights