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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 10, Applicant claims the structural formulas of the specific embodiments. However, the image quality of the structural formulas is poor such that the structure including the elements are illegible. It is suggested to replace with higher quality images.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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.
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 1-2, 5-7, 9, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoessel et al. (US 2017/0170413 A1, hereafter Stoessel).
Regarding claims 1-2, 5-7, 9, and 11-14, Stoessel discloses an organometallic compound used as the emitter of an organic light emitting device ([0001]). The organometallic compound has structure of Formula (1) ([0010]), M(L)n(L’)m, wherein the moiety M(L)n is represented by Formula (2), wherein CyD and/or CyC contains two adjacent carbon atoms, each substituted by radical R, where the R together with the C atoms form a ring of Formula (3) ([0019]). Stoessel exemplifies Ir(LH13)3 ([0235], page 93).
PNG
media_image1.png
317
684
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In the compound Ir(LH13)3, the fused tetramethyl cyclohexyl ring (i.e. the part enclosed by a dashed circle in the figure above) corresponding to the Formula (3) of Stoessel is substituted to the positions 6-7 of the benzene ring at the position corresponding to the CyC of the Formula (2) of Stoessel, which does not read on the limitation of the instant claims; however, Stoessel does teach that the ring of Formula (3) can be substituted to two adjacent carbon atoms of the benzene ring of the pyridino benzofuran at the position corresponding CyD of the Formula (2) of Stoessel ([0019]). Stoessel exemplifies compounds wherein the ring of Formula (3) is substituted to the terminal ring of the moiety CyD of Formula (2) (see examples including at least 16 and 17 in [0093]).
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 Ir(LH13)3 by substituting the substitution position of the tetramethyl cyclohexyl ring corresponding to the Formula (3) of Stoessel from the positions 6-7 to any one of positions 1-2, 2-3, or 3-4, as taught by Stoessel.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the substitution position of the ring of Formula (3) in the organometallic complex of Formula (2) would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). There are finite number of substitution positions of the ring Formula (3) in the compound. The selection of any one of positions 1-2, 2-3, and 3-4 would have been one from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
PNG
media_image2.png
466
753
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Modified compound of Stoessel 1 to 3, each of which has identical structure as Applicant’s Chemical Formula 1 of the instant claims, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-2, 5-7 and 9.
The Modified compounds of Stoessel 1 to 3 read on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach that the compound emits red phosphorescent light.
It is reasonable to presume that the Modified compounds of Stoessel 1 to 3 inherently possesses a property to emit red phosphorescent light.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
Applicant discloses that the compound represented by the Chemical Formula I may be a red phosphorescent material ([00611]). The Modified compounds of Stoessel 1 to 3 each has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula I as outlined above.
Furthermore, Stoessel teaches that a similar compound (Ir(LH33)3 on page 159) emits red light (D-Ir(LH33)3 emits light of CIE 0.64/0.35 in Table 2). The Compound Ir(LH33)3 and the Modified compound of Stoessel have similar structures since they have the same core structure (i.e. Ir(ppy)3) with two fused aromatic rings to the pyridine ring.
Thus, the Modified compounds of Stoessel 1 to 3 3 inherently possesses a property to emit red phosphorescent light, meeting all the limitations of claim 11.
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 Modified compounds of Stoessel 1 to 3 are 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.
Stoessel does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising the Modified compound of Stoessel 1 (or 2 or 3); however, Stoessel does teach that the compound of Stoessel can be used as the emitter of an organic light emitting device ([0001]).
Stoessel teaches the structure of an organic light emitting device comprising a first electrode (anode), a hole injection layer, a light emitting layer (Compounds M3 and M2 as hosts and the organometallic complex of Stoessel as an emitter), an electron injection layer, and a second electrode (cathode) ([0286]-[0288]).
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 Modified compound of Stoessel 1 (or 2 or 3) by incorporating it into an organic light emitting device, as taught by Stoessel.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of emitters of Stoessel in the device of Stoessel would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified organic light emitting device of Stoessel 1 (or 2 or 3) comprising a first electrode (anode), a hole injection layer, a light emitting layer (Compounds M3 and M2 as hosts and the Modified compound of Stoessel 1 (or 2 or 3) as a red phosphorescent emitter), an electron injection layer, and a second electrode (cathode), meeting all the limitations of claims 12-14.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoessel et al. (US 2017/0170413 A1) as applied to claims 1-2, 5-7, 9, and 11-14 above further in view of Kim et al. (US 2008/0194853 A1, hereafter Kim).
Regarding claim 8, the Modified compounds of Stoessel 1 to 3 read on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
In the compound, the substituents of the benzene ring fused to the furan ring at the position corresponding to R of ring CyD is hydrogen which does not read on the limitation; however, Stoessel does teach that R of the ring CYD can be D ([0013]-[0014]).
Kim discloses an organometallic compound used for an organic light emitting device ([0001]).
Kim teaches that deuterium provides lower zero point energy, lower potential and vibration energy, and decreased van der Waal’s force as compared to hydrogen such that substitution of H with D provides improved efficiency and thermal stability ([0021]-[0022]).
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 Modified compound of Stoessel 1 (or 2 or 3) by substituting the hydrogen at the position corresponding to R of the ring CyD with deuterium, as taught by Stoessel and Kim.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide lower zero point energy, lower potential and vibration energy, and decreased van der Waal’s force as compared to hydrogen such that substitution of H with D provides improved efficiency and thermal stability, based on the teaching of Kim.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of H with D at the position R of CyD of Formula (2) of Stoessel would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Compound of Stoessel as modified by Kim 1 to 3 each of which has identical structure as Modified compound of Stoessel 1 to 3 except all the hydrogen atoms at the position corresponding to CyD of Formula (2) of Stoessel are replaced with deuterium including the hydrogen at the position corresponding to R9 of Formula 1 of the instant application.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoessel et al. (US 2017/0170413 A1) as applied to claims 1-2, 5-7, 9, and 11-14 above further in view of Liao et al. (US 2006/0040132 A1, hereafter Liao).
Regarding claims 15-16, the Modified organic light emitting device of Stoessel 1 (or 2 or 3) reads on all the features of claim 12 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode (anode), a hole injection layer, a light emitting layer (Compounds M3 and M2 as hosts and the Modified compound of Stoessel 1 (or 2 or 3) as a red phosphorescent emitter), an electron injection layer, and a second electrode (cathode).
The device is a red light emitting device as outlined above and not a white light emitting device having multiple light emitting stacks; however, Stoessel does teach that the organic light emitting device can have multiple light emitting layers to emit white light ([0112]).
Liao discloses a tandem white organic light emitting device ([0002], [0008], Figs. 3 and 8) comprising a plurality of white emitting parts (“EL units”) wherein two neighboring emitting parts are separated by a charge generation layer (“connector”). Liao teaches each emitting part can comprise multiple organic layers including a HIL, a HTL, an electron blocking layer, an emissive layer, a hole blocking layer, a ETL, and a EIL ([0052], Fig. 5). Liao teaches the materials used to construct the white emitting parts can be the same materials as the conventional white OLED from prior arts ([0055]). Liao teaches combination of blue, green, and red can provide white light ([0047], Fig. 2).
Liao teaches that the white OLED of Liao provide high luminance efficiency and high brightness ([0009]).
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 Modified organic light emitting device of Stoessel 1 (or 2 or 3) by stacking three white light emitting stacks and two charge generation layers between the first and the second electrodes, wherein each white light emitting stack has same structure as the organic layers of the Modified organic light emitting device of Stoessel 1 (or 2 or 3) except the light emitting layer is a combination of three sublayers including red, green, and blue light emitting layers, wherein the red light emitting layer includes the Modified compound of Stoessel 1 (or 2 or 3), as taught by Stoessel and Liao.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide white light emitting device with high luminance efficiency and high brightness, based on the teaching of Liao.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides Organic light emitting device of Stoessel as modified by Liao comprising a first electrode, a first white light emitting stack, a CGL, a second white light emitting stack, a CGL, a third white light emitting stack, and a second electrode, wherein each white light emitting stack comprises a hole injection layer, a red light emitting layer containing the Modified compound of Stoessel 1 (or 2 or 3) as a red phosphorescent dopant, a green light emitting layer, and a blue light emitting layer, and an electron injection layer.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoessel et al. (US 2017/0170413 A1) as applied to claims 1-2, 5-7, 9, and 11-14 above further in view of Pang et al. (“A full-color, low-power, wearable display for mobile applications”, SPIE, 03/29/2012, hereafter Pang).
Regarding claim 17, the Modified organic light emitting device of Stoessel 1 (or 2 or 3) reads on all the features of claim 12 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode (anode), a hole injection layer, a light emitting layer (Compounds M3 and M2 as hosts and the Modified compound of Stoessel 1 (or 2 or 3) as a red phosphorescent emitter), an electron injection layer, and a second electrode (cathode).
Stoessel does not disclose a specific display device comprising the Modified organic light emitting device of Stoessel 1 (or 2 or 3).
Pang discloses a display device (“flexible active matrix OLED display” in Fig. 3) comprising a substrate (“A: Substrate” in Fig. 3), a driving element ( “B: TFT” in Fig. 3) on the substrate, and an organic light emitting device (“C: OLED” in Fig. 3) disposed on the substrate and connected to the driving element.
Pang teaches the display device comprising the organic light emitting device provide a full-color, low-power, wearable display for mobile application (title and abstract).
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 Modified organic light emitting device of Stoessel 1 (or 2 or 3) by incorporating it into a display device as taught by Stoessel and Pang.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide a full-color, low-power, wearable display for mobile application based on the teaching of Pang.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material and method to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, the substitution of the organic light emitting devices in a display device would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides a display device comprising a substrate, the Modified organic light emitting device of Stoessel 1 (or 2 or 3) and a driving element on the substrate.
Claims 1-7 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleetham et al. (US 2022/0399517 A1, hereafter Fleetham) in view of Stoessel et al. (US 2017/0170413) and Shih et al. (US 2021/0047354 A1, hereafter Shih).
Regarding claims 1-7, 9, and 11-14, Fleetham discloses an organic light emitting device comprising a first electrode (anode), a light emitting layer, and a second electrode (cathode), wherein the light emitting layer comprises a phosphorescent dopant, a first host, and a second host ([0051]).
Fleetham teaches the phosphorescent dopant can have the following structural formula ([0129], the last formula on page 140, hereafter Formula A) and exemplifies a compound ([0135], the 4th compound on page 236, hereafter Compound p236-4).
PNG
media_image3.png
330
714
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The Compound p236-4 has alkyl groups at the position corresponding to R20 of Formula A of Fleetham (i.e. the substituents enclosed by a dashed circle in the figure above) which are not a fused cyclohexyl group; however, Fleetham does teach that each of R20 groups can be alkyl and two adjacent groups at R20 can be joined to form a ring ([0133]-[0134]). Fleetham further exemplifies a t-butyl group as the alkyl group (see examples including t-butyl group(s) as the substituent in [0135] including at least the 4th and the last compounds on page 141).
Stoessel discloses an organometallic compound for an organic light emitting device ([0001]). The organometallic compound of Stoessel necessarily comprises a fused cycloalkyl ring of Formula (3) ([0019]). Stoessel exemplifies a tetramethyl cyclohexyl fused ring
PNG
media_image4.png
101
131
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, as the ring of Formula (3) (Formula 4-1 in [0069]).
Stoessel teaches that the organometallic compound comprising the fused cycloalkyl ring of Formula (3) provides reduced sublimation, higher solubility, high color purity, very good lifetime, excellent efficiency, and higher oxidation stability ([0130]-[0135]).
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 p236-4 of Fleetham by substituting two adjacent substituents at the positions corresponding to R20 of Formula A of Fleetham (i.e. the dimethyl propyl group and the methyl group) with a fused tetramethyl cyclohexyl ring
PNG
media_image4.png
101
131
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, as taught by Fleetham and Stoessel.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide reduced sublimation, higher solubility, high color purity, very good lifetime, excellent efficiency, and higher oxidation stability, based on the teaching of Stoessel.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material and method to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The tetramethyl cyclohexyl is directed to two adjacent tert-butyl groups, wherein two neighboring methyl groups of the adjacent t-butyl groups are combined to form a cyclohexyl ring. The substitution of substituents at the positions corresponding to R20 of Formula A of Fleetham would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
PNG
media_image5.png
266
604
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Compound of Fleetham as modified by Stoessel, which has identical structure as Applicant’s Chemical Formula 1 of the instant claims, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-7 and 9.
The Compounds of Fleetham as modified by Stoessel reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach that the compound emits red phosphorescent light.
It is reasonable to presume that the Compound of Fleetham as modified by Stoessel inherently possesses a property to emit red phosphorescent light.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
Applicant discloses that the compound represented by the Chemical Formula I may be a red phosphorescent material ([00611]). The Compound of Fleetham as modified by Stoessel each has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula I as outlined above. The compound has substantially similar structure as Applicant’s specific embodiments including Compounds 102 and 237 ([00120]).
Furthermore, Shih teaches that the organic light emitting device comprising the Comparative Example 1 of Shih (as shown below) emits red light (Table 2). The compound has an identical core structure (i.e. the metal center and aromatic backbone structure of the ligand) as the Compound of Fleetham as modified by Stoessel.
PNG
media_image6.png
271
351
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Thus, the Compound of Fleetham as modified by Stoessel inherently possesses a property to emit red phosphorescent light, meeting all the limitations of claim 11.
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 Compound of Fleetham as modified by Stoessel 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.
Fleetham does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising the Compound of Fleetham as modified by Stoessel; however, Fleetham does teach the phosphorescent dopant of Fleetham ([0117]-[0135]) is used as the phosphorescent dopant of an organic light emitting device with a first and a second hosts ([0051]).
Fleetham teaches the structure of an organic light emitting device comprising a first electrode (anode), a hole injection layer, a light emitting layer, an electron injection layer, and a second electrode (cathode) ([0155], Fig. 1).
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 Fleetham as modified by Stoessel by incorporating it into an organic light emitting device as the phosphorescent dopant with a first and a second host compounds, as taught by Fleetham.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the phosphorescent dopants of Fleetham in the device of Fleetham would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Organic light emitting device of Fleetham as modified by Stoessel comprising a first electrode (anode), a hole injection layer, a light emitting layer (two hosts and the Compound of Fleetham as modified by Stoessel as a phosphorescent emitter), an electron injection layer, and a second electrode (cathode), wherein the Compound of Fleetham as modified by Stoessel inherently possesses red emitting property, meeting all the limitations of claims 12-14.
Regarding claim 10, the Compound of Fleetham as modified by Stoessel reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
PNG
media_image7.png
350
741
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The compound has similar structure as Applicant’s compound 102. The only difference is the substitution position of the fused tetramethyl hexyl ring which corresponds to R20 of Formula A of Fleetham; however, Fleetham does teach that R20 can be substituted to any of the substitutable positions of the benzene ring fused to the thiophene ring in Formula A of Fleetham ([0129]).
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 Fleetham as modified by Stoessel by substituting the substitution positions of the fused tetramethyl hexyl ring from the positions 1-2 to 2-3 (see the annotated numbers in the figure above), as taught by Fleetham.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the substitution positions 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 the substitution position would have been one from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Furthermore, the Compound of Fleetham as modified by Stoessel is a position isomer with similar compounds in which the fused tetramethyl hexyl ring is substituted to the positions 2-3 in the figure above.
With respect to position isomers, the examiner points to the MPEP which states: A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. “An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties.” In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1991) for an extensive review of the case law pertaining to obviousness based on close structural similarity of chemical compounds. Compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) or homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties.” In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). See also In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978) (stereoisomers prima facie obvious). See MPEP 2144.09 I and 2144.09 II.
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Compound of Fleetham as modified by Stoessel shown above such that the fused tetramethyl hexyl ring is substituted to the positions 2-3 in the figure above. A compound in which the fused tetramethyl hexyl ring is substituted to the positions 2-3 in the figure above would represent a position isomer of the Compound of Fleetham as modified by Stoessel. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the position isomers having each respective structure would act in similar manner.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleetham et al. (US 2022/0399517 A1) in view of Stoessel et al. (US 2017/0170413) and Shih et al. (US 2021/0047354 A1) as applied to claims 1-7 and 9-14 above, further in view of Kim et al. (US 2008/0194853 A1).
Regarding claim 8, the Compounds of Fleetham as modified by Stoessel reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
In the compound, the substituents R20 of Formula A are hydrogen which does not read on the limitation; however, Fleetham does teach that R20 can be deuterium ([0133]).
Kim discloses an organometallic compound used for an organic light emitting device ([0001]).
Kim teaches that deuterium provides lower zero point energy, lower potential and vibration energy, and decreased van der Waal’s force as compared to hydrogen such that substitution of H with D provides improved efficiency and thermal stability ([0021]-[0022]).
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 Fleetham as modified by Stoessel by substituting the hydrogen at the positions corresponding to R20 of Formula A of Fleetham with deuterium, as taught by Fleetham and Kim.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide lower zero point energy, lower potential and vibration energy, and decreased van der Waal’s force as compared to hydrogen such that substitution of H with D provides improved efficiency and thermal stability, based on the teaching of Kim.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of H with D at the position R20 of Formula A of Fleetham would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Compound of Fleetham as modified by Stoessel and Kim which has identical structure as Compound of Fleetham as modified by Stoessel except all the hydrogen atoms at the position corresponding to R20 of Formula A of Fleetham are replaced with deuterium including the hydrogen at the position corresponding to R9 of Formula 1 of the instant application.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleetham et al. (US 2022/0399517 A1) in view of Stoessel et al. (US 2017/0170413) and Shih et al. (US 2021/0047354 A1) as applied to claims 1-7 and 9-14 above, further in view of further in view of Liao et al. (US 2006/0040132 A1).
Regarding claims 15-16, the Organic light emitting device of Fleetham as modified by Stoessel reads on all the features of claim 12 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode (anode), a hole injection layer, a light emitting layer (two hosts and the Compound of Fleetham as modified by Stoessel as a phosphorescent emitter), an electron injection layer, and a second electrode (cathode).
The device is a red light emitting device as outlined above and not a white light emitting device having multiple light emitting stacks.
Liao discloses a tandem white organic light emitting device ([0002], [0008], Figs. 3 and 8) comprising a plurality of white emitting parts (“EL units”) wherein two neighboring emitting parts are separated by a charge generation layer (“connector”). Liao teaches each emitting part can comprise multiple organic layers including a HIL, a HTL, an electron blocking layer, an emissive layer, a hole blocking layer, a ETL, and a EIL ([0052], Fig. 5). Liao teaches the materials used to construct the white emitting parts can be the same materials as the conventional white OLED from prior arts ([0055]). Liao teaches combination of blue, green, and red can provide white light ([0047], Fig. 2).
Liao teaches that the white OLED of Liao provide high luminance efficiency and high brightness ([0009]).
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 Organic light emitting device of Fleetham as modified by Stoessel by stacking three white light emitting stacks and two charge generation layers between the first and the second electrodes, wherein each white light emitting stack has same structure as the organic layers of the Organic light emitting device of Fleetham as modified by Stoessel except the light emitting layer is a combination of three sublayers including red, green, and blue light emitting layers, wherein the red light emitting layer includes the Compound of Fleetham as modified by Stoessel, as taught by Fleetham and Liao.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide white light emitting device with high luminance efficiency and high brightness, based on the teaching of Liao.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides Organic light emitting device of Fleetham as modified by Stoessel and Liao comprising a first electrode, a first white light emitting stack, a CGL, a second white light emitting stack, a CGL, a third white light emitting stack, and a second electrode, wherein each white light emitting stack comprises a hole injection layer, a red light emitting layer containing the Compound of Fleetham as modified by Stoessel as a red phosphorescent dopant, a green light emitting layer, and a blue light emitting layer, and an electron injection layer.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleetham et al. (US 2022/0399517 A1) in view of Stoessel et al. (US 2017/0170413) and Shih et al. (US 2021/0047354 A1) as applied to claims 1-7 and 9-14 above, further in view of further in view of Pang et al. (“A full-color, low-power, wearable display for mobile applications”, SPIE, 03/29/2012).
Regarding claim 17, the Organic light emitting device of Fleetham as modified by Stoessel reads on all the features of claim 12 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode (anode), a hole injection layer, a light emitting layer (two hosts and the Compound of Fleetham as modified by Stoessel as a phosphorescent emitter), an electron injection layer, and a second electrode (cathode).
Fleetham does not disclose a specific display device comprising the Organic light emitting device of Fleetham as modified by Stoessel; however, Fleetham does teach the device can be incorporated into a consumer product such as a flexible display device ([0162]).
Pang discloses a display device (“flexible active matrix OLED display” in Fig. 3) comprising a substrate (“A: Substrate” in Fig. 3), a driving element ( “B: TFT” in Fig. 3) on the substrate, and an organic light emitting device (“C: OLED” in Fig. 3) disposed on the substrate and connected to the driving element.
Pang teaches the display device comprising the organic light emitting device provide a full-color, low-power, wearable display for mobile application (title and abstract).
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 Organic light emitting device of Fleetham as modified by Stoessel by incorporating it into a display device as taught by Fleetham and Pang.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide a full-color, low-power, wearable display for mobile application based on the teaching of Pang.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material and method to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, the substitution of the organic light emitting devices in a display device would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides a display device comprising a substrate, the Organic light emitting device of Fleetham as modified by Stoessel and a driving element on the substrate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEOKMIN JEON whose telephone number is (571)272-4599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm EST.
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.
/SEOKMIN JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights