DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application KR10-2022-0165560 filed in Korea on December 1, 2022.
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). Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Claim Objections
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities: "a" is missing before "second emitting material layer" on in the phrase "a second emitting part disposed between the first emitting part and the second electrode and including second emitting material layer" within the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
For the purpose of examination, the said clause within claim 29 will be interpreted as "a second emitting part disposed between the first emitting part and the second electrode and including a second emitting material layer."
Claims 30 and 31 are objected due to their dependency from claim 29.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5, 8-9, 12, 17-21, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeager et al. (US 20210095196 A1) (hereafter "Yeager").
Regarding claims 1 & 17: Yeager teaches an organometallic compound represented by the instant Chemical Formula 1, Ir(LA)m(LB)n, wherein LB is an auxiliary ligand and LA has the structure of the instant Chemical Formula 2, shown below {pg. 189}.
Instant Chemical Formula 1
PNG
media_image1.png
505
304
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Organometallic compound taught by Yeager
PNG
media_image2.png
4
10
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Yeager teaches that R1 to R3 are independently hydrogen, each one of X1 to X4 is independently CR4 or N, where at least one of X1 to X4 is N, and each of R4 is independently hydrogen.
Yeager does not explicitly teach the organometallic compound wherein each of X5 to X10 is independently CR5, N, or a carbon atom linked to the ring including R3 and at least another two of X5 to X10 are CR5.
However, Yeager teaches that the ligands of the disclosure of Yeager can have the structure of Formula 1 of Yeager, shown below, where rings A and B may be 6-membered carbocyclic or heterocyclic rings such as 2-phenylpyridine, and that RA and RB may be independently hydrogen or a substituent represented by Formula IV, and where G1 to G8 of Formula IV of Yeager can be C and RIV can be a combination of an aryl group and an alkyl substituent {Formula 1, pg. 1, paragraph [0008-0012]; Formula IV, pg. 2, paragraph [0020]}. Therefore, Yeager teaches that each of X6, X7, X9, X10 is independently CR5 where each of R5 is independently hydrogen, X5 is a carbon atom linked to the ring including R3, and X8 is independently CR5 where R5 is independently an unsubstituted alkyl group.
Formula 1 of Yeager
PNG
media_image3.png
273
233
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Structure of Formula IV of Yeager
PNG
media_image4.png
152
2
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Additionally, Yeager teaches that the auxiliary ligand of Yeager can have the following general structure, wherein Y1 to Y8 of Yeager can be C and Ra and Rb can be independently hydrogen or an alkyl group, respectively {pg. 35, paragraph [0077]}.
General structure of auxiliary ligand of Yeager
PNG
media_image5.png
195
103
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the modified organometallic compound taught by Yeager by substituting the quinolinyl substituent with an aryl group, substituted with a methyl group, and by substituting the auxiliary ligand with a methyl group, as shown below. The substitution of known elements for other known elements in the general structural formulae given by Yeager would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Further, given that the choices were known and disclosed by Yeager, the substitution would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success. It would also have been obvious to try the modified compound of Yeager in an organic light emitting diode, given that the choices were known and disclosed by Yeager. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations for an optimal organometallic compound for an optimal organic light-emitting device.
Modified compound 1 of Yeager
PNG
media_image6.png
487
563
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1, 2, and 18: Yeager teaches all of the features of claims 1 and 17, as outlined above. Further, the modified compound 1 of Yeager as outlined above teaches the instant Chemical Formula 3, shown below, wherein each of X15, X16, X18, X19 is independently CR5 where each of R5 is independently hydrogen, and X17 is independently CR5 where R5 is independently an unsubstituted alkyl group.
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try with a reasonable expectation of success in modifying and using the modified compound of Yeager in an organic light emitting diode, given that the choices were known and disclosed by Yeager. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations for an optimal organometallic compound for an optimal organic light-emitting device.
Instant Chemical Formula 3
PNG
media_image7.png
421
376
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1, 3, and 19: Yeager teaches all of the features of claims 1 and 17, as outlined above. Further, the modified compound 1 of Yeager as outlined above teaches the instant Chemical Formula 4, shown below, wherein each of X11 to X13 is independently CR12 and X14 is N, R12 is independently hydrogen, R11 is an unsubstituted alkyl group, and the b1 is 1.
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try with a reasonable expectation of success in modifying and using the modified compound of Yeager in an organic light emitting diode, given that the choices were known and disclosed by Yeager. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations for an optimal organometallic compound for an optimal organic light-emitting device.
Instant Chemical Formula 4
PNG
media_image8.png
409
417
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1, 4, and 20: Yeager teaches all of the features of claims 1 and 17, as outlined above. Further, the modified compound 1 of Yeager as outlined above teaches the instant Chemical Formula 5, shown below, wherein each of X21 to X23 is independently CR22 and X24 is N, R22 is independently hydrogen, R21 is an unsubstituted alkyl group, and the c1 is 1.
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try with a reasonable expectation of success in modifying and using the modified compound of Yeager in an organic light emitting diode, given that the choices were known and disclosed by Yeager. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations for an optimal organometallic compound for an optimal organic light-emitting device.
Instant Chemical Formula 5
PNG
media_image9.png
405
444
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1, 5, and 21: Yeager teaches all of the features of claims 1 and 17, as outlined above. Further, the modified compound 1 of Yeager as outlined above teaches the instant Chemical Formula 6, shown below, wherein each of X11 to X13 is independently CR12 and X14 is N, R12 is independently hydrogen, each of X25, X26, X28, X29 is independently CR23 where each of R23 is independently hydrogen, and X27 is independently CR23 where R23 is independently an unsubstituted alkyl group.
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try with a reasonable expectation of success in modifying and using the modified compound of Yeager in an organic light emitting diode, given that the choices were known and disclosed by Yeager. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations for an optimal organometallic compound for an optimal organic light-emitting device.
Instant Chemical Formula 6
PNG
media_image10.png
415
387
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 24: Yeager teaches all of the features of claims 1 and 17, as outlined above. Further, the modified compound 1 of Yeager as outlined above teaches an auxiliary ligand with the structure of the instant Chemical Formula 9A, shown below, wherein each of R51 and R52 is independently hydrogen except one R51 that is an unsubstituted alkyl group.
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try with a reasonable expectation of success in modifying and using the modified compound of Yeager in an organic light emitting diode, given that the choices were known and disclosed by Yeager. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations for an optimal organometallic compound for an optimal organic light-emitting device.
Instant Chemical Formula 9A
PNG
media_image11.png
281
224
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 25: Yeager teaches all of the features of claims 1 and 17, as outlined above. Further, the modified compound 1 of Yeager as outlined above teaches that one of X1 to X4 is N, and each of others of X1 to X4 is independently CR4 where R4 is independently hydrogen, each of X6, X7, X9, X10 is independently CR5 where each of R5 is independently hydrogen, X5 is a carbon atom linked to the ring including R3, and X8 is independently CR5 where R5 is independently an unsubstituted alkyl group.
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try with a reasonable expectation of success in modifying and using the modified compound of Yeager in an organic light emitting diode, given that the choices were known and disclosed by Yeager. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations for an optimal organometallic compound for an optimal organic light-emitting device.
Regarding claim 1, 12: Yeager teaches all of the features of claim 1, as outlined above. Further, the modified compound 1 of Yeager as outlined above teaches the instant organometallic compound 1.
Claims 1, 6-8, 11, 15, 22, 23, 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeager et al. (US 20210095196 A1) (hereafter "Yeager").
Regarding claims 1, 6, 8, and 22: Yeager teaches an organometallic compound represented by the instant Chemical Formula 1, Ir(LA)m(LB)n, wherein LB is an auxiliary ligand and the ligand LA has the structure of Chemical Formula 7, shown below {claim 43, pg. 174}.
Instant Chemical Formula 7
PNG
media_image12.png
409
425
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Ligand LA taught by Yeager
PNG
media_image13.png
202
204
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Yeager teaches that R1 to R3 are independently hydrogen, each one of X32 and X33 is independently CR32, where X31 and X34 are N, and each of R32 is independently hydrogen.
Yeager does not explicitly teach the arylation of the quinoxalinyl substituent on 2-phenylpyridine.
However, Yeager teaches that the ligands of the disclosure of Yeager can have the structure of Formula 1 of Yeager, shown below, where rings A and B may be 6-membered carbocyclic or heterocyclic rings such as 2-phenylpyridine, and that RA and RB may be independently hydrogen or a substituent represented by Formula IV, and where G1 to G8 of Formula IV of Yeager can be C and RIV can be a combination of an aryl group and an alkyl substituent {Formula 1, pg. 1, paragraph [0008-0012]; Formula IV, pg. 2, paragraph [0020]}. Therefore, Yeager teaches the arylation of the quinoxalinyl substituent on 2-phenylpyridine.
Formula 1 of Yeager
PNG
media_image3.png
273
233
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Structure of Formula IV of Yeager
PNG
media_image4.png
152
2
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Additionally, Yeager teaches that the auxiliary ligand of Yeager can have the following general structure, wherein Y1 to Y8 of Yeager can be C and Ra and Rb can be independently hydrogen or an alkyl group, respectively {pg. 35, paragraph [0077]}.
General structure of auxiliary ligand of Yeager
PNG
media_image5.png
195
103
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the modified organometallic compound taught by Yeager by substituting the quinoxalinyl substituent with an aryl group, substituted with a methyl group, and by substituting the auxiliary ligand with a methyl group, as shown below. The substitution of known elements for other known elements in the general structural formulae given by Yeager would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Further, given that the choices were known and disclosed by Yeager, the substitution would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success. It would also have been obvious to try the modified compound of Yeager in an organic light emitting diode, given that the choices were known and disclosed by Yeager. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations for an optimal organometallic compound for an optimal organic light-emitting device.
Modified compound 2 of Yeager
PNG
media_image14.png
480
578
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1, 7, 8, 22, and 23: Yeager teaches all of the features of claims 1, 6, and 22, as outlined above. Further, the modified compound 2 of Yeager as outlined above teaches the instant Chemical Formula 8, shown below, wherein each of X42 and X43 is independently CR42 and X41 and X44 are N, R42 is independently hydrogen, R41 is independently an unsubstituted alkyl group, and the e1 is 1.
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try with a reasonable expectation of success in modifying and using the modified compound of Yeager in an organic light emitting diode, given that the choices were known and disclosed by Yeager. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations for an optimal organometallic compound for an optimal organic light-emitting device.
Instant Chemical Formula 8
PNG
media_image15.png
411
423
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1, 8, 11, 22, and 27: Yeager teaches all of the features of claims 1, 6, and 22, as outlined above. Further, the modified compound 2 of Yeager as outlined above teaches that each of X1 and X4 are independently N and each of X2 and X3 are CR4, where each R4 is independently hydrogen, X5 is a carbon atom linked to the ring including R3, each of X6, X7, X9, and X10 is independently CR5, and X8 is independently CR5 where R5 is independently an unsubstituted alkyl group.
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try with a reasonable expectation of success in modifying and using the modified compound of Yeager in an organic light emitting diode, given that the choices were known and disclosed by Yeager. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations for an optimal organometallic compound for an optimal organic light-emitting device.
Regarding claims 1, 8, 15, and 22: Yeager teaches all of the features of claims 1, 6, and 22, as outlined above. Further, the modified compound 2 of Yeager as outlined above teaches the instant organometallic compound 125.
Claim 1, 8, 10, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeager et al. (US 20210095196 A1) (hereafter "Yeager").
Regarding claims 1, 8, 10, and 26: Yeager teaches an organometallic compound represented by the instant Chemical Formula 1, Ir(LA)m(LB)n, wherein LB is an auxiliary ligand and LA has the structure of the instant Chemical Formula 2 {pg. 189}.
Organometallic compound taught by Yeager
PNG
media_image2.png
4
10
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Yeager teaches that R1 to R3 are independently hydrogen, each one of X1 to X4 is independently CR4 or N, where at least one of X1 to X4 is N, and each of R4 is independently hydrogen.
Yeager does not explicitly teach the organometallic compound wherein each of X5 to X10 is independently CR5, N, or a carbon atom linked to the ring including R3 and at least another two of X5 to X10 are CR5.
However, Yeager teaches that the ligands of the disclosure of Yeager can have the structure of Formula 1 of Yeager, shown below, where rings A and B may be 6-membered carbocyclic or heterocyclic rings such as 2-phenylpyridine, and that RA and RB may be independently hydrogen or a substituent represented by Formula IV, and where G1 to G8 of Formula IV of Yeager can be C and RIV can be a heteroaryl group {Formula 1, pg. 1, paragraph [0008-0012]; Formula IV, pg. 2, paragraph [0020]}. Therefore, Yeager teaches that each of X6, X8, X9, X10 is independently CR5 where each of R5 is independently hydrogen, X5 is a carbon atom linked to the ring including R3, and X7 is independently N.
Formula 1 of Yeager
PNG
media_image3.png
273
233
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Structure of Formula IV of Yeager
PNG
media_image4.png
152
2
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Additionally, Yeager teaches that the auxiliary ligand of Yeager can have the following general structure, wherein Y1 to Y8 of Yeager can be C and Ra and Rb can be independently hydrogen or an alkyl group, respectively {pg. 35, paragraph [0077]}.
General structure of auxiliary ligand of Yeager
PNG
media_image5.png
195
103
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the modified organometallic compound taught by Yeager by substituting the quinolinyl substituent with a heteroaryl group and by substituting the auxiliary ligand with a methyl group, as shown below. The substitution of known elements for other known elements in the general structural formulae given by Yeager would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Further, given that the choices were known and disclosed by Yeager, the substitution would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success. It would also have been obvious to try the modified compound of Yeager in an organic light emitting diode, given that the choices were known and disclosed by Yeager. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations for an optimal organometallic compound for an optimal organic light-emitting device.
Modified compound 3 of Yeager
PNG
media_image16.png
459
518
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Claims 1, 8, and 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeager et al. (US 20210095196 A1) (hereafter "Yeager").
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 13: Yeager teaches an organometallic compound represented by the instant Chemical Formula 1, Ir(LA)m(LB)n, wherein LB is an auxiliary ligand and LA has the structure of the instant Chemical Formula 2 {pg. 189}.
Organometallic compound taught by Yeager
PNG
media_image2.png
4
10
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Yeager teaches that R1 to R3 are independently hydrogen, each one of X1 to X4 is independently CR4 or N, where at least one of X1 to X4 is N, and each of R4 is independently hydrogen.
Yeager does not explicitly teach the organometallic compound wherein each of X5 to X10 is independently CR5, N, or a carbon atom linked to the ring including R3 and at least another two of X5 to X10 are CR5.
However, Yeager teaches that the ligands of the disclosure of Yeager can have the structure of Formula 1 of Yeager, shown below, where rings A and B may be 6-membered carbocyclic or heterocyclic rings such as 2-phenylpyridine, and that RA and RB may be independently hydrogen or a substituent represented by Formula IV, and where G1 to G8 of Formula IV of Yeager can be C and RIV can be independently substituted and unsubstituted aryl groups, and RIV independently represents up to a maximum allowed substitution to its associated ring {Formula 1, pg. 1, paragraph [0008-0012]; Formula IV, pg. 2, paragraph [0020]}. Therefore, Yeager teaches that each of X6, X7, X9, X10 is independently CR5 where each of R5 is independently hydrogen, and X5 is a carbon atom linked to the ring including R3, and X8 is CR5 where R5 is an unsubstituted alkyl group.
Formula 1 of Yeager
PNG
media_image3.png
273
233
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Structure of Formula IV of Yeager
PNG
media_image4.png
152
2
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Additionally, Yeager teaches that the auxiliary ligand of Yeager can have the following general structure, wherein Y1 to Y8 of Yeager can be C and Ra and Rb can be independently hydrogen or an alkyl group, respectively {pg. 35, paragraph [0077]}.
General structure of auxiliary ligand of Yeager
PNG
media_image5.png
195
103
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the modified organometallic compound taught by Yeager by substituting the quinolinyl substituent with two aryl groups, one substituted and one unsubstituted, as shown below. The substitution of known elements for other known elements in the general structural formulae given by Yeager would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Further, given that the choices were known and disclosed by Yeager, the substitution would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success. It would also have been obvious to try the modified compound of Yeager in an organic light emitting diode, given that the choices were known and disclosed by Yeager. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations for an optimal organometallic compound for an optimal organic light-emitting device.
Modified compound 4 of Yeager
PNG
media_image17.png
506
572
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Claims 1, 8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeager et al. (US 20210095196 A1) (hereafter "Yeager").
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 14: Yeager teaches an organometallic compound represented by the instant Chemical Formula 1, Ir(LA)m(LB)n, wherein LB is an auxiliary ligand and LA has the structure of the instant Chemical Formula 2 {pg. 189}.
Organometallic compound taught by Yeager
PNG
media_image2.png
4
10
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Yeager teaches that R1 to R3 are independently hydrogen, each one of X1 to X4 is independently CR4 or N, where at least one of X1 to X4 is N, and each of R4 is independently hydrogen.
Yeager does not explicitly teach an isoquinolinyl substitutent in place of the quinolinyl substituent on the 2-phenylpyridine core.
However, isoquinoline and quinoline are position isomers. With respect to position isomers, the MPEP 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.
Yeager does not explicitly teach the organometallic compound wherein each of X5 to X10 is independently CR5, N, or a carbon atom linked to the ring including R3 and at least another two of X5 to X10 are CR5.
However, Yeager teaches that the ligands of the disclosure of Yeager can have the structure of Formula 1 of Yeager, shown below, where rings A and B may be 6-membered carbocyclic or heterocyclic rings such as 2-phenylpyridine, and that RA and RB may be independently hydrogen or a substituent represented by Formula IV, and where G1 to G8 of Formula IV of Yeager can be C and RIV can be a combination of a heteroaryl group and an alkyl substituent {Formula 1, pg. 1, paragraph [0008-0012]; Formula IV, pg. 2, paragraph [0020]}. Therefore, Yeager teaches that each of X6, X7, X10 is independently CR5 where each of R5 is independently hydrogen, X5 is a carbon atom linked to the ring including R3, X9 is N, and X8 is independently CR5 where R5 is independently an unsubstituted alkyl group.
Formula 1 of Yeager
PNG
media_image3.png
273
233
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Structure of Formula IV of Yeager
PNG
media_image4.png
152
2
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Additionally, Yeager teaches that the auxiliary ligand of Yeager can have the following general structure, wherein Y1 to Y8 of Yeager can be C and Ra and Rb can be independently hydrogen or an alkyl group, respectively {pg. 35, paragraph [0077]}.
General structure of auxiliary ligand of Yeager
PNG
media_image5.png
195
103
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, the modified compound 4 of Yeager as outlined above teaches the instant organometallic compound 109.
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 quinolinyl substituent shown above such that it is replaced with an isoquinolinyl substituent. A compound in which there is an isoquinolinyl substituent would represent a position isomer of the compound where there is a quinolinyl substituent. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect that quinolinyl and isoquinolinyl substituents on 2-phenylpyridine in iridium complexes having each respective structure would act in similar manner.
Additionally, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the modified organometallic compound taught by Yeager by substituting the 2-phenylpyridine ligand with an isoquinolinyl substituent and further substituting the isoquinolinyl substituent with a heteroaryl group, substituted with a methyl group, and by substituting the auxiliary ligand with a methyl group, as shown below. The substitution of known elements for other known elements in the general structural formulae given by Yeager would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Further, given that the choices were known and disclosed by Yeager, the substitution would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success. It would also have been obvious to try the modified compound of Yeager in an organic light emitting diode, given that the choices were known and disclosed by Yeager. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations for an optimal organometallic compound for an optimal organic light-emitting device.
Modified compound 5 of Yeager
PNG
media_image18.png
513
601
media_image18.png
Greyscale
Claims 1, 8, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeager et al. (US 20210095196 A1) (hereafter "Yeager") in view of King et al. (DOI: 10.1002/adfm.200500881) (hereafter "King").
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 16: Yeager teaches an organometallic compound represented by the instant Chemical Formula 1, Ir(LA)m(LB)n, wherein LB is an auxiliary ligand and the ligand LA has the structure of Chemical Formula 2 {claim 43, pg. 174}.
Ligand LA taught by Yeager
PNG
media_image13.png
202
204
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Yeager teaches that R1 to R3 are independently hydrogen, each one of X32 and X33 is independently CR32, where X31 and X34 are N, and each of R32 is independently hydrogen.
Yeager does not explicitly teach the arylation of the quinoxalinyl substituent on 2-phenylpyridine.
However, Yeager teaches that the ligands of the disclosure of Yeager can have the structure of Formula 1 of Yeager, shown below, where rings A and B may be 6-membered carbocyclic or heterocyclic rings such as 2-phenylpyridine, and that RA and RB may be independently hydrogen or a substituent represented by Formula IV, and where G1 to G8 of Formula IV of Yeager can be C and RIV can be independently substituted and unsubstituted aryl groups, and RIV independently represents up to a maximum allowed substitution to its associated ring {Formula 1, pg. 1, paragraph [0008-0012]; Formula IV, pg. 2, paragraph [0020]}. Therefore, Yeager teaches the arylation of the quinoxalinyl substituent on 2-phenylpyridine.
Formula 1 of Yeager
PNG
media_image3.png
273
233
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Structure of Formula IV of Yeager
PNG
media_image4.png
152
2
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Additionally, Yeager teaches that the auxiliary ligand of Yeager can have the following general structure, wherein Y1 to Y8 of Yeager can be C and Ra and Rb can be independently hydrogen or an alkyl group, respectively {pg. 35, paragraph [0077]}.
General structure of auxiliary ligand of Yeager
PNG
media_image5.png
195
103
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Yeager does not teach a t-butyl substitution on 2-phenylpyridine.
However, King teaches that t-butyl substitutions lead to an increase in device performance due to the prevention of Dexter-type energy transfer by increasing the steric bulk of the ligand.
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the modified organometallic compound taught by Yeager by substituting the quinoxalinyl substituent with substituted and unsubstituted aryl groups, and by substituting the auxiliary ligand with a methyl group, as shown below. The substitution of known elements for other known elements in the general structural formulae given by Yeager would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Further, given that the choices were known and disclosed by Yeager, the substitution would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success. It would also have been obvious to try the modified compound of Yeager in an organic light emitting diode, given that the choices were known and disclosed by Yeager. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the organometallic complex taught by Yeager with a t-butyl substitution to increase device performance by preventing Dexter-type energy transfer by increasing the steric bulk of the ligand, as taught by King.
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations for an optimal organometallic compound for an optimal organic light-emitting device.
Modified compound 6 of Yeager
PNG
media_image19.png
542
564
media_image19.png
Greyscale
Claims 17, 28, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeager et al. (US 20210095196 A1) (hereafter "Yeager").
Regarding claims 17 and 28: Yeager teaches all of the features of claims 1 and 17, as outlined above. Yeager further teaches an organic light emitting diode where the organometallic compounds of Yeager are used in the emitting material layer {paragraph [0170] describes use of the organometallic compounds of Yeager in device examples, pg. 165}.
Yeager does not explicitly teach use of the modified compound of Yeager (modified compound 1 of Yeager) in the emitting material layer of the organic light emitting device.
However, Yeager does teach use of similar compounds in the emitting material layer of the organic light emitting device.
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 modified organometallic compound taught by Yeager by placing it in in the emitting material layer of the organic light emitting device. The substitution of known elements for other known elements in the organic light emitting device given by Yeager would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Given that the choices were known and disclosed by Yeager, the substitution would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations for an optimal organometallic compound for an optimal organic light-emitting device.
Regarding claims 17 and 32: Yeager teaches all of the features of claims 1 and 17, as outlined above. Yeager further teaches an organic light emitting device including a substrate and the organic light emitting diode of the instant claim 17 disposed over the substrate {Figures 1 and 2, showing substrate 110; Descriptions of Figures 1 and 2 in paragraph [109-110], pg. 109}.
Yeager does not explicitly teach use of the modified compound of Yeager (modified compound 1 of Yeager) in the organic light emitting device with the organic light emitting diode disposed over a substrate.
However, Yeager does teach use of similar iridium complexes in the organic light emitting device with the organic light emitting diode disposed over a substrate.
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 modified organometallic compound taught by Yeager and put it in an organic light emitting device with the organic light emitting diode disposed over a substrate. The substitution of known elements for other known elements in the organic light emitting device given by Yeager would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Given that the choices were known and disclosed by Yeager, the substitution would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations for an optimal organometallic compound for an optimal organic light-emitting device.
Claims 17, 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeager et al. (US 20210095196 A1) (hereafter "Yeager) in view of Liao et al. (US US20030170491 A1) (hereafter "Liao").
Regarding claims 17 and 29: Yeager in view of Liao teaches all of the features of claims 1 and 17, as outlined above.
Yeager does not teach an organic light emitting diode wherein the emissive layer includes a second emitting part disposed between the first emitting part and the second electrode and including a second emitting material layer, and a first charge generation layer disposed between the first emitting part and the second emitting part.
Additionally, Yeager does not explicitly teach stacked (or tandem) OLED devices.
However, Yeager does teach that the devices taught by Yeager can be used in stacked OLED devices {paragraph [0113], pg. 110}.
Liao teaches that stacked OLEDs greatly improve the luminance efficiency and brightness {paragraph [0051], pg. 3; paragraph [0070], pg. 5}. Liao also teaches that each emitting part contains more than one layer, including an emitting material layer, and the emitting parts are separated by a doped organic connector that functions as the charge generation layer {paragraph [0049], pg. 3; paragraph [0054], pg. 3}.
Additionally, Liao teaches that stacked OLEDs are preferably composed of two or more stacked emitting parts {paragraph [0051], pg. 3}.
Additionally, Yeager does not explicitly teach use of the modified compound of Yeager in at least one of the first emitting material layer and the second emitting material layer.
However, Yeager does teach use of similar organometallic compounds in an organic light emitting diode in an organic light emitting device.
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the modified organometallic compound taught by Yeager in a multilayer emitting material layer separated from other emitting parts by a charge generation layer in a stacked OLED device to improve the luminance efficiency and brightness of the organic light emitting device, as taught by Liao.
Regarding claims 17, 29, and 30: Yeager in view of Liao teaches all of the features of claims 1, 17, and 29, as outlined above.
Yeager does not explicitly teach a second emitting material layer that includes a first layer disposed between the first charge generation layer and the second electrode and a second layer disposed between the first layer and the second electrode, wherein one of the first layer and the second layer includes the modified organometallic compound of Yeager.
Liao teaches that stacked OLEDs greatly improve the luminance efficiency and brightness {paragraph [0051], pg. 3; paragraph [0070], pg. 5}. Liao also teaches that each emitting part contains more than one layer, including an emitting material layer, and the emitting parts are separated by a doped organic connector that functions as the charge generation layer {paragraph [0049], pg. 3; paragraph [0054], pg. 3}.
Additionally, Liao teaches that stacked OLEDs are preferably composed of two or more stacked emitting parts {paragraph [0051], pg. 3}.
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the modified organometallic compound taught by Yeager in a multilayer emitting material layer separated from other emitting parts by a charge generation layer in a stacked OLED device to improve the luminance efficiency and brightness of the organic light emitting device, as taught by Liao.
Regarding claims 17, 29, 30, and 31: Yeager in view of Liao teaches all of the features of claims 1, 17, 29, and 30, as outlined above.
Yeager does not teach a third emitting part disposed between the second emitting part and the second electrode and including a third emitting material layer, with a second charge generation layer disposed between the second emitting part and the third emitting part.
Liao teaches that stacked OLEDs are preferably composed of two or more stacked emitting parts {paragraph [0051], pg. 3}.
Liao teaches that stacked OLEDs greatly improve the luminance efficiency and brightness {paragraph [0051], pg. 3; paragraph [0070], pg. 5}. Liao also teaches that each emitting part contains more than one layer, including an emitting material layer, and the emitting parts are separated by a doped organic connector that functions as the charge generation layer {paragraph [0049], pg. 3; paragraph [0054], pg. 3}.
Additionally, Liao teaches that stacked OLEDs are preferably composed of two or more stacked emitting parts {paragraph [0051], pg. 3}.
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the modified organometallic compound taught by Yeager in a multilayer emitting material layer separated from other emitting parts by a charge generation layer in a stacked OLED device to improve the luminance efficiency and brightness of the organic light emitting device, as taught by Liao.
Claims 1-5, 8-9, 12, 17-21, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeager et al. (US 20210095196 A1) (hereafter "Yeager) in view of Stossel et al. (US20060127696A1) (hereafter "Stossel").
Regarding claims 1 & 17: Yeager teaches an organometallic compound represented by the instant Chemical Formula 1, Ir(LA)m(LB)n, wherein LB is an auxiliary ligand and LA has the structure of the instant Chemical Formula 2, shown below {pg. 189}.
Instant Chemical Formula 1
PNG
media_image1.png
505
304
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Organometallic compound taught by Yeager
PNG
media_image2.png
4
10
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Yeager teaches that R1 to R3 are independently hydrogen, each one of X1 to X4 is independently CR4 or N, where at least one of X1 to X4 is N, and each of R4 is independently hydrogen.
Yeager does not explicitly teach the organometallic compound wherein each of X5 to X10 is independently CR5, N, or a carbon atom linked to the ring including R3 and at least another two of X5 to X10 are CR5.
However, Stossel teaches that substitution of an aryl group to a 2-phenylpyridine-based iridium compound greatly improves solubility of the compound {column 24, lines 65-67; column 25, lines 1-3}.
Further, Yeager teaches that the ligands of the disclosure of Yeager can have the structure of Formula 1 of Yeager, shown below, where rings A and B may be 6-membered carbocyclic or heterocyclic rings such as 2-phenylpyridine, and that RA and RB may be independently hydrogen or a substituent represented by Formula IV, and where G1 to G8 of Formula IV of Yeager can be C and RIV can be a combination of an aryl group and an alkyl substituent {Formula 1, pg. 1, paragraph [0008-0012]; Formula IV, pg. 2, paragraph [0020]}.
Formula 1 of Yeager
PNG
media_image3.png
273
233
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Structure of Formula IV of Yeager
PNG
media_image4.png
152
2
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, Yeager in view of Stossel teaches that each of X6, X7, X9, X10 is independently CR5 where each of R5 is independently hydrogen, X5 is a carbon atom linked to the ring including R3, and X8 is independently CR5 where R5 is independently an unsubstituted alkyl group.
Additionally, Yeager teaches that the auxiliary ligand of Yeager can have the following general structure, wherein Y1 to Y8 of Yeager can be C and Ra and Rb can be independently hydrogen or an alkyl group, respectively {pg. 35, paragraph [0077]}.
General structure of auxiliary ligand of Yeager
PNG
media_image5.png
195
103
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the modified organometallic compound taught by Yeager in view of Stossel by substituting the quinolinyl substituent with an aryl group, substituted with a methyl group, and by substituting the auxiliary ligand with a methyl group, as shown below. The substitution of known elements for other known elements in the general structural formulae given by Yeager would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Further, given that the choices were known and disclosed by Yeager, the substitution would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success. It would also have been obvious to try the modified compound of Yeager in an organic light emitting diode, given that the choices were known and disclosed by Yeager. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations for an optimal organometallic compound for an optimal organic light-emitting device.
Modified compound 1 of Yeager
PNG
media_image6.png
487
563
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1, 2, and 18: Yeager in view of Stossel teaches all of the features of claims 1 and 17, as outlined above. Further, the modified compound 1 of Yeager as outlined above teaches the instant Chemical Formula 3, shown below, wherein each of X15, X16, X18, X19 is independently CR5 where each of R5 is independently hydrogen, and X17 is independently CR5 where R5 is independently an unsubstituted alkyl group.
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try with a reasonable expectation of success in modifying and using the modified compound of Yeager as taught by Stossel in an organic light emitting diode, given that the choices were known and disclosed by Yeager. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations for an optimal organometallic compound for an optimal organic light-emitting device.
Instant Chemical Formula 3
PNG
media_image7.png
421
376
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1, 3, and 19: Yeager in view of Stossel teaches all of the features of claims 1 and 17, as outlined above. Further, the modified compound 1 of Yeager as outlined above teaches the instant Chemical Formula 4, shown below, wherein each of X11 to X13 is independently CR12 and X14 is N, R12 is independently hydrogen, R11 is an unsubstituted alkyl group, and the b1 is 1.
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try with a reasonable expectation of success in modifying and using the modified compound of Yeager as taught by Stossel in an organic light emitting diode, given that the choices were known and disclosed by Yeager. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations for an optimal organometallic compound for an optimal organic light-emitting device.
Instant Chemical Formula 4
PNG
media_image8.png
409
417
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1, 4, and 20: Yeager in view of Stossel teaches all of the features of claims 1 and 17, as outlined above. Further, the modified compound 1 of Yeager as outlined above teaches the instant Chemical Formula 5, shown below, wherein each of X21 to X23 is independently CR22 and X24 is N, R22 is independently hydrogen, R21 is an unsubstituted alkyl group, and the c1 is 1.
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try with a reasonable expectation of success in modifying and using the modified compound of Yeager as taught by Stossel in an organic light emitting diode, given that the choices were known and disclosed by Yeager. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations for an optimal organometallic compound for an optimal organic light-emitting device.
Instant Chemical Formula 5
PNG
media_image9.png
405
444
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1, 5, and 21: Yeager in view of Stossel teaches all of the features of claims 1 and 17, as outlined above. Further, the modified compound 1 of Yeager as outlined above teaches the instant Chemical Formula 6, shown below, wherein each of X11 to X13 is independently CR12 and X14 is N, R12 is independently hydrogen, each of X25, X26, X28, X29 is independently CR23 where each of R23 is independently hydrogen, and X27 is independently CR23 where R23 is independently an unsubstituted alkyl group.
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try with a reasonable expectation of success in modifying and using the modified compound of Yeager as taught by Stossel in an organic light emitting diode, given that the choices were known and disclosed by Yeager. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations for an optimal organometallic compound for an optimal organic light-emitting device.
Instant Chemical Formula 6
PNG
media_image10.png
415
387
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 24: Yeager in view of Stossel teaches all of the features of claims 1 and 17, as outlined above. Further, the modified compound 1 of Yeager as outlined above teaches an auxiliary ligand with the structure of the instant Chemical Formula 9A, shown below, wherein each of R51 and R52 is independently hydrogen except one R51 that is an unsubstituted alkyl group.
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try with a reasonable expectation of success in modifying and using the modified compound of Yeager as taught by Stossel in an organic light emitting diode, given that the choices were known and disclosed by Yeager. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations for an optimal organometallic compound for an optimal organic light-emitting device.
Instant Chemical Formula 9A
PNG
media_image11.png
281
224
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 25: Yeager in view of Stossel teaches all of the features of claims 1 and 17, as outlined above. Further, the modified compound 1 of Yeager as outlined above teaches that one of X1 to X4 is N, and each of others of X1 to X4 is independently CR4 where R4 is independently hydrogen, each of X6, X7, X9, X10 is independently CR5 where each of R5 is independently hydrogen, X5 is a carbon atom linked to the ring including R3, and X8 is independently CR5 where R5 is independently an unsubstituted alkyl group.
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try with a reasonable expectation of success in modifying and using the modified compound of Yeager as taught by Stossel in an organic light emitting diode, given that the choices were known and disclosed by Yeager. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations for an optimal organometallic compound for an optimal organic light-emitting device.
Regarding claim 1, 12: Yeager in view of Stossel teaches all of the features of claim 1, as outlined above. Further, the modified compound 1 of Yeager as outlined above teaches the instant organometallic compound 1.
Claims 1, 6-8, 11, 15, 22, 23, 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeager et al. (US 20210095196 A1) (hereafter "Yeager") in view of Stossel et al. (US20060127696A1) (hereafter "Stossel").
Regarding claims 1, 6, 8, and 22: Yeager in view of Stossel teaches an organometallic compound represented by the instant Chemical Formula 1, Ir(LA)m(LB)n, wherein LB is an auxiliary ligand and the ligand LA has the structure of Chemical Formula 7, shown below {claim 43, pg. 174}.
Instant Chemical Formula 7
PNG
media_image12.png
409
425
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Ligand LA taught by Yeager
PNG
media_image13.png
202
204
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Yeager teaches that R1 to R3 are independently hydrogen, each one of X32 and X33 is independently CR32, where X31 and X34 are N, and each of R32 is independently hydrogen.
Yeager does not explicitly teach the arylation of the quinoxalinyl substituent on 2-phenylpyridine.
However, Stossel teaches that substitution of an aryl group to a 2-phenylpyridine-based iridium compound greatly improves solubility of the compound {column 24, lines 65-67; column 25, lines 1-3}.
Additionally, Yeager teaches that the ligands of the disclosure of Yeager can have the structure of Formula 1 of Yeager, shown below, where rings A and B may be 6-membered carbocyclic or heterocyclic rings such as 2-phenylpyridine, and that RA and RB may be independently hydrogen or a substituent represented by Formula IV, and where G1 to G8 of Formula IV of Yeager can be C and RIV can be a combination of an aryl group and an alkyl substituent {Formula 1, pg. 1, paragraph [0008-0012]; Formula IV, pg. 2, paragraph [0020]}. Therefore, Yeager teaches the arylation of the quinoxalinyl substituent on 2-phenylpyridine.
Formula 1 of Yeager
PNG
media_image3.png
273
233
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Structure of Formula IV of Yeager
PNG
media_image4.png
152
2
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Additionally, Yeager teaches that the auxiliary ligand of Yeager can have the following general structure, wherein Y1 to Y8 of Yeager can be C and Ra and Rb can be independently hydrogen or an alkyl group, respectively {pg. 35, paragraph [0077]}.
General structure of auxiliary ligand of Yeager
PNG
media_image5.png
195
103
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the modified organometallic compound taught by Yeager by substituting the quinoxalinyl substituent with an aryl group as taught by Stossel, substituted with a methyl group, and by substituting the auxiliary ligand with a methyl group, as shown below, which should result in a more soluble organometallic compound. The substitution of known elements for other known elements in the general structural formulae given by Yeager would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Further, given that the choices were known and disclosed by Yeager, the substitution would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success. It would also have been obvious to try the modified compound of Yeager in an organic light emitting diode, given that the choices were known and disclosed by Yeager. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations for an optimal organometallic compound for an optimal organic light-emitting device.
Modified compound 2 of Yeager
PNG
media_image14.png
480
578
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1, 7, 8, 22, and 23: Yeager in view of Stossel teaches all of the features of claims 1, 6, and 22, as outlined above. Further, the modified compound 2 of Yeager as outlined above teaches the instant Chemical Formula 8, shown below, wherein each of X42 and X43 is independently CR42 and X41 and X44 are N, R42 is independently hydrogen, R41 is independently an unsubstituted alkyl group, and e1 is 1.
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try with a reasonable expectation of success in modifying and using the modified compound of Yeager as taught by Stossel in an organic light emitting diode, given that the choices were known and disclosed by Yeager. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations for an optimal organometallic compound for an optimal organic light-emitting device.
Instant Chemical Formula 8
PNG
media_image15.png
411
423
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1, 8, 11, 22, and 27: Yeager in view of Stossel teaches all of the features of claims 1, 6, and 22, as outlined above. Further, the modified compound 2 of Yeager as outlined above teaches that each of X1 and X4 are independently N and each of X2 and X3 are CR4, where each R4 is independently hydrogen, X5 is a carbon atom linked to the ring including R3, each of X6, X7, X9, and X10 is independently CR5, and X8 is independently CR5 where R5 is independently an unsubstituted alkyl group.
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try with a reasonable expectation of success in modifying and using the modified compound of Yeager as taught by Stossel in an organic light emitting diode, given that the choices were known and disclosed by Yeager. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations for an optimal organometallic compound for an optimal organic light-emitting device.
Regarding claims 1, 8, 15, and 22: Yeager in view of Stossel teaches all of the features of claims 1, 6, and 22, as outlined above. Further, the modified compound 2 of Yeager as outlined above teaches the instant organometallic compound 125.
Claims 1, 8, and 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeager et al. (US 20210095196 A1) (hereafter "Yeager") in view of Stossel et al. (US20060127696A1) (hereafter "Stossel").
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 13: Yeager in view of Stossel teaches an organometallic compound represented by the instant Chemical Formula 1, Ir(LA)m(LB)n, wherein LB is an auxiliary ligand and LA has the structure of the instant Chemical Formula 2 {pg. 189}.
Organometallic compound taught by Yeager
PNG
media_image2.png
4
10
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Yeager teaches that R1 to R3 are independently hydrogen, each one of X1 to X4 is independently CR4 or N, where at least one of X1 to X4 is N, and each of R4 is independently hydrogen.
Yeager does not explicitly teach the organometallic compound wherein each of X5 to X10 is independently CR5, N, or a carbon atom linked to the ring including R3 and at least another two of X5 to X10 are CR5.
However, Stossel teaches that substitution of an aryl group to a 2-phenylpyridine-based iridium compound greatly improves solubility of the compound {column 24, lines 65-67; column 25, lines 1-3}.
Additionally, Yeager teaches that the ligands of the disclosure of Yeager can have the structure of Formula 1 of Yeager, shown below, where rings A and B may be 6-membered carbocyclic or heterocyclic rings such as 2-phenylpyridine, and that RA and RB may be independently hydrogen or a substituent represented by Formula IV, and where G1 to G8 of Formula IV of Yeager can be C and RIV can be independently substituted and unsubstituted aryl groups, and RIV independently represents up to a maximum allowed substitution to its associated ring {Formula 1, pg. 1, paragraph [0008-0012]; Formula IV, pg. 2, paragraph [0020]}. Therefore, Yeager teaches that each of X6, X7, X9, X10 is independently CR5 where each of R5 is independently hydrogen, and X5 is a carbon atom linked to the ring including R3, and X8 is CR5 where R5 is an unsubstituted alkyl group.
Formula 1 of Yeager
PNG
media_image3.png
273
233
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Structure of Formula IV of Yeager
PNG
media_image4.png
152
2
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Additionally, Yeager teaches that the auxiliary ligand of Yeager can have the following general structure, wherein Y1 to Y8 of Yeager can be C and Ra and Rb can be independently hydrogen or an alkyl group, respectively {pg. 35, paragraph [0077]}.
General structure of auxiliary ligand of Yeager
PNG
media_image5.png
195
103
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the modified organometallic compound taught by Yeager by substituting the quinolinyl substituent with two aryl groups, one substituted and one unsubstituted, shown below, as taught by Stossel, which would greatly improve solubility. The substitution of known elements for other known elements in the general structural formulae given by Yeager would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Further, given that the choices were known and disclosed by Yeager, the substitution would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success. It would also have been obvious to try the modified compound of Yeager in an organic light emitting diode, given that the choices were known and disclosed by Yeager. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations for an optimal organometallic compound for an optimal organic light-emitting device.
Modified compound 4 of Yeager
PNG
media_image17.png
506
572
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Claims 1, 8, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeager et al. (US 20210095196 A1) (hereafter "Yeager") in view of Stossel et al. (US20060127696A1) (hereafter "Stossel") and King et al. (DOI: 10.1002/adfm.200500881) (hereafter "King").
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 16: Yeager in view of Stossel teaches an organometallic compound represented by the instant Chemical Formula 1, Ir(LA)m(LB)n, wherein LB is an auxiliary ligand and the ligand LA has the structure of Chemical Formula 2 {claim 43, pg. 174}.
Ligand LA taught by Yeager
PNG
media_image13.png
202
204
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Yeager teaches that R1 to R3 are independently hydrogen, each one of X32 and X33 is independently CR32, where X31 and X34 are N, and each of R32 is independently hydrogen.
Yeager does not explicitly teach the arylation of the quinoxalinyl substituent on 2-phenylpyridine.
However, Stossel teaches that substitution of an aryl group to a 2-phenylpyridine-based iridium compound greatly improves solubility of the compound {column 24, lines 65-67; column 25, lines 1-3}.
Addtionally, Yeager teaches that the ligands of the disclosure of Yeager can have the structure of Formula 1 of Yeager, shown below, where rings A and B may be 6-membered carbocyclic or heterocyclic rings such as 2-phenylpyridine, and that RA and RB may be independently hydrogen or a substituent represented by Formula IV, and where G1 to G8 of Formula IV of Yeager can be C and RIV can be independently substituted and unsubstituted aryl groups, and RIV independently represents up to a maximum allowed substitution to its associated ring {Formula 1, pg. 1, paragraph [0008-0012]; Formula IV, pg. 2, paragraph [0020]}. Therefore, Yeager teaches the arylation of the quinoxalinyl substituent on 2-phenylpyridine.
Formula 1 of Yeager
PNG
media_image3.png
273
233
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Structure of Formula IV of Yeager
PNG
media_image4.png
152
2
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Additionally, Yeager teaches that the auxiliary ligand of Yeager can have the following general structure, wherein Y1 to Y8 of Yeager can be C and Ra and Rb can be independently hydrogen or an alkyl group, respectively {pg. 35, paragraph [0077]}.
General structure of auxiliary ligand of Yeager
PNG
media_image5.png
195
103
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Yeager does not teach a t-butyl substitution on 2-phenylpyridine.
However, King teaches that t-butyl substitutions lead to an increase in device performance due to the prevention of Dexter-type energy transfer by increasing the steric bulk of the ligand.
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the modified organometallic compound taught by Yeager by substituting the quinoxalinyl substituent with substituted and unsubstituted aryl groups, as taught by Stossel to improve solubility of the organometallic compound, and by substituting the auxiliary ligand with a methyl group, as shown below. The substitution of known elements for other known elements in the general structural formulae given by Yeager would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Further, given that the choices were known and disclosed by Yeager, the substitution would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success. It would also have been obvious to try the modified compound of Yeager in an organic light emitting diode, given that the choices were known and disclosed by Yeager. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the organometallic complex taught by Yeager with a t-butyl substitution to increase device performance by preventing Dexter-type energy transfer by increasing the steric bulk of the ligand, as taught by King.
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations for an optimal organometallic compound for an optimal organic light-emitting device.
Modified compound 6 of Yeager
PNG
media_image19.png
542
564
media_image19.png
Greyscale
Claims 17, 28, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeager et al. (US 20210095196 A1) (hereafter "Yeager) in view of Stossel et al. (US20060127696A1) (hereafter "Stossel").
Regarding claims 17 and 28: Yeager in view of Stossel teaches all of the features of claims 1 and 17, as outlined above. Yeager further teaches an organic light emitting diode where the organometallic compounds of Yeager are used in the emitting material layer {paragraph [0170] describes use of the organometallic compounds of Yeager in device examples, pg. 165}.
Yeager does not explicitly teach use of the modified compound of Yeager (modified compound 1 of Yeager) in the emitting material layer of the organic light emitting device.
However, Yeager does teach use of similar compounds in the emitting material layer of the organic light emitting device.
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 modified organometallic compound taught by Yeager in view of Stossel by placing it in in the emitting material layer of the organic light emitting device. The substitution of known elements for other known elements in the organic light emitting device given by Yeager would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Given that the choices were known and disclosed by Yeager, the substitution would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations for an optimal organometallic compound for an optimal organic light-emitting device.
Regarding claims 17 and 32: Yeager in view of Stossel teaches all of the features of claims 1 and 17, as outlined above. Yeager further teaches an organic light emitting device including a substrate and the organic light emitting diode of the instant claim 17 disposed over the substrate {Figures 1 and 2, showing substrate 110; Descriptions of Figures 1 and 2 in paragraph [109-110], pg. 109}.
Yeager does not explicitly teach use of the modified compound of Yeager (modified compound 1 of Yeager) in the organic light emitting device with the organic light emitting diode disposed over a substrate.
However, Yeager does teach use of similar organometallic complexes in the organic light emitting device with the organic light emitting diode disposed over a substrate.
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 modified organometallic compound taught by Yeager in view of Stossel and put it in an organic light emitting device with the organic light emitting diode disposed over a substrate. The substitution of known elements for other known elements in the organic light emitting device given by Yeager would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Given that the choices were known and disclosed by Yeager, the substitution would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations for an optimal organometallic compound for an optimal organic light-emitting device.
Claims 17, 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeager et al. (US 20210095196 A1) (hereafter "Yeager) in view of Stossel et al. (US20060127696A1) (hereafter "Stossel") and Liao et al. (US US20030170491 A1) (hereafter "Liao").
Regarding claims 17 and 29: Yeager in view of Stossel in view of Liao teaches all of the features of claims 1 and 17, as outlined above.
Yeager does not teach an organic light emitting diode wherein the emissive layer includes a second emitting part disposed between the first emitting part and the second electrode and including a second emitting material layer, and a first charge generation layer disposed between the first emitting part and the second emitting part.
Additionally, Yeager does not explicitly teach stacked (or tandem) OLED devices.
However, Yeager does teach that the devices taught by Yeager can be used in stacked OLED devices {paragraph [0113], pg. 110}.
Liao teaches that stacked OLEDs greatly improve the luminance efficiency and brightness {paragraph [0051], pg. 3; paragraph [0070], pg. 5}. Liao also teaches that each emitting part contains more than one layer, including an emitting material layer, and the emitting parts are separated by a doped organic connector that functions as the charge generation layer {paragraph [0049], pg. 3; paragraph [0054], pg. 3}.
Additionally, Liao teaches that stacked OLEDs are preferably composed of two or more stacked emitting parts {paragraph [0051], pg. 3}.
Additionally, Yeager does not explicitly teach use of the modified compound of Yeager in at least one of the first emitting material layer and the second emitting material layer.
However, Yeager does teach use of similar organometallic compounds in an organic light emitting diode in an organic light emitting device.
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the modified organometallic compound taught by Yeager in view of Stossel in a multilayer emitting material layer separated from other emitting parts by a charge generation layer in a stacked OLED device to improve the luminance efficiency and brightness of the organic light emitting device, as taught by Liao.
Regarding claims 17, 29, and 30: Yeager in view of Stossel in view of Liao teaches all of the features of claims 1, 17, and 29, as outlined above.
Yeager in view of Stossel does not explicitly teach a second emitting material layer that includes a first layer disposed between the first charge generation layer and the second electrode and a second layer disposed between the first layer and the second electrode, wherein one of the first layer and the second layer includes the modified organometallic compound of Yeager.
Liao teaches that stacked OLEDs greatly improve the luminance efficiency and brightness {paragraph [0051], pg. 3; paragraph [0070], pg. 5}. Liao also teaches that each emitting part contains more than one layer, including an emitting material layer, and the emitting parts are separated by a doped organic connector that functions as the charge generation layer {paragraph [0049], pg. 3; paragraph [0054], pg. 3}.
Additionally, Liao teaches that stacked OLEDs are preferably composed of two or more stacked emitting parts {paragraph [0051], pg. 3}.
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the modified organometallic compound taught by Yeager in view of Stossel in a multilayer emitting material layer separated from other emitting parts by a charge generation layer in a stacked OLED device to improve the luminance efficiency and brightness of the organic light emitting device, as taught by Liao.
Regarding claims 17, 29, 30, and 31: Yeager in view of Stossel in view of Liao teaches all of the features of claims 1, 17, 29, and 30, as outlined above.
Yeager in view of Stossel does not teach a third emitting part disposed between the second emitting part and the second electrode and including a third emitting material layer, with a second charge generation layer disposed between the second emitting part and the third emitting part.
Liao teaches that stacked OLEDs are preferably composed of two or more stacked emitting parts {paragraph [0051], pg. 3}.
Liao teaches that stacked OLEDs greatly improve the luminance efficiency and brightness {paragraph [0051], pg. 3; paragraph [0070], pg. 5}. Liao also teaches that each emitting part contains more than one layer, including an emitting material layer, and the emitting parts are separated by a doped organic connector that functions as the charge generation layer {paragraph [0049], pg. 3; paragraph [0054], pg. 3}.
Additionally, Liao teaches that stacked OLEDs are preferably composed of two or more stacked emitting parts {paragraph [0051], pg. 3}.
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the modified organometallic compound taught by Yeager in view of Stossel in a multilayer emitting material layer separated from other emitting parts by a charge generation layer in a stacked OLED device to improve the luminance efficiency and brightness of the organic light emitting device, as taught by Liao.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANCES YAU whose telephone number is (571)272-0570. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 08:00-17:30.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571)270-7692. 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.
/Frances Yau/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights