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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 08/25/2022.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1–17 recite a metal complex comprising a metal M and at least one C^N bidentate ligand La coordinated to the metal M; the metal M is selected form a metal with a relative atomic mass greater than 40; an area ratio of a photoluminescence spectrum of the metal complex at room temperature is AR, wherein AR ≤ 0.331; and in a top-emitting device comprising the metal complex, when the top-emitting device reaches maximum current efficiency, the corresponding color coordinates are measured as CIE (x, y); and a distance between the CIE (x, y) and color coordinates CIE (0.170, 0.797) is calculated as D; wherein CIEy ≥ 0.797 or D ≤ 0.0320.
Per MPEP 2163(II)(A)(3)(a)(ii), the written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by (A) actual reduction to practice, (B) reduction to drawings, or (C) by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the applicant was in possession of the claimed genus. A "representative number of species" means that the species which are adequately described are representative of the entire genus. Thus, when there is substantial variation within the genus, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus
The claims require the limitations described above. The specification only provides five examples of organic electroluminescent devices that meet these requirements [Table 2 and Table 4]. Notably, there are only three metal complexes provided in the specification that meet the claimed AR requirement [Table 1]. The only description of AR in the instant specification is to describe how it is calculated [00185] – [00189]. The specification provides exceptionally broad guidance on what materials might be useable to meet the claimed properties of the metal complex and no further description of other means of identifying which species would possess the common structural characteristics or shared trait which would result in an AR value that would fall within the claimed AR range. For example, the metal complex may comprise any metal with an atomic mass greater than 40 and may have any ligand structure so long as it meets the AR requirement. Claim 15 recites that the metal complex is represented by Formula 1 or Formula 2, however the formulae are broad and do not require a structural feature which leads to an AR within the claimed range. The instant specification has given no guidance as to which structural feature causes a metal complex to have an AR value that falls within the claimed range. Therefore, the instant specification fails to provide relevant identifying characteristics sufficient to show applicant was in possession of the claimed genus. Additionally, the limited number of examples described in the written description do not provide a representative number of species sufficient to show that applicant was in possession of the claimed genus.
Therefore, the claims are rejected as lacking adequate written description.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 4–7, 9 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 2, 4–7, 9 16, and 17 all recite “preferably” followed by a limitation. It is unclear if the limitation following “preferably” is required or optional. Therefore, claims 2, 4–7, 9 16, and 17 are indefinite.
Claims 2, 4–7, 9 16, and 17 will be interpreted as not requiring the limitation after “preferably”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 1–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Cai et al. (US 2020/0251666 A1, hereinafter “Cai”) in view of Huang et al. (Chinese Chemical Letters, 2007, 18, 1119-1123, hereinafter “Huang”), and evidenced by Ossila (DIC-TRZ CAS Number 1024598-01-3, hereinafter “Ossila”). Huang and Ossila were provided in this Office Action.
Regarding Claims 1–17, Cai discloses the organic light emitting device of Example 9 [Table 1], including an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer, an emissive layer, a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode [0211], wherein the emissive layer comprises Complex 102 [0208] (shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
222
314
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Cai is silent with respect to the area ratio of a photoluminescence spectrum at room temperature (AR) of complex 102.
Complex 102 is represented by Cai’s Formula 2 [0092] (shown below), wherein Ra is an alkyl group having 1 carbon atom (methyl), and R3 is a hydrogen. Cai teaches Ra and R3 may be an alkyl group having 4 carbon atoms [0098]. Cai further teaches that t-butyl is a preferred alkyl group [0042]. Additionally, Cai teaches La850 wherein R3 is a t-butyl group [pg. 150]. Cai further teaches the complexes have a very narrow peak width of emitted light which leads to a greatly improved color saturation [0024].
PNG
media_image2.png
238
354
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
273
269
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, Cai does not disclose a complex like in Complex 102 wherein Ra and R3 are each a t-butyl group.
Huang teaches iridium(III) complexes which comprise a tert-butyl substituent [abstract]. Huang further teaches the addition of the tert-butyl group increases steric hindrance and therefore decreases the intramolecular interactions and inhibit concentration quenching [pg. 1122].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a tert-butyl group for Ra and R3 in Complex 102, based on the teaching of Cai in view of Huang. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase the steric hindrance and thereby inhibit concentration quenching, as taught by Huang.
Per Claims 1 and 14, Example 9 comprising the modified version of Complex 102, as described above (hereinafter “Modified 102”), reads on Applicant’s limitation since it includes a cathode, an anode, and an emissive layer comprising Modified 102. Modified 102 has the general formula of M(La)m(Lb)n(Lc)q, wherein M is Ir which has an atomic mass of 77, m is 1, q is 0, n is 2 and therefore Lb is the same. Modified 102 comprises a C^N bidentate ligand La coordinated to the metal M.
PNG
media_image4.png
251
296
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, Modified 102 is silent with respect to its AR value.
The instant specification recites that Metal Complex 17 has an AR value of 0.321 [Table 1]. Since Modified 102 is the same structure as Metal Complex 17 as disclosed by the Applicant, the property of AR is inherent (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP 2112.
Additionally, Example 9 is a bottom-emitting device and therefore the further limitations of a top-emitting device do not apply to Example 9.
Per Claim 2, Modified 102 is silent with respect to its λmax and FWHM values.
The instant specification recites that Metal Complex 17 has a λmax value of 520 nm [Table 1] and a FWHM value of 30.1 nm [Table 3]. Since Modified 102 is the same structure as Metal Complex 17 as disclosed by the Applicant, the property of λmax and FWHM is inherent (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP 2112.
Per Claim 3, Example 9 is a bottom-emitting device and therefore Applicant’s further limitation of D, a parameter for top-emitting devices, does not apply.
Per Claim 4, Modified 102 is silent with respect to its EHOMO value.
The instant specification recites that Metal Complex 17 has an EHOMO value of -5.193 [00191]. Since Modified 102 is the same structure as Metal Complex 17 as disclosed by the Applicant, the property of EHOMO is inherent (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP 2112.
Per Claim 5, Modified 102 is silent with respect to its ELUMO value.
The instant specification recites that Metal Complex 17 has an ELUMO value of -2.371 [00191]. Since Modified 102 is the same structure as Metal Complex 17 as disclosed by the Applicant, the property of ELUMO is inherent (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP 2112.
Per Claim 6, Cai teaches Example 9 which comprises Compound H2 in the emissive layer [Table 1 and pg. 40] (shown below), which has a lowest unoccupied molecular orbital energy level of -2.7 eV, as evidenced by Ossila.
PNG
media_image5.png
302
263
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Per Claim 7, Cai teaches Example 9 which comprises Compound H1 in the emissive layer [Table 1 and pg. 40] (shown below).
PNG
media_image6.png
201
412
media_image6.png
Greyscale
However, Compound H1 is silent with respect to its highest occupied molecular orbital energy level.
The instant specification recites that PH-23 has a highest occupied molecular orbital energy level of -5.45 eV [00191]. Since Compound H1 is the same structure as PH-23 as disclosed by the Applicant, the property of highest occupied molecular orbital energy level is inherent (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP 2112.
Per Claim 8, Compound H2 comprises a triazine group while Compound H1 comprises a carbazole group.
Per Claim 9, Cai teaches Example 9 wherein Compound H1, Compound H2, and Modified 102 are doped in a ratio of 46:46:8 in the emissive layer [Table 1]. Therefore Modified 102 accounts for 8% of the total weight of the emissive layer.
Per Claim 10, Modified 102 has the general formula of M(La)m(Lb)n(Lc)q, wherein M is Ir, m is 1, q is 0, n is 2 and therefore Lb is the same, La has the structure of A–E (i.e. A is bonded to E), wherein A is a heteroaromatic ring having 6 ring atoms (pyridine) with a metal-nitrogen bond, E is a heteroaromatic ring having 13 ring atoms (dibenzofuran) substituted with a tert-butyl group, a cyano group, and a phenyl group substituted with deuterium, Lb has the structure of C–L–D, wherein C is a heteroaromatic ring having 6 ring atoms (pyridine) with a metal-nitrogen bond substituted with a tert-butyl group, L is a single bond, D is an aromatic ring having 6 ring atoms (benzene).
PNG
media_image4.png
251
296
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Per Claim 11, M is Ir in Modified 102.
Per Claim 12, Cai teaches Example 9 wherein the emissive layer comprises Modified 102.
Per Claim 13, Cai teaches the organic light emitting devices of present disclosure may be incorporated into a wide variety of consumer products such as flat panel displays, monitors, vehicle displays … [0033]. Cai further teaches the complexes have a very narrow peak width of emitted light which leads to a greatly improved color saturation [0024].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Example 9 comprising Modified 102, as described above, in a display device, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Cai according to known methods to yield predictable results of a display device with improved color saturation, as taught by Cai. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Per Claims 15–17, Modified 102 reads on Applicant’s Formula 1 (shown below),
PNG
media_image7.png
274
228
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
251
296
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein:
M is Ir which has an atomic mass of 77,
Ring A is a nitrogen-containing heteroatomic ring having 6 ring atoms (pyridine),
Ring E is a heteroaromatic ring having 13 ring atoms and is a fused structure having three rings, wherein the three rings comprise two six-membered rings and one five-membered ring (dibenzofuran),
Ring C is a heteroaromatic ring having 5 carbon atoms (pyridine) wherein Z is N,
Ring D is an aromatic ring having 6 carbon atoms (benzene) wherein Z is C,
L is a single bond,
Ra is hydrogen,
Re is an alkyl group having 4 carbon atoms (tert-butyl), a cyano group, and an aryl group having 6 carbon atoms (phenyl) which is substituted with deuterium,
Rc is an alkyl group having 4 carbon atoms (tert-butyl),
Rd is hydrogen.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES RICHARD FORTWENGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-5433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am - 5 pm.
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.
/J.R.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights