Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicants arguments and amendments, filed on 7/29/26, have been fully considered but they do not confer patentability on all of the instantly filed claims. Applicants have amended independent claim 1 to recite the proviso that when X1 is O, then each R3, if present, is not -Si(Q1)(Q2)(Q3). While this amendment overcomes the prior art rejection to Ko et al. (US 2019/0296254), optionally in view of LeCloux et al. (US 2011/0101312) as written in the previous Office action, Ko et al., optionally in view of LeCloux et al. may still be relied upon as described below. While compounds H3-3, H3-4, and H3-9 can no longer be relied upon due to the newly added proviso, Ko et al. teaches other compounds, such as compound H3-5 which do not apply to this proviso. For this reason, this prior art rejection, while modified, is wholly maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8-14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko et al. (US 2019/0296254), optionally in view of LeCloux et al. (US 2011/0101312).
Claim 1: Ko et al. teaches organic light-emitting devices (OLEDs) and electronic apparatus including the same. Exemplified OLED devices of Ko et al. provides several specific are comprised of an anode, a hole transport region, an emissive region comprising a first compound, a second compound, and a third compound, an electron transport region, and a cathode (abstract and working examples). The first compound in the emission layer is a blue phosphorescent dopant (dopant D8); the second compound is one satisfying general Formula 2 of Ko et al.(paragraph 0015); and the third compound is one satisfying general formula 3 of Ko et al. (paragraph 0015). Specific compounds which satisfy general Formula 1 of Ko et al. are taught in paragraph 0245; specific compounds which satisfy general Formula 2 of Ko et al. are taught in paragraph 0246; and specific compounds which satisfy general Formula 3 of Ko et al. are taught in paragraph 0247.
All of the first compounds taught in paragraph 0245 of Ko et al. (which corresponds to Applicants claimed third compound) are tetradentate platinum phosphorescent complexes which satisfy the limitations regarding the third compound of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13 with compounds D6 and D7 also satisfying the limitations of claims 1 and 8-14. Further, the tetradentate platinum complexes are taught by Ko et al. as being blue light emitters as required by independent claim 1 (paragraphs 0264 and 0471).
All of the second compounds taught in paragraph 0246 of Ko et al. (which corresponds to Applicants claimed first compound) satisfy Formula 2 of independent claim 1 with one, two, or three X21-X23 groups being equal to N, and one or two remaining X21-X23 groups being equal to C(R21)-C(R23), respectively, with one or two R21-R23 being hydrogen. In all of the exemplified second compounds one Ar group is a carbocyclic group (phenyl, tolyl, xylyl, or mesityl), and the remaining two Ar groups are those satisfying R10a or -C(Q1)(Q2)(Q3) or -Si(Q1)(Q2)(Q3).
Of the 28 explicitly taught third compounds taught in paragraph 0247 of Ko et al. (which corresponds to Applicants claimed second compound), compound H3-5, which has the structure,
PNG
media_image1.png
166
144
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 66), satisfies Formula 2 of independent claim 1 with variable X1 equal to O, variable b3 equal to 1, R3 equal to a substituted C3 heteroaryl group, and variable b4 is equal to zero. Given the overall teachings of Ko et al., the selection of a first compound, a second compound, and a third compound which satisfy all of the limitations of independent claim 1 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. For example, to arrive at Applicants claimed invention, one or ordinary skill in the art need only select a different third compound in device examples 1-5. The selection of compound H3-5 in device example 1 instead of H3-2 is an obvious variation and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ such a compound as such combinations are readily envisioned by Ko et al. Such a modification represents a predictable variation of the teachings of Ko et al., as the reference expressly envisions these combinations and provides a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Regarding the deuterium requirement of claim 1, while compound H3-5 is not explicitly illustrated as deuterated, it is a matter of common scientific knowledge that deuterium is a naturally occurring isotope of hydrogen. Consequently, H3-5 inherently contains deuterium atom at natural abundance levels. In the absence of a claim limitation requiring a concentration above natural isotopic abundance, H3-5 inherently satisfies the deuterium requirement.
While Ko et al. renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 1 as described above, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to deuterate at least some of the hydrogen atoms in any one or more of the compounds present in the emission layer given the teachings of LeCloux et al. in amounts greater than the natural isotopic abundance. LeCloux et al. and Ko et al. are combinable teachings as they are both from the same field of organic electroluminescent devices. LeCloux et al. teaches that deuterated analogs of organic compounds have greater air tolerance which greatly improves device lifetimes (paragraphs 0067 and 0171 and Table 2). Compound E1 and comparative compound A are employed as a host material in an organic electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a hole transport region, an emissive region, an electron transport region, and a cathode. Based on the teachings of LeCloux et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to have prepared a deuterated analog of any one or more of the compounds taught by Ko et al., including preparing a deuterated analog of the third compound of Ko et al., including, but not limited to, preparing a deuterated analog of compound H3-5, thereby satisfying all of the device limitations and structural limitations of independent claim 1. Ko et al. additionally teaches that any one of the substituents taught in Formula 3 include deuterium, which further provides motivation for one having ordinary skill in the art to replace one of more hydrogen atoms with deuterium atoms.
Claim 4: Compounds H3-5 satisfies formula 1(2) of claim 4 with all variable assignments being the same as in claim 1.
Claim 6: Some of the second compounds taught by Ko et al. satisfy all of the limitations of claim 6, including, but not necessarily limited to, compounds H2-4 through H2-8, compounds H2-11 through H2-16, compounds H2-19 through H2-24, and compounds H2-35 through H2-40. In each of these compounds, all of Ar1 through Ar3 are comprised of a C(Q1)(Q2)(Q3) group, a Si(Q1)(Q2)(Q3) group, or a p-electron rich tolyl, xylyl, or mesityl group. Applicants definition of a p electron-rich C3-C60 cyclic group does not exclude the p-electron rich groups tolyl, xylyl, or mesityl. These groups are slightly electron rich owing to the electron donating methyl group(s). The incorporation of any one of the aforementioned compounds satisfies the limitations of claim 6.
Claims 8-14: The exemplified blue phosphorescent dopants D5 and D8 satisfy the limitations of claims 8, 9, and 11-13. Further, employment of one of the explicitly taught dopants D6 and D7, which is obvious given the overall teachings of Ko et al., further satisfies the limitations of claims 10 and 14.
Claim 16: The exemplified devices are blue light emitting devices having a maximum luminescent wavelength between about 400 and 500 nm. Further, because Ko et al. renders obvious the preparation of an organic electroluminescent device which satisfies all of the structural limitations of the first, second, and third compounds, it necessarily follows that such a device satisfies Applicants claimed difference between a singlet energy level and a triplet energy level. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. See MPEP 2141.02(V).
Claim 17: Ko et al. teaches that a capping layer may also be included which is located above the second electrode (cathode) and includes the same materials recited in claim 17 (paragraph 0420-0423), thereby satisfying claim 17.
Claim 18: Ko et al. further teaches that the organic light-emitting devices prepared therein may be an electronic apparatus comprising a thin film transistor comprising a source and a drain electrode and the first electrode is electronically couplets to the source electrode or the drain electrode thereby satisfying claim 18 (paragraph 0283).
Claim 19: Ko et al. teaches that the OLEDs may further comprise a first, and optionally a second capping layer, which is located on the cathode and therefore located outside the OLED (Figures 2, 4 and paragraphs 0419-0423). Using broadest reasonable interpretation, the first (and optionally second) capping layer taught by Ko et al. qualifies as an encapsulation portion as required by claim 19 due to the fact that it acts as a physical barrier between the OLED device and the outside environment.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko et al. (US 2019/0296254), optionally in view of LeCloux et al. (US 2011/0101312), further in view of Yamazaki et al. (US 2005/0073247).
Ko et al., optionally in view of LeCloux et al. renders obvious OLEDs and an electronic apparatus which satisfies claims 1 and 18 as described above. While Ko et al. does not explicitly teach that the electronic apparatus taught therein further comprises one of the elements recited in claim 20, it is submitted that the inclusion of at least a color filter layer to the electronic apparatus taught by Ko et al. would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art given the teachings of Yamazaki et al. Ko et al. and Yamazaki et al. are combinable as they are both from the same field of organic electroluminescent devices. Yamazaki et al. teaches that it is often the case that the spectrum of light emitted from a light-emitting element has a broad emission peak which means that the color purity is inferior. Applying a color filter serves to further improve color purity and also the reliability as disclosed in paragraph 0017 of Yamazaki et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to include a color filter to the electronic apparatus taught by Ko et al, the motivation to do so being rooted in the teachings of Yamazaki et al., thereby satisfying claim 20.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 3 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The compounds disclosed by Ko et al. are mutually exclusive from compounds where X1 is N-[(L1)a1-(R1)b1] as required by claim 2 or that X1 is one of C(R1)(R2), Si(R1)(R2), N-[(L1)a1-(R1)b1], and S as required by claim 3. Claims 5, 7, and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims for reasons already of record.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT S LOEWE whose telephone number is (571)270-3298. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8 AM to 5 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-1302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Robert S Loewe/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights