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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: It's been noted that there are multiple chemical structures with poor resolution. Applicant is advised to review the specification and ensure the quality and resolution of the chemical structures. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
For the purposes of examination, the claims of the instant application have been given their broadest reasonable interpretation. Examiner has interpreted “L2 may be *-C(R8)(R9)-*’” in claims 1 and 11 as not being required in the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 11-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Min (US 20210347798 A1).
Regarding claims 1-5, 7, 11-17, and 20, Min teaches an organic light-emitting device, wherein the first electrode is an anode, the second electrode is a cathode, the organic layer further includes a hole transport region between the first electrode and the emission layer and an electron transport region between the emission layer and the second electrode, and the hole transport region includes a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer, or any combination thereof, and the electron transport region includes a hole blocking layer, and electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, or any combination thereof, and the organometallic compound represented by Formula 1 (page 1) may be included in the emission layer (page 58, paragraphs 0112- 0113). Furthermore, Min teaches that in an embodiment, the emission layer may include a host and a dopant, the host may be any host, and the dopant may include the organometallic compound represented by Formula 1 (page 58, paragraph 0116). Min also teaches that the emission layer may include a host, such as TCP, which reads on formula 3 of instant claim 4 (page 66-67, paragraphs 0160-0161). Min also teaches Compound 1 (page 22). Compound 1 reads on Formula 1 of the instant application and an organometallic compound of claims 12-17, wherein M is platinum, ring CY1 is a pyridine group, ring CY2 is a carbazole group, ring CY3 is a benzene group, ring CY4 is a benzimidazole group, ring CY5 is a C1-C30 heterocyclic group including at least one oxygen atom as a ring-forming atom and ring CY5 is condensed with ring CY1, X12, X13, and X14 are C, L1 and L3 are single bonds, n2 and n3 are 1, R1, R2, R3, and R5 are hydrogen, R4 is a methyl group, and a1 to a5 are each independently an integer from 0 – 10, and L2 is O (see below). Min also teaches that organometallic compounds, such as compound 1, may be included in the dopant of an emission layer, and that such emission layer may emit blue light having a maximum emission wavelength of about 430 nm to about 480 nm (page 58, paragraphs 0118 to 0119 and page 82, Table 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
385
384
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
343
358
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, although the instant claim is drawn to an apparatus, the only positive limitation of the claimed apparatus is the organic light-emitting device of claim 1. Claim 8 does not add any further structural or functional limitations to the device and/or organometallic compound. Min teaches the organic light-emitting device of claim 1, as described above, and does not include any components that would make it unfit for use as an apparatus. Therefore, the organic light-emitting device of Min according to claim 1 may be considered an apparatus.
Regarding claim 18, Min teaches compound 61 (page 30). Compound 61 reads on Formula 1, wherein ring CY4 is represented by formula CY4(5), X14 is C, R41 is a methyl group, R44 is a phenyl group, and b3 is 3 (see below).
PNG
media_image3.png
312
352
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
140
160
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Min (US 20210347798 A1) in view of Lee (US 20220069239 A1).
Regarding claims 1-5, 7, 11-17, 19, and 20, Min teaches an organic light-emitting device, wherein the first electrode is an anode, the second electrode is a cathode, the organic layer further includes a hole transport region between the first electrode and the emission layer and an electron transport region between the emission layer and the second electrode, and the hole transport region includes a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer, or any combination thereof, and the electron transport region includes a hole blocking layer, and electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, or any combination thereof, and the organometallic compound represented by Formula 1 (page 1) may be included in the emission layer (page 58, paragraphs 0112- 0113). Furthermore, Min teaches that in an embodiment, the emission layer may include a host and a dopant, the host may be any host, and the dopant may include the organometallic compound represented by Formula 1 (page 58, paragraph 0016). Min also teaches that the emission layer may include a host, such as TCP, which reads on formula 3 of instant claim 4 (page 66-67, paragraphs 0160-0161). Min also teaches Compound 1 (page 22). Compound 1 reads on Formula 1 of the instant application and an organometallic compound of claims 12-17, wherein M is platinum, ring CY1 is a pyridine group, ring CY2 is a carbazole group, ring CY3 is a benzene group, ring CY4 is a benzimidazole group, ring CY5 is a C1-C30 heterocyclic group including at least one oxygen atom as a ring-forming atom and ring CY5 is condensed with ring CY1, X12, X13, and X14 are C, L1 and L3 are single bonds, n2 and n3 are 1, R1, R2, R3, and R5 are hydrogen, R4 is a methyl group, and a1 to a5 are each independently an integer from 0 – 10, and L2 is O (see below). Min also teaches that organometallic compounds, such as compound 1, may be included in the dopant of an emission layer, and that such emission layer may emit blue light having a maximum emission wavelength of about 430 nm to about 480 nm (page 58, paragraphs 0118 to 0119 and page 82, Table 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
385
384
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
343
358
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Min fails to teach a compound wherein L2 is represented by “*-C(R8)(R9)-*’”, and R8 and R9 are each independently hydrogen or deuterium.
Regarding claim 18, Min teaches compound 61 (page 30). Compound 61 reads on Formula 1, wherein ring CY4 is represented by formula CY4(5), X14 is C, R41 is a methyl group, R44 is a phenyl group, and b3 is 3 (see below).
PNG
media_image3.png
312
352
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
140
160
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, Min fails to teach a compound wherein L2 is represented by “*-C(R8)(R9)-*’”, and R8 and R9 are each independently hydrogen or deuterium.
Lee teaches a plurality of organometallic compounds wherein the link connecting ring CY2 and ring CY3 is represented by “*-C(R8)(R9)-*’”, wherein R8 and R9 may each independently be hydrogen, deuterium, or a plurality of other substituents (US 20220069239 A1, page 1, Formula 1-1 and paragraph 0016). Lee also teaches that organometallic compounds represented by Formula 1-1, in which a linker connecting ring CY2 and ring CY3 is a C atom, have a shorter luminescence wavelength than a compound in which the linker connecting rings CY2 and CY3 is a non-carbon atom (such as an oxygen atom), and thus may be able to emit deep blue light. Thus, the light-emitting device including the organometallic compound may be able to exhibit high color purity and/or color reproducibility (page 47, paragraph 0121).
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 synthesize compound 1 and/or compound 61, in view of Lee, wherein L2 is represented by a carbon-based linker to obtain an organometallic compound that can be included in a light-emitting device, allowing the device to exhibit high color purity and/or color reproducibility.
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 provide compound 1 in a device having the structure of an anode, a hole injecting layer, a hole transporting layer, a light emitting layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injecting layer, and a cathode, wherein compound 1 in view of Lee is provided in the emission layer, because one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected the elements of Min to predictably maintain their respective properties or functions after they have been combined, and this would have been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Regarding claim 8, although the instant claim is drawn to an apparatus, the only positive limitation of the claimed apparatus is the organic light-emitting device of claim 1. Claim 8 does not add any further structural or functional limitations to the device and/or organometallic compound. Min in view of Lee teaches the organic light-emitting device of claim 1, as described above, and does not include any components that would make it unfit for use as an apparatus. Therefore, the organic light-emitting device of Min according to claim 1 may be considered an apparatus.
Regarding claim 9, Min in view of Lee teaches an electronic apparatus as described above. However, Min fails to teach wherein the electronic apparatus further comprises a thin-film transistor, wherein the thin-film transistor comprises a source electrode and a drain electrode, and the first electrode of the light-emitting device is electrically connected to at least one of the source electrode and the drain electrode.
Lee teaches an electronic apparatus which may further include a thin-film transistor, wherein the thin-film transistor comprises a source electrode and a drain electrode, and the first electrode of the light-emitting device is electrically connected to at least one of the source electrode and the drain electrode (page 48, paragraph 0142).
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 the organic light-emitting device of Min in a thin film transistor device with the structure claimed because Lee teaches this application and device structure for OLED devices prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Additionally, it has been held that combining prior art elements according to known methods yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Min (US 20210347798 A1) in view of Lee (US 20220069239 A1) and further in view of Kita (JP 2004103463 A, Patentscope English machine translation).
Regarding claim 6, Min teaches a light-emitting device as described above, but fails to teach wherein the host comprises at least one silicon-containing compound.
Lee teaches an organic light-emitting device wherein the emission layer may include a delayed fluorescence material, which may act as a host. In some embodiments the host may include silicon containing compounds represented by Formula 301-2 (page 63, paragraph 0205 and paragraph 0216). Kita teaches that the benefits of using a silicon compound as a host in an organic electroluminescent element are improved light emission luminance and the life of the element (page 8, paragraph 0044).
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 combine the teachings of Min in view of Lee with motivation from Kita to produce a silicon-containing organic light-emitting device with improved light emission luminance and improved device lifetime.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Min (US 20210347798 A1) in view of Lee (US 20220069239 A1) and further in view of Hong, et al., "A Brief History of OLEDs — Emitter Development and Industry Milestones", Adv. Mater. 33, 2005630 (doi: 10.1002/adma.202005630) (Year: 2021).
Regarding claim 10. Min, in view of Lee, teaches the electronic device described above, but fails to teach wherein the device may be included in a plurality of displays as described in the instant claim.
Hong teaches, organic light-emitting diodes are light sources used in displays of smartphones and TV screens as well as in panels for lighting applications.
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 produce an electronic device as taught by Min in view of Lee, to use in displays of smartphones, TV screens, and/or other forms of lighting applications.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEILI DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1667. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7:30AM-4:30PM, Fr:7:30am-11:30am.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1786
/JENNIFER A BOYD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights