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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2022-0065597, filed on 05/27/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/25/2023 was filed after the mailing date of the instant application on 05/25/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The letters, numbers, and/or bonds in the chemical structure given in chemical formulae 10-211 through 10-237 on page 23, FD1 through FD36 on pages 75-77, and the compounds in paragraph [00380] of the instant specification are illegible due to poor resolution. Please correct these structures so all letters, numbers, and/or bonds are clearly visible. See the example below.
PNG
media_image1.png
198
222
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Please note that this example is non-limiting and there may be other structures that require correction. Please check all formulae to make sure they are clear. Applicant may wish to make these structures clearer by increasing the size of the structure and/or font, or by making the bond lines thicker.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, the word “free” has been misspelled as “fee”.
In claim 15, L20 is a divalent organic moiety and should be referred to as an arylene rather than an aryl, which is a monodentate group. Please correct heteroaryl as well.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 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.
Independent claim 1 requires an organic light-emitting device comprising a capping layer and an interlayer, wherein the interlayer comprises an emission layer, and the emission layer comprises a red-light emitting iridium compound wherein the photoluminescence spectrum of the iridium compound includes a first and second peak and the ratio of the second peak and first peak is less than or equal to 0.5, and the capping layer comprises an amine-free compound.
While the instant specification provides some examples of the red-light emitting iridium compound (paragraph [00167]) and the amine-free compound (paragraph [00235]), it is unclear whether Applicant is in possession of the full breadth of the claimed invention because only a narrow scope of the compounds encompassed by the independent claim have been presented.
For example, the red-light emitting iridium compound is described as any iridium compound that emits red light, has two photoluminescence spectrum peaks, and the ratio of the second peak and first peak is less than or equal to 0.5. However, every example compound presented by Applicant comprises a fluorinated benzoisoquinoline group. Similarly, the capping layer is described as having any conceivable compound as long as the compound doesn’t comprise an amine functional group and only five very similar compounds have been presented.
Thus, the limited examples described in the written description does not provide a representative number of species sufficient to show that Applicant was in possession of the claimed genus (see MPEP 2163-II-A-3-a-ii). Further, given the multitude of diverse structures that could give rise to the claimed properties and that the specification examples only represent a small fraction of these diverse structures, the specification does not provide support for the breadth of the claims.
Claims 2-10 are rejected by virtue of dependency.
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 15 and 16 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.
With respect to claim 15, the claim contains the limitation that L20 is a C6-C60 aryl group unsubstituted or substituted with at least one R10a or a C1-C60 heteroaryl group unsubstituted or substituted with at least one R10a.
This limitation is unclear because it can be interpreted in several ways such as L20 is a C6-C60 aryl group which is:
Unsubstituted,
Substituted by an unsubstituted C1-C60 heteroaryl group, or
Substituted by a C1-C60 heteroaryl group which is substituted with at least one R10a.
In continuing examination, Examiner is interpreting the claim to be missing a comma, wherein L20 is a C6-C60 aryl group unsubstituted or substituted with at least one R10a, or a C1-C60 heteroaryl group unsubstituted or substituted with at least one R10a.
With respect to claim 16, formula 2-3 is outside of the scope of parent claim 11 because it comprises undefined variables L51 and n51. R51 appears to be commensurate in scope with a compound of parent formula 2 wherein t20 is 0, b22 is 1 and R22 is analogous to R51, but n51 and L51 appear to be completely new variables.
As these variables are also absent from the instant specification, there is no basis upon which to interpret these variables, and only formulae 2-1, 2-2, and 2-4 will be considered.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 14-16 and 18 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
With respect to claim 14, Formula 2B(1)-12 does not comply with the limitation of parent claim 11 that requires that b22 is an integer of 1 to 10.
With respect to claim 15, the claim contains the limitation that L20 is a C6-C60 aryl group unsubstituted or substituted with at least one R10a or a C1-C60 heteroaryl group unsubstituted or substituted with at least one R10a. Parent claim 11 requires that L20 is only substituted by a group of R10a.
With respect to claim 16, formula 2-3 is outside of the scope of parent claim 11 because it comprises undefined variables L51 and n51.
With respect to claim 18, compounds B1, B4, and B5 do not comply with the limitation of parent claim 11 that requires that b22 is an integer of 1 to 10.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak et al. (US 2021/0193938 A1) in view of Chen et al. (CN 113943280 A, using the provided translation for references).
With respect to claims 1-10, Kwak discloses an organic light-emitting device (OLED) comprising a first electrode (an anode), a second electrode (a cathode), and an interlayer (organic layer) between the electrodes (paragraph 0258), and the organic layer comprises an emission layer and the emission layer comprises an organometallic compound of Formula 1 (paragraph 0252), such as compound 6 (paragraph 0242 and page 48), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
332
512
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This compound comprises a ligand that is derived from Kwak Formula 2 (paragraph 0050), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image3.png
286
482
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Kwak also teaches that a1 is 0 (paragraph 0018) so that the trimethylsilyl (TMS) group is absent (see for example compounds 1, 9, 13, 15, and 19 on pages 95-97 wherein a1 is 0, b1 is 1, and T1 is a fluorine atom).
Such a modification produces a compound identical to compound A2 on page 119 of the instant specification.
Kwak includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Kwak being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from the finite number of possible substituents to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of an organometallic compound with high horizontal orientation ratio of dipole moment, which when used in an organic light emitting device, results in an electric field which is substantially parallel to a film including the compound, reducing light loss and giving high emission efficiency (paragraph 0248), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Kwak also teaches the organometallic compounds of Formula 1 emit light in a wavelength that encompasses red visible light (paragraph 0244).
However, Kwak does not teach nor fairly suggest that the organic light-emitting device comprises a capping layer comprising an amine-free compound.
In analogous art, Chen also teaches an organic electroluminescent device (paragraph 0093 and Figure 1), and the organic electroluminescent device comprises a light-extraction capping layer with a high refractive index, thereby achieving better light extraction performance (paragraph 0003), as a result of including a benzo[a]heterocyclic structure (paragraph 0015) such as compound 10’ (page 49 of the original document), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image4.png
490
464
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Compound 10’ is derived from Chen general formula I (page 29 of the original document), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image5.png
508
564
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Chen teaches that any of Z1-Z3 are N or CH (paragraph 0008).
This teaching can produce a compound identical to compound B3 on page 121 of the instant specification.
Chen includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Chen being a lack of the aforementioned nitrogen atom positions being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select a carbon or nitrogen atom at any possible location on the six-membered ring to arrive at the amine-free capping layer compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a compound with a high refractive index, which is suitable for use as a light extraction material in the capping layer of an organic electroluminescent device (paragraph 0038), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Further, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the light extracting capping layer comprising the amine-free capping layer compound of Chen into the device of Kwak in order to achieve better light extraction performance, as taught by Chen.
Examiner is interpreting these compounds to meet the requirements of the instant claims through their use as a preferred embodiments of the claimed invention, as given on pages 119 (organometallic A2) and 121 (amine-free B3) of the instant specification. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and it has been held that when the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112.01(II)), and the compounds of Kwak and Chen read on the claims.
Kwak and Chen are silent to some of the compounds’ inherent properties such as the emitter having a second and first emissive peak with an intensity ratio of 0.5 (claim 1), the full width half maximum of the emitter (claim 2), the maximum emission wavelength of the emitter (claim 3), and the refractive index of the amine-free compound (claim 8). However, these are considered to be properties of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when the organometallic compound is used as an emitter in the emissive layer and the amine-free compound is used in the capping layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the properties described in the instant claims. Therefore, the claims are considered to be obvious over Kwak and Chen, and the burden shifts to applicant to show that there is an unobvious difference between the claimed composition and the composition in the prior art. See MPEP 2112 (V). In addition, the presently claimed properties are considered to be present once the work of Kwak and Chen were first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
With respect to claim 11, Kwak discloses an organic light-emitting device (OLED) comprising a first electrode (an anode), a second electrode (a cathode), and an interlayer (organic layer) between the electrodes (paragraph 0258), and the organic layer comprises an emission layer and the emission layer comprises an organometallic compound of Formula 1 (paragraph 0252), such as compound 6 (paragraph 0242 and page 48), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
332
512
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of instant Formula 1 when M11 is iridium, L11 is a ligand of Formula 1A, L12 is a bidentate ligand, and n11 is 2 and n12 is 1. In Formula 1A, X11 is a nitrogen atom, X12 is a carbon atom, A2 is a C6 carbocyclic (benzene) ring, b11 is 2, one R11 is a fluorine atom and the other R11 is -Si(Q1)(Q2)(Q3) wherein Q1 through Q3 are a C1 alkyl (methyl) group, b12 is 2 and R12 is a C1 alkyl (methyl) group.
However, Kwak does not teach nor fairly suggest that the organic light-emitting device comprises a capping layer comprising a compound of Formula 2.
In analogous art, Chen also teaches an organic electroluminescent device (paragraph 0093 and Figure 1), and the organic electroluminescent device comprises a light-extraction capping layer with a high refractive index, thereby achieving better light extraction performance (paragraph 0003), as a result of including a benzo[a]heterocyclic structure (paragraph 0015) such a compound 10’ (page 49 of the original document), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image4.png
490
464
media_image4.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of instant Formula 2 when B1 is a C4 heterocyclic group including at least one nitrogen (pyrimidine), t20, t21, and t22 are each 1, n20, n21, and n22 are each 1, and L20, L21, and L22 are all a C6 carbocyclic (phenylene) group, b21 is 7 and R21 is a hydrogen atom, b22 is 1 and R22 is a hydrogen atom, a21 and a22 are both 1, and T21 and T22 are both represented by Formula 2A. In Formula 2A, ring B2 is a C6 carbocyclic (benzene) group, X21 is oxygen in T21 and sulfur in T22, and X22 is nitrogen, Y21 and Y22 are each a carbon atom, B2 is a C6 carbocyclic (benzene) group, b23 is 4 and R23 is a hydrogen atom.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the light extracting capping layer comprising the amine-free capping layer compound of Chen into the device of Kwak in order to achieve better light extraction performance, as taught by Chen.
With respect to claim 12, Kwak and Chen teach the device of claim 11, and moiety A2 is represented by the benzene group of instant 1A(2)-1 when b13 is 2 and R13 is a methyl group, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 13, Kwak and Chen teach the device of claim 11, and the ligand L12 is represented by instant Formula 1B-1 when R31 and R32 are both a C5 alkyl (pentyl) group substituted with a C1 alkyl (methyl) group, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 14, Kwak and Chen teach the device of claim 11, and ring B1 in Formula 2 is represented by instant formula 2B(1)-10 when d23 is 1 and R23a is a hydrogen atom, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 15, Kwak and Chen teach the device of claim 11, and L20 is a C6 arylene, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 16, Kwak and Chen teach the device of claim 11, and the heterocyclic compound is represented by Formula 2-1 when X23 and X25 are nitrogen atoms and X24 is CH, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 17, Kwak and Chen teach the device of claim 11, and T21 and T22 are represented by Formula 2A-1 when X21 is oxygen or sulfur, X22 is a nitrogen atom, and all Z characters are CH, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 18, Kwak and Chen teach the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Compound 6 of Kwak is derived from Kwak Formula 2 (paragraph 0050), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image3.png
286
482
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Kwak also teaches that a1 is 0 (paragraph 0018) and the trimethylsilyl (TMS) group is absent (see for example compounds 1, 9, 13, 15, and 19 on pages 95-97 wherein a1 is 0, b1 is 1, and T1 is a fluorine atom).
Such a modification produces a compound identical to instant compound A2.
Kwak includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Kwak being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from the finite number of possible substituents to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of an organometallic compound with high horizontal orientation ratio of dipole moment, which when used in an organic light emitting device, results in an electric field which is substantially parallel to a film including the compound, reducing light loss and giving high emission efficiency (paragraph 0248), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Compound 10’ of Chen is derived from Chen general formula I (page 29 of the original document), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image5.png
508
564
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Chen teaches that any of Z1-Z3 are N or CH (paragraph 0008).
This teaching can produce a compound identical to instant compound B3.
Chen includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Chen being a lack of the aforementioned nitrogen atom positions being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select a carbon or nitrogen atom at any possible location on the six-membered ring to arrive at the amine-free capping layer compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a compound with a high refractive index, which is suitable for use as a light extraction material in the capping layer of an organic electroluminescent device (paragraph 0038), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Further, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the light extracting capping layer comprising the amine-free capping layer compound of Chen into the device of Kwak in order to achieve better light extraction performance, as taught by Chen.
With respect to claim 19, Kwak and Chen teach the device of claim 1, and Kwak also teaches use of the device in an apparatus such as a mobile phone (paragraph 0313).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the device of Kwak and Chen in an electronic apparatus, such as a mobile phone, as taught by Kwak.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak et al. (US 2021/0193938 A1) in view of Chen et al. (CN 113943280 A, using the provided translation for references) as applied above, and further in view of Matsudate et al. (US 2005/0236970 A1).
With respect to claim 20, Kwak and Chen teach the electronic apparatus of claim 19, as discussed above. However, neither Kwak nor Chen teach nor fairly suggest a thin-film transistor wherein the thin-film transistor comprises a source and drain electrode and the first electrode of the light emitting device is electrically connected to the source or drain electrode.
In analogous art, Matsudate teaches an organic light emitting device. Matsudate teaches a design for an organic electroluminescent display which allows the device to be controlled and driven (abstract, and paragraphs 0003 and 0062). Matsudate teaches that the taught configuration of a source electrode, a drain electrode, an active layer, and a gate electrode, wherein the first electrode of the organic light-emitting device is electrically connected to one selected from the source electrode and the drain electrode of the thin-film transistor is applicable to general organic electroluminescent displays to achieve high manufacturing yields (paragraphs 0062-0069, and Fig. 11).
In view of the motivation of using the display component configuration of Matsudate as described above, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to configure the electronic apparatus of Kwak and Chen using the component configuration of Matsudate in order to provide an organic electroluminescent display and achieve high manufacturing yields and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. Further, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). See MPEP 2143.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Boudreault et al. (US 2022/0352476 A1) – teaches relevant organometallics.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL SIMBANA whose telephone number is (571)272-2657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 A.M. - 4:30 P.M..
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.
/RACHEL SIMBANA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights