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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak et al. (US 2019/0300557) (hereafter “Kwak”) in view Martinez-Alonso et al. (Chem. Eur. J. 2018, 24, 17523-17537) (hereafter “Martinez-Alonso”) and Kamatani et al. (US 2015/0333279) (hereafter “Kamatani”).
Regarding claims 1-20, Kwak teaches an electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a hole transporting layer, a light emitting layer, an electron transporting layer, and a cathode (paragraphs [0296]-[0299]) (claims 15, 16, and 19). Kwak teaches that the light emitting layer comprises a phosphorescent dopant and a host material (paragraph [0298]) (claims 17). Kwak teaches that the phosphorescent dopant can have the following structure,
PNG
media_image1.png
112
224
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image2.png
134
233
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, and
PNG
media_image3.png
168
260
media_image3.png
Greyscale
are a few examples (paragraph [0139]) (claims 1-14). Kwak teaches that the dopant emits light between 590 nm to 650 nm (paragraph [0301], Table 1) (claim 18). Kwak teaches that the electroluminescent device can be used in an electronic apparatus (paragraph [0210]) (claim 20).
Kwak does not there where one of the ligands is a hydroxyphenylbenzimidazole group.
Martinez-Alonso teaches that one can affect the photophysical and electrochemical properties of iridium metal complexes by changing the ligands attached to the metal (page 17532 first paragraph under the heading Conclusion). Martinez-Alonso teaches that using
PNG
media_image4.png
81
80
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, where X is S or NH, as the ligand can change the properties of the metal complex not matter the other ligands on the metal (page 17525 Scheme 1 and page 17532 first paragraph under the heading Conclusion).
Kamatani teaches
PNG
media_image5.png
112
80
media_image5.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image6.png
111
106
media_image6.png
Greyscale
as ligands that can be used for metal complexes in electroluminescent devices (paragraph [0119]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the metal complex of Kwak,
PNG
media_image1.png
112
224
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image2.png
134
233
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, or
PNG
media_image3.png
168
260
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, so the single ligand was changed to
PNG
media_image4.png
81
80
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, where X is NH,
PNG
media_image5.png
112
80
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, or
PNG
media_image6.png
111
106
media_image6.png
Greyscale
as taught by Martinez-Alonso and Kamatani. The motivation has taught by Martinez-Alonso would have ben to improve the photophysical and electrochemical properties of the metal complex.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Boudreault et al. (US 2016/0104848) teaches iridium metal complexes that list ligands that meet the applicant’s claimed general formula, but does not teach metal complexes comprising both types of claimed ligands.
Yi et al. (US 2021/0288268) teaches ligands that meets applicant’s formula 1B.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW K BOHATY whose telephone number is (571)270-1148. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-4pm.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571)272-1234. 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.
/ANDREW K BOHATY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights