DETAILED ACTION
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 § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-9, 11, 15-18, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cho (EP 2182022 A1).
Regarding Claims 1-6, 8-9, 11, Cho teaches an organometallic material represented by Compound 2 (page 40):
PNG
media_image1.png
310
308
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Compound 2 reads on applicants’ wherein n1 = 2; n1 = 1; X1 = C; X2 = N; R1 and R2 = H; R31 and R32 = methyl; R33 = H (per claims 1-4, 8-9, 11)
Compound 2 contains 1-1X1 = C (per claim 5) and 2-1 Z21 and Z22 = h (per claim 7).
Regarding Claims 15-17, 19, Cho teaches an organic electronic device which is comprised of a first electrode; a second electrode; and at least one organic layer(s) interposed between the first electrode and the second electrode; wherein the organic layer comprises one or more organic compound(s) for electronic material represented by Chemical Formula (1) (Compound 2) (paragraph 0034). used as a dopant for an electroluminescent layer (paragraph (0095) (per claims 15-16).
The electroluminescent layer consisting of a mixture of host-dopant (paragraph (0042); electroluminescent dopant in an amount of 0.01 to 10% by weight, and one or more host(s) [host in greater amount) (paragraph 0035) (per claim 17).
The detailed OLED contains a Transparent electrode 2, Hole injecting layer 3, Hole transport layer 4, Electroluminescent layer 5, Electron transport layer 6, Electron injecting layer 7 and Al cathode 8 (paragraph (0013) (per claim 19).
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.
Claims 7, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (EP 2182022 A1).
Regarding Claims 7, 10 Cho teaches Compound 2, above, which derived from generic CF6 (page 7):
PNG
media_image2.png
360
368
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Compound 2 shows R13 and R14 = H.
Cho teaches that substituents R11-R14 are represented by a finite set of options:
PNG
media_image3.png
598
929
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The above substituent options are viewed as functionally equivalent and readily exchangeable whereby upon selection give rise to obvious variant of generic CF6. One such variant reading on the instant limitations can be view as exchanging 2-2 or 2-3 for 2-1 (present in Compound 2) wherein R21 or R22, respectively are represented alkyl group C1-C60 (encompassing 9-1 to 9-7 and 5-1 per claims 7, 10 )
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (EP 2182022 A1) as evidenced by Chen (Molecules 2022, 27(1), 286)
Regarding Claim 18, Cho teaches the OLED emits a red when using an iridium complex (Compound 2) (paragraph 007) but fails to mention the maximum emission wavelength.
Chen teaches the most prominent class of molecular phosphors, the luminescent cyclometalated iridium (III) complex system has demonstrated almost perfect EL performance in terms of its luminance, efficiency, and color emission from the blue (λmax ≈ 470 nm) to saturated red (λmax ≈ 650 nm) regions (introduction).
As Compound 2 is a cyclometalated iridium (III) complex system emitting a red color, the office takes the position that said iridium complex would also emit in range of λmax ≈ 650 nm, absent unexpected results (per claim 18).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (EP 2182022 A1) in view of Seki (US 2013/0105785).
Regarding Claim 20, Cho teaches the OLED of claim 15 but fails to mention an apparatus.
Seki teaches an image display apparatus including an organic light-emitting device and a thin-film transistor (TFT) device wherein the anode or a cathode of the organic light-emitting device is connected to a drain electrode or a source electrode of the TFT device. The thin-film transistor device serves as a device configured to apply an electrical current to the organic light-emitting device (paragraph 52). The organic light-emitting device also contains a color filter (paragraph 50).
As both Cho and Seki teaches organic light-emitting devices and Seki teaches an organic light-emitting device configured in an electronic apparatus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to have used the organic light-emitting device of Cho in known application areas which would have included in an electronic apparatus as taught by Seki which reads on the instant limitations, absent unexpected results (per claim 20).
Allowable Subject Matter I
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter as applicant claims the invention of claims 12-13.
The prior art fails to show the invention of Formula 5-1. The closest prior art is represented by Cho. Cho fails to show an isoquinoline group in the iridium complex.
Claims 12-13 allowed.
Allowable Subject Matter II
Claims 4 and 14 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 prior art fails to show the compounds. The closest prior art is represented by Cho. Cho fails to show an isoquinoline group in the iridium complex.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY D CLARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7087. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-4PM M-F.
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 Chriss can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GREGORY D CLARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights