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 § 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 1-17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwong (US 2003/0072964 A1).
Regarding Claims 1-13, Kwong teach organometallic materials including generic Formula III (GFIII) (page 9):
PNG
media_image1.png
314
422
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
828
418
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
802
448
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Above Kwong teaches various substituents which are viewed independently as functionally equivalent whereby upon selection give rise to obvious variants of GFIII, absent unexpected results.
One such variant reads on applicants’ Formula 1 wherein R3 and R4 are fused to form a phenyl ring resulting in a naphthyl group. R10 = CF3; remaining R(s) = H. One way to view the above variant is a modification of Compound 13 (page 11):
PNG
media_image4.png
246
330
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein R3 and R4 are fused to form a phenyl ring resulting in a naphthyl group and R7 = CF3; M = Ir; A1 and A2 bi dentate ligand; n =2, m=3; X1 = N, X2 = C; CY2 = naphthyl.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to have made a variety of derivatives of CFIII by selecting various functional equivalent substituents which would have included the above variant which reads on the instant limitations, absent unexpected results (per claims 1-4, 6).
CFIII shows applicants’ 1-32 wherein X1 = C; R11 = CF3; R14 and R15 = H (per claim 5).
CFIII shows applicants’ 2-3 wherein one X2 = C; X23 = CR3, R3 = H; and X24 = CR24, r24 = CF3; CY25 = phenyl, R25 = H (per claim 7).
CFIII shows applicants’ 2A-3 wherein one R25 = H; X2 = C; R23 = H; R24 = CF3 (per claim 8).
CFIII shows applicants’ 2A-19 wherein Z25 = H; Z23 = H; Z24 = CF3; X2 = C (per claim 9)
CFIII shows R3 and R4 are fused to form a phenyl group;
CFIII shows applicants’ R1 = H; R2 = CF3; R31 and R33 = methyl; R32 = H (per claims 10-11).
CFIII shows applicants’ 3-3 wherein R11-R15 = H or another substituent shown above; R24 = CF3; R23-R26 = H or another substituent shown above; R31 and R33 = methyl; R32 = H; M1 = Ir (per claims 12-13).
Regarding Claim 14, Kwong also teaches Formula I (CFI) (page 11):
PNG
media_image5.png
336
394
media_image5.png
Greyscale
CFI is treated in an analogous fashion to CFIII wherein the substituent groups are viewed as functionally equivalent, absent unexpected results. R3 and R4 are fused to form a phenyl ring; R5-R9 = H; R10 = CF3; R1 and R2 = H. The fused cyclic group can be substituted X which includes R12 which includes the X substituent which includes alkyl C1-C20, C3 as isopropyl (paragraph 149 and 151, above). The above variant reads on applicants’ Compound 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to have made a variety of derivatives of CFI by selecting various functional equivalent substituents which would have included the above variant which reads on the instant limitations, absent unexpected results (per claim 14).
Regarding Claims 15-17, 19, Kwong teaches OLEDs with one or more layers are sandwiched between a hole injecting anode layer and an electron injecting cathode layer which includes inventive compounds CFI and CFIII in an emissive layer. The devices can include any one or more hole blocking layers, electron blocking layers, exciton blocking layers, hole transporting layers, electron transporting layers, hole injection layers, or electron injection layers (paragraph 180-181) (per claims 15-16).
The emissive layer can comprise host material doped with CFI or CFIII present at 1 to about 20 wt % of the emissive layer (paragraph 85). The office views this as showing the host in present in the greater amount (per claim 17).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwong (US 2003/0072964 A1) as evidenced by Chen (Molecules 2022, 27, 286).
Regarding Claim 18, Kwong teaches the metal complex of claim 1 but fails to mention the emission wavelength.
Chen teaches that iridium complexes emit in the entire visible region with a wavelength range from 470 nm to 660 nm (page 2 of 15).
The office takes the position that the iridium complexes of Kwong would also emit in the typical range which would have included the overlapping portion of the range taught by Chen, absent unexpected results (per claim 18).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwong (US 2003/0072964 A1) in view of Seki (US 2013/0105785).
Regarding Claim 18, Kwong teaches the OLED of claim 15 but fails to mention usage in 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 Song 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 Kwong 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).
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