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 1-2, 11-13, 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Haketa (US 2016/0005977 A1) in view of Manassero (Organometallics 2006, 25, 2253-2265).
Regarding Claims 1-2, 11-13, 17-19, Haketa teaches an OLED containing a hole transporting layer/light emitting layer /electron transporting layer between an anode and a cathode (paragraph 109). The phosphorescent dopant (phosphorescent material) used in the light emitting layer is a compound which emits light by releasing the energy of excited triplet state and preferably an organometallic complex comprising at least one metal selected from Ir, Pt, Os, Au, Cu, Re, and Ru and a ligand, although not particularly limited thereto as long as emitting light by releasing the energy of excited triplet state (paragraph 129). The emission layer contains a phosphorescent host material and a phosphorescent dopant material (paragraph 116).
The office notes that while not teaching applicants’ organometallic compound, Haketa teaches Pt based organometallic complexes can be used in the emission layer and said organometallic complexes are not particularly limited thereto as long as emitting light by releasing the energy of excited triplet state (paragraph 129).
Manassero teaches an organometallic compound represented by Compound 5 (page 2257):
PNG
media_image1.png
322
568
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Best viewed from STN Report as
PNG
media_image2.png
228
360
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Compound 5 reads on applicants’ Formula 1 wherein X1 and X4 = C; CY1 and CY4 = phenyl; Cy2 and CY3 = pyridine; L1-L5 = single bond; Ar1 and Ar2 = pyridine; X21 and X32 = N; X22 and X31= C;. M1 and M2 = Pt.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of invention to have selected from known phosphorescent dopants which would have included Compound 5 of Manassero which reads on the instant limitations, absent unexpected results (per claims 1-2, 11-13, 17).
Compound 5 contains
CY1 = CY1(1), X1 = C and CY4 = CY4(1), X4 = C (per claim 18)
CY2 = CY2 (1), X21 = N, and X22 = C; CY3 = CY3(1)X31 = C, X32 = C (per claim 19).
Regarding Claims 15-16, Labrot teaches the limitations of independent claim 11 wherein (limitations L1, L3-L5 defined by a finite set of options). The limitations of dependent claims 15-16 are viewed as a recitation of the partial (L1 and L3 = O; L4 and L5 = alkyne) limitations of independent claim 11; however, the missing limitation is nonetheless applicable. Therefore, as the basis for dependent claims 15-16 is encompassed in rejected independent claim 11, the limitations of claims 15-16 are thus met by the treatment of independent claim 11 (per claims 15-16).
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Haketa (US 2016/0005977 A1) in view of Manassero (Organometallics 2006, 25, 2253-2265) and Hu (Journal of Luminescence 197 (2018) 187–192).
Regarding Claims 3 and 5, Haketa in view of Manassero teach the invention claim 1 but fails to mention an additional material in the emission layer.
Hu teaches adding a thermally activated delayed fluorescence (TADF) 4CzIPN as the assistant dopant to a phosphorescent dopant can remarkably reduce the turn-on voltage and increase device brightness. A device with the assist dopant system show negligible efficiency roll-off even in high luminance and current density (abstract).
The office views the above as generic teaching showing the device performance can be enhanced by the addition of an activated delayed assistant dopant to phosphorescent OLED.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of invention to have modified the device of Haketa in view of Manassero which would have included adding the thermally activated delayed fluorescence assistant dopant of Hu as Hu teaches said assistant dopant which reduces the turn-on voltage and increase device brightness which reads on the instant limitations, absent unexpected results (per claim 3).
Haketa teaches the OLED can emit a blue color (paragraph 111) (per claim 5).
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Haketa (US 2016/0005977 A1) in view of Manassero (Organometallics 2006, 25, 2253-2265) and Seki (US 2013/0105785).
Regarding Claims 6-10, Haketa in view of Manassero teach the invention claim 1 but fail 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 Haketa in view of Manassero 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 Haketa in view of Manassero 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 claims 6-10).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 14 and 20 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.
A comprehensive search did not show the claimed limitations.
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