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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 of S. Shin, et al. US 18/453,425 (08/22/2023) are pending, under examination on the merits and rejected.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over J. S. Kim, et al. US 20230165136A1 (2023)(“Kim”). Claim 7 is rejected as applied above for the rejection of claim 6 further in view of C-F. Liu, et al. 30.52, Advanced Materials 1802466 (2018)(“Liu”).
Kim is effective prior art under 35 USC § 102(a)(2) respecting the subject matter cited as of the filing date of Kim’s priority document KR10-2021-0151643 (11/05/2021) because: (1) Kim is U.S. patent application publication; (2) names different inventors; and (3) the subject matter of Kim relied upon in this rejection is disclosed in Kim’s priority document KR10-2021-0151643 (11/05/2021). See MPEP § 2154.01; 35 USC § 102(d).
J. S. Kim, et al. US 20230165136A1 (2023)(“Kim”)
Kim teaches an organic light-emitting device with improved lifespan characteristics, comprising:
a first electrode,
a second electrode facing the first electrode; and
an emission layer between the first electrode and the second electrode and including a host and a phosphorescent dopant.
Kim at page 1, [0006]-[0009], emphasis added.
Regarding the phosphorescent dopant, Kim teaches that:
[0091] In an embodiment, the phosphorescent dopant included in the emission layer may include an organometallic compound represented by Formula 3 or Formula 5.
[0092] For example, the phosphorescent dopant may be a blue phosphorescence-emitting dopant. For example, the third compound may be a blue platinum dopant.
[0093] In one or more embodiments, the phosphorescent dopant may be a sensitizer compound that may be used with a fluorescent dopant described herein, e.g., a fluorescent dopant represented by Formula 4, to thereby transfer excitons to a fluorescent dopant.
Kim at page 8, [0091]-[0093], emphasis added.
Kim teaches that the phosphorescent dopant may include an organometallic compound represented by Formula 3-1 or Formula 3-2 as indicated below.
PNG
media_image1.png
1206
881
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wherein, M31 may be a transition metal, a31 to a34 may each independently be an integer from 0 to 20, and at least two of R33(s) in the number of a33 may optionally be bound to each other to form a C5-C30 carbocyclic group unsubstituted or substituted with at least one R10a or a C1-C30 heterocyclic group unsubstituted or substituted with at least one R10a.
Kim at page 11, [0135]-[0137] and at page 9, [0096]-[[0115] for the limitations of M31, a31 to a34 and R33(s).
Kim teaches example compounds of the phosphorescent dopant, such as compound P2, P2, P7 and P46 with structures as indicated below.
PNG
media_image2.png
377
1025
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kim at page 14, right col. second compound for P2; page 15, right col. second compound for P7 and page 20, left col. last compound for P46. After comparing the structures of P2, P7 and P46, one ordinary skill would be appraised that P7 and P46 are analogues of P2 through tert-butyl (R33) substitution of the two adjacent positions of the CY33 according to the Formula 3-2.
Kim teaches that:
[0185] As the phosphorescent dopant is at least one of Compounds P1 to P54, formation of exciplex with the host compound represented by Formula 2 may be facilitated. For example, when the phosphorescent dopant includes a bulky substituent (e.g., a tert-butyl group or a cumyl group), formation of exciplex may be facilitated by having an energy level similar to that of the host. In the case of the phosphorescent dopant, a gap between a lowest occupied molecular orbital (LUMO) level of an electron transporting (ET) host and a highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) level of a phosphorescent dopant may be reduced, thus facilitating formation of an exciplex.
[0186] In an embodiment, the emission layer may further include a fluorescent dopant. For example, the fluorescent dopant may be a thermally activated delayed fluorescence dopant and a blue dopant.
Kim at page 21, [0185]-[0186].
Kim also teaches working examples of the organic light-emitting device, such as Example 14, which includes compound E1 as the host compound and compound P46 as the phosphorescent dopant in the emission layer; compared to the comparative example 15, Example 14 has 778% (T95) improvement in life span. Kim at page 94, Table 3, Example 14.
Per claim 10, Kim teaches that host compound E1 has a structure as indicated below.
PNG
media_image3.png
378
520
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Which meets the structural requirement of the Formula 3 in the instant claim 3.
Thus, the Example 14 organic light-emitting device comprises:
a first electrode,
a second electrode facing the first electrode; and
an emission layer between the first electrode and the second electrode and including a host that is compound E1 and a phosphorescent dopant that is compound P46.
Compound 46 maps the claimed Formula 1 in the instant claims 1 and 11 as indicated below:
M is Pt;
CY1 is
PNG
media_image4.png
227
271
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,R1 is H or
PNG
media_image5.png
275
327
media_image5.png
Greyscale
that is two tert-butyl groups substituted phenyl group, a1 is 5;
CY2 is
PNG
media_image6.png
212
175
media_image6.png
Greyscale
, each of R2 is H, a2 is 3;
CY31 is
PNG
media_image7.png
214
175
media_image7.png
Greyscale
, each of R31 is H, a31 is 3;
CY32 is
PNG
media_image8.png
168
224
media_image8.png
Greyscale
, each of R32 is H, a32 is 3;
CY4 is
PNG
media_image9.png
213
224
media_image9.png
Greyscale
R4 is H or tert-butyl group, a4 is 4;
Both L1 and L3 are single bonds, L2 is O; and n1=n2=n3=0.
PNG
media_image10.png
782
1077
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Difference between Kim and the instant Claims 1-20
The Kim compound 46 differs from the instant claim 11 and the Kim OLED example 14 differs from the instant 1 in that the Kim compound 46 does not comprise the claimed CY33 that is a 5-membered or greater non-aromatic C4-C6 monocyclic group, rather it comprise a tert-butyl group.
Obviousness Rationales of the Claims 1-20
Obviousness of a claimed compound can also be supported where there is motivation to substitute particular chemical moieties in a prior art compound for others so as to arrive at a claimed compound. MPEP § 2143(I)(B). For example, in the pharmaceutical arts, the rational is stated as motivation to select a known compound and also motivation to structurally modify the selected compound in a particular way to achieve a claimed compound. MPEP § 2143(I)(B) (see for example, MPEP § 2143(I)(B) Example 9, citing Eisai Co. Ltd. v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs., Ltd., 533 F.3d 1353, 87 USPQ2d 1452 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
One of ordinary skill is motivated to select the Kim compound 46 for further investigation because Kim discloses it as an example Formula 3-2 and it can be used as a phosphorescent dopant to manufacture an organic light-emitting device with improved lifespan. Having selected the Kim compound 46, one of ordinary skill is motivated to substitute another hydrogen atoms in the CY33 with one tert-butyl as indicated below.
PNG
media_image11.png
705
1898
media_image11.png
Greyscale
One ordinary skill has a motivation to do so with a reasonable expectation of success because:
(i). Kim teaches that the CY33 in the formula 3-2 can have more than one substituted groups R33(s);
(ii). Kim teaches that both of the positions in the carbazole moiety can be substituted by tert-butyl group, See the structure of P2, P7 and P46 as indicated above; and
(iii). Kim teaches that when the phosphorescent dopant includes a bulky substituent such as a tert-butyl group, the formation of exciplex with the host compound may be facilitated. Kim at page 21, [0185].
One ordinary skill is also motivated to further modify the proposed compound by forming a cyclic moiety between the two tert-butyl groups as indicated below, thus arrive at a compound meeting each and every limitation of claim 11, therefore, claim 11 is obvious.
PNG
media_image12.png
712
1926
media_image12.png
Greyscale
One ordinary skill has a motivation to do so with a reasonable expectation of success because:
(i). Kim teaches that at least two of R33(s) in the number of a33 of the Formula 3-2 may be bound to each other to form a substituted C5-C30 carbocyclic group; and
(ii). forming a substituted cyclic moiety can enhance the bulkiness of the substitute, which may facility the formation of exciplex with the host compound.
Claim 12 is obvious because as indicated above that the X1 in the further proposed compound is a carbon atom of a carbene moiety.
Claim 13 is obvious because as indicated above that the CY33 in the further proposed compound is a cyclohexane group.
Claim 14 is obvious because as indicated above that the R1, R2, R31 to R33 and R4 in the further proposed compound are each hydrogen atom, methyl group or tert-butyl group.
Claim 15 is obvious because as indicated above that the R33 in the further proposed compound is methyl group.
Claim 16 is obvious because as indicated above that moieties of
PNG
media_image13.png
135
125
media_image13.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image14.png
147
136
media_image14.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image15.png
146
120
media_image15.png
Greyscale
in the further proposed compound is
PNG
media_image16.png
422
383
media_image16.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image6.png
212
175
media_image6.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image17.png
255
239
media_image17.png
Greyscale
respectively; which are species of CY1-5, CY2-1 and CY4-1 respectively of claim 16.
Claims 17-19 are obvious because as indicated above that moieties of
PNG
media_image18.png
166
267
media_image18.png
Greyscale
in the further proposed compound is
PNG
media_image19.png
282
435
media_image19.png
Greyscale
that is a species of the claimed CY3-4, wherein, Y1-Y4 is C(Z1)(Z2), wherein, Z1 and Z2 is hydrogen or methyl group.
Claim 20 is obvious because the further proposed compound maps the claimed formula 1-1 as:
R11 is
PNG
media_image5.png
275
327
media_image5.png
Greyscale
;
Each of R14-R17, R21-R23, R311-R312, R321-R324 and R41, R32 and R44 are hydrogen;
R42 is tert-butyl group;
Each of Y1-Y4 is C(Z1)(Z2), wherein, Z1 and Z2 is hydrogen or methyl group.
Claims 1-2 are obvious because one ordinary skill is motivated to include the further proposed compound in an organic light-emitting device as taught by Kim such as replacing the compound of P46 in the organic light-emitting device Example 14, thus arrive at an organic light-emitting device meeting each and every limitation of claims 1-2, therefore, claims 1-2 are obvious. One ordinary skill has a motivation to do so with a reasonable expectation of success because Kim teaches that the further proposed compound is a phosphorescent dopant to manufacture an organic light-emitting device with improved lifespan.
Claims 3 and 5 are obvious because the host compound E1 in the proposed OLED meets the limitation of the third compound Formula 3 as indicated below. With regards to the limitation of “the emission layer emits blue light”, Kim teaches that the further proposed compound is a blue platinum dopant. Kim at page 8, [0091]
PNG
media_image20.png
968
1150
media_image20.png
Greyscale
Claim 4 is obvious because the third compound Formula 3 is an alternative of the second compound and the fourth compound in claim 3, further limitation of the second compound and/or the fourth compound does not effect on the structure of the third compound Formula 3.
Claims 6 and 8-10 are because one ordinary skill is also motivated to include the proposed OLED into an electronic apparatus such as a an organic light-emitting diode (OLED) monitor that has a touch screen layer. The electronic equipment cited in claim 10 is merely interpreted as an intended using.
With regards to claim 7, Liu teaches that:
Organic light-emitting transistors (OLETs), as novel and attractive kinds of organic electronic devices, have gained extensive attention from both academia and industry. The unique device architectures can simultaneously combine the electrical switching functionality of organic field-effect transistors and the light generation capability of organic light-emitting diodes in a single device, thereby holding great promise for reducing the complicated processes of next-generation pixel circuitry.
Liu at abstract.
Liu also teaches that:
In OLETs, electrical switching is modulated by the current flow between the drain and source electrodes under gate bias voltages, whereas electroluminescence (EL) takes place due to electron–hole recombination in the transistor channels.
Liu at page 1 of 34, right col. line 3-8.
Claim 7 is obvious because one ordinary skill is motivated to form an OLET through connection of the first electrode of the proposed OLED with a drain electrode or a source electrodes of a thin-film transistors, and then include the OLET into an apparatus in view of the teaching from Liu.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK S. HOU whose telephone number is (571)272-1802. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30 am-2:30 pm Eastern on Monday to Friday.
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, Scarlett Goon can be reached at (571)2705241. 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.
/FRANK S. HOU/Examiner, Art Unit 1692
/ALEXANDER R PAGANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692