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
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. In Formula A2 of claim 13, X12-X15 is recited as being equal to C or N. However, if equal to C, valency of said carbon atom would not be satisfied. For purposes of further examination X12-X15 will be interpreted as being equal to C(R1) or N. Correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 8-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 2023/0002430).
Claims 1 and 2: Chen et al. teaches organic electroluminescent materials and devices. The materials include a phosphorescent compound of Formula 1. The compounds of Formula 1 are employed as a phosphorescent dopant in an emission layer of an organic electroluminescent device. Explicitly taught phosphorescent dopants are taught on pages 80-100. Included in the specific dopants is the complex
PNG
media_image1.png
172
190
media_image1.png
Greyscale
which is taught on page 83. This complex anticipates Formula 1 of claim 1. As applied to Formula 1, this complex has M equal to Pt, a1 and a3 equal to 1, L1 and L3 equal to single bonds, a2 equal to 1, L2 equal to -O-, b1 through b4 equal to zero, CY1 equal to a benzimidazole ring system, CY2 equal to a benzene ring, CY3 equal to a carbazole ring system, CY4 equal to a pyridine ring, X1-X3 equal to C, X4 equal to N, a4 equal to 2 and L4 equal to a benzene ring. Because Chem et al. explicitly teaches that the phosphorescent complexes disclosed therein are employed as dopants in an organic electroluminescent device, preparing such a device from any one of the explicitly taught complexes is at once envisaged. Figures 1 and 2 of Chen et al. show that the devices require an first electrode and a second electrode. As such, all of the device and structural limitations of claims 1 and 2 are anticipated by Chen et al.
Claim 8: The rejection of claim 1 above is wholly incorporated into the rejection of claim 8. As described above, Chen et al. teaches compounds which anticipate Formula 1 of claim 1. Formula 1 of claim 8 is identical to Formula 1 of claim 1.
Claim 9: The compound shown above also anticipates Formula 1-2 of claim 9 with X11 and X41 equal to C and all other variables being described in claim 1.
Claim 10: The compound shown above comprises a carbene moiety in ring CY1 which anticipates claim 10.
Claim 11: Rings CY1 through CY4 are, respectively, benzimidazole, benzene, carbazole, and pyridine, which anticipates claim 11.
Claim 12: Rings CY1 and CY3 are polycyclic rings which anticipate claim 12 and rings CY2 and CY4 are monocyclic rings which anticipate claim 12.
Claim 13: Ring CY1 in the compound above anticipates Formula A2 of claim 13 with X12-X15 equal to CH.
Claim 14: Ring CY3 in the compound above anticipates Formula A3 of claim 14.
Claim 15: The compound above comprises at 9 deuterium atoms, thereby anticipating claim 15.
Claim 16: In the compound above, both L4 groups anticipate Formula 2-1 with c4 equal to zero in the first L4 group and equal to 4 in the second L4 group with all R10b equal to deuterium atoms.
Claim 17: The complex above anticipates Formula 3-1 of claim 17 with the left c4 equal to zero, the right c4 equal to 4, and R10b equal to deuterium atoms, an all other variables being described above.
Claim 18: In the complex above, R10c and R1 are linked to each other to form a 9-membered ring, thereby anticipating claim 18.
Claim 19: The complex above anticipates Formula 4-1 of claim 19 with all variable assignments being described above.
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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3-5, 7, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2023/0002430) as applied to claim 1 above.
Claim 3: While Chen et al. does not explicitly teach an organic electroluminescent device comprising an emission layer comprising the phosphorescent dopant of claim 1 and a further compound satisfying at least one or more of the second, third, or fourth compounds of claim 3, the overall teachings of Chen et al. render obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the preparation of an emission layer which comprises a phosphorescent dopant satisfying Formula 1 of claim 1 and a host material as disclosed in paragraph 0184. Paragraph 0184 further teaches specific host materials which may be employed in the devices taught therein. These compounds include those which are p-electron deficient compounds, such as the azadibenzothiophene and triazine compounds as shown in paragraph 0185 as well as compound which are p-electron rich compounds which satisfy Formula 3 of claim 3 such as the carbazole-containing compounds taught in paragraph 0185. Further, Chen et al. teaches that the phosphorescent dopants disclosed therein may serve a sensitizers for an acceptor material which includes a delayed fluorescence emitter (paragraph 0187). The inclusion of a host material is a well known and obvious choice to prevent quenching of the dopant material.
Claim 4: Figures 1 and 2 of Chen et al. are drawn to an organic electroluminescent device comprising a first electrode, a hole transport region, an emission layer, an electron transport region, and a second electrode. Preparing a light-emitting device which adheres to Figures 1 and 2 which includes any one of the explicitly taught phosphorescent dopant materials would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. And for reasons disclosed in paragraphs 0184-0187 above, the inclusion of at least a hole-transporting host material satisfying Formula 3, or an electron-transporting host material which satisfies the second compound of claim 3, or a delayed fluorescence emitter, which satisfies the fourth compound of claim 3, would have been prima facie obvious as such embodiments are explicitly suggested. And because the complex shown in claim 1 above is nearly identical to compound BD1 of claim 20, it would be expected that the such a device would emit blue light as required by claim 4.
Claim 5: A device prepared according to Figures 1 and 2 of Chen et al. which employs the phosphorescent dopant/sensitizer shown in claim 1 above, satisfies all of the limitations of claim 5. While no such device is explicitly taught, it would have been prima facie obvious to have prepared such a device as such embodiments are readily envisioned given the overall teachings of Chen et al.
Claim 20: While Chen et al. does not explicitly teach a compound which satisfies one of those recited in claim 20, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have prepared a compound which is identical to BD1 given the overall teachings of Chen et al. Specifically, the compound recited in claim 1 above differs from BD1 only in that BD1 further comprises a t-butyl group. However, Chen et al. explicitly teaches compounds which includes this structural feature, such as those shown on pages 83 and 86 which have a t-butyl group present. A person having ordinary skill in the art understands that modifying an unsubstituted ring position with a bulky alkyl group can prevent aggregation/p-p stacking, or it can further tune the emission efficiency or sublimation temperature which is important when employing chemical deposition methods. For these reasons, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the compound shown above so as to arrive at compound BD1 as disclosed in claim 20.
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2023/0002430) in view of Toguchi et al. (US 2003/0043571) and Yamazaki et al. (US 2005/0073247), as applied to claim 5 above.
While Chen et al. does not explicitly teach an organic electroluminescent device which further comprises a thin-film transistor electrically connected to the device, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to add this element given the teachings of Toguchi et al. Chen et al. and Toguchi et al. are combinable teachings as they are both from the same field of organic electroluminescent devices. Toguchi et al. teaches a light-emitting display device which is comprises of a plurality of light-emitting pixels, a power supply to power said pixels, and thin-film transistors which are electrically coupled between the power supply and the organic electroluminescent device (Fig. 14 and claim 21 of Toguchi et al.). The thin-film transistor controls the conduction between the common power supply and the organic electroluminescent device (paragraph 0027) . The thin-film transistor is a critical part of the device architecture which allows for precise current control and active matrix addressing, which would improve the power efficiency in the devices taught by Chen et al. The combination of Chen et al. and Toguchi et al. involves the use of a known element to perform its known function in a known environment to achieve a predictable result.
While Chen et al. does not explicitly teach the inclusion of at least a color filter to the electronic devices taught therein, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have added a color filter to the devices taught by Chen et al. given the teachings of Yamazaki et al. Chen et al. and Yamazaki et al. are combinable as they are both from the same field of organic electroluminescent devices. Yamazaki et al .teaches light-emitting devices which comprise a color filter. Yamazaki et al. teaches that it is often the case that the spectrum of light emitted from a light-emitting element has a broad emission peak which means that the color purity is inferior. Applying a color filter serves to improve the color purity and also the reliability as disclosed in paragraph 0017 of Yamazaki et al. For these reasons, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a color filter to the electronic devices taught by Chen et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT S LOEWE whose telephone number is (571)270-3298. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8 AM to 5 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-1302. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Robert S Loewe/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights