DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2022-0123475, filed on 09/28/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/27/2023 was filed after the mailing date of the instant application on 09/27/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The letters, numbers, and/or bonds in the chemical structure given in paragraphs [00145] and [00219] are illegible due to poor resolution. Please correct these structures so all letters, numbers, and/or bonds are clearly visible. See the example below.
PNG
media_image1.png
144
288
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Please note that this example is non-limiting and there may be other structures that require correction. Please check all formulae to make sure they are clear. Applicant may wish to make these structures clearer by increasing the size of the structure and/or font, or by making the bond lines thicker.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claim 1 requires an organic light-emitting device comprising a capping layer and an interlayer, wherein the interlayer comprises an emission layer, and the emission layer comprises a blue-light emitting platinum compound wherein the highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) energy level of the platinum compound is 4.4 eV or less, and the capping layer comprises an amine-free compound.
While the instant specification provides some examples of the blue-light emitting platinum compound (paragraph [00148]) and an amine-free condensed cyclic compound (paragraph [00224]), it is unclear whether Applicant is in possession of the full breadth of the claimed invention because only a narrow scope of the compounds which are encompassed by the independent claim have been presented.
For example, the blue-light emitting platinum compound is described as any platinum compound that emits blue light and has a HOMO energy level of 4.4 eV or less. However, every example compound presented by Applicant comprises a tetradentate platinum compound with either an imidazole and carbazole moiety, or a pyrazole and two oxygen bridging atoms. Similarly, the capping layer is described as having any conceivable compound as long as the compound doesn’t comprise an amine functional group and only 51 compounds, out of every conceivable compound without an amine group, have been presented.
Thus, the limited examples described in the written description does not provide a representative number of species sufficient to show that Applicant was in possession of the claimed genus (see MPEP 2163-II-A-3-a-ii). Further, given the multitude of diverse structures that could give rise to the claimed properties, and because the specification examples only represent a small fraction of these diverse structures, the specification does not provide support for the breadth of the claims.
Claims 2-10 are rejected by virtue of dependency.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
With respect to claim 13, Formula 2B(1)-12 does not comply with the limitation of parent claim 11 that requires that b31 is an integer of 1 to 10.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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 1-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2019/0119312 A1, herein after referred to as Chen 2019) in view of Chen et al. (CN 113943280 A, using the provided translation for references, herein after referred to as Chen 2022).
With respect to claims 1-10, Chen 2019 discloses an organic light-emitting device (OLED) comprising a first electrode (an anode), a second electrode (a cathode), and an interlayer (organic layer) between the electrodes (paragraph 0079), and the organic layer comprises an emission layer and the emission layer comprises a first emitter (an organometallic compound of Formula 1, paragraph 0084), such as compound 95067 (page 118), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
442
594
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Chen 2019 teaches that compound 95067 emits blue light (455 nm, page 118 and paragraph 0236, lines 3-7).
Examiner notes that this compound is identical to compound D3 on page 31 of the instant specification.
However, Chen 2019 does not teach nor fairly suggest that the organic light-emitting device comprises a capping layer comprising an amine-free compound.
In analogous art, Chen 2022 also teaches an organic electroluminescent device (paragraph 0093 and Figure 1), and the organic electroluminescent device comprises a light-extraction capping layer with a high refractive index, thereby achieving better light extraction performance (paragraph 0003), as a result of including an amine-free compound (a benzo[a]heterocyclic structure, paragraph 0015) such as compound 10’ (page 49 of the original document), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image3.png
490
464
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Compound 10’ is derived from Chen 2022 general formula I (page 29 of the original document), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image4.png
508
564
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In general formula I, Chen 2022 also teaches that any of Z1-Z3 are N or CH (paragraph 0008).
This teaching can produce a compound identical to compound 18 on page 58 of the instant specification.
Chen 2022 includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Chen 2022 being a lack of the aforementioned nitrogen atom positions being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select a carbon or nitrogen atom at any possible location on the six-membered ring to arrive at the amine-free capping layer compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a compound with a high refractive index, which is suitable for use as a light extraction material in the capping layer of an organic electroluminescent device (paragraph 0038), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Further, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the light extracting capping layer comprising the amine-free capping layer compound of Chen 2022 into the device of Chen 2019 in order to achieve better light extraction performance, as taught by Chen 2022.
Examiner is interpreting the compounds pictured and discussed above to meet the requirements of the instant claims through their use as a preferred embodiments of the claimed invention, as given on page 31 (organometallic compound D3) and page 58 (amine-free compound 18) of the instant specification. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and it has been held that when the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112.01(II)), and the compounds of Chen 2019 and Chen 2022 read on the claims.
Chen 2019 and Chen 2022 are silent to some of the compounds’ inherent properties such as the HOMO of the platinum compound (claim 1), the LUMO of the platinum compound (claim 2), that maximum emission wavelength of the platinum compound emitter (claim 3), the refractive index of the amine-free compound (claim 7), the HOMO of the amine-free compound (claim 8), and the LUMO of the amine-free compound (claim 9). However, these are considered to be properties of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when the platinum organometallic compound is used as an emitter in the emissive layer and the amine-free compound is used in the capping layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the properties described in the instant claims. Therefore, the claims are considered to be obvious over Chen 2019 and Chen 2022, and the burden shifts to applicant to show that there is an unobvious difference between the claimed composition and the composition in the prior art. See MPEP 2112 (V). In addition, the presently claimed properties are considered to be present once the work of Chen 2019 and Chen 2022 were first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
With respect to claims 11-12, Chen 2019 discloses an organic light-emitting device (OLED) comprising a first electrode (an anode), a second electrode (a cathode), and an interlayer (organic layer) between the electrodes (paragraph 0079), and the organic layer comprises an emission layer and the emission layer comprises an organometallic compound of Formula 1 (paragraph 0084), such as compound 95067 (page 118), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
442
594
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of instant Formula 1 when M11 is platinum, X11 through X13 are carbon atoms, X14 is a nitrogen atom, CY11 is a C5 heterocyclic imidazole-derived carbene, CY12 and CY13 are a C6 carbocyclic (benzene) group, and CY14 is a C5 heterocyclic (pyridine) group, n11 is 1 and L11 is a single bond, n12 is 1 and L12 is divalent oxygen, and n13 is 1 and L13 is *-N(R1a)-*’ wherein R1a is a C6 aryl (phenyl) group which is joined with an adjacent R13 to form a carbazole moiety, a11 is 3, two R11 are joined to form a fused benzene ring, and one R11 is a C6 aryl (phenyl) group which is 1,5-substituted with two R10a, and the two R10a are both C6 aryl (phenyl) group, a12 is 0 and R12 is not present, a13 is 1 and R13 is joined to R1a to form a carbazole moiety, a14 is 1, and R14 is a C4 alkyl (t-butyl) group.
However, Chen 2019 does not teach nor fairly suggest that the organic light-emitting device comprises a capping layer comprising an amine-free compound.
In analogous art, Chen 2022 also teaches an organic electroluminescent device (paragraph 0093 and Figure 1), and the organic electroluminescent device comprises a light-extraction capping layer with a high refractive index, thereby achieving better light extraction performance (paragraph 0003), as a result of including a condensed cyclic compound (a benzo[a]heterocyclic structure, paragraph 0015) such as compound 10’ (page 49 of the original document), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image3.png
490
464
media_image3.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of instant Formula 2 when CY21 is a C4 heterocyclic (pyrimidine) group, t21 is 2, n20 and n21 in each case are each 1 and L20 and L21 in each case are a C6 carbocyclic (phenylene) group, b22 is 7 and R22 is a hydrogen atom, b21 is 1 and R21 is a hydrogen atom, a21 is 1 in each case, and T21 is represented by Formula 4 in both cases. In Formula 4, ring CY41 is a C6 carbocyclic (benzene) group, in one case X41 is oxygen and in the other case X41 is a sulfur atom, X42 is a nitrogen atom, Y41 and Y42 are each a carbon atom, b41 is 4 and R41 is a hydrogen atom.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the light extracting capping layer comprising the condensed cyclic compound of Chen 2022 into the device of Chen 2019 in order to achieve better light extraction performance, as taught by Chen 2022.
With respect to claim 13, Chen 2019 and Chen 2022 teach the device of claim 11, and the C4 heterocyclic group is represented by instant formula 2B(1)-10, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 14, Chen 2019 and Chen 2022 teach the device of claim 11, and the condensed cyclic compound is represented by instant formula 2-3, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 15, Chen 2019 and Chen 2022 teach the device of claim 11, and T21 is by Formula 4-1 when X41 is oxygen or sulfur, X42 is a nitrogen atom, and all Y characters are CH, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 16, Chen 2019 and Chen 2022 teach the device of claim 11, and Chen 2022 also teaches that when the light extraction layer (capping layer) is formed using one of the described compounds, the layer may be combined with a layer of LiF as an encapsulation (second capping layer), with requirements for the combination of a high and low refractive index combination (paragraph 0086).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a second capping layer with a different refractive index, as taught by Chen 2022.
With respect to claim 17, Chen 2019 and Chen 2022 teach the device of claim 1, and Chen 2019 also teaches use of the device in an apparatus such as a display screen (paragraph 0031, lines 6-7).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the device of Chen 2019 and Chen 2022 in an electronic apparatus, such as a display screen, as taught by Chen 2019.
With respect to claims 19 and 20, Chen 2019 and Chen 2022 teach the device of claim 1, and Chen 2019 also teaches that the device may be incorporated into a consumer product such as a flat panel display (paragraph 0031, lines 15-21).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the device of Chen 2019 and Chen 2022 into a consumer product such as a flat panel display, as taught by Chen 2019.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2019/0119312 A1, herein after referred to as Chen 2019) and Chen et al. (CN 113943280 A, using the provided translation for references, herein after referred to as Chen 2022) as applied above, and further in view of Matsudate et al. (US 2005/0236970 A1).
With respect to claim 18, Chen 2019 and Chen 2022 teach the electronic apparatus of claim 17, as discussed above. However, neither Chen 2019 nor Chen 2022 teach nor fairly suggest a thin-film transistor wherein the thin-film transistor comprises a source and drain electrode and the first electrode of the light emitting device is electrically connected to the source or drain electrode.
In analogous art, Matsudate teaches an organic light emitting device. Matsudate teaches a design for an organic electroluminescent display which allows the device to be controlled and driven (abstract, and paragraphs 0003 and 0062). Matsudate teaches that the taught configuration of a source electrode, a drain electrode, an active layer, and a gate electrode, wherein the first electrode of the organic light-emitting device is electrically connected to one selected from the source electrode and the drain electrode of the thin-film transistor is applicable to general organic electroluminescent displays to achieve high manufacturing yields (paragraphs 0062-0069, and Fig. 11).
In view of the motivation of using the display component configuration of Matsudate as described above, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to configure the electronic apparatus of Chen 2019 and Chen 2022 using the component configuration of Matsudate in order to provide an organic electroluminescent display and achieve high manufacturing yields and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. Further, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). See MPEP 2143.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL SIMBANA whose telephone number is (571)272-2657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 A.M. - 4:30 P.M..
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 Boyd can be reached at 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 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.
/RACHEL SIMBANA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights