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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 10 depends on claim 1 and specifies the first compound to be represented by formula 2 wherein moiety Ar3 is represented by formula A. The description states that p = 0 or 1 and p + q = 1. However, q does not have an antecedent basis. The description about RQ and Rq is confusing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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, 3-11, 14, 16-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2023/0413667 A1 to Moon et al.
Regarding claim 1, Moon et al. discloses an OLED wherein the EML comprises a phosphorescent dopant, a carbazole-based hole-transporting host compound and an azine-based electron-transporting host compound. For example, the EML of the device in example 1 comprises 10 wt% of iridium complex D-130, 60 wt% of compound C-3 and 30 wt% of compound H2-2-D20:
PNG
media_image1.png
302
494
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
214
274
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
414
356
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
The device has a high luminous efficiency and a long lifetime. The metal complex D-130 is exemplary of the claimed metal complex, and the electron-transporting host C-3 is exemplary of the claimed first compound (see claim 10). Moon et al. is silent as to the capacitance of the device at 500 Hz. However, the following is noted. The device in example 3 of the instant application, which is exemplary of the claimed device, has its EML comprised of host PH-17 (47 wt%), host A-19 (47 wt%), and dopant GD1 (6 wt%):
PNG
media_image4.png
338
204
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
222
240
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
204
268
media_image6.png
Greyscale
.
In view of the close resemblance of the prior art device and the device of example 3, and in view of the fact that the prior art device is structurally exemplary of the claimed device, it is reasonable to expect the prior art device to satisfy the expression of
Cmax – Cmax0 ≤ -0.35 nF.
Additionally, an association of said inequality to the prior art device is obvious due to the following reasons. A low capacitance indicates a more charge balance in the light-emitting layer. A high capacitance is often associated with a much higher concentration of holes than electrons in the layer. The extra holes function as polarons that deteriorate the luminescence efficiency and the operation lifetime. Since the prior art device uses both a hole-transporting compound and an electron-transporting compound as the host material, charge balance in the layer is improved. This is consistent with the observed high luminescence efficiency and long lifespan. In other words, it is obvious to expect the prior art device to have a very low capacitance at 500 Hz. Since the Office does not have a means to conduct experiments to prove the above assertions, the burden of proof is now shifted to the applicant to show otherwise. See MPEP § 2112(III)-(V). Claim 1 is therefore unpatentable. So are claims 3-5 for the same reasons. The prior art device has a driving voltage of about 3 V (see the examples), which reads on claims 6 and 7. The features of claims 8-10 and 16 are disclosed as explained. Those of claim 11 can be seen, for example, from the device 13 on page 203. An example that reads on claim 14 is the electron-transporting host compound C-46 on page 13. The features of claims 17-19 can be seen from the compounds on page 174. The use of the OLED in displays such as TVs is mentioned in paragraph [0002], rendering claim 21 unpatentable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The features described in these claims are not disclosed, suggested or made obvious by Moon et al., which represents the closest prior art of record.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VU ANH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5454. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM.
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, ROBERT JONES can be reached at (571) 270-7733. 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.
/VU A NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
