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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/08/2025 has been entered.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 10/09/2024 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patent No. 11,864,458 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 10/08/2025 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-2, 5, 11, 13, 15, and 17-18 have been amended.
The amendments of claims 1-2, 5, 11, 13, 15, and 17-18 have overcome:
the rejections of claims 15-17 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egen et al. (US 2014/0309428 A1) in view of Murakami et al. (US 2009/0079329 A1) as applied to claims 1, 3-7, 9-11, 13, 15, and 19 above, further in view of Kai et al. (US 2010/0187977 A1, hereafter Kai),
the rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egen et al. (US 2014/0309428 A1) in view of Murakami et al. (US 2009/0079329 A1) as applied to claims 1, 3-7, 9-11, 13, 15, and 19 above, further in view of Forrest et al. (US 2002/0008233 A1, hereafter Forrest),
the rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2013/0341600 A1) in view of Cheng et al. (US 2005/0025995 A1) as applied to claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10, 13, 15-17, and 19-20 above, further in view of Forrest et al. (US 2002/0008233 A1).
the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2013/0341600 A1) in view of Brooks et al. (US 2016/0072082 A1, hereafter Brooks).
the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2013/0341600 A1) in view of Murakami et al. (US 2009/0079329 A1) set forth in the last Office Action.
The rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see page 35-38 of the reply filed 10/08/2025 regarding the rejections of claims 1, 3-7, 9-11, 13, 15 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egen et al. (US 2014/0309428 A1) in view of Murakami et al. (US 2009/0079329 A1) set forth in the Office Action of 07/08/2025 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the amended claims are allowable over Egen and Murakami.
The cited rejections refer to Compounds of Egen as modified by Murakami (1), (2), and (3) (sections 65, 73, 82 of the last Office Action). The Compounds do not read on the limitation of the Formula I in the amended claims; thus, the rejections are withdrawn.
PNG
media_image1.png
231
744
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, the Compound of Egen as modified by Murakami and Cheng (section 109 of the last Office Action) still reads on the limitations of the Formula I in the amended claims because LB is
PNG
media_image2.png
189
81
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, wherein the Ra bonded to Y3 is alkyl. The rejections are updated and applied.
Applicant’s arguments see page 38-41 of the reply filed 10/08/2025 regarding the rejections of claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10, 13, 15-17, and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2013/0341600 A1) in view of Cheng et al. (US 2005/0025995 A1) set forth in the Office Action of 07/08/2025 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the amended claims are allowable over Lin and Murakami.
The cited rejections refer to Compounds of Lin as modified by Cheng (section 148 of the last Office Action).
PNG
media_image3.png
233
652
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The compound reads on the limitation of the Formula I in the amended claim because LB is
PNG
media_image2.png
189
81
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, wherein the Ra bonded to Y3 is alkyl. The rejections are updated and applied.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 5 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.
Regarding claim 5, Applicant recites “the carbon ring atom that bonds to the ring containing Rc”. However, for the ligand
PNG
media_image4.png
193
78
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, there is no Rc. It is unclear which carbon ring atom is referred to the carbon ring atom that bonds to the ring containing Rc. For the purpose of prosecution, the Examiner interprets the limitation to mean that any carbon ring atom at any one of the positions Y5 through Y8 can be the carbon ring atom that bonds to the ring containing Rc.
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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, 3-4, 6-10, 13, 15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egen et al. (US 2014/0309428 A1, hereafter Egen) in view of Murakami et al. (US 2009/0079329 A1, hereafter Murakami) and Cheng et al. (US 2005/0025995 A1, hereafter Cheng).
Regarding claims 1, 3-4, 6-10, 13, 15, and 18-20, Egen discloses a compound used for an organic light emitting device ([0001] and Formula (I) in [0010]-[0029]). Egen exemplifies a ligand (the first example in [0122], hereafter Example 1), wherein M can be Ir(III).
PNG
media_image5.png
290
527
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Egen does not disclose a specific heteroleptic Ir complex comprising the ligand of the Example 1 together with a phenyl pyridine ligand at the ligand ratio of 1:2; however, Egen does teach that M can be Ir(III) ([0011], [0122]; and Ir is exemplified in [0153]); n can be 1 ([0014]); and L can be a monoanionic bidentate ligand ([0012]); m can be 2; and q can be each 0 ([0015]-[0016]).
Murakami discloses a transition metal complex comprising a phenyl pyridine based ligand and a carbene ligand used for an organic light emitting device (Formula (4), [0040]-[0046]). Murakami exemplifies a phenyl pyridine ligand (Compound (13) in [0099]).
PNG
media_image6.png
286
523
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Murakami teaches that the transition metal complex provides the organic light emitting device with a variety of color light with high durability or high light emitting efficiency ([0004]-[0017]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compound of Formula (I) of Egen by incorporating Ir as M; the ligand of the Example 1 of Egen as the moiety
PNG
media_image7.png
196
142
media_image7.png
Greyscale
; value 1 as n; a phenyl pyridine ligand as the ligand L; value 2 as m; and value 0 as q, as taught by Egen and Murakami.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide the organic light emitting device comprising the compound with a variety of color light with high durability or high light emitting efficiency based on the teaching of Murakami.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Each substitution of M, n, L, m, and q in the compound of Formula (I) would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
PNG
media_image8.png
254
686
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The modification provides the Compound of Egen as modified by Murakami.
The phenyl pyridine ligand of the Compound of Egen as modified by Murakami does not have an alkyl substituent; however, Egen does teach that L can be a monoanionic bidentate ligand ([0012]). Murakami teaches that the substituent at the position corresponding to the R45 of the phenyl pyridine ligand of the Formula (4) of Murakami ([0043]) refer to the definition of the R11 of Formula (1) of Murakami ([0089]), wherein R11 can be methyl ([0071]).
Cheng discloses an iridium complex comprising a 4-methyl phenyl pyridine ligand (Abstract, see compounds (1)-(2) in [0099]). Cheng teaches that introduction of a substituent at position 4 of the pyridine ring of the phenyl pyridine ligand provides reduced non-radiative decay and self-quenching, and enhanced luminescence efficiency ([0133]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound of Egen as modified by Murakami by incorporating a methyl group at the position-4 of the pyridine ring of the phenyl pyridine ligand, as taught by Egen, Murakami, and Cheng.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide reduced non-radiative decay and self-quenching, and enhanced luminescence efficiency, based on the teaching of Cheng.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the substituents from hydrogen to methyl in the phenyl pyridine ligand at the position corresponding to L of Formula (1) of Egen would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
PNG
media_image1.png
231
744
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Compound of Egen as modified by Murakami and Cheng, meeting all the limitations of claims 1, 3-4, 6-10, 13, and 18.
With respect to claims 7-9, Z does not occur in the Compound of Egen as modified by Murakami and Cheng, because the ligand LA is represented by Formula I. Neither claim 1 nor claims 7-9 require the ligand LA to be represented by Formula II. That is, when ligand LA is represented by Formula I, Z is not present. The limitation of claims 7-9 met in the case that the ligand LA is Formula I.
Egen in view of Murakami and Cheng does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising the Compound of Egen as modified by Murakami and Cheng; however, Egen does teach that the compound of Egen can be used as the emitter ([0030]).
Egen teaches the structure of an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, an emissive layer, and a cathode ([0160], [0242]-[0246]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound of Egen as modified by Murakami and Cheng by incorporating it as the emitter of an organic light emitting device as taught by Egen.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the emitters in the organic light emitting device would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Organic light emitting device of Egen as modified by Murakami and Cheng comprising an anode, an emissive layer comprising the Compound of Egen as modified by Murakami and Cheng, and a cathode, wherein the emissive layer is an organic layer; and the emissive layer materials are formulation, meeting all the limitations of claims 15 and 20.
Egen in view of Murakami and Cheng does not disclose a specific consumer product comprising the Organic light emitting device of Egen as modified by Murakami and Cheng; however, Egen does teach that the organic light emitting device can be used in consumer products including the visual display units in a television ([0134], [0251], [0185]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Organic light emitting device of Egen as modified by Murakami and Cheng by incorporating it into a consumer product as taught by Egen.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of organic light emitting devices of Egen in a consumer product (i.e. the visual display units in a television) would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides a consumer product comprising the Organic light emitting device of Egen as modified by Murakami and Cheng, meeting all the limitations of claim 19.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egen et al. (US 2014/0309428 A1) in view of Murakami et al. (US 2009/0079329 A1) and Cheng et al. (US 2005/0025995 A1) as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 6-10, 13, 15 and 18-20 above, further in view of Kwong et al. (US 2008/0261076 A1, hereafter Kwong).
Regarding claim 5, the Compound of Egen as modified by Murakami and Cheng reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
In the compound there is no alkyl substituent to the phenyl ring of the phenyl pyridine ligand; however, Egen does teach that L can be a monoanionic bidentate ligand ([0012]). Murakami teaches that the substituent at the position corresponding to the R46 of the phenyl pyridine ligand of the Formula (4) of Murakami ([0043]) refer to the definition of the R11 of Formula (1) of Murakami ([0089]), wherein R11 can be methyl ([0071]).
Kwong discloses a phenyl pyridine based Ir complex used for an organic light emitting device ([0008]-[0013]).
PNG
media_image9.png
273
539
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Kwong teaches that substitution of the phenyl of the phenyl pyridine based ligand to a dimethyl phenyl provides lower sublimation temperature, higher efficiency, and narrower emission ([0052], comparison between Comp. Ex. 5 with Compound 22 in Table 2).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound of Egen as modified by Murakami and Cheng by substituting the phenyl ring with dimethyl phenyl ring as taught by Egen, Murakami, and Kwong.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide lower sublimation temperature, higher efficiency, and narrower emission, based on the teaching of Kwong.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
PNG
media_image10.png
238
760
media_image10.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Compound of Egen as modified by Murakami, Cheng and Kwong.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egen et al. (US 2014/0309428 A1, hereafter Egen) in view of Murakami et al. (US 2009/0079329 A1, hereafter Murakami) and Tsuzuki et al. (JP 2004/107441 A, machine translated English version is referred to, hereafter Tsuzuki).
Regarding claims 1, 3-4, 6-10, and 17, Egen discloses a compound used for an organic light emitting device ([0001] and Formula (I) in [0010]-[0029]). Egen exemplifies a ligand (the first example in [0122], hereafter Example 1), wherein M can be Ir(III).
PNG
media_image5.png
290
527
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Egen does not disclose a specific heteroleptic Ir complex comprising the ligand of the Example 1 together with a phenyl pyridine ligand at the ligand ratio of 1:2; however, Egen does teach that M can be Ir(III) ([0011], [0122]; and Ir is exemplified in [0153]); n can be 1 ([0014]); and L can be a monoanionic bidentate ligand ([0012]); m can be 2; and q can be each 0 ([0015]-[0016]).
Murakami discloses a transition metal complex comprising a phenyl pyridine based ligand and a carbene ligand used for an organic light emitting device (Formula (4), [0040]-[0046]). Murakami exemplifies a phenyl pyridine ligand (Compound (13) in [0099]).
PNG
media_image6.png
286
523
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Murakami teaches that the transition metal complex provides the organic light emitting device with a variety of color light with high durability or high light emitting efficiency ([0004]-[0017]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compound of Formula (I) of Egen by incorporating Ir as M; the ligand of the Example 1 of Egen as the moiety
PNG
media_image7.png
196
142
media_image7.png
Greyscale
; value 1 as n; a phenyl pyridine ligand as the ligand L; value 2 as m; and value 0 as q, as taught by Egen and Murakami.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide the organic light emitting device comprising the compound with a variety of color light with high durability or high light emitting efficiency based on the teaching of Murakami.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Each substitution of M, n, L, m, and q in the compound of Formula (I) would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
PNG
media_image8.png
254
686
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The modification provides the Compound of Egen as modified by Murakami.
The phenyl pyridine ligand of the Compound of Egen as modified by Murakami does not have an aryl substituent; however, Egen does teach that L can be a monoanionic bidentate ligand ([0012]). Murakami teaches that the substituent at the position corresponding to the R45 of the phenyl pyridine ligand of the Formula (4) of Murakami ([0043]) refer to the definition of the R11 of Formula (1) of Murakami ([0089]), wherein R11 can be phenyl ([0072]).
Tsuzuki discloses an iridium complex comprising a phenyl pyridine based ligand used for an organic light emitting device ([0013]). Tsuzuki teaches that a large perfluoroaryl-substituted ligand provides reduced interaction between excitons and reduced concentration quenching ([0008]). Tsuzuki exemplifies perfluorophenyl group substituted to the position 3 of the phenyl pyridine ring (i.e. the ring carbon atom of the pyridine ring of a phenyl pyridine ligand, wherein the ring carbon atom is para to the bond to the phenyl coordinating to the metal, see compound (i) in [0025], [0050], [0053], [0056]).
PNG
media_image11.png
304
468
media_image11.png
Greyscale
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound of Egen as modified by Murakami by incorporating a perfluorophenyl group at the position-3 of the pyridine ring of the phenyl pyridine ligand, as taught by Egen, Murakami, and Tsuzuki.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide reduced interaction between excitons and reduced concentration quenching, based on the teaching of Tsuzuki.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
PNG
media_image12.png
280
680
media_image12.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Compound of Egen as modified by Murakami and Tsuzuki, meeting all the limitations of claims 1, 3-4, 6-10, and 17.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-10, 13, 15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2013/0341600 A1, hereafter Lin) in view of Cheng et al. (US 2005/0025995 A1, hereafter Cheng).
Regarding claims 1, 3-4, 6-10, 13, 15, and 18-20, Lin discloses a compound including a ligand L1 represented by Formula I used as the emitter of an organic light emitting device ([0003], [0016]).
PNG
media_image13.png
302
517
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Lin discloses more specific structural Formulas II and GS1 which are the subgenus of the Formula I ([0055]-[0062]). Lin exemplifies Compound 1-1 ([0072]).
The ligand of the Compound 1-1 of Lin has phenyl groups at the position corresponding to R2 and R3 of Formula GS1 of Lin; however, Lin does teach that R2 and R3 can be alkyl ([0044]). Lin discloses that the term alkyl is defined in US 7,279,704 B2 which is incorporated by reference, wherein methyl is an example of the alkyl group (column 32, line 1 in US 7,279,704 B2). Lin exemplifies methyl as the substituent R2 and R3 (see examples including at least Compound 51- to 5-3 in [0072]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound 1-1 of Lin by substituting the phenyl groups at the positions corresponding to R2 and R3 of Formula I with methyl, as taught by Lin.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the phenyl groups at the positions corresponding to R2 and R3 of Formula I with methyl would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified compound of Lin.
PNG
media_image14.png
222
503
media_image14.png
Greyscale
The Modified compound of Lin is not a heteroleptic complex comprising a substituted phenyl pyridine ligand at the ligand ratio of 1:2; however, Lin does teach that L2 can be a 4-methyl phenyl pyridine ligand with the ligand ratio of m being 1 and n being 2 ([0073]).
Cheng discloses an iridium complex comprising a 4-methyl phenyl pyridine ligand (Abstract, see compounds (1)-(2) in [0099]). Cheng teaches that introduction of a substituent at position 4 of the pyridine ring of the phenyl pyridine ligand provides reduced non-radiative decay and self-quenching, and enhanced luminescence efficiency ([0133]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified compound of Lin by incorporating a 4-methyl phenyl pyridine ligand as L2 and value 1 as m; value 2 as n, as taught by Lin and Cheng.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide reduced non-radiative decay and self-quenching, and enhanced luminescence efficiency, based on the teaching of Cheng.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Each substitution of the exemplified structures and values as the L2, m, and n in the compound of Lin would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
PNG
media_image3.png
233
652
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The modification provides the Compound of Lin as modified by Cheng, meeting all the limitations of claims 1, 3-4, 6-10, 13, and 18.
With respect to claims 7-9, Z does not occur in the Compound of Lin as modified by Cheng, because the ligand LA is represented by Formula I. Neither claim 1 nor claims 7-9 require the ligand LA to be represented by Formula II. That is, when ligand LA is represented by Formula I, Z is not present. The limitation of claims 7-9 met in the case that the ligand LA is Formula I.
Lin in view of Cheng does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising the Compound of Lin as modified by Cheng; however, Lin does teach the compound of Lin can be used as the emitter of an organic light emitting device ([0003]).
Lin teaches the structure of an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, a light emitting layer, and a cathode ([0017], [0027]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound of Lin as modified by Cheng by incorporating it as the light emitting layer of an organic light emitting device, as taught by Lin.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the emitters in the organic light emitting device would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Organic light emitting device of Lin as modified by Cheng comprising an anode, a light emitting layer comprising the Compound of Lin as modified by Cheng as an emitter, and a cathode, wherein the light emitting layer is an organic layer, wherein the light emitting layer materials are a formulation, meeting all the limitations of claims 15 and 20.
Lin in view of Cheng does not disclose a specific consumer product comprising the Organic light emitting device of Lin as modified by Cheng; however, Lin does teach that the organic light emitting device can be used in consumer products including a lighting panel ([0017]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Organic light emitting device of Lin as modified by Cheng by incorporating it into a consumer product, as taught by Lin.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of organic light emitting devices in a consumer product would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides a consumer product comprising the Organic light emitting device of Lin as modified by Cheng, meeting all the limitations of claim 19.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2013/0341600 A1) in view of Cheng et al. (US 2005/0025995 A1) as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 6-10, 13, 15, and 18-20 above, further in view of Kwong et al. (US 2008/0261076 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the Compound of Lin as modified by Cheng reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
In the compound there is no alkyl substituent to the phenyl ring of the phenyl pyridine ligand; however, Lin does teach that the ancillary ligand can be represented by a formula
PNG
media_image15.png
183
90
media_image15.png
Greyscale
([0051]), wherein Rb can be alkyl ([0053]).
Kwong discloses a phenyl pyridine based Ir complex used for an organic light emitting device ([0008]-[0013]).
PNG
media_image9.png
273
539
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Kwong teaches that substitution of the phenyl of the phenyl pyridine based ligand to dimethyl phenyl provides lower sublimation temperature, higher efficiency, and narrower emission ([0052], comparison between Comp. Ex. 5 with Compound 22 in Table 2).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound of Lin as modified by Cheng by substituting the phenyl ring with dimethyl phenyl ring as taught by Lin and Kwong.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide lower sublimation temperature, higher efficiency, and narrower emission, based on the teaching of Kwong.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
PNG
media_image16.png
241
688
media_image16.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Compound of Lin as modified by Cheng and Kwong.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2013/0341600 A1) in view of Tsuzuki et al. (JP 2004/107441 A, machine translated English version is referred to).
Regarding claims 1, 3-4, 6-10, and 17, Lin discloses a compound including a ligand L1 represented by Formula I used as the emitter of an organic light emitting device ([0003], [0016]).
PNG
media_image13.png
302
517
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Lin discloses more specific structural Formulas II and GS1 which are the subgenus of the Formula I ([0055]-[0062]). Lin exemplifies Compound 1-1 ([0072]).
The ligand of the Compound 1-1 of Lin has phenyl groups at the position corresponding to R2 and R3 of Formula GS1 of Lin; however, Lin does teach that R2 and R3 can be alkyl ([0044]). Lin discloses that the term alkyl is defined in US 7,279,704 B2 which is incorporated by reference, wherein methyl is an example of the alkyl group (column 32, line 1 in US 7,279,704 B2). Lin exemplifies methyl as the substituent R2 and R3 (see examples including at least Compound 51- to 5-3 in [0072]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound 1-1 of Lin by substituting the phenyl groups at the positions corresponding to R2 and R3 of Formula I with methyl, as taught by Lin.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the phenyl groups at the positions corresponding to R2 and R3 of Formula I with methyl would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified compound of Lin.
PNG
media_image14.png
222
503
media_image14.png
Greyscale
The Modified compound of Lin is not a heteroleptic complex comprising a substituted phenyl pyridine ligand at the ligand ratio of 1:2; however, Lin does teach that the ancillary ligand can be represented by
PNG
media_image17.png
187
90
media_image17.png
Greyscale
([0051]) and the ligand ratio of m to n can be 1 to 2 ([0073]). Lin teaches Ra can be aryl or hydrogen and Rb can be hydrogen ([0053]).
Tsuzuki discloses an iridium complex comprising a phenyl pyridine based ligand used for an organic light emitting device ([0013]). Tsuzuki teaches that a large perfluoroaryl-substituted ligand provides reduced interaction between excitons and reduced concentration quenching ([0008]). Tsuzuki exemplifies perfluorophenyl group substituted to the position 3 of the phenyl pyridine ring (i.e. the ring carbon atom of the pyridine ring of a phenyl pyridine ligand, wherein the ring carbon atom is para to the bond to the phenyl coordinating to the metal, see compound (i) in [0025], [0050], [0053], [0056]).
PNG
media_image11.png
304
468
media_image11.png
Greyscale
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound of Modified compound of Lin by incorporating a perfluorophenyl phenyl pyridine ligand as an ancillary ligand with the ligand ratio of 1 to 2, as taught by Lin and Tsuzuki.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide reduced interaction between excitons and reduced concentration quenching, based on the teaching of Tsuzuki.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
PNG
media_image18.png
267
634
media_image18.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Compound of Lin as modified by Tsuzuki, meeting all the limitations of claims 1, 3-4, 6-10, and 17.
Claim Objections / Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 11-12, and 16 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As outlined above, Egen (US 2014/0309428 A1) is a representation of the closest prior arts. As described in more detail above, Egen teaches an Ir complex comprising a ligand LA having identical structure as Applicant’s Formula I of the instant claims.
However, Egen does not teach a specific ancillary ligand represented by
PNG
media_image19.png
209
182
media_image19.png
Greyscale
, wherein Ra is aryl and Rb is alkyl as required in claim 2.
Egen does not teach a specific ancillary ligand represented by
PNG
media_image20.png
194
139
media_image20.png
Greyscale
or
PNG
media_image21.png
231
136
media_image21.png
Greyscale
as required in claim 16.
Egen does not teach a specific ancillary ligand represented by
PNG
media_image22.png
190
80
media_image22.png
Greyscale
, wherein Ra bonded to Y2 is aryl or phenyl and the Ra bonded to Y3 is alkyl or CD3 as required in the instant claims 11-12.
As outlined above, Lin (US 2013/0341600 A1) is a representation of the closest prior arts. As described in more detail above, Lin teaches an Ir complex comprising a ligand LA having identical structure as Applicant’s Formula I of the instant claims.
However, Lin does not teach a specific ancillary ligand represented by
PNG
media_image19.png
209
182
media_image19.png
Greyscale
, wherein Ra is aryl and Rb is alkyl as required in claim 2.
Lin does not teach a specific ancillary ligand represented by
PNG
media_image20.png
194
139
media_image20.png
Greyscale
or
PNG
media_image21.png
231
136
media_image21.png
Greyscale
as required in claim 16.
Lin does not teach a specific ancillary ligand represented by
PNG
media_image22.png
190
80
media_image22.png
Greyscale
, wherein Ra bonded to Y2 is aryl or phenyl and the Ra bonded to Y3 is alkyl or CD3 as required in the instant claims 11-12.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With respect to claim 14, as outlined above, Egen (US 2014/0309428 A1) is a representative of the closest prior arts.
Egen teaches an Ir complex used for an organic light emitting device.
However, Egen does not teach modifying the Ir complex such that the it has the specific structure as required in claim 14. There is no sufficient teaching or motivation in the cited prior art or the broader prior art to teach modifications of an Ir complex such that the Ir complex has specific structure as required claim 14 to meet the limitations of the current claim 14.
With respect to claim 14, as outlined above, Lin (US 2013/0341600 A1) is a representative of the closest prior arts.
Lin teaches an Ir complex used for an organic light emitting device.
However, Lin does not teach modifying the Ir complex such that the it has the specific structure as required in claim 14. There is no sufficient teaching or motivation in the cited prior art or the broader prior art to teach modifications of an Ir complex such that the Ir complex has specific structure as required claim 14 to meet the limitations of the current claim 14.
In sum, claim 14 is allowed over the cited prior art.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEOKMIN JEON whose telephone number is (571)272-4599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm EST.
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.
/SEOKMIN JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786