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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/13/2025 has been entered.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 07/08/2024 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of Application 17/019,389 has been reviewed and was accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of species (A1)-(B1), in the reply filed on 03/08/2024 is acknowledged.
In the Office Action of 04/09/2024, the Examiner merges the subspecies (A1) with (A2). The merged subspecies was assigned to Species (A’). Applicant’s election without traverse in the reply of 03/08/2024 is equated with election of Species (A’)-(B1). Claims 1-16 and 19-22 read on the updated election.
Upon further consideration, the requirement of species election has been withdrawn. No claim is withdrawn.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 02/20/2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 1-25 have been canceled.
Claims 36-45 have been added.
Claims 36-45 are pending.
The cancellation of claims 1-4, 6, 8-9, 11-13, 16, and 19-25 obviates the rejections of claims 1-4, 6, 8-9, 11-13, 16, and 19-25 set forth in the last Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see pages 39-49 of the reply filed 02/20/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1-4, 6, 8-9, 11-13, 16, and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boudreault et al. (US 2016/0260913 A1, hereafter Boudreault ‘913) in view of Takiguchi et al. (US 2003/0068535 A1, hereafter Takiguchi), the rejections of claims 1-4, 6, 8-9, 11-13, 15-16, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boudreault ‘956, the provisional rejections of claims 1-4, 6, 8-9, 11-13, 16, and 19-21 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 16, and 19-20 of copending Application No. 17/671,692 (reference application, hereafter Application ‘692) set forth in the Office Action of 08/14/2025 have been considered.
Applicant argues that rejections based on the cited references should be withdrawn.
The rejections are withdrawn because the claims are cancelled. The arguments are moot.
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.
Claims 35 and 39 are 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 35, claim 35 claims detailed structural formula of the ligand LA of the independent claim 26. However, some of the structural formulas including at least Structures 9-10 and 13-18 are not encompassed by any of the two general structural formulas of the claim 26,
PNG
media_image1.png
148
314
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. It is unclear whether Applicant claims the least Structures 9-10 and 13-18 regardless they are not encompassed by the general formulas of claim 26.
For the purpose of prosecution, the Examiner interprets the limitation to mean that claim 35 claims the least Structures 9-10 and 13-18 although they are not encompassed by the general formulas of the independent claim 26, similarly as the claim 35 is handled as an independent claim.
Regarding claim 39, claim 39 is rejected due to the dependency from claim 35.
Claim 40 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 40, claim 40 claims specific embodiments of the compound of the independent claim 26. However, none of the embodiments reads on the general formulas for the ligand LA of the claim 26,
PNG
media_image1.png
148
314
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. It is unclear whether Applicant claims the specific embodiments regardless they are not encompassed by the general formulas of claim 26.
For the purpose of prosecution, the Examiner interprets the limitation to mean that claim 40 claims the specific embodiments although they are not encompassed by the general formulas of the independent claim 26, similarly as the claim 40 is handled as an independent claim.
Claims 35 and 39 are 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.
Regarding claim 35, claim 35 claims detailed structural formula of the ligand LA of the independent claim 26. However, some of the structural formulas including at least Structures 9-10 and 13-18 are not encompassed by any of the two general structural formulas of the claim 26,
PNG
media_image1.png
148
314
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. Currently claim 35 is dependent from claim 26. Therefore, claim 26 fails to include all the limitations of the claims upon which they depend.
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.
Regarding claim 39, claim 39 is rejected due to the dependency from claim 35.
Claim 40 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.
Regarding claim 40, claim 40 claims specific embodiments of the compound of the independent claim 26. However, none of the embodiments reads on the ligand LA of the claim 26,
PNG
media_image1.png
148
314
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. Currently claim 40 is dependent from claim 26. Therefore, claim 26 fails to include all the limitations of the claims upon which they depend.
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
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 26-32, 34, 36-38, and 41-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boudreault et al. (US 2016/0260913 A1, hereafter Boudreault ‘913).
Regarding claims 26-29, 31-32, 34, 36-38, 41-42, and 44-45, Boudreault ‘913 discloses a compound comprising a ligand L of Formula I ([0016]) and used for an organic light emitting device ([0017]).
PNG
media_image2.png
409
654
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In the Formulas I, Y can be carbon; R has structure of Formula II; X can be CR’R”; A can be 6-membered carbocyclic ring; Z can be carbon; and R1, R2, R3, R4 , R’, and R” can be hydrogen and alkyl ([0016], [0049]-[0055]).
Boudreault ‘913 exemplifies an organic light emitting device comprising an anode (ITO), an emission layer (Compound 89347 as an emitter, a carbazole Compound H as a host), and a cathode (Al) (Example 1 in [0112], Table 1).
In the Compound 89347, the dimethylfluorene moiety corresponding to the Formula II of Boudreault ‘913 (i.e. the part enclosed by a dashed box in the figure above) is substituted to the positions 1-2 of the Formula I via the positions c-d of the Formula II (See the annotated numbers 1 through 4 and characters a through d in the figure above), which does not read on the limitation of the ligand LA of the instant claims; however, Boudreault ‘913 does teach that R has structure of Formula II and two adjacent carbons from the four carbon marked with * can fuse to ring B ([0016]), indicating any adjacent two positions of 1 through 4 of Formula I can be connected to the any adjacent two positions of a through d of Formula II.
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 89347 of Boudreault ‘913 by substituting the substitution positions of the dimethyl fluorene group corresponding to the Formula II of Boudreault ‘913 from the positions 1-2 to the positions 3-4 of in pyridine ring corresponding to the ring B of Formula I of Boudreault ‘913, as taught by Boudreault ‘913.
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 substitution positions of the ring corresponding Formula II with respect to the ring B of the Formula I of Boudreault ‘913 would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). There are finite number of substitution positions of the ring of Formula II when it is connected to the ring B of Formula I. The selection of the positions c-d of the ring II in combination of the positions 3-4 of the ring B of Formula I would have been one from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Additionally, the resultant compound is a position isomer of the Compound 89347.
With respect to position isomers, the examiner points to the MPEP which states: A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. “An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties.” In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1991) for an extensive review of the case law pertaining to obviousness based on close structural similarity of chemical compounds. Compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) or homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties.” In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). See also In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978) (stereoisomers prima facie obvious). See MPEP 2144.09 I and 2144.09 II.
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Compound 89347 of Boudreault ‘913 shown above such that the substitution positions of the dimethyl fluorene group corresponding to the Formula II of Boudreault ‘913 is substituted from the positions 1-2 to the positions 3-4 of in pyridine ring corresponding to the ring B of Formula I of Boudreault ‘913.
A compound in which the dimethyl fluorene group corresponding to the Formula II of Boudreault ‘913 is substituted to the positions 3-4 of in pyridine ring corresponding to the ring B of Formula I of Boudreault ‘913 would represent a position isomer of the Compound 89347 of Boudreault ‘913. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the position isomers having each respective structure would act in similar manner.
The modification provides Modified compound of Boudreault ‘913.
PNG
media_image3.png
247
662
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The Modified compound of Boudreault ‘913 reads on all the limitations of claims 26-29, 31-32, 34 and 36-38.
The modification also provides Modified organic light emitting device of Boudreault ‘913 comprising an anode (ITO), an emission layer (Modified compound of Boudreault ‘913 as an emitter, a carbazole Compound H as a host), and a cathode (Al), wherein the emission layer materials are equated with a formulation, meeting all the limitations of claims 41-42 and 45.
Boudreault ‘913 does not disclose a specific consumer product comprising the Modified organic light emitting device of Boudreault ‘913; however, Boudreault ‘913 does teach that the organic light emitting device can be incorporated into a consumer product ([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 Modified organic light emitting device of Boudreault ‘913 by incorporating it into a consumer product, as taught by Boudreault ‘913.
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 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 the Modified consumer product of Boudreault ‘913 comprising the Modified organic light emitting device of Boudreault ‘913, meeting all the limitations of claim 44.
Regarding claim 30, the Modified compound of Boudreault ‘913 reads on all the features of claim 26 as outlined above.
In the compound, the atom at the position corresponding to the X of Formula II of Boudreault ‘913 is not NRe; however, Boudreault ‘913 does teach that X can be NR’, wherein R’ can be alkyl ([0016]). Boudreault ‘913 exemplifies N(Me) as the structure at the position corresponding to X of Formula II (see examples including at least the ligand LA129 through LA172 on page 10-12, [0056]).
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 Boudreault ‘913 by substituting the C(Me)2 at the position corresponding to X of Formula II of Boudreault ‘913 with N(Me), as taught by Boudreault ‘913.
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 exemplified structures at the position corresponding to X of Formula II of Boudreault ‘913 in the compound of Boudreault ‘913 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 Boudreault ‘913 (2) which has identical structure as Modified compound of Boudreault ‘913 except the C(Me)2 at the position corresponding to X of Formula II is replaced with N(Me).
Regarding claim 43, the Modified organic light emitting device of Boudreault ‘913 reads on all the features of claim 41, as outlined above.
The device comprises an anode (ITO), an emission layer (Modified compound of Boudreault ‘913 as an emitter, a carbazole Compound H as a host), and a cathode (Al).
The carbazole Compound H does not read on the limitation of the instant claim 43; however, Boudreault ‘913 does teach dicarbazolyl dibenzothiophene,
PNG
media_image4.png
182
351
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, as the host material (page 73, [0092]-[0093]).
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 organic light emitting device of Boudreault ‘913 by substituting the host Compound H with dicarbazolyl dibenzothiophene, as taught by Boudreault ‘913.
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 host materials 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 organic light emitting device of Boudreault ‘913 (2) comprising an anode (ITO), an emission layer (Modified compound of Boudreault ‘913 as an emitter, dicarbazolyl dibenzothiophene as a host), and a cathode (Al).
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boudreault et al. (US 2016/0260913 A1) as applied to claims 26-32, 34, 36-38, and 41-45 above, further in view of Edkins et al. (“Syntheses, Structures, and Comparison of the Photophysical Properties of Cyclometalated Iridium Complexes Containing the Isomeric 1- and 2‑(2′-pyridyl)pyrene Ligands”, Inorg. Chem. 2013, vol. 52, page 9842-9860, hereafter Edkins).
Regarding claim 33, the Modified compound of Boudreault ‘913 reads on all the features of claim 26 as outlined above.
In the compound, the dimethyl phenyl group at the position corresponding to the ring A of Formula I of Boudreault ‘913 is not a fused polycyclic aromatic ring, which does not read on the limitation of the claim 33; however, Boudreault ‘913 does teach the ring A can be a 6-membered carbocyclic ring ([0016]) and exemplifies phenyl group ([0040]). Boudreault ‘913 further teaches the substituent R2 of the ring A can be alkenyl or aryl, wherein two adjacent substituents can be joined to form a ring ([0016]).
PNG
media_image5.png
207
265
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Edkins discloses an Ir complex comprising a pyrene ring at the position corresponding to the ring A of Formula I of Boudreault ‘913 (Abstract, Ir(2-pypyr)2(acac) in Scheme 1). Edkins teaches that introduction of pyrene into an Ir complex provides interesting photophysical properties (p9842). Edkins teaches that the substitution of the phenyl ring with pyrene ring provides red shift of the emission light (see Fig. 5. Compare the peak emission wavelength and the structure of the Ir(2-pypyr)2(acac) having red emission with Ir(ppy)2(acac) having green emission). Edkins teaches 2-pypyr provides less non-radiative decay rate and high quantum yield than 1-pypyr (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 Modified compound of Boudreault ‘913 by substituting the dimethyl phenyl group at the position corresponding to the ring A of Formula I with pyrenyl, as taught by Boudreault ‘913 and Edkins.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide red shift in the emission spectrum, based on the teaching of Edkins.
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 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 Compound of Boudreault ‘913 as modified by Edkins which has identical structure as the Modified compound of Boudreault ‘913 except the phenyl ring at the position corresponding to the ring A of Formula I of Boudreault ‘913 is replaced by 2-pyrenyl.
Claims 26-28, 31-32, 34, 36-38, 41-42, and 44-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2020/0266365 A1, hereafter Kim).
Regarding claims 26-28, 31-32, 34, 36-38, 41-42, and 44-45, Kim discloses a compound comprising a ligand of Formula (1) ([0009]) and used for an organic light emitting device ([0001]). Kim teaches more detailed structural Formula (3) as a subgenus of Formula (1) ([0036]) and exemplifies Compound D-24 ([0040]).
PNG
media_image6.png
344
778
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In the Compound D-24, the indenone ring (i.e. the part enclosed by a dashed box in the figure above) is substituted to the positions 2-3 of the fused benzene ring of the isoquinoline ligand (see the annotated numbers in the figure above), which does not read on the limitation of the ligand LA of the instant claims; however, Kim does teach that the indenone group can be substituted to any adjacent two carbon atoms of the fused benzene ring of the isoquinoline ligand of Formula (3) ([0036]).
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 D-24 of Kim by substituting the substitution positions of the indenone ring from the positions 2-3 to the positions 3-4 of the fused benzene ring of the isoquinoline ligand, as taught by Kim.
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 substitution positions of the indenone ring in the compound represented by Formula (3) of Kim would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). There are finite number of substitution positions to substitute the indenone ring to the benzene ring of the isoquinoline ligand of Formula (3) of Kim. The selection of the positions 3-4 would have been one from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Additionally, the resultant compound is a position isomer of the Compound D-24 of Kim.
With respect to position isomers, the examiner points to the MPEP which states: A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. “An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties.” In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1991) for an extensive review of the case law pertaining to obviousness based on close structural similarity of chemical compounds. Compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) or homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties.” In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). See also In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978) (stereoisomers prima facie obvious). See MPEP 2144.09 I and 2144.09 II.
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Compound D-24 of Kim shown above such that the substitution positions of the indenone ring is changed from the positions 2-3 to the positions 3-4 of the fused benzene ring of the isoquinoline ligand.
A compound in which the substitution positions of the indenone ring is the positions 3-4 of the fused benzene ring of the isoquinoline ligand would represent a position isomer of the Compound D-24 of Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the position isomers having each respective structure would act in similar manner.
The modification provides Modified compound of Kim.
PNG
media_image7.png
227
670
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The Modified compound of Boudreault ‘913 reads on all the limitations of claims 26-28, 31-32, 34, and 36-38.
Kim does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising the Modified compound of Kim; however, Kim does teach that the compound of Kim can be used as the emissive dopant ([0043]).
Kim teaches the structure of an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, an emissive layer (a dopant, a carbazole Compound H-1 as a host), and a cathode ([0075]).
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 Kim by incorporating it as the emissive dopant of an organic light emitting device, as taught by Kim.
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 dopants 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 organic light emitting device of Kim comprising an anode, an emissive layer (Modified compound of Kim as a dopant, a carbazole Compound H-1 as a host), and a cathode, wherein the emissive layer materials are a formulation, meeting all the limitations of claims 41-42 and 45.
Kim does not disclose a specific consumer product comprising the Modified organic light emitting device of Kim; however, Kim does teach a consumer product (“outdoor or indoor lighting system”) comprising the organic light emitting device of Kim ([0050]).
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 organic light emitting device of Kim by incorporating it into a consumer product, as taught by Kim.
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 Modified consumer product of Kim comprising the Modified organic light emitting device of Kim, meeting all the limitations of claim 44.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2020/0266365 A1) as applied to 26-28, 31-32, 34, 36-38, 41-42, and 44-45 above, further in view of Edkins et al. (“Syntheses, Structures, and Comparison of the Photophysical Properties of Cyclometalated Iridium Complexes Containing the Isomeric 1- and 2‑(2′-pyridyl)pyrene Ligands”, Inorg. Chem. 2013, vol. 52, page 9842-9860).
Regarding claim 33, the Modified compound of Kim reads on all the features of claim 26 as outlined above.
In the compound, the dimethyl phenyl group at the position corresponding to the ring B of Formula (1) of Kim is not a fused polycyclic aromatic ring, which does not read on the limitation of the claim 33; however, Kim does teach the ring B can be a C3-C20 aryl ring ([0012]) and exemplifies pyrenyl ([0020]).
PNG
media_image5.png
207
265
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Edkins discloses an Ir complex comprising a pyrene ring at the position corresponding to the ring A of Formula I of Kim (Abstract, Ir(2-pypyr)2(acac) in Scheme 1). Edkins teaches that introduction of pyrene into an Ir complex provides interesting photophysical properties (p9842). Edkins teaches that the substitution of the phenyl ring with pyrene ring provides red shift of the emission light (see Fig. 5. Compare the peak emission wavelength and the structure of the Ir(2-pypyr)2(acac) having red emission with Ir(ppy)2(acac) having green emission). Edkins teaches 2-pypyr provides less non-radiative decay rate and high quantum yield than 1-pypyr (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 Modified compound of Kim by substituting the dimethyl phenyl group at the position corresponding to the ring B of Formula (1) with pyrenyl, as taught by Kim and Edkins.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide red shift in the emission spectrum, based on the teaching of Edkins.
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 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 Compound of Kim as modified by Edkins which has identical structure as the Modified compound of Kim except the phenyl ring at the position corresponding to the ring B of Formula (1) of Kim is replaced by 2-pyrenyl.
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2020/0266365 A1) as applied to claims 26-28, 31-32, 34, 36-38, 41-42, and 44-45 above, further in view of Boudreault et al. (US 2016/0260913 A1).
Regarding claim 43, the Modified organic light emitting device of Kim reads on all the features of claim 41 as outlined above.
The device comprises an anode, an emissive layer (Modified compound of Kim as a dopant, a carbazole Compound H-1 as a host), and a cathode.
The host Compound H-1 of Kim does not read on the limitation of the instant claim 43; however, Kim does teach a phosphorescent host compound can be used and is not particularly limited ([0047]).
Boudreault ‘913 discloses dicarbazolyl dibenzothiophene,
PNG
media_image4.png
182
351
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, as a phosphorescent host material (page 73, [0092]-[0093]).
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 organic light emitting device of Kim by incorporating dicarbazolyl dibenzothiophene as the host compound, as taught by Boudreault ‘913.
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 host materials 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 Kim as modified by Boudreault ‘913 an anode, an emissive layer (Modified compound of Kim as a dopant, dicarbazolyl dibenzothiophene as a host), and a cathode.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 35 and 39-40 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 16 of copending Application No. 17/839,695 (reference application, hereafter Application ‘695). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed at the same aspects of the same invention. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claims 35 and 39-40, Application ‘695 discloses a compound comprising a ligand LA represented by Formula I (claim 1), and exemplifies the following compound (claim 16, the 3rd compound on page 163, hereafter Compound p163-3).
PNG
media_image8.png
240
641
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The compound has a dimethyl phenyl ring at the position corresponding to the ring D of Formula I of Application ‘695; however, Application ‘695 does teach the ring D can be a 6-membered carbocyclic ring, the substituent of the ring A (i.e. RD) can be alkenyl, and any two substituents can be joined to form a ring (claim 1).
Application ‘695 exemplifies the following compound (the 3rd compound of claim 16), wherein the moiety corresponding to the ring D of Formula I of Application ‘695 is a t-butyl naphthyl ring.
PNG
media_image9.png
266
353
media_image9.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 p163-3 of Application ‘695 by substituting the dimethyl phenyl ring at the position corresponding to the ring D of Formula I of Application ‘695, with a t-butyl naphthyl ring, as taught by Application ‘695.
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 exemplary ring D structures would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
PNG
media_image10.png
263
652
media_image10.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Modified Compound of Application ‘695 which has identical structure as the last embodiment of the instant claim 40.
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