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 .
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Upon further consideration, the requirement of species election has been withdrawn. No claim is withdrawn.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 06/02/2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 1-25 and 39-40 have been canceled.
Claims 46-47 have been added.
Claims 26-38 and 41-47 are pending.
The cancellation of claims 39-40 obviates the rejections of claims 39-40 set forth in the last Office Action.
Upon further consideration, the rejections of 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), the rejections of 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), and the rejection of claim 43 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 (US 2016/0260913 A1) set forth in the last Office Action have been withdrawn.
The amendment of claims overcome the rejections of claims 35 under 112(b) set forth in the last Office Action.
The amendment of claims overcome:
the rejection of claim 33 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),
the rejection of claim 33 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), and
the provisional rejections of claims 35 and 39-40 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) set forth in the last Office Action.
The rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see pages 40-42 of the reply filed 06/02/2026 regarding the rejections of 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), the rejections of 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), and the rejection of claim 43 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) set forth in the Office Action of 08/14/2025 have been fully considered, and are persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments see pages 42-46 of the reply filed 06/02/2026 regarding the rejection of claim 33 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), the rejection of claim 33 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) set forth in the Office Action of 08/14/2025 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the rejections should be withdrawn in light of the amendment.
The rejections refer to the Compound of Boudreault ‘913 as modified by Edkins (see section 70 of the last Office Actin) and the Compound of Kim as modified by Edkins (see section 101 of the last Office Actin). The compounds do not read on the limitation of the ligand LA of the amended claims. Thus, the rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments see pages 45-46 of the reply filed 06/02/2026 regarding the provisional rejections of claims 35 and 39-40 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) set forth in the Office Action of 08/14/2025 have been considered.
Applicant argues the withdrawn of the rejections are requested.
The rejections refer to the Modified compound of Application ‘659 (see section 119 of the last Office Actin). The compound does not read on the limitation of the ligand LA of the amended claims. Thus, the rejections are withdrawn.
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 26-34, 36-38, 41-45, and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boudreault et al. (US 2016/0260913 A1, hereafter Boudreault ‘913) in view of Boudreault et al. (US 2018/0097187 A1, hereafter Boudreault ‘187).
Regarding claims 26-29, 31-34, 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_image1.png
409
654
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In the Formulas I, Y can be carbon; R has structure of Formula II; X can be CR’R” or Se; A can be 6-membered carbocyclic ring; Z can be carbon; and R1, R2, R3, R4 , R’, and R” can be hydrogen, alkyl, alkenyl, or aryl ([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_image2.png
247
662
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Modified compound of Boudreault ‘913.
In the compound, the dimethyl phenyl group at the position corresponding to the ring A of Formula I of Boudreault ‘913 is not a substituted naphthalene ring, which does not read on the limitation of the claims; however, Boudreault ‘913 does teach the ring A can be a 6-membered carbocyclic ring ([0016]) and exemplifies substituted phenyl as the 6 membered carbocyclic ring ([0040]). Boudreault ‘913 further teaches that the substituent R2 of the ring A can be alkenyl, alkyl, or combination thereof, wherein two adjacent substituents can be joined to form a ring ([0016]).
Boudreault ‘187 discloses a compound comprising a ligand LA of Formula I ([0015]) and used as the emitter of an organic light emitting device ([0002]). The ligand LA of Boudreault ‘187 comprises a substituted naphthalene ring at the position corresponding to the fused ring including R1 to R3 and the ring B of the Formula I of Boudreault ‘187. Boudreault ‘187 exemplifies t-butyl substituted naphthalene as the fused ring including R1 to R3 and the ring B of the Formula I of Boudreault ‘187 (Compound 3393 in [0197]; and see the part enclosed by a dashed circle in the figure below).
PNG
media_image3.png
351
557
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In the Formula I of Boudreault ‘187, the substituent R at the positions X3 and X4 can be alkyl, alkenyl, aryl or combination thereof, wherein two substituents can be joined to form a ring ([0022]), indicating the dimethylfluorene moiety of the Modified compound of Boudreault ‘913 can be encompassed by the limitation of the substituents of the ring A of Formula I of Boudreault ‘187. Furthermore, the substituted acetylacetonate ligand of the Modified compound of Boudreault ‘913 is encompassed by the ancillary ligand of the compound of Boudreault ‘187 ([0067], [0083]]). Therefore, an ordinary skill in the art would understand that the Modified compound of Boudreault ‘913 would be encompassed by Formula I of Boudreault ‘187, if the dimethyl phenyl ring is substituted by a t-butyl naphthalene ring.
Boudreault ‘187 teaches the ligand including a t-butyl naphthalene ring allows to obtain only one isomer of the final complex, and provides better efficiency, red shift, and narrow emission ([0054]-[0055], 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 t-butyl naphthalene, as taught by Boudreault ‘913 and Boudreault ‘187
The motivation of doing so would have been to obtain only one isomer of the final complex, and provide better efficiency, red shift, and narrow emission, based on the teaching of Boudreault ‘187.
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 Boudreault ‘187, meeting all the limitations of claims 26-29, 31-34 and 36-38.
PNG
media_image4.png
249
654
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The modification also provides Organic light emitting device of Boudreault ‘913 as modified by Boudreault ‘187 comprising an anode (ITO), an emission layer (Compound of Boudreault ‘913 as modified by Boudreault ‘187 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 Organic light emitting device of Boudreault ‘913 as modified by Boudreault ‘187; 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 Organic light emitting device of Boudreault ‘913 as modified by Boudreault ‘187 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 a consumer product comprising the Organic light emitting device of Boudreault ‘913 as modified by Boudreault ‘187, meeting all the limitations of claim 44.
Regarding claim 30, the Compound of Boudreault ‘913 as modified by Boudreault ‘187 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 Compound of Boudreault ‘913 as modified by Boudreault ‘187 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 Compound of Boudreault ‘913 as modified by Boudreault ‘187 (2) which has identical structure as Compound of Boudreault ‘913 as modified by Boudreault ‘187 except the C(Me)2 at the position corresponding to X of Formula II is replaced with N(Me).
Regarding claim 43, the Organic light emitting device of Boudreault ‘913 as modified by Boudreault ‘187 reads on all the features of claim 41, as outlined above.
The device comprises an anode (ITO), an emission layer (Compound of Boudreault ‘913 as modified by Boudreault ‘187 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_image5.png
182
351
media_image5.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 Organic light emitting device of Boudreault ‘913 as modified by Boudreault ‘187 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 Organic light emitting device of Boudreault ‘913 as modified by Boudreault ‘187 (2) comprising an anode (ITO), an emission layer (Compound of Boudreault ‘913 as modified by Boudreault ‘187 as an emitter, dicarbazolyl dibenzothiophene as a host), and a cathode (Al).
Regarding claim 47, the Compound of Boudreault ‘913 as modified by Boudreault ‘187 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 Se; however, Boudreault ‘913 does teach that X can be Se ([0016]).
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 Boudreault ‘913 as modified by Boudreault ‘187 by substituting the C(Me)2 at the position corresponding to X of Formula II of Boudreault ‘913 with Se, 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 selection of Se as X of Formula II of Boudreault ‘913 would have been one from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
The modification provides Compound of Boudreault ‘913 as modified by Boudreault ‘187 (3) which has identical structure as Compound of Boudreault ‘913 as modified by Boudreault ‘187 except the C(Me)2 at the position corresponding to X of Formula II is replaced with Se.
Claims 26-28, 31-34, 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) in view of Boudreault et al. (US 2018/0097187 A1).
Regarding claims 26-28, 31-34, 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
In the compound, the dimethyl phenyl group at the position corresponding to the ring B of Formula (1) of Kim is not a naphthyl group, which does not read on the limitation of the claims; however, Kim does teach the ring B can be a C3-C20 aryl ring ([0012]) and exemplifies naphthyl ([0020]).
Boudreault ‘187 discloses a compound comprising a ligand LA of Formula I ([0015]) and used as the emitter of an organic light emitting device ([0002]). The ligand LA of Boudreault ‘187 comprises a substituted naphthalene ring at the position corresponding to the fused ring including R1 to R3 and the ring B of the Formula I of Boudreault ‘187. Boudreault ‘187 exemplifies t-butyl substituted naphthalene as the fused ring including R1 to R3 and the ring B of the Formula I of Boudreault ‘187 (Compound 3393 in [0197]; and see the part enclosed by a dashed circle in the figure below).
PNG
media_image3.png
351
557
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In the Formula I of Boudreault ‘187, the substituent R at the positions X3 and X4 can be alkenyl, aryl, carbonyl, or combination thereof, wherein two substituents can be joined to form a ring ([0022]), indicating the benzo indenone ring of the Modified compound of Kim is encompassed by the limitation of the substituent of the ring A of Formula I of Boudreault ‘187. Furthermore, the acetylacetonate ligand of the Modified compound of Boudreault ‘913 is encompassed by the ancillary ligand of the compound of Boudreault ‘187 ([0067], [0083]). Therefore, an ordinary skill in the art would understand that the Modified compound of Kim would be encompassed by Formula I of Boudreault ‘187 if the dimethyl phenyl ring is substituted by a t-butyl naphthalene ring.
Boudreault ‘187 teaches the ligand including a t-butyl naphthalene ring allows to obtain only one isomer of the final complex, and provides better efficiency, red shift, and narrow emission ([0054]-[0055], 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 A of Formula I with t-butyl naphthalene, as taught by Kim and Boudreault ‘187
The motivation of doing so would have been to obtain only one isomer of the final complex, and provide better efficiency, red shift, and narrow emission
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).
PNG
media_image8.png
234
616
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Compound of Kim as modified by Boudreault ‘187, meeting all the limitations of claims 26-28, 31-34, and 36-38.
Kim does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising the Compound of Kim as modified by Boudreault ‘187; 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 Compound of Kim as modified by Boudreault ‘187 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 Organic light emitting device of Kim as modified by Boudreault ‘187 comprising an anode, an emissive layer (Compound of Kim as modified by Boudreault ‘187 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 Organic light emitting device of Kim as modified by Boudreault ‘187; 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 Organic light emitting device of Kim as modified by Boudreault ‘187 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 Organic light emitting device of Kim as modified by Boudreault ‘187, meeting all the limitations of claim 44.
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2020/0266365 A1) in view of Boudreault et al. (US 2018/0097187 A1), as applied to claims 26-28, 31-34, 36-38, 41-42, and 44-45 above, further in view of Boudreault et al. (US 2016/0260913 A1).
Regarding claim 43, the Organic light emitting device of Kim as modified by Boudreault ‘187 reads on all the features of claim 41 as outlined above.
The device comprises an anode, an emissive layer (Compound of Kim as modified by Boudreault ‘187 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_image5.png
182
351
media_image5.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 Organic light emitting device of Kim as modified by Boudreault ‘187 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 (Compound of Kim as modified by Boudreault ‘187 as a dopant, dicarbazolyl dibenzothiophene as a host), and a cathode.
Claim Objections / Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 35 and 46 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, Boudreault ‘913 is a representation of the closest prior arts. As described in more detail above, Boudreault ‘913 teaches an Ir complex comprising a ligand containing a dibenzo 5-membered ring moiety; however, Boudreault ‘913 does not teach a specific ligand LA as required in the instant claims 35 and 46.
As outlined above, Kim is a representation of the closest prior arts. As described in more detail above, Kim teaches an Ir complex comprising a ligand containing a benzo indenone moiety; however, Kim does not teach a specific ligand LA as required in the instant claims 35 and 46.
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
Prosecution Insights