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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11-12, 15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Min et al (US 2020/0280003) (Min).
In reference to claims 11-19, Min teaches the compound 105 as shown below that reads on the instant claims (Min p. 60).
PNG
media_image1.png
320
370
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For Claim 11: Reads on formula 1-2 wherein CY1 is benzene, CY2 is Benzene, CY3 is benzene, L1 is N, R3 is phenyl and R3 and L1 are fused to form a ring with CY3, CY4 is pyridine, R10 is group 10-1, b1 is 2, R11 is methyl, R2 is t butyl, R4 is t butyl, R51 and R52 are each phenyl, and M1 is Pt.
For Claim 12: Reads on CY1-1, CY2-1, CY3-1, CY4-1.
For Claim 15: Reads on wherein each R is hydrogen, alkyl or phenyl.
For Claim 17: Reads on L-1.
For Claim 18: Reads on L-2.
For Claim 19: Reads on formula 1-1A.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae et al (US 2020/0392173) (Bae).
In reference to claim 20, Bae teaches the compound 78 as shown below.
PNG
media_image2.png
638
758
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The difference between the cited compound and the instantly claimed compound 30 is merely that of positional isomers of a tert-butyl group. It is noted that compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) 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). In light of the case law cited above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the compound disclosed in the present claims is but an obvious variant of the compound presently claimed, and thereby one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention
For Claim 20: Reads on 30.
Claim 1-7, 9 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Min et al (US 2020/0280003) (Min).
For Claims 1-6 and 9, Min teaches the material as described above for claim 11 and further teaches that this material is included in an organic light emitting device comprising the compound as a dopant in an emitting layer comprising a host in addition to hole transport and electron transport layers between an anode and a cathode (Min [0200]; [0228]; [0229]) and further teaches that the host can be combinations of materials including e.g. TPBI and CBP that are electron transport and hole transport hosts, respectively (Min [0263]).
While Min does not exemplify a device with this specific configuration, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have used this exemplified material in the taught device configuration of Min with the anticipation of providing a functionally similar device to those exemplified therein.
In reference to claim 7, Min teaches a device of claim 1 as described above. While Min does not specifically teach that the emission is in the claimed range, as the emissive material in the light emitting layer is identical to that instantly claimed, such an emission is expected to be inherent in the device.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I). Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. General Electric v. Jewe Incandescent Lamp Co., 67 USPQ 155. Titanium Metal Corp. v. Banner, 227 USPQ 772. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 597, 195 USPQ 430.
In reference to claim 21, Min teaches the compound 105 as shown above for claim 1 that is a member of the broader genus described therein of formula 1 wherein X11 is N(R1a), R1a is a deuterium substituted terphenyl and R1 is hydrogen (Min [0048] to [0070]).
PNG
media_image3.png
336
520
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Min discloses the compound of formula 1 that encompasses the presently claimed compound, including wherein X11 is N(R1a), R1a is a deuterium substituted terphenyl and R1 is hydrogen. Each of the disclosed substituents from the substituent groups of Min are considered functionally equivalent and their selection would lead to obvious variants of the compound.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, in the absence of unexpected results, to have selected these substituents among those disclosed for the compound of formula 1 to provide the compound described above, which is both disclosed by Min and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
For Claim 21: Reads on formula 1-2 wherein CY1 is benzene, CY2 is Benzene, CY3 is carbazole, L1 is a bond, CY4 is pyridine, R10 is phenyl substituted with a R10A that is a deuterated phenyl, R2 is t butyl, R4 is t butyl, R51 and R52 are each methyl, and M1 is Pt.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Min et al (US 2020/0280003) (Min) as applied to claim 9 above and further in view of Yamakazi et al. (US 2005/0197031) (Yamakazi).
In reference to claim 10, Min teaches the device as described above. Min does not expressly teach that the device is used in device structures with the specific components instantly claimed.
With respect to the difference, Yamakazi teaches, in analogous art, device structures for display devices including housing members, display portions, color filters etc. (Yamakazi [0078] [0206] [0300] etc).
It would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have used the device structure features that are well known and typical in the art as described by Yamakazi in preparing a consumer product with the EL device of Min.
Claim 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Min et al (US 2020/0280003) (Min) in view Kondo et al (US 2019/0211219) (Kondo).
In reference to claim 8, Min teaches the device as described above for claim 1 but does not specifically point to a capping layer with a specific refractive index. With respect to the difference, Kondo teaches, in analogous art, EL device structures including a capping layer with a high refractive index and exemplifies those with refractive indices between 1.5 and 2.0 therein (Kondo [207] etc. Table 3). Kondo further teaches that the use of this film with high refractive index improves light extraction efficiency (Kondo [0206]). In light of the motivation of using the capping layer film as described above, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the capping layer film as described by Kondo in order to improve light extraction efficiency and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Concerning the double patenting rejections previously set forth, Applicant’s statements on the record that the patents recited are not commonly owned is sufficient to overcome the double patenting rejection. Applicant is thanked for the clarification.
Concerning the rejections under 35 USC 102, the amendment overcomes the previously set forth rejection under 35 USC 102.
Concerning the rejection of claim 20 over Bae under 35 USC 103, applicant argues that the rejection is no longer merely an issue of positional isomers. However, this is simply not true. The compound 78 of Bae differs only by a positional isomer to the instantly claimed compounds.
The remaining arguments are moot as new rejections are presented herein.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sean M DeGuire whose telephone number is (571)270-1027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer A. 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.
/Sean M DeGuire/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights