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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/05/2026 has been entered.
Summary of Claims
Claim 1, 5, 7-9, 11-12 is amended due to Applicant's amendment dated 02/05/2026. Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-12 are pending.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claims 5, 7-9, 11-12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement as set forth in the previous Office Action is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 02/06/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1, 3-5, and 7-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2020/0006677 A1) in view of Adamovich (US 2014/0197389 A1) and Li (US 2017/0305881 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 02/06/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 11-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Adamovich, Li (US 2017/0305881 A1), and Miteva (US 2009/0224659 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 02/06/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, and 7-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Adamovich and Li ‘806 (US 2012/0108806 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 02/06/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 11-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li ‘508 (WO 2019/079508 A2) in view of Adamovich and Li ‘806 is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 02/06/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 20-27 of the reply dated 02/05/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, and 7-12 as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument –On pages 20-27, Applicant argues one of ordinary skill would have no motivation to employ the compounds that Li describes as blue phosphorescent emitters (Li, ¶ [0166]) in the near-infrared emissive devices of Kim without impermissible hindsight.
On pages 22-24, Applicant argues Pd3O8-p (a compound of General Formula 1) unexpectedly emits zero emission when used as a host material in a device comprising a compound of General Formula I. Applicant points to a comparison between Fig. 6 and Fig. 9 for support. Applicant argues Fig. 6 (a device comprising Pd3O8-p) does not show emission around 580 nm whereas Fig. 9 (a device comprising PQIr) shows emission at 600 nm.
Accordingly, Applicant argues one of ordinary skill in the art would not have reasonable expectation that using the emitter Pd3O8-p as a host would result in zero emission from Pd3O8-p.
Examiner's response –Kim teaches the host is not limited to specific structures (¶ [0196]), and accordingly, any suitable host material may be used in the device of Kim. Li teaches compounds of General Formula I have electrochemical and photophysical stability, wherein the compounds may be useful as host materials for organic light emitting display devices (¶ [0007]-[0008], [0155], and [0159]). The compounds may provide improved efficiency and/or operation lifetimes (¶ [0158]). In particular, Li teaches Pd3O3 is a compound represented by General Formula I that exhibits strong and efficient phosphorescent excimer emission, and provides devices with high external quantum efficiencies and power efficiencies (¶ [0166] and Fig. 4).
Given that Li teaches compounds of General Formula I may be used as host materials in organic light emitting display devices, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a compound represented by Li’s General Formula I as the host of Kim’s device to provide a compound having electrochemical and photophysical stability, and improved efficiency and/or operation lifetimes, as taught by Li. In particular, it would have been obvious to use Li’s Pd3O3 to provide a compound exhibiting strong and efficient phosphorescent excimer emission, and to provide the device with high external quantum efficiencies and power efficiencies, as taught by Li.
Accordingly, there is sufficient motivation to use a compound of Li in the device of Kim, and one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the device of Kim containing Li’s Pd3O3 host to successfully function as an organic light emitting display device.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. As discussed above and outlined below, the rejections take into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the Applicant's disclosure.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Pd3O8-p unexpectedly emits zero emission when used as a host material in a device comprising a compound of General Formula I, overcoming a rejection based on unexpected results requires at least the combination of three different elements: (i) the results must fairly compare with the closest prior art in an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132, (ii) the claims must be commensurate in scope, and (iii) the results must truly be unexpected. MPEP 716.02. Additionally, the burden rests with Applicant to establish the results are unexpected and significant. MPEP 716.02(b).
Comparison with closest prior art
Applicant has not made a comparison to the closest prior art. Fig. 6 is the electroluminescence spectra for Devices 1-4 which includes the structure of ITO/HATCN/NPD/EBL/6% PtTPTNP-F8: Pd3O8-p/HBL/BPyTP/Liq/Al (instant ¶ [0045] and [0178]). Fig. 9 is the electroluminescence spectra for Devices 5 and 6 which includes the structure of ITO/HATCN/NPD/EBL/4% Pt-TPTNP-F8: 8% PQIr: CBP/ BCP/BPyTP/Liq/Al (instant ¶ [0048] and [0183]). These devices cannot be appropriately compared at least due to the reason that Pd3O8-p and PQIr serve different functions in their respective devices (i.e., host vs. emitter). However, even if Pd3O8-p and PQIr did serve the same function, more differences exist between Devices 1-4 and Devices 5-6:
The emissive layer of Devices 5-6 includes three compounds whereas Devices 1-4 only includes two;
The emissive layer of Devices 1-4 includes 6% PtTPTNP-F8 whereas Devices 5-6 includes 4% PtTPTNP-F8; and
The emissive layer of Devices 5-6 includes 8% PQIr whereas Devices 1-4 includes 94% Pd3O8-P.
As Devices 1-4 and Devices 5-6 comprise different structure and materials, a comparison is not being made to the closest prior art. Where the comparison is not identical with the reference disclosure, deviations therefrom should be explained, and if not explained should be noted and evaluated, and if significant, explanation should be required. MPEP 716.02(e).
Additionally, Applicant has not made a comparison to the closest prior art with respect to Kim (US 2020/0006677 A1). As discussed below and in the previous rejection, Kim teaches an emission layer comprising Compound 24 as a dopant (see Kim, ¶ [0339]-[0343]; pg. 23, and Table 1 on pg. 114). Compound 24 is within the scope of the claimed General Formula 1, as described in the rejection below. As there is no comparison between devices comprising a compound having the structure of Kim’s Compound 24, a comparison is not being made to the closest prior art. Where the comparison is not identical with the reference disclosure, deviations therefrom should be explained, and if not explained should be noted and evaluated, and if significant, explanation should be required. MPEP 716.02(e).
Similarly, Applicant has not made a comparison to the closest prior art with respect to Li (US 2017/0305881 A1). As discussed below and in the previous rejection, Li teaches the compound Pd3O3 which may be used as a host in a n emissive material layer of an organic light emitting display device (¶ [0007]-[0008], [0155], [0159], [0166]; Fig. 4). Pd3O3 is within the scope of the claimed General Formula 1, as described in the rejection below. As there is no comparison between devices comprising a compound having the structure of Li’s Pd3O3, a comparison is not being made to the closest prior art. Where the comparison is not identical with the reference disclosure, deviations therefrom should be explained, and if not explained should be noted and evaluated, and if significant, explanation should be required. MPEP 716.02(e).
Commensurate in Scope
The results discussed by Applicant are not commensurate in scope.
As discussed in the rejections below, Kim teaches the emitter of Compound 24 and Li ‘806 teaches the emitter of I-Pt-5, which are each within the scope of General Formula I (as described in the rejections below). Additionally, Li teaches Pd303 which is within the scope of General Formula 1 (as described in the rejections below).
As there are no results comprising Compound 24, I-Pt-5 of Li ‘806, and Pd3O3 of Li, it is unclear if a device comprising such compounds would obtain the same results discussed by Applicant.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2020/0006677 A1) in view of Li (US 2017/0305881 A1).
Supporting evidence provided by Ma (Ma, R. (2016). Organic Light-Emitting Diodes (OLEDS). In: Chen, J., Cranton, W., Fihn, M. (eds) Handbook of Visual Display Technology. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.); and You (You, Xiao-Xia, et al. "A theoretical analysis on the electron and energy transfer between host and guest materials in phosphor–doped OLED." Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology A: Chemistry 432 (2022): 114058.).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 5, and 7-9, Kim teaches an organic light-emitting device including an emission layer and an organometallic compound represented by Formula 1, wherein the organometallic compound may emit near-infrared phosphorescence having a maximum emission wavelength in a range from 720 nm to 2,500 nm (abstract, ¶ [0074], and [0087]). Such a device may have low driving voltage, high emission efficiency, and/or long lifespan (¶ [0075]). Kim teaches specific examples of organic light-emitting devices including the device of Example 5 which comprises an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an emission layer comprising hosts and Compound 24 as a dopant, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode (¶ [0339]-[0343], pg. 23, and Table 1 on pg. 114).
As holes travel through the hole injection layer, the hole injection layer is a hole transport layer in physical contact with the anode. Similarly, as electrons travel through the electron injection layer, the electron injection layer is an electron transport layer in physical contact with the cathode. Alternatively, electrons travel from the cathode to the emission layer through the electron transport layer and holes travel from the anode to the emission layer through the hole transport layer (¶ [0004]). Accordingly, the electron transport layer is in electrical contact with the cathode and the hole transport layer is in electrical contact with the anode.
While Kim does not specifically teach energy is transferred from the hosts to Compound 24, Ma teaches during OLED operation, singlet and triplet excited states are typically first formed in the host materials and then transferred to the dopant molecules (pg. 4, last paragraph to pg. 5, first paragraph). Similarly, You teaches it is well known that electron injection from host to guest materials are usually employed to construct the OLED mechanism (pg. 6, 3.3.2. The electron transfer). Accordingly, in the OLED of Kim, energy is transferred from the hosts to Compound 24.
Compound 24 is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed General Formula I.
I:
PNG
media_image1.png
308
334
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Compound 24:
PNG
media_image2.png
115
93
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Compound 24 reads on the claimed General Formula I and General formula II (claim 3) wherein:
M represents Pt2+;
R1 to R4 each represent hydrogen;
Z1 to Z3 each represent CR6;
Each R6 represents a phenyl group substituted with one substituent of fluoride;
R5 represents fluoride; and
Each n represents 4.
The device of Example 5 fails to include a host that reads on the claimed General Formula 1. However, Kim does teach the host is not limited (¶ [0196]).
Li teaches compounds of General Formula I having electrochemical and photophysical stability, wherein the compounds may be useful as host materials for organic light emitting display devices (¶ [0007]-[0008], [0155], and [0159]). The compounds may provide improved efficiency and/or operation lifetimes (¶ [0158]). In particular, Li teaches Pd3O3 is a compound represented by General Formula I that exhibits strong and efficient phosphorescent excimer emission, and provides devices with high external quantum efficiencies and power efficiencies (¶ [0166] and Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a compound represented by Li’s General Formula I as the host of Kim’s device to provide a compound having electrochemical and photophysical stability, and improved efficiency and/or operation lifetimes, as taught by Li. In particular, it would have been obvious to use Li’s Pd3O3 to provide a compound exhibiting strong and efficient phosphorescent excimer emission, and to provide the device with high external quantum efficiencies and power efficiencies, as taught by Li.
Pd3O3 has a maximum emission wavelength of 466 nm (¶ [0179]) (claim 5) and reads on the first claimed compound of claims 7 and 9.
Pd3O3 is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed General Formula I and General Formula 2 (claim 8).
General Formula I:
PNG
media_image3.png
272
435
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Pd3O3:
PNG
media_image4.png
135
148
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Pd3O3 reads on the claimed General Formula I wherein:
M represents Pd(II);
R1, R3, R4, and R5 each represent hydrogen;
Each n represents 4;
Y1a to Y1f, Y2a to Y2f, Y4a to Y4c, Y4e, Y5a to Y5c, and Y5e are each C, and Y4d and Y5d are each N;
X2 represents O;
L1 and L3 are each absent;
Ar3 and Ar4 are each a 6-membered aryl group; and
Ar1 and Ar5 are each a 6-membered heteroaryl.
Regarding claim 4, Kim in view of Li teach the organic light-emitting device of claim 1 as described above, wherein the device includes Compound 24 as the dopant.
Compound 24 fails to read on the claimed near-infrared emitter PtTPTNP-F8 as the number and position of fluoride substituents are not the same. However, Kim teaches R11 to R14 may be represented by Formula 3-3(4) (as shown in Compound 24) or alternatively, R11 to R14 may be represented by Formula 3-3(10) (¶ [0051]). Additionally, Kim teaches an example of a compound represented by Formula 1 wherein each of R11 to R14 is represented by Formula 3-3(10) (see Compound 16 on pg. 21).
Formula 3-3(4):
PNG
media_image5.png
70
116
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Formula 3-3(10):
PNG
media_image6.png
103
117
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Formula 1:
PNG
media_image7.png
344
385
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Compound 16:
PNG
media_image8.png
383
388
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in Compound 24, given the general formula and teachings of Kim, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute each group of
PNG
media_image2.png
115
93
media_image2.png
Greyscale
with
PNG
media_image9.png
88
85
media_image9.png
Greyscale
to arrive at a compound that reads on Formula 3-3(10) (as shown in Compound 16) rather than Formula 3-3(4), because Kim teaches R11 to R14 may suitably be selected as Formula 3-3(10). The substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as a dopant in the emission layer of the organic light-emitting device of Kim in view Li and possess the benefits taught by Kim above. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
The resulting modified Compound 24 reads on the claimed PtTPTNP-F8.
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 2017/0305881 A1) in view of Li ‘508 (WO 2019/079508 A2) and Li ‘806 (US 2012/0108806 A1).
Supporting evidence provided by Ma (Ma, R. (2016). Organic Light-Emitting Diodes (OLEDS). In: Chen, J., Cranton, W., Fihn, M. (eds) Handbook of Visual Display Technology. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.); and You (You, Xiao-Xia, et al. "A theoretical analysis on the electron and energy transfer between host and guest materials in phosphor–doped OLED." Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology A: Chemistry 432 (2022): 114058.).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 5, and 8-12, Li teaches an organic light emitting device having improved efficiency and/or operational lifetimes by including a compound of General Formula I as a host material (abstract; ¶ [0158]-[0159]). In particular, the organic light emitting device includes an anode, a hole transport layer, an emission layer including a dopant and the compound of General Formula I as a host, an electron transport layer, and a cathode (¶ [0161]).
General Formula I:
PNG
media_image10.png
283
280
media_image10.png
Greyscale
While Li does not specifically teach energy is transferred from the host of General Formula I to the dopant, Ma teaches during OLED operation, singlet and triplet excited states are typically first formed in the host materials and then transferred to the dopant molecules (pg. 4, last paragraph to pg. 5, first paragraph). Similarly, You teaches it is well known that electron injection from host to guest materials are usually employed to construct the OLED mechanism (pg. 6, 3.3.2. The electron transfer). Accordingly, in the OLED of Li, energy is transferred from the host compound of General Formula I to the dopant.
Li fails to teach a compound that reads on the claimed General Formula 7.
Li ‘508 teaches square planar tetradentate platinum and palladium complexes having high photoluminescent emission efficiency represented by Formula I (bottom of pg. 3 to beginning of pg. 4). Li ‘508 teaches examples of compounds represented by Formula I including compound C33 (pg. 66). Compound C33 reads on General Formula I of Li wherein: M is Pd; V1 and V2 are each C and V3 and V4 are each N; L1 and L2 are each an aryl group and L3 and L4 are each a substituted heteroaryl group; Z is O (see Li, ¶ [0008]-[0013]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use compound C33 of Li ‘508 as a host in the device of Li, based on the teaching of Li ‘508. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a compound with high photoluminescent emission efficiency, as taught by Li ‘508.
Particularly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select compound C33, because it would have been choosing a specific compound represented by Formula I of Li ‘508, and because it would have been choosing a compound represented by Li’s General Formula I, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as a host in the device of Li in view of Li ‘508 and possessing the benefits taught by Li and Li ‘508. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising compounds represented by Li’s General Formula I and Formula I of Li ‘508 having the benefits taught by Li and Li ‘508 in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
C33 is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed General Formula 7.
Formula 7:
PNG
media_image11.png
203
346
media_image11.png
Greyscale
C33:
PNG
media_image12.png
138
205
media_image12.png
Greyscale
C33 reads on the claimed General Formula 7 (claims 8 and 11) wherein:
M represents Pd(II);
R1 is a C1 alkyl, and R2, R3, R4, and R6 each represent hydrogen;
Each n is an integer;
Y1a to Y1d, Y2a to Y2c, Y3a to Y3c, Y4a to Y4d, and Y6a to Y6d are each C;
U4 represents N; and
X represents O.
Compound C33 reads on the third compound on pg. 16 of claim 9 and the seventh claimed compound of claim 12.
Per claim 5, Li ‘508 appears silent with respect to the emissive wavelength of compound C33.
The instant specification recites that the emissive host has an emissive wavelength of about 400 nm to about 800 nm, wherein examples of the emissive host include a compound that is identical in structure to compound C33 of Li ‘508 (instant ¶ [0076]; see structure on pg. 33). Since Li ‘508 teaches compound C33, the same structure as disclosed by the Applicant, compound C33 having an emissive wavelength of about 400 nm to about 800 nm is considered to be inherent (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP 2112.
Li in view of Li ‘508 fail to teach the dopant of the emissive layer comprises a structure of the claimed General Formula I.
Li ‘806 teaches azaporphyrins represented by the formula below for use as emitters in electro-optical devices such as OLEDs, wherein the azaporphyrins may emit in the near infra-red region (¶ [0004], [0006]-[0007], [0011], and [0092]-[0095]). The azaporphyrins exhibit a variety of useful properties such as efficient absorption and/or emission (¶ [0061]). Examples of azaporphyrins represented by the formula of Li ‘806 include I-Pt-5 (¶ [0072]).
Formula:
PNG
media_image13.png
179
177
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an azaporphyrin represented by the formula of Li ‘806 as the dopant of in the device of Li and Li ‘508, based on the teaching of Li ‘806. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide an emitter with efficient absorption and/or emission, as taught by Li ‘806.
In particular, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select I-Pt-5 as the emitter, because it would have been choosing from a list of exemplified azaporphyrins represented by the formula of Li ‘806, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the emitter in the emitting material layer of the device of Li in view of Li ‘508 and Li ‘806 and possessing the benefits taught by Li, Li ‘508, and Li ‘806 above. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising compounds represented by the formula of Li ‘806 having the benefits taught by Li ‘806 in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
I-Pt-5 is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed General Formula I.
I:
PNG
media_image1.png
308
334
media_image1.png
Greyscale
I-Pt-5:
PNG
media_image14.png
317
257
media_image14.png
Greyscale
I-Pt-5 reads on the claimed General Formula I and General formula III (claims 3 and 10) wherein:
M represents Pt2+;
Z1 represents N and Z2 and Z3 each represent CR6
R1 to R5 each represent hydrogen and R6 represents an unsubstituted phenyl;
Each n represents an integer of 5 or 6.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRAELYN R WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5pm.
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 on 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.
/BRAELYN R WATSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights