DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
All outstanding objections and rejections, except for those maintained below, are withdrawn in light of applicant's amendment filed on 8/11/2026.
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 new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant's amendment filed on 8/11/2026. In particular, the scope of claim 1 has been narrowed from that presented at the time of the previous Office Action, and therefore. Thus, the following action is properly made final.
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 8, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shih et al (US 2022/0106343).
Regarding claim 8, Shih et al discloses the following organic light emitting device (Figure 1):
PNG
media_image1.png
501
514
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
where the anode (115) corresponds to the recited first electrode; the cathode (160) corresponds to the recited second electrode; and layer 135 corresponds to the recited light emitting layer ([0109]), disposed between the first electrode (115) and the second electrode (160).
The light emitting layer comprises an organometallic compound with the formula ([0067]):
Ir(LA)2(LC),
where ligand LA has the formula ([0054] – Formula II):
PNG
media_image2.png
214
274
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
In Formula II:
K1 and K2 can be direct bonds ([0006]);
Z1 can be C ([0006]);
Z2 can be N ([0006]);
Ring D is a benzene ring ([0058]);
Ring C is a benzimidazole ring ([0006] and [0041]):
Y can be O ([0054]);
X1 and X2 can be C;
W can be O ([0054]);
RC can be hydrogen ([0054]);
RA can be hydrogen ([0006]); and
RD can be hydrogen ([0006])
Ligand LC is disclosed as ([0076] – LC1-I):
PNG
media_image3.png
112
180
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
From the discussion above, the reference discloses Compound 800 of the claims:
PNG
media_image4.png
152
198
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed compound nor can the claimed compound be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed compound and the compound disclosed by the reference, absent a showing of criticality for the presently claimed compound, it is urged that it would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the compound which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 14, Shih et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses that the light emitting layer comprises a host and a dopant, where the dopant included the disclosed organometallic compound ([0090] and [0124]).
Regarding claim 18, Shih et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the reference discloses the following organic light emitting device:
PNG
media_image1.png
501
514
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
The device comprises a substrate (layer 110) ([0109]). Accordingly, the reference discloses an organic light emitting device comprising a substrate as recited in the present claims.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shih et al (US 2022/0106343) as applied to claims 8, 14, and 18 above, and in view of Kim et al (US 2015/0280159).
The discussion with respect to Shih et al as set forth in Paragraph 6 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claims 15-16, Shih et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. While Shih et al discloses an organic light emitting device, the reference does not disclose the organic light emitting device as recited in the present claims.
Kim et al discloses the following organic light emitting device (Figure 1):
PNG
media_image5.png
758
921
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
This device comprises a first emitting part (100) disposed between the first (10) and second (20) electrodes; and a second emitting part (200) disposed between the first emitting part (100) and the second electrode (20). The device further comprises a first charge generation layer (410) disposed between the first emitting part (100) and the second emitting part (200). The first emitting part (100) comprises a first emitting layer (150); and the second emitting part comprises a second emitting layer (250). The second emitting layer (250) is formed where at least two emitting layer are deposited in sequence ([0041]). Accordingly, the reference discloses a lower light emitting layer disposed between the first charge generation layer (410) and the second electrode (20) and an upper light emitting layer disposed between the lower light emitting layer and the second electrode (20).
The reference discloses that when the first and second light emitting layers are formed of at least two emitting layers for emitting light with different wavelengths it is possible to realize high color reproduction range and high color purity ([0054]-[0055]). Furthermore, the first charge generation layer (410) adjusts the balance of charge between the first (100) and second light emitting parts (200) ([0048]) and the device as a whole provides for improved color reproduction range and emitting efficiency ([0008]).
Given that both Shih et al and Kim et al are drawn to organic light emitting devices, in light of the particular light emitting device disclosed by Kim et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the compound disclosed by Shih et al in any of the light emitting layers of the organic light emitting device disclosed by Kim et al with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 15 and 17, Shih et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. While Shih et al discloses an organic light emitting device, the reference does not disclose the organic light emitting device as recited in the present claims.
Kim et al discloses the following organic light emitting device (Figure 1):
PNG
media_image6.png
758
921
media_image6.png
Greyscale
.
This device comprises a first emitting part (100) disposed between the first (10) and second (20) electrodes; a second emitting part (200) disposed between the first emitting part (100) and the second electrode (20); and a third emitting part (300) disposed between the second emitting aper (200) and the second electrode (20). The device further comprises a first charge generation layer (410) disposed between the first emitting part (100) and the second emitting part (200); and a second charge generation layer (420) disposed between the second emitting part (200) and third emitting part (300). The first emitting part (100) comprises a first emitting layer (150); the second emitting part comprises a second emitting layer (250); and the third emitting part comprises a third emitting layer (350).
The reference discloses that when the first, second, and third light emitting layers are formed of at least two emitting layers for emitting light with different wavelengths it is possible to realize high color reproduction range and high color purity ([0054]-[0055]). Furthermore, the first charge generation layer (410) adjusts the balance of charge between the first (100) and second light emitting parts (200) ([0048]); the second charge generation layer (420) adjusts the charge between the second (200) and third light emitting parts (300) ([0049]); and the device is a whole provides for improved color reproduction range and emitting efficiency ([0008]).
Given that both Shih et al and Kim et al are drawn to organic light emitting devices, in light of the particular light emitting device disclosed by Kim et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the compound disclosed by Shih et al in any of the light emitting layers of the organic light emitting device disclosed by Kim et al with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that Shih does not disclose the specific compound in which the atom corresponding to "Y" as the nuclear atom in the 5-membered ring constituting the aza-dibenzothiophene is the same as the atom corresponding to "W" as the nuclear atom constituting the 7-membered ring in Formula 2 as defined in the claimed organic light emitting diode or the device. However, while the reference may not disclose a specific compound, in which the atom corresponding to "Y" as the nuclear atom in the 5-membered ring constituting the aza-dibenzothiophene is the same as the atom corresponding to "W" as the nuclear atom constituting the 7-membered ring in Formula 2, i.e.
PNG
media_image2.png
214
274
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
this does not obviate the fact that, as discussed in the rejections above, the reference discloses that both Y and W can be O. To that end it is noted that “applicant must look to the whole reference for what it teaches. Applicant cannot merely rely on the examples and argue that the reference did not teach others.” In re Courtright, 377 F.2d 647, 153 USPQ 735,739 (CCPA 1967).
Applicants argue that starting from the specific compounds on Pages 117-123 in Shih, a person having an ordinary skill in the art would not recognize the importance of the claimed compound. However, it is noted that the disclosure of the reference is not limited to the compounds disclosed on Pages 117-123 of the reference, and as discussed in the rejections above, the reference discloses Formula 2 which encompasses the claimed ligand. Accordingly, it is the Office’s position, absent evidence to the contrary, that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any of the atoms and rings disclosed by the reference, and thereby arrive at the claimed compound with a reasonable expectation of success.
Applicants argue that the teachings in Shih would not have provided one of ordinary skill in the art a reason to consider the organic light emitting diode or the device including the organic metal compound as defined in claim 8. However, it is the Office’s position, absent evidence to the contrary, that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any of the atoms and rings disclosed by the reference, and thereby arrive at the claimed compound with a reasonable expectation of success.
Applicants argue that the fact that a claimed species or subgenus is encompassed by a prior art genus is not sufficient by itself to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Baird. 16 F.3d 380, 382, 29 USPQ2d 1550, 1552 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ("The fact that a claimed compound may be encompassed by a disclosed generic formula does not by itself render that compound obvious."). However, the instant case is not a situation of prior art genus. Rather, it is the Office’s position that the teachings of the reference disclose the claimed compound.
As evidence of unexpected results of the claimed compounds, Applicants compare the LT95 values of Inventive Compounds 800 and 809:
PNG
media_image4.png
152
198
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
170
228
media_image7.png
Greyscale
,
to Comparative Compounds 52, 53, 137, and 827:
PNG
media_image8.png
206
326
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
260
318
media_image9.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image10.png
248
352
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
236
360
media_image11.png
Greyscale
,
presented in Table 1 of instant the Specification. However, the comparison of Compounds 52, 53, 137, and 827 to Inventive Compounds 800 and 839 is not proper side-by-side comparisons for the following reasons.
While Comparative Compounds 52 and 53 possess a pyridine ring, similar to that present in Shih et al, and the inventive compounds possess a benzimidazole ring, the comparative compounds differ from the inventive compound in more two (2) aspects. Specifically, Comparative Compound 52 possesses dibenzothiophene and a 7-membered carbocyclic moiety substituted with two (2) methyl groups, while Inventive Compound 800 comprises dibenzofuran and an oxygen-bearing 7-membered ring. Inventive Compound 839 possesses a methyl substituted fluorene moiety and a different acetoacetonate ligand than is present on the comparative compound. Comparative Compound 53 comprises a benzene substituted carbazole moiety and a 7-membered carbocyclic moiety substituted with two (2) methyl groups, while Inventive Compound 800 comprises a dibenzofuran and an oxygen-bearing 7-membered ring. Inventive Compound 839 possesses a methyl substituted fluorene moiety and a different acetoacetonate ligand than is present in the comparative compound. Furthermore, it is noted that Comparative Compound 137 possesses a dibenzothiophene moiety and a benzene substituted nitrogen bearing 7-membered ring, while Inventive Compound 800 comprises a dibenzofuran, an oxygen-bearing 7-membered ring, and a different acetoacetonate ligand than is present on the comparative compound. Inventive Compound 839 possesses a methyl substituted fluorene moiety and a methyl substituted 7-membered carbocyclic ring not present on the comparative compound.
Finally, Comparative Compound 827 possesses a dibenzothiophene moiety and a phenyl substituted nitrogen 7-membered ring not present on Inventive Compound 800, while Inventive Compound 800 comprises a dibenzofuran, an oxygen-bearing 7-membered ring, and a different acetoacetonate ligand than is present on the comparative compound. Inventive Compound 839 possesses a methyl substituted fluorene moiety and a methyl substituted 7-membered carbocyclic ring not present on the comparative compound.
A proper side-by-side comparison would be one where the comparative and inventive compounds are the same, but differ in only one aspect, .e.g. a difference only in the acetoacetonate ligands, the 7-membered ring, etc.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER C. KOLLIAS whose telephone number is (571)-270-3869. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00AM – 5:00 PM EST.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER C KOLLIAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights