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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species D (Formulae 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, or 15) in the reply filed on 12/17/2024 was previously acknowledged. Claims 23, 26, and 30 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/17/2024.
Response to Amendment
The applicant's amendment of 05/27/2026 has each been entered.
Claims 1-5, 9-13, 15-16, 18, 20-22, 25, 31, 35, and 27 are amended and claims 6-8, 14, and 29 are cancelled due to the applicant's amendment.
Claims 1-5, 9-13, 15-23 and 25-28, 30-38 are pending and claims 23, 26, and 30 remain withdrawn from consideration.
The objections to claims 1 and 35 as set forth in the previous Office action are overcome due to the applicant's amendment.
The rejections of claims 1-22, 24-25, 27-29, and 31-38 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention as set forth in the previous Office action are all overcome due to the applicant's amendment.
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 05/27/2026 is sufficient to overcome the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth in the previous Office action. The rejections are withdrawn.
However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made in view the teachings of newly cited Hwang et al. US-20210115077-A1.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments on pages 82-98 of the reply dated 05/27/2026 with respect to the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth in the previous Office action have been fully considered and are persuasive with respect to the applicant's arguments of unexpected results. The rejections have been withdrawn. However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made in view the teachings of newly cited Hwang et al. US-20210115077-A1.
Insofar as the arguments apply to the new grounds of rejection outlined below, the applicant's arguments on pages 82-98 of the reply dated 05/27/2026 with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth in the previous Office action have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument – The applicant argues on pages 82-98 that: (1) there is an absence of a reasonable motivated to combine Yan and Lee; (2) there is a superior technical effect achieved by the present application; and (3) a novel organic electroluminescent device is provided by the present application.
Examiner's response – Each of the above arguments address modifying the Yan reference organometallic compound to further comprises a silyl substituent as taught by Lee. However, in the new grounds of rejection below made in view the teachings of newly cited Hwang et al. US-20210115077-A1, the compound of Hwang meets the claimed Formula 4 and possesses a silyl substituent without modification. Therefore, arguments are not found persuasive.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3 and 25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 1 it is suggested that "by any one of Formula 10 or Formula 11" be changed to "by any one of Formula 10 or Formula 11" for ease of reading;
in claim 3, it is suggested that "Formula 1" be changed to "Formula 4" for ease of reading; and
in claim 25 it is suggested that "by any one of Formula 10" be changed to "by any one of Formula 10" for ease of reading.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-5, 9-13, 15-19, 27-28, 31-35, and 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doh et al. KR-20200026747-A (hereinafter "Doh-KR, see English language machine translation referred to herein as "Doh-MT") in view of Hwang et al. US-20210115077-A1 (hereinafter "Hwang").
It is noted that Doh et al. KR-20200026747-A is cited on the IDS of 07/23/2025.
Regarding claims 1-5, 9-13, 15-19, 27-28, 31-35, and 37-38, Doh teaches an organic electroluminescent device comprising light emitting layer between and anode and a cathode, wherein the light emitting layers comprise a compound of a Chemical Formula 1 (Doh-MT, page 24, lines 4-7), as a host (Doh-MT, page 25 of 33, line 14). Doh teaches specific examples of the compound of Chemical Formula 1 including
PNG
media_image1.png
134
71
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Doh-KR, page 5), which is a compound of the claimed is a compound of the claimed Formula 11 wherein and equivalent to the claimed H5-7.
Doh does not specifically disclose a device as discussed above wherein a dopant in the light emitting layer is a compound of the claimed Formula 1.
Hwang teaches an organometallic compound represented by a Formula 1 (¶ [0008]) for use as a dopant in an emission layer of an organic light-emitting device (¶ [0032], ¶ [0127]). Hwang teaches that due to the inclusion of the organometallic compound represented by Formula 1 in the organic layer of the device, a low driving voltage, high efficiency, high power, high quantum efficiency, a long lifespan, a low roll-off ratio, and excellent color purity is obtained (¶ [0128]). Hwang teaches the organometallic compound emits red light (¶ [0129]). Hwang teaches examples of the organometallic compound in paragraph [0119], including those on pages 19, 31, 37, 42-43 wherein CY1 of Hwang is a dibenzo group, see for example compound 52
PNG
media_image2.png
358
425
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(¶ [0119], page 19) and compound 163
PNG
media_image3.png
383
435
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(¶ [0119], page 37), which meet the claimed Formula 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 have modified the device of Doh by forming the light emitting layer comprising the organometallic compound, as taught by Hwang. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain a device with a low driving voltage, high efficiency, high power, high quantum efficiency, a long lifespan, a low roll-off ratio, and excellent color purity, as taught by Hwang.
Further, 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 specifically one of the compounds wherein CY1 of Hwang is a dibenzo group, because each would have been choosing from the list of specifically exemplified organometallic compound represented by a Formula 1 taught by Hwang, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful a dopant in the light emitting layer of the device of Doh and possessing the properties of a low driving voltage, high efficiency, high power, high quantum efficiency, a long lifespan, a low roll-off ratio, and excellent color purity taught by Hwang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising the organometallic compound represented by a Formula 1 having the properties as described above taught by Hwang in order to pursue the known options within their technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143.I.(E).
The modified device of Doh in view of Hwang meets claims 1-5, 9-13, 15-19, 27-28, 31-35, and 37-38.
Claims 1-5, 9-13, 15-19, 25, 27-28, 32-35, and 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. KR-20150077220-A (hereinafter "Lee-220 and see machine translation referred to herein as "Lee-220-MT") in view of Hwang et al. US-20210115077-A1 (hereinafter "Hwang").
Regarding claims 1-5, 9-13, 15-19, 25, 27-28, 32-35, and 37-38, Lee-220 teaches an organic electroluminescent device comprising a light emitting layer between and anode and a cathode, wherein the light emitting layer comprises a compound of a Formula 1 as a host material (Lee-220-MT, page 6 of 17 line 30 to Lee-220-MT, page 7 of 17 line 4). Lee-220 teaches specific examples of the compound of Formula 1 including
PNG
media_image4.png
208
232
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(page 18), which is a compound of the claimed is a compound of the claimed Formula 10. Lee-220 teach the device possessing the beneficial properties of excellent performance in terms of efficiency and driving voltage (Lee-220-MT, page 15 of 17 lines 2-3).
Lee-220 does not specifically disclose a device as discussed above wherein a dopant in the light emitting layer is a compound of the claimed Formula 1.
Hwang teaches an organometallic compound represented by a Formula 1 (¶ [0008]) for use as a dopant in an emission layer of an organic light-emitting device (¶ [0032], ¶ [0127]). Hwang teaches that due to the inclusion of the organometallic compound represented by Formula 1 in the organic layer of the device, a low driving voltage, high efficiency, high power, high quantum efficiency, a long lifespan, a low roll-off ratio, and excellent color purity is obtained (¶ [0128]). Hwang teaches the organometallic compound emits red light (¶ [0129]). Hwang teaches examples of the organometallic compound in paragraph [0119], including those on pages 19, 31, 37, 42-43 wherein CY1 of Hwang is a dibenzo group, see for example compound 52
PNG
media_image2.png
358
425
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(¶ [0119], page 19) and compound 163
PNG
media_image3.png
383
435
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(¶ [0119], page 37), which meet the claimed Formula 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 have modified the device of Lee-220 by forming the light emitting layer comprising the organometallic compound, as taught by Hwang. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain a device with a low driving voltage, high efficiency, high power, high quantum efficiency, a long lifespan, a low roll-off ratio, and excellent color purity, as taught by Hwang.
Further, 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 specifically one of the compounds wherein CY1 of Hwang is a dibenzo group, because each would have been choosing from the list of specifically exemplified organometallic compound represented by a Formula 1 taught by Hwang, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful a dopant in the light emitting layer of the device of Lee-220 and possessing the properties of a low driving voltage, high efficiency, high power, high quantum efficiency, a long lifespan, a low roll-off ratio, and excellent color purity taught by Hwang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising the organometallic compound represented by a Formula 1 having the properties as described above taught by Hwang in order to pursue the known options within their technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143.I.(E).
The modified device of Lee-220 in view of Hwang meets claims 1-5, 9-13, 15-19, 25, 27-28, 32-35, and 37-38.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20-22 and 36 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: The closest prior art, exemplified by Hwang et al. US-20210115077-A1, teaches Hwang teaches an organometallic compound represented by a Formula 1 (¶ [0008]) for use as a dopant in an emission layer of an organic light-emitting device (¶ [0032], ¶ [0127]) and teaches examples of the organometallic compound in paragraph [0119], including those on pages 19, 31, 37, 42-43 wherein CY1 of Hwang is a dibenzo group, see for example compound 52
PNG
media_image2.png
358
425
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(¶ [0119], page 19) and compound 163
PNG
media_image3.png
383
435
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(¶ [0119], page 37). However, Hwang does not teach a compound wherein the quinolinyl-dibenzo ligand corresponds to one of the claimed ligands in claim 20. More specifically, Hwang does not teach a compound wherein the quinolinyl-dibenzo ligand does not comprise an aromatic ring at a position corresponding to one of the claimed Y1 to Y6. Further, the prior art does not provide a reason to modify the compound of Hwang such that the aromatic ring substituent is not present to arrive at one of the claimed ligands in claim 20 with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Choi et al. US-20180273563-A1 recites organometallic compounds of a Formula 1 (¶ [0009]) including for example compound 5
PNG
media_image5.png
324
374
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(¶ [0148], page 20).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elizabeth M. Dahlburg whose telephone number is 571-272-6424. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET, and alternate Fridays.
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.
/ELIZABETH M. DAHLBURG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights