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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/06/2025 has been entered.
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 Claims 23, 26, and 30 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 01/06/2025 has each been entered.
Claims 1-3, 8-11, 17-18, 25, 31, 35, and 28 are amended and claim 24 is cancelled due to the applicant's amendment.
Claims 1-23 and 25-38 are pending and claims 23, 26, and 30 remain withdrawn from consideration.
The objections to claims 1, 3, 8-10, and 17 as set forth in the previous Office action are overcome due to the applicant's amendment.
The rejections of claims 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 rejection of claims 1-22, 24, 27-29, and 31-38 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth in the previous Office action is maintained.
The rejections of claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth in the previous Office action are each overcome due to the applicant's amendment.
However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made in view the teachings of newly cited Lee et al. KR-20150077220-A.
Response to Arguments
The applicant's arguments on pages 86-89 of the reply dated 01/06/2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-22, 24, 27-29, and 31-38 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 86-87 that there is an absence of reasonable motivation to combine the cited references Yan and Lee because the ligand structures of Yan and Lee are different and thus a person skilled in the art would have no motivation to introduce the trimethylsilyl substituent of Lee onto the ligand of the compound of Yan. Further, the applicant argues that the primary reference Doh teaches device fabricated by vapor deposition and the technical effect taught by Lee holds no practical relevance for Doh.
Examiner's response – The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2145 III. In this case, one having ordinary skill in the art would have readily applied the teaching of Lee to further organometallic iridium compounds, beyond the one tested in Lee, with a reasonable expectation of increasing solubility and processability and decreasing intermolecular interaction, as taught by Lee.
Further, while Doh does not expressly discuss solution processing, this is a well known technique in the art of electroluminescent devices and one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to increase solubility for a variety of reasons. Additionally, Lee teaches that the addition of the trimethylsilyl group decreased molecular interaction, which is advantageous for prevention of exciton quenching during OLED operation (see page 1967, first column, last paragraph), which is not only related to the fabrication of the device.
Applicant's argument – The applicant argues on pages 88-89 that the claimed invention achieves unexpected and superior technical effect. Specifically, the applicant argues that Doh does not disclose nor teach how to improve device lifetime, nor does it teach how to select and combine a metal complex with its compound to affect device lifetime.
Examiner's response – This is not found persuasive because the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., improved device lifetime) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. Further, prima facie obviousness is not rebutted by merely recognizing additional advantages or latent properties present but not recognized in the prior art. See MPEP § 2145 II. The modified device of Doh in view of Yan and Lee would possess the same advantageous properties.
Regarding the applicant's allegation of unexpected results, the applicants have the burden of explaining the proffered data as evidence of non-obviousness. Any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. Evidence relied upon should establish that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance. Evidence of nonobviousness must also be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support. Comparison must be between the claimed subject matter and the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 716.02.
The applicant points to results in the specification; however, it appears that the only comparative device comprises CBP as a host material. Therefore, this is not persuasive for at least the reason that comparison has not been made between the claimed subject matter and the closest prior art. It is unclear what difference in device performance exists between devices comprising the claimed materials and the materials in the unmodified device of Doh. The comparative example in the instant specification comprising CBP as the host does not inform one having ordinary skill in the art of the device performance of the device of Doh comprising the compound of Doh as the host.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 35 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claims 1 and 35 the resolution of Formulae 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 is poor.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-22, 24-25, 27-29, and 31-38 are rejected 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.
Regarding claims 1-3 and 8-11, 18, and 35, each of these claims recite "at least one of Y1 to Y6…, others of Y1 to Y6…" The claim is indefinite because it is unclear if "others of" is meant to refer to the remaining of Y1 to Y6 or some of Y1 to Y6. If only some of Y1 to Y6…, then it is unclear what the remainder may be.
For purposes of examination, the claims will be interpreted such that the claims recite "at least one of Y1 to Y6…, the remaining of Y1 to Y6…".
Claims 2-22, 25, 27-29, and 31-38 are rejected as being dependent on indefinite claim 1.
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 1-22, 27-29, and 31-38 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 Yan et al. CN-107973823-A (hereinafter Yan-CN") and see machine translation referred to herein as "Yan-MT" and J. Lee et al., Synthetic Metals 162 (2012) 1961-1967 (hereinafter "Lee et al.").
It is noted that Doh et al. KR-20200026747-A is cited on the IDS of 07/23/2025.
Regarding claims 1-22, 27-29, and 31-38, 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 2, Formula 9, and 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.
Yan teaches a dibenzo-substituted ligand and compound having a structure of formula I (Yan-MT, page 1 of 15, line 3), having good thermal stability, high luminous efficiency, and long service life when used in organic light emitting devices as a red luminescent dopant (Yan-MT, page 1 of 15, lines 4-5). Yan teaches examples of the compound having a structure of formula I that meet the claimed Formula 1 including
PNG
media_image2.png
151
188
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 9) and CPD5
PNG
media_image3.png
166
214
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 12), CPD16
PNG
media_image4.png
176
174
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(page 15).
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 dopant material having a structure of formula I, as taught by Yan. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain a device with good thermal stability, high luminous efficiency, and long service life, as taught by Yan.
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 the compound CPD1, CPD 5, or CPD 16 of Yan, because each would have been choosing from the list of specifically synthesized compounds having the structure of formula I of Yan, 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 good thermal stability, high luminous efficiency, and long service life taught by Yan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising the compound CPD1, CPD5, or CPD 16 of Yan having the properties as described above taught by Yan in order to pursue the known options within their technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143.I.(E).
Doh in view of Yan does not specifically disclose wherein the compound having a structure of formula I of Yan has a silyl substituent -L1-SiRs1Rs2Rs3.
Lee et al. teaches that by introducing silyl substituents to ligands of iridium complexes for use in OLEDs, the solubility and processability is increased, and intermolecular interaction is decreased (Abstract; page 1962, first column, second paragraph; page 1964, first column, second-to-last paragraph; page 1967, first column, second paragraph). Lee et al. teaches compound wherein the silyl substituent is a trimethylsilyl (-SiMe3) (Scheme 1).
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 introduce a trimethylsilyl (-SiMe3) onto the ligand of the compound of Yan, based on the teaching of Lee et al. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase solubility and processability, and decrease intermolecular interaction, as taught by Lee et al.
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 one of the positions corresponding to one of Y1 to Y6 in the claimed Formula 1 to substitute the trimethylsilyl substituent, because it would have been choosing from the available positions for substituent on the compound of Yan, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the dopant in the light emitting layer of the device of Doh and possessing the benefits taught by Yan and Lee et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds of Yan comprising the trimethylsilyl of Lee et al. having the benefits as described above taught by Yan and Lee et al. in order to pursue the known options within their technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143.I.(E).
The modified compound of Yan in view of Lee et al. is a compound of the claimed Formula I comprising a substituent -L1-SiRs1Rs2Rs3 where L1 is a single bond and Rs1, Rs2, and Rs3 are each an alkyl group having 1 carbon atom (methyl).
The modified device of Doh in view of Yean meets claims 1-22, 27-29, and 31-38.
Claims 1-22, 25, 27-29, and 31-38 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 Yan et al. CN-107973823-A (hereinafter Yan-CN") and see machine translation referred to herein as "Yan-MT" and J. Lee et al., Synthetic Metals 162 (2012) 1961-1967 (hereinafter "Lee et al.").
Regarding claims 1-22, 25, 27-29, and 32-38, 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_image5.png
210
238
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, which is a compound of the claimed is a compound of the claimed Formula 13. 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.
Yan teaches a dibenzo-substituted ligand and compound having a structure of formula I (Yan-MT, page 1 of 15, line 3), having good thermal stability, high luminous efficiency, and long service life when used in organic light emitting devices as a red luminescent dopant (Yan-MT, page 1 of 15, lines 4-5). Yan teaches examples of the compound having a structure of formula I that meet the claimed Formula 1 including
PNG
media_image2.png
151
188
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 9) and CPD5
PNG
media_image3.png
166
214
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 12), CPD16
PNG
media_image4.png
176
174
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(page 15).
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 dopant material having a structure of formula I, as taught by Yan. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain a device with good thermal stability, high luminous efficiency, and long service life, as taught by Yan.
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 the compound CPD1, CPD 5, or CPD 16 of Yan, because each would have been choosing from the list of specifically synthesized compounds having the structure of formula I of Yan, 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 good thermal stability, high luminous efficiency, and long service life taught by Yan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising the compound CPD1, CPD5, or CPD 16 of Yan having the properties as described above taught by Yan in order to pursue the known options within their technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143.I.(E).
Lee-220 in view of Yan does not specifically disclose wherein the compound having a structure of formula I of Yan has a silyl substituent -L1-SiRs1Rs2Rs3.
Lee et al. teaches that by introducing silyl substituents to ligands of iridium complexes for use in OLEDs, the solubility and processability is increased, and intermolecular interaction is decreased (Abstract; page 1962, first column, second paragraph; page 1964, first column, second-to-last paragraph; page 1967, first column, second paragraph). Lee et al. teaches compound wherein the silyl substituent is a trimethylsilyl (-SiMe3) (Scheme 1).
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 introduce a trimethylsilyl (-SiMe3) onto the ligand of the compound of Yan, based on the teaching of Lee et al. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase solubility and processability, and decrease intermolecular interaction, as taught by Lee et al.
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 one of the positions corresponding to one of Y1 to Y6 in the claimed Formula 1 to substitute the trimethylsilyl substituent, because it would have been choosing from the available positions for substituent on the compound of Yan, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the dopant in the light emitting layer of the device of Doh and possessing the benefits taught by Yan and Lee et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds of Yan comprising the trimethylsilyl of Lee et al. having the benefits as described above taught by Yan and Lee et al. in order to pursue the known options within their technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143.I.(E).
The modified compound of Yan in view of Lee et al. is a compound of the claimed Formula I comprising a substituent -L1-SiRs1Rs2Rs3 where L1 is a single bond and Rs1, Rs2, and Rs3 are each an alkyl group having 1 carbon atom (methyl).
The modified device of Lee-220 in view of Yan and Lee meets claims 1-22, 27-29, and 32-38.
Regarding claim 31, Lee-220 in view of Yan and Lee teaches the device comprising the compounds as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Lee-220 does not specifically exemplify a compound that corresponds to a compound listed in claim 31. For example, the compound 28 differs from the claimed compound H7-4
PNG
media_image6.png
278
155
media_image6.png
Greyscale
in that the position corresponding to Zh7 is CRzh where Rzh is a phenyl instead of a biphenyl group. However, the Formula 1 of Lee-220 encompasses wherein this position is phenyl or biphenyl and teaches exemplary compounds where this position is a biphenyl groups, see compound C-30
PNG
media_image7.png
182
245
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(Lee-220, page 19).
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of L-220, 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 the phenyl group for a biphenyl group in the compound C-28 to arrive at a compound having the structure
PNG
media_image8.png
278
155
media_image8.png
Greyscale
, because Lee-220 teaches the variable may suitably be selected as such. 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 host material in the light emitting layer of the device of Lee-220 and possess the beneficial properties of excellent performance in terms of efficiency and driving voltage taught by Lee-220. See MPEP § 2143.I.(B).
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