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 .
Status of Claims
Claim 1 is amended and claims 5-6 and 14-15 are cancelled due to Applicant's amendment dated 03/05/2026. Claims 1-2, 7, and 16-20 are pending.
Response to Amendment
The objection to claim 1 as set forth in the previous Office Action is overcome due to the Applicant's amendment dated 03/05/2026.
The rejection of claims 5-6 and 14-15 as set forth in the previous Office Action is moot because claims 5-6 and 14-15 are cancelled due to the Applicant's amendment dated 03/05/2026.
The rejection of claims 1-2, 7, and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2019/0211042 A1) in view of Kaori (English translation of JP 2013048147 obtained from Espacenet) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 03/05/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made.
Response to Arguments
Insofar as the arguments apply to the new grounds of rejection below, Applicant’s arguments on pages 13-17 of the reply dated 03/05/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-2, 7, and 16-20 as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument –Applicant argues the previously cited references fail to teach a compound of the amended claim 1, which eliminates deuterium from the definition of R11 to R14, R21 to R23, R32, R33, R41 to R44, and R7.
Examiner's response –As discussed in greater detail in the new grounds of rejection below, the newly cited reference Lee (US 2018/0013078 A1) in view of the previous cited reference Kaori teach a compound of the amended Formula 1. Accordingly, the cited references meet the claims as amended.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: given that in Formula 2 of claim 1 ring CY10 is a benzene group and n10 is an integer from 1 to 5 (and thus Z10 must necessarily be present in at least one position), it is recommended to replace “a10 is an integer from 0 to 5” with “a10 is an integer from 0 to 4” as there are only up to four positions in which R10 may attach.
Formula 2:
PNG
media_image1.png
189
237
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2, 7, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2018/0013078 A1) in view of Kaori (English translation of JP 2013048147 obtained from Espacenet).
Regarding claims 1-2, 7, 16, and 20, Lee teaches an organic light-emitting device including an organic layer between a first electrode and a second electrode, wherein the organic layer includes an emission layer and at least one organometallic compound represented by Formula 1A (¶ [0007]-[0009] and [0036]-[0042]). Such a device obtains low driving voltage, high efficiency, high power efficiency, high quantum efficiency, long lifespan, low roll-off ratio, and excellent color purity (¶ [0348]).
Examples of compounds represented by Formula 1A include compound 3-462, which is reproduced below (pg. 127).
1A:
PNG
media_image2.png
200
283
media_image2.png
Greyscale
3-462:
PNG
media_image3.png
105
143
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Compound 3-462 fails to read on the claimed Formula 1 as it fails to include -F on the phenyl substituent of CY3. However, Lee teaches R3 may be selected from groups represented by Formulas 10-1 to 10-167, including Formulae 10-13 and 10-27 (¶ [0101]; structures on pgs. 8-9). As shown in the structure above, compound 3-462 includes Formula 10-13 in the location of R3.
10-13:
PNG
media_image4.png
66
83
media_image4.png
Greyscale
10-27:
PNG
media_image5.png
100
115
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore in compound 3-462, given the general formula and teachings of Lee, 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 Formula 10-13 with Formula 10-27 in the location of R3, because Lee teaches the R3 may suitably be selected as Formula 10-13 or Formula 10-27. 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 in the device of Lee and possess the benefits taught by Lee. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
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 Formula 10-27, because it would have been choosing from one of the groups which may be selected as R3, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the organometallic compound in the device of Lee and possessing the benefits taught by Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Formula 1A having the benefits taught by Lee in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
The modified compound 3-462 fails to read on the claimed Formula 1 wherein the substituents of the benzimidazole group include alkyl. However, Lee teaches X51 may be N-[(L7)b7-(R7)c7], and R7 may be represented by groups of Formulae 9-1 to 9-19 and groups represented by Formulae 10-1 to 10-167 (¶ [0020] and [0101]; see structures on pgs. 7-8).
Formula 9-4:
PNG
media_image6.png
55
61
media_image6.png
Greyscale
10-13:
PNG
media_image4.png
66
83
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Kaori teaches an organic electroluminescent device having high luminous efficiency, long lifetime, and excellent temporal stability by including a light-emitting layer containing an organometallic complex having a ligand having a partial structure represented by general formula (1) coordinated to a metal atom (¶ [0009] and [0015]). An organic EL device exhibiting high temporal stability can be obtained by introducing an aromatic ring having a specific substituent on N of an imidazole ring (¶ [0018]). Examples of organometallic complexes having a ligand having a partial structure represented by general formula (1) include complex 4 (pg. 15).
general formula (1):
PNG
media_image7.png
208
319
media_image7.png
Greyscale
4:
PNG
media_image8.png
153
227
media_image8.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 substitute
PNG
media_image3.png
105
143
media_image3.png
Greyscale
with
PNG
media_image9.png
72
142
media_image9.png
Greyscale
to arrive at a compound having a ligand having a partial structure represented by general formula (1), as shown in Kaori’s complex 4, based on the teaching of Kaori. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with high luminous efficiency, long lifetime, and high temporal stability, as taught by Kaori.
The modified compound 3-462 contains a ligand having a partial structure represented by Kaori’s general formula (1) wherein: ring A, ring B, and Ar each represent a 6-membered aromatic ring; R1 represents alkyl and R2 represents hydrogen; Ra represents hydrogen, Rb represents alkyl, and Rc represents alkenyl groups that combine to form a ring; and n1 to n3 are each 2 (see Kaori, ¶ [0011]). Accordingly, the modified compound 3-462 is expected to obtain the benefits of Kaori.
The modified compound 3-462 of Lee in view of Kaori is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Formula 1.
modified 3-462:
PNG
media_image10.png
354
587
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Formula 1A:
PNG
media_image11.png
254
288
media_image11.png
Greyscale
The modified compound 3-462 reads on the claimed Formula 1A wherein:
M is Pt;
X1 is O;
X2 and X4 are each N, and X3 is C (claim 2);
Y1 is C;
X11 is C(R11), X12 is C(R12), X13 is C(R13), and X14 is C(R14);
X21 is C(R21), X22 is C(R22), and X23 is C(R23);
X31 is C(R31), X32 is C(Z13), and X33 is C(R33);
X41 is C-[(L41)-(R41)], X42 is C-[(L42)-(R42)], X43 is C-[(L43)-(R43)], and X44 is C-[(L44)-(R44)];
X51 is N-[(L7)b7-(R7)c7];
Z13 is represented by Formula 2 and Z14 is not required to be present;
L41, L43, and L44 are each a single bond, and L42 is an unsubstituted benzene group;
L7 is an unsubstituted benzene group;
L14 is not required to be present;
b7 is an integer of 1;
R11 and R13 are each an unsubstituted C4 alkyl group, R12, R14, R21 to R23, R31, R33, R41, R43, and R44 are each hydrogen, R42 is a phenyl group, one of R7 is an unsubstituted C4 alkyl group and one of R7 is an unsubstituted phenyl group;
c7 is 2;
ring CY10 is a benzene group;
R10 is hydrogen;
Z10 is -F;
a10 is an integer of 2; and
n10 is an integer of 3.
Additionally, the group represented by Formula 2 is a group further represented by Formula 2-10 wherein Z1001, R1003, and R1005 are each -F (claim 7).
Per claim 20, although the instant claim is drawn to an electronic apparatus, the only positive limitation of the claimed apparatus is organic light-emitting device of claim 16. Claim 20 does not add any further structural or functional limitations to the device and/or organometallic compound. Lee in view of Kaori teaches the organic light emitting device according to claim 16, as described above, and does not include any components that would make it unfit for use as an apparatus. Therefore, as Lee in view of Kaori teach an organic light-emitting device is an electronic device (see Lee, ¶ [0341]), the OLED of Lee in view of Kaori according to claim 16 may be considered an electronic apparatus.
Regarding claims 17-19, Lee in view of Kaori teaches the organic light-emitting device comprising the modified compound 3-462, as described above with respect to claim 16.
Lee in view of Kaori fail to teach the device comprising the modified compound 3-462 further comprises a hole transport region, an electron transport region, and an emission layer comprising a host.
However, Lee teaches the organic light-emitting device may include the structure of an anode, a hole transport region, an emission layer, an electron transport region, and a cathode, wherein the hole transport region includes a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer, or any combination thereof, and the electron transport region includes a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, or any combination thereof (¶ [0353]). Additionally, Lee teaches the organometallic compound of Formula 1A may be included in the emission layer as a dopant, wherein the emission layer further includes a host and the amount of the organometallic compound represented by Formula 1A is smaller than an amount of the host (¶ [0349]).
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 provide a device having the structure of an anode, a hole transport region, an emission layer comprising a host and a dopant, an electron transport region, and a cathode, wherein the modified compound 3-462 is used as the dopant in the emission layer and the amount of the modified compound 3-462 is smaller than an amount of the host, because this would have been combining the device structure of Lee with a compound represented by Lee’s Formula 1A according to known methods to yield predictable results of an organic light-emitting device with low driving voltage, high efficiency, high power efficiency, high quantum efficiency, long lifespan, low roll-off ratio, and excellent color purity, as taught by Lee. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
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.
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/Examiner, Art Unit 1786