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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 08/11/2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claim 18 has been canceled.
Claims 1-17 and 19-30 are pending.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-8, 16, and 19 have been amended.
The amendments of claims 1, 3-4, 8, 16, and 19 have overcome:
the rejections of claim 1-3, 5, 8-13, 16, 20-25, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (EP 3705483 A, hereafter Hwang ‘483) in view of Wang et al. (“Highly efficient electroluminescent materials based on fluorinated organometallic iridium compounds” Appl. Phys. Lett. 2001, vol. 79, page 449-451),
the rejections of claims 20-30 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (EP 3705483 A) in view of Wang et al. (“Highly efficient electroluminescent materials based on fluorinated organometallic iridium compounds” Appl. Phys. Lett. 2001, vol. 79, page 449-451) as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 8-13, 16, 20-25, and 30 above, further in view of Park et al. (US 20170207396 A1, hereafter Park),
the rejections of claim 1-3, 5, 8-13, 16, 20-25, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2022/0102652 A1, hereafter Lee) in view of Tsai et al. (US 2021/0054010 A1, hereafter Tsai ‘010),
the rejections of claims 20-30 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2022/0102652 A1) in view of Tsai et al. (US 2021/0054010 A1) as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 8-13, 16, 20-25, and 30 above, further in view of Park et al. (US 20170207396 A1) set forth in the last Office Action.
The rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see page 117-123 of the reply filed 08/11/2026 regarding the rejections of claim 1-3, 5, 8-13, 16, 20-25, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang ‘483/Wang, the rejections of claims 20-30 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang ‘483/Wang/Park set forth in the Office Action of 04/22/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the present application is non-obvious over the combination of Hwang with Wang.
While the Examiner does not agree with all the arguments that Applicant made, the cited rejections are withdrawn due to the following reason.
The cited rejections refer to Compound of Hwang ‘483 as modified by Wang (see section 40 of the last Office Action). The compound does not read on the limitation of Formula 1 of the amended claims. For that reason, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments see page 123-126 of the reply filed 08/11/2026 regarding the rejections of claim 1-3, 5, 8-13, 16, 20-25, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee/Tsai ‘010, and the rejections of claims 20-30 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee/Tsai ‘010/Park set forth in the Office Action of 04/22/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that it would not be obvious to one skilled in the art to combine Lee with Tsai to arrive at the claimed metal complex.
While the Examiner does not agree with all the arguments that Applicant made, the cited rejections are withdrawn due to the following reason.
The cited rejections refer to Compound of Lee as modified by Tsai ‘010 (see section 85 of the last Office Action). The compound does not read on the limitation of Formula 1 of the amended claims. For that reason, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments see page 126-131 of the reply filed 08/11/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1-6, 8-17, 19-23, and 29-30 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11, 18-20, and 28 of US Patent No. 12,433,149 B2 (hereafter Patent ‘149), the rejection of claim 7 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11, 18-20, and 28 of Patent ‘149 in view of Hwang, and the rejections of claims 20-30 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11, 18-20, and 28 of Patent ‘149 in view of Hwang and Park set forth in the Office Action of 04/22/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the reference neither considers nor discloses metal complexes containing both Features 1 and 2 (1 – at least one of X5 to X8 is CRx and the Rx is cyano or fluorine, and 2 – at least another one of X5 to X8 is CRx and Rx is Ar having a structure of Formula 2).
Respectfully, the Examiner does not agree.
The rejections refer to Metal complex of Patent ‘839 as modified by Tsai ‘010 (see section 123 of the last Office Action), which reads on both Features 1 and 2 of the amended claims.
At least for that reason, the arguments are not found persuasive. The rejections are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments see page 126-131 of the reply filed 08/11/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1-6, 8-17, 19-23, and 30 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, 12, and 14 of US Patent No. 12,167,674 B2 (hereafter Patent ‘674) set forth in the Office Action of 04/22/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the reference neither considers nor discloses metal complexes containing both Features 1 and 2 (1 – at least one of X5 to X8 is CRx and the Rx is cyano or fluorine, and 2 – at least another one of X5 to X8 is CRx and Rx is Ar having a structure of Formula 2).
Respectfully, the Examiner does not agree.
The rejections refer to Metal complex of Patent ‘674 as modified by Tsai ‘010 (see section 170 of the last Office Action), which reads on both Features 1 and 2 of the amended claims.
At least for that reason, the arguments are not found persuasive. The rejections are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments see page 126-131 of the reply filed 08/11/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1-6, 8-15, 20-22, and 30 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, and 37 of US Patent No. 11,952,390 B2 (hereafter Patent ‘390) set forth in the Office Action of 04/22/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the reference neither considers nor discloses metal complexes containing both Features 1 and 2 (1 – at least one of X5 to X8 is CRx and the Rx is cyano or fluorine, and 2 – at least another one of X5 to X8 is CRx and Rx is Ar having a structure of Formula 2).
Respectfully, the Examiner does not agree.
The rejections refer to Metal complex of Patent ‘839 as modified by Tsai ‘010 (see section 194 of the last Office Action), which reads on both Features 1 and 2 of the amended claims.
At least for that reason, the arguments are not found persuasive. The rejections are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments see page 126-131 of the reply filed 08/11/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1-6, 8-15, 20-22, and 30 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, 11, 13, and 18 of US Patent No. 11,785,839 B2 (hereafter Patent ‘839) set forth in the Office Action of 04/22/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the reference neither considers nor discloses metal complexes containing both Features 1 and 2 (1 – at least one of X5 to X8 is CRx and the Rx is cyano or fluorine, and 2 – at least another one of X5 to X8 is CRx and Rx is Ar having a structure of Formula 2).
Respectfully, the Examiner does not agree.
The rejections refer to Metal complex of Patent ‘839 as modified by Tsai ‘010 (see section 217 of the last Office Action), which reads on both Features 1 and 2 of the amended claims.
At least for that reason, the arguments are not found persuasive. The rejections are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments see page 126-131 of the reply filed 08/11/2026 regarding the provisional rejections of claims 1-6, 8-17, 19-22, and 30 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 17-20 of copending Application No. 17/526,358 (reference application, hereafter Application ‘358) set forth in the Office Action of 04/22/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the reference neither considers nor discloses metal complexes containing both Features 1 and 2 (1 – at least one of X5 to X8 is CRx and the Rx is cyano or fluorine, and 2 – at least another one of X5 to X8 is CRx and Rx is Ar having a structure of Formula 2).
Respectfully, the Examiner does not agree.
The rejections refer to Metal complex of Patent ‘358 as modified by Tsai ‘010 (see section 240 of the last Office Action), which reads on both Features 1 and 2 of the amended claims.
At least for that reason, the arguments are not found persuasive. The rejections are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments see page 126-131 of the reply filed 08/11/2026 regarding the provisional rejections of claims 1-6, 8-15, 20-22, and 30 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 17-20 of copending Application No. 17/530,611 (reference application, hereafter Application ‘611) set forth in the Office Action of 04/22/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the reference neither considers nor discloses metal complexes containing both Features 1 and 2 (1 – at least one of X5 to X8 is CRx and the Rx is cyano or fluorine, and 2 – at least another one of X5 to X8 is CRx and Rx is Ar having a structure of Formula 2).
Respectfully, the Examiner does not agree.
The rejections refer to Metal complex of Application ‘611 as modified by Tsai ‘010 (see section 263 of the last Office Action), which reads on both Features 1 and 2 of the amended claims.
At least for that reason, the arguments are not found persuasive. The rejections are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments see page 126-131 of the reply filed 08/11/2026 regarding the provisional rejections of claims 1-6, 8-17, 19-23, and 30 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 11-12 of copending Application No. 17/989,201 (reference application, hereafter Application ‘201) set forth in the Office Action of 04/22/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the claimed subject matter and category thereof differ from the metal complex of the present invention.
Respectfully, the Examiner does not agree.
The rejections refer to complex GD1 (see section 278 of the last Office Action), which reads on both Features 1 and 2 of the amended claims.
At least for that reason, the arguments are not found persuasive. The rejections are maintained.
It should be noted that a patent has been granted to this application; thus, the rejections are no longer provisional rejection. Because the patent number has not been issued yet, the reference is referred using the application number.
Applicant’s arguments see page 126-131 of the reply filed 08/11/2026 regarding the provisional rejections of claims 1-6, 8-17, and 19-30 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 17-20 of copending Application No. 17/989,164 (reference application, hereafter Application ‘164) set forth in the Office Action of 04/22/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the claimed subject matter and category thereof differ from the metal complex of the present invention.
Respectfully, the Examiner does not agree.
The rejections refer to metal complex GD5 (claim 26), which reads on both Features 1 and 2 of the amended claims.
At least for that reason, the arguments are not found persuasive. The rejections are maintained.
It should be noted that a patent no. US 12,751,132 has been granted to this application; thus, the rejections are no longer provisional rejection.
Applicant’s arguments see page 126-131 of the reply filed 08/11/2026 regarding the provisional rejections of claims 1-6, 8-15, 20-23, and 30 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 17, and 20 of copending Application No. 18/237,579 (reference application, hereafter Application ‘579) set forth in the Office Action of 04/22/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the structure of the metal complexes of this reference are different from the metal complexes of the present invention.
Respectfully, the Examiner does not agree.
The rejections refer to Compound 93 (see section 311 of the last Office Action), which reads on both Features 1 and 2 of the amended claims.
At least for that reason, the arguments are not found persuasive. The rejections are maintained.
It should be noted that a patent has been granted to this application; thus, the rejections are no longer provisional rejection. Because the patent number has not been issued yet, the reference is referred using the application number.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-17 and 19-30 are rejected 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. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant claims a metal complex Ir(La)m(Lb)n, wherein m is selected from 1, 2, or 3; n is selected from 0, 1, or 2; m + n equals to oxidation state of Ir; La has a structure of Formula 1
PNG
media_image1.png
144
117
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, wherein Cy can be
PNG
media_image2.png
85
6
media_image2.png
Greyscale
or
PNG
media_image2.png
85
6
media_image2.png
Greyscale
; X1 to X8 are each C or CRx; and Lb is selected from
PNG
media_image3.png
156
372
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
The ligand La bonds to the Ir metal via two carbon atoms because X1 to X8 are each carbon and the atom bonding to the metal in the ring Cy is carbon. Each of the ligand Lb has one carbon atom to coordinate to the Ir metal.
For some of claimed Ir complexes containing
PNG
media_image2.png
85
6
media_image2.png
Greyscale
or
PNG
media_image2.png
85
6
media_image2.png
Greyscale
as the ring Cy, the oxidation number of the Ir becomes +6 when m is 3; the oxidation number of the Ir becomes +5 when m is 2 and n is 1; and the oxidation number of the Ir becomes +4 when m is 1 and n is 2.
However, it appears that no Ir complex is disclosed wherein the oxidation numbers of the Ir metal being +6, +5, or +4 (i.e. all the disclosed Ir complexes have the oxidation number of +3). The specification fails to provide a representative number of species sufficient to show the inventor was in possession of the claimed genus of the Ir complex.
Regarding claims 2-17 and 19-30, claims 2-17 and 19-30 are rejected due to the dependency from the claim 1.
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 1-17, and 19-30 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 claim 1, Applicant recites “X1, X2, X3, or X4 is attached to the metal M through a metal-carbon bond or a metal nitrogen bond;…” However, X1 to X8 are each C or CRx. It is unclear how the C or CRx at the positions X1 to X8 can make a metal-nitrogen bond, rendering this claim indefinite.
For the purpose of prosecution, the Examiner interprets the limitation to mean “X1, X2, X3, or X4 is attached to the metal M through a metal-carbon bond; …”
Regarding claims 2-17 and 19-30, claims 2-17 and 19-30 are rejected due to the dependency from the claim 1.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-6, 8-17, 19-23, and 29-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11, 18-20, and 28 of US Patent No. 12,433,149 B2 (hereafter Patent ‘149). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed at the same aspects of the same invention.
Regarding claims 1-6, 8-17, 19-23, and 29-30, Patent ‘149 discloses a metal complex comprising a ligand La represented by Formula 1 (claim 1). Patent ‘149 exemplifies ligand La181 as the ligand La (claim 11). Patent ‘149 exemplifies Lb151 as the ligand Lb (claim 19). Patent ‘149 exemplifies a metal complex Compound 110 having structure of Ir(La181)(Lb151)2 (claim 20).
PNG
media_image4.png
273
610
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The complex has a phenyl group (i.e. the part enclosed by a dashed circle in the figure above) at the position corresponding to Rx2 of Formula 1 of Patent ‘149, which does not read on the limitation of the instant claims; however, Patent ‘149 does teach that Rx2 can be a substituted or unsubstituted aryl group having 6 to 30 carbon atoms (claim 1).
Tsai ‘010 discloses a metal complex comprising a first ligand LA of Formula I and used for an electroluminescent device ([0002], [0006]), wherein the first ligand LA has a biphenyl group at the position 1 of the dibenzofuranyl group (Fig. 3, and see the part enclosed by a dashed circle in the figure below).
PNG
media_image5.png
334
697
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Tsai ‘010 teaches that the biphenyl substitution in the dibenzofuran has better alignment with transition dipolar moment of the molecule such that the inventive compound having the diphenyl group provides narrower FWHM, higher efficiency parameters as compared to the comparative compound having no diphenyl group otherwise same ([0170], compare Inventive OLED comprising the Inventive example with the Comparative OLED comprising Comparative example in [0168], Tables 1-2).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the ligand La181 of the Compound 110 of Patent ‘149 by substituting the phenyl group at the positions corresponding to Rx of Formula 1 of Patent ‘149 with a biphenyl group, as taught by Patent ‘149 and Tsai ‘010.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide better alignment with transition dipolar moment of the molecule, narrower FWHM, and higher efficiency parameters based on the teaching of Tsai ‘010.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of phenyl with biphenyl at the position corresponding to Rx of Formula 1 of Patent ‘010 would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
PNG
media_image6.png
260
758
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Metal complex of Patent ‘149 as modified by Tsai ‘010, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-6, 8-17, and 19.
Patent ‘149 in view of Tsai ‘010 does not disclose a specific electroluminescent device comprising the Compound of Patent ‘149 as modified by Tsai ‘010; however, Patent ‘149 does teach that the compound of Patent ‘149 can be used as an emitter in the emissive layer with a host comprising at least one benzene in an electroluminescent device having structure of an anode, an emissive layer, and a cathode (claim 18). Patent ‘149 teaches the metal complex can be doped at 1 to 30 wt% in the emissive layer (claim 28).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound of Patent ‘149 as modified by Tsai ‘010 by incorporating it into the emissive layer of an electroluminescent device as a dopant with a host comprising at least one benzene at the concentration of 1 to 30 wt%, as taught by Patent ‘149 and Tsai ‘010.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of dopants of Patent ‘149 in the device of Patent ‘149 would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Electroluminescent device of Patent ‘149 as modified by Tsai ‘010 comprising an anode, an emissive layer (Compound of Patent ‘149 as modified by Tsai ‘010 as a dopant with 1 to 30 wt% and a compound comprising at least one benzene as a host), and a cathode, wherein the emissive layer is an organic layer; and the emissive layer materials is a compound composition, meeting all the limitations of claims 20-21, 23 and 29-30.
The Electroluminescent device of Patent ‘149 as modified by Tsai ‘010 reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach that the emissive layer emits green light.
It is reasonable to presume that the Electroluminescent device of Patent ‘149 as modified by Tsai ‘010 emits green light.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
The instant specification states the electroluminescent device of the present disclosure emits green light ([00128]). The Electroluminescent device of Patent ‘149 as modified by Tsai ‘010 reads on the features of the electroluminescent device of the present disclosure ([00126]-[00127], [00130]-[00144]).
Furthermore, the instant specification discloses an electroluminescence device comprising the metal complex whose metal center is Ir, the ligand La is represented by Formula 1, and the ligand Lb is phenyl pyridine ligand, emits green light (See inventive examples in Table 2).
The color of the emission light of an electroluminescence device is determined by the emission property of the dopant. The Compound of Patent ‘149 as modified by Tsai ‘010 which is the emitting dopant of the Electroluminescent device of Patent ‘149 as modified by Tsai ‘010, and the compound has the same features as the inventive complexes of the examples (i.e. the metal center is Ir, the ligand La is represented by Formula 1, and the ligand Lb is phenyl pyridine ligand). Therefore, Electroluminescent device of Patent ‘149 as modified by Tsai ‘010 emits green light, meeting all the limitations of claim 22.
The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once Electroluminescent device of Patent ‘149 as modified by Tsai ‘010 is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977). Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though the rejection is based on Section 103 instead of 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11, 18-20, and 28 of US Patent No. 12,433,149 B2 as applied to claims 1-6, 8-17, 19-23, and 29-30 above, further in view of Hwang et al. (“Iridium(III) Complexes with Orthometalated Quinoxaline Ligands: Subtle Tuning of Emission to the Saturated Red Color”, Inorg. Chem. 2005, vol. 44, page 1344-1353, hereafter Hwang ‘2005). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed at the same aspects of the same invention.
Regarding claim 7, the Metal complex of Patent ‘149 as modified by Tsai ‘010 reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
In the compound, the ring at the positions corresponding to the Cy of the Formula 1 of Patent ‘149 is pyridine; however, Patent ‘149 does teach that the ring Cy can be a substituted or unsubstituted heteroaryl having 5 to 24 ring atoms (claim 1).
Hwang ‘2005 discloses an Ir complex comprising a pyrazine ring used for an electroluminescent device (Abstract and Scheme 2). Hwang ‘2005 teaches that replacement of one CH group at the pyridyl fragment by an electronegative nitrogen would give a pyrazine ligand and decrease LUMO energy and tunability of the emission color (Scheme 2, under “Discussion” on page 1350).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Metal complex of Patent ‘149 as modified by Tsai ‘010 by substituting the pyridine ring at the position corresponding to the ring Cy of Formula 1 of Patent ‘149 with pyrazine, as taught by Patent ‘149 and Hwang ‘2005.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide decreased LUMO energy and tunability of the emission color, based on the teaching of Hwang ‘2005.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the heteroaryl at the position Cy of Formula 1 would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Compound of Patent ‘149 as modified by Tsai ‘010 and Hwang ‘2005, which has identical structure as the Compound of Patent ‘149 as modified by Tsai ‘010 except the secondary butyl substituted pyridine ring is replaced by pyrazine.
Claims 20-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11, 18-20, and 28 of US Patent No. 12,433,149 B2 as applied to claims 1-6, 8-17, 19-23, and 29-30 above, further in view of Park et al. (US 20170207396 A1, hereafter Park). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed at the same aspects of the same invention.
Regarding claims 20-30, the Electroluminescent device of Patent ‘149 as modified by Tsai ‘010 reads on all the features of claim 20 as outlined above.
The device comprises an anode, an emissive layer (Compound of Patent ‘149 as modified by Tsai ‘010 as a dopant with 1 to 30 wt% and a compound comprising at least one benzene as a host), and a cathode.
The host material does not contain two hosts comprising triazine; however, Patent ‘149 does teach two host compounds, wherein one of them is a triazine compound (claim 26).
Park discloses an electroluminescent device comprising a first host of Formula 1 of Park and a second host of Formula 2 of Park in the emission layer ([0009]).
Park exemplifies Compound H1-34 as the Formula 1 of Park ([0048]) and Compound H2-38 as the Formula 2 of Park ([0049]). The compounds H1-34 and H2-38 of Park each has identical structure as Applicant’s compounds X-128 of claim 28 and H-18 of claim 26, respectively.
PNG
media_image7.png
351
582
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Park teaches that an Ir complex can be used as the dopant of the electroluminescent device of Park ([0054]). Park teaches that the electroluminescent device of Park provides high efficiency and long lifespan ([0008]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound of Patent ‘149 as modified by Tsai ‘010 by incorporating it as an emissive dopant having ratio of 1-30 wt% with respect to the total mass of the emissive layer together with the compound H2-38 of Park as a first host and compound H1-34 of Park as a second host in the emissive layer of an electroluminescent device comprising an anode, an emissive layer, and a cathode, as taught by Patent ‘149 and Park.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide the electroluminescent device with high efficiency and long lifespan based on the teaching of Park.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides Electroluminescent device of Patent ‘149 as modified by Tsai ‘010 and Park comprising an anode, an emissive layer (1-30 wt% Compound of Patent ‘149 as modified by Tsai ‘010 as a dopant, Compound H2-38 of Park as a first host, and Compound H1-34 of Park as a second host), and a cathode, wherein the emissive layer is an organic layer; and the emissive layer materials is a compound composition.
Claims 1-6, 8-17, 19-23, and 30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, 12, and 14 of US Patent No. 12,167,674 B2 (hereafter Patent ‘674). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed at the same aspects of the same invention.
Regarding claims 1-6, 8-17, 19-23, and 30, Patent ‘674 discloses a metal complex having a general formula of M(La)m(Lb)3-m, wherein La is represented by Formula 2 (claim 1). Patent ‘674 teaches detailed structure of the complex represented by IrLa(Lb)2 (claim 6). Patent ‘674 exemplifies La107 as the ligand La and Lb3 as the ligand Lb (claim 6).
PNG
media_image8.png
296
722
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Patent ‘674 does not disclose a specific metal complex having a ligand La107 and a ligand Lb3; however, Patent ‘674 does teach a metal complex of IrLa(Lb)2, wherein La can be a ligand La107 and Lb can be a ligand Lb3 (claim 6).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the metal complex of IrLa(Lb)2 by incorporating La107 as La and Lb3 as Lb, as taught by Patent ‘674.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Each substitution of exemplified ligands La and Lb would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides a Modified metal complex of Patent ‘674 represented by IrLa107(Lb3)2.
The complex has a phenyl group (i.e. the part enclosed by a dashed circle in the figure above) at the position corresponding to R4 of Formula 2 of Patent ‘674, which does not read on the limitation of the instant claims; however, Patent ‘674 does teach that R4 can be a substituted or unsubstituted aryl group having 12 carbon atoms (claim 1). A biphenyl group is a well-known aryl group having 12 carbon atoms in the art.
Tsai ‘010 discloses a metal complex comprising a first ligand LA of Formula I and used for an electroluminescent device ([0002], [0006]), wherein the first ligand LA has a biphenyl group at the position 1 of the dibenzofuranyl group (Fig. 3, and see the part enclosed by a dashed circle in the figure below).
PNG
media_image5.png
334
697
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Tsai ‘010 teaches that the biphenyl substitution in the dibenzofuran has better alignment with transition dipolar moment of the molecule such that the inventive compound having the diphenyl group provides narrower FWHM, higher efficiency parameters as compared to the comparative compound having no diphenyl group otherwise same ([0170], compare Inventive OLED comprising the Inventive example with the Comparative OLED comprising Comparative example in [0168], Tables 1-2).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the ligand La107 of the Modified metal complex of Patent ‘674 by substituting the phenyl group at the positions corresponding to R4 of Formula 2 of Patent ‘674 with a biphenyl group, as taught by Patent ‘674 and Tsai ‘010.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide better alignment with transition dipolar moment of the molecule, narrower FWHM, and higher efficiency parameters based on the teaching of Tsai ‘010.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of phenyl with biphenyl at the position corresponding to R4 of Formula 2 of Patent ‘010 would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
PNG
media_image9.png
219
625
media_image9.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Metal complex of Patent ‘674 as modified by Tsai ‘010, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-6, 8-17, and 19.
Patent ‘674 in view of Tsai ‘010 does not disclose a specific electroluminescent device comprising the Compound of Patent ‘674 as modified by Tsai ‘010; however, Patent ‘674 does teach that the compound of Patent ‘674 can be used as an emitter in the emissive layer of an electroluminescent device having structure of an anode, an emissive layer, and a cathode (claim 12). Patent ‘674 teaches a host material comprising benzene can be incorporated in the emissive layer (claim 14).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound of Patent ‘674 as modified by Tsai ‘010 by incorporating it into the emissive layer of an electroluminescent device as a dopant with a host comprising benzene, as taught by Patent ‘674 and Tsai ‘010.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of dopants of Patent ‘674 in the device of Patent ‘674 would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Electroluminescent device of Patent ‘674 as modified by Tsai ‘010 comprising an anode, an emissive layer (Compound of Patent ‘674 as modified by Tsai ‘010 as a dopant, a compound comprising benzene as a host), and a cathode, wherein the emissive layer is an organic layer; and the emissive layer materials is a compound composition, meeting all the limitations of claims 20-21, 23 and 30.
The Electroluminescent device of Patent ‘674 as modified by Tsai ‘010 reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach that the emissive layer emits green light.
It is reasonable to presume that the Electroluminescent device of Patent ‘674 as modified by Tsai ‘010 emits green light.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
The instant specification states the electroluminescent device of the present disclosure emits green light ([00128]). The Electroluminescent device of Patent ‘674 as modified by Tsai ‘010 reads on the features of the electroluminescent device of the present disclosure ([00126]-[00127], [00130]-[00144]).
Furthermore, the instant specification discloses an electroluminescence device comprising the metal complex whose metal center is Ir, the ligand La is represented by Formula 1, and the ligand Lb is phenyl pyridine ligand, emits green light (See inventive examples in Table 2).
The color of the emission light of an electroluminescence device is determined by the emission property of the dopant. The Compound of Patent ‘674 as modified by Tsai ‘010 which is the emitting dopant of the Electroluminescent device of Patent ‘674 as modified by Tsai ‘010, and the compound has the same features as the inventive complexes of the examples (i.e. the metal center is Ir, the ligand La is represented by Formula 1, and the ligand Lb is phenyl pyridine ligand). Therefore, Electroluminescent device of Patent ‘674 as modified by Tsai ‘010 emits green light, meeting all the limitations of claim 22.
The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once Electroluminescent device of Patent ‘674 as modified by Tsai ‘010 is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977). Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though the rejection is based on Section 103 instead of 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
Claims 1-6, 8-15, 20-22, and 30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, and 37 of US Patent No. 11,952,390 B2 (hereafter Patent ‘390). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed at the same aspects of the same invention.
Regarding claims 1-6, 8-15, 20-22, and 30, Patent ‘390 discloses a metal complex having a general formula of M(La)m(Lb)n(Lc)q, wherein La is represented by Formula 1 (claim 1).
Patent ‘390 exemplifies Compound 62 represented by Ir(La782)(Lb1)2 (claim 5).
PNG
media_image10.png
279
569
media_image10.png
Greyscale
The complex has a phenyl group (i.e. the part enclosed by a dashed circle in the figure above) at the position corresponding to Rx of Formula 1 of Patent ‘390, which does not read on the limitation of the instant claims; however, Patent ‘390 does teach that Rx can be a substituted or unsubstituted aryl group having 6 to 30 carbon atoms (claim 1).
Tsai ‘010 discloses a metal complex comprising a first ligand LA of Formula I and used for an electroluminescent device ([0002], [0006]), wherein the first ligand LA has a biphenyl group at the position 1 of the dibenzofuranyl group (Fig. 3, and see the part enclosed by a dashed circle in the figure below).
PNG
media_image5.png
334
697
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Tsai ‘010 teaches that the biphenyl substitution in the dibenzofuran has better alignment with transition dipolar moment of the molecule such that the inventive compound having the diphenyl group provides narrower FWHM, higher efficiency parameters as compared to the comparative compound having no diphenyl group otherwise same ([0170], compare Inventive OLED comprising the Inventive example with the Comparative OLED comprising Comparative example in [0168], Tables 1-2).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the ligand La782 of the Compound 62 of Patent ‘390 by substituting the phenyl group at the positions corresponding to Rx of Formula 1 of Patent ‘390 with a biphenyl group, as taught by Patent ‘390 and Tsai ‘010.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide better alignment with transition dipolar moment of the molecule, narrower FWHM, and higher efficiency parameters based on the teaching of Tsai ‘010.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of phenyl with biphenyl at the position corresponding to Rx of Formula 1 of Patent ‘010 would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
PNG
media_image11.png
276
755
media_image11.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Metal complex of Patent ‘390 as modified by Tsai ‘010, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-6 and 8-15.
Patent ‘390 in view of Tsai ‘010 does not disclose a specific electroluminescent device comprising the Compound of Patent ‘390 as modified by Tsai ‘010; however, Patent ‘390 does teach that the compound of Patent ‘390 can be used as an emitter in the emissive layer with a host in an electroluminescent device having structure of an anode, an emissive layer, and a cathode (claim 37).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound of Patent ‘390 as modified by Tsai ‘010 by incorporating it into the emissive layer of an electroluminescent device as a dopant with a host, as taught by Patent ‘390 and Tsai ‘010.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of dopants of Patent ‘390 in the device of Patent ‘390 would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Electroluminescent device of Patent ‘390 as modified by Tsai ‘010 comprising an anode, an emissive layer (Compound of Patent ‘390 as modified by Tsai ‘010 as a dopant and a host), and a cathode, wherein the emissive layer is an organic layer; and the emissive layer materials is a compound composition, meeting all the limitations of claims 20-21 and 30.
The Electroluminescent device of Patent ‘390 as modified by Tsai ‘010 reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach that the emissive layer emits green light.
It is reasonable to presume that the Electroluminescent device of Patent ‘390 as modified by Tsai ‘010 emits green light.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
The instant specification states the electroluminescent device of the present disclosure emits green light ([00128]). The Electroluminescent device of Patent ‘390 as modified by Tsai ‘010 reads on the features of the electroluminescent device of the present disclosure ([00126]-[00127], [00130]-[00144]).
Furthermore, the instant specification discloses an electroluminescence device comprising the metal complex whose metal center is Ir, the ligand La is represented by Formula 1, and the ligand Lb is phenyl pyridine ligand, emits green light (See inventive examples in Table 2).
The color of the emission light of an electroluminescence device is determined by the emission property of the dopant. The Compound of Patent ‘390 as modified by Tsai ‘010 which is the emitting dopant of the Electroluminescent device of Patent ‘390 as modified by Tsai ‘010, and the compound has the same features as the inventive complexes of the examples (i.e. the metal center is Ir, the ligand La is represented by Formula 1, and the ligand Lb is phenyl pyridine ligand). Therefore, Electroluminescent device of Patent ‘390 as modified by Tsai ‘010 emits green light, meeting all the limitations of claim 22.
The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once Electroluminescent device of Patent ‘390 as modified by Tsai ‘010 is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977). Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though the rejection is based on Section 103 instead of 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
Claims 1-6, 8-15, 20-22, and 30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, 11, 13, and 18 of US Patent No. 11,785,839 B2 (hereafter Patent ‘839). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed at the same aspects of the same invention.
Regarding claims 1-6, 8-15, 20-22, and 30, Patent ‘839 discloses a metal complex comprising a ligand La represented by Formula 1 (claim 1). Patent ‘839 exemplifies ligand La293 as the ligand La (claim 8). Patent ‘839 teaches the metal complex having structure of IrLa(Lb)2, wherein Lb can be selected to Lb1 (claim 11). Patent ‘839 exemplifies Compound 19 represented by Ir(La293)(Lb1)2 (claim 13).
PNG
media_image12.png
276
585
media_image12.png
Greyscale
The complex has a phenyl group (i.e. the part enclosed by a dashed circle in the figure above) at the position corresponding to Rx2 of Formula 1 of Patent ‘839, which does not read on the limitation of the instant claims; however, Patent ‘839 does teach that Rx2 can be a substituted or unsubstituted aryl group having 6 to 30 carbon atoms (claim 1).
Tsai ‘010 discloses a metal complex comprising a first ligand LA of Formula I and used for an electroluminescent device ([0002], [0006]), wherein the first ligand LA has a biphenyl group at the position 1 of the dibenzofuranyl group (Fig. 3, and see the part enclosed by a dashed circle in the figure below).
PNG
media_image5.png
334
697
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Tsai ‘010 teaches that the biphenyl substitution in the dibenzofuran has better alignment with transition dipolar moment of the molecule such that the inventive compound having the diphenyl group provides narrower FWHM, higher efficiency parameters as compared to the comparative compound having no diphenyl group otherwise same ([0170], compare Inventive OLED comprising the Inventive example with the Comparative OLED comprising Comparative example in [0168], Tables 1-2).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the ligand La293 of the Compound 19 of Patent ‘839 by substituting the phenyl group at the positions corresponding to Rx2 of Formula 1 of Patent ‘839 with a biphenyl group, as taught by Patent ‘839 and Tsai ‘010.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide better alignment with transition dipolar moment of the molecule, narrower FWHM, and higher efficiency parameters based on the teaching of Tsai ‘010.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of phenyl with biphenyl at the position corresponding to Rx2 of Formula 1 of Patent ‘010 would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
PNG
media_image13.png
273
766
media_image13.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Metal complex of Patent ‘839 as modified by Tsai ‘010, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-6, 8-17, and 19.
Patent ‘839 in view of Tsai ‘010 does not disclose a specific electroluminescent device comprising the Compound of Patent ‘839 as modified by Tsai ‘010; however, Patent ‘839 does teach that the compound of Patent ‘839 can be used as an emitter in the emissive layer with a host comprising at least one benzene in an electroluminescent device having structure of an anode, an emissive layer, and a cathode (claim 18).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound of Patent ‘839 as modified by Tsai ‘010 by incorporating it into the emissive layer of an electroluminescent device as a dopant with a host comprising at least one benzene, as taught by Patent ‘839 and Tsai ‘010.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of dopants of Patent ‘839 in the device of Patent ‘839 would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Electroluminescent device of Patent ‘839 as modified by Tsai ‘010 comprising an anode, an emissive layer (Compound of Patent ‘839 as modified by Tsai ‘010 as a dopant and a compound comprising at least one benzene as a host), and a cathode, wherein the emissive layer is an organic layer; and the emissive layer materials is a compound composition, meeting all the limitations of claims 20-21, 23 and 30.
The Electroluminescent device of Patent ‘839 as modified by Tsai ‘010 reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach that the emissive layer emits green light.
It is reasonable to presume that the Electroluminescent device of Patent ‘839 as modified by Tsai ‘010 emits green light.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
The instant specification states the electroluminescent device of the present disclosure emits green light ([00128]). The Electroluminescent device of Patent ‘839 as modified by Tsai ‘010 reads on the features of the electroluminescent device of the present disclosure ([00126]-[00127], [00130]-[00144]).
Furthermore, the instant specification discloses an electroluminescence device comprising the metal complex whose metal center is Ir, the ligand La is represented by Formula 1, and the ligand Lb is phenyl pyridine ligand, emits green light (See inventive examples in Table 2).
The color of the emission light of an electroluminescence device is determined by the emission property of the dopant. The Compound of Patent ‘839 as modified by Tsai ‘010 which is the emitting dopant of the Electroluminescent device of Patent ‘839 as modified by Tsai ‘010, and the compound has the same features as the inventive complexes of the examples (i.e. the metal center is Ir, the ligand La is represented by Formula 1, and the ligand Lb is phenyl pyridine ligand). Therefore, Electroluminescent device of Patent ‘839 as modified by Tsai ‘010 emits green light, meeting all the limitations of claim 22.
The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once Electroluminescent device of Patent ‘839 as modified by Tsai ‘010 is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977). Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though the rejection is based on Section 103 instead of 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
Claims 1-6, 8-17, and 19-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 17-20 of US Patent No. 12,751,132 (hereafter Patent ‘132, previously Application No. 17/989,164). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed at the same aspects of the same invention.
Regarding claims 1-6, 8-17, and 19-30, Patent ‘132 discloses an organic electroluminescent device comprising an anode, an emissive layer containing a first compound of Formula 1-1 and a second compound comprising triazine represented by Formula 2-1, and a third compound (claim 7). Patent ‘132 teaches compound GD-5 as the first compound (claim 26).
PNG
media_image14.png
148
221
media_image14.png
Greyscale
The right ligand of the Compound GD-5 has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-6, 8-17, and 19.
Patent ‘132 does not disclose a specific electroluminescent device comprising the Compound GD-5; however, the first compound can be compound GD-5 (claim 26).
Patent ‘132 exemplifies A-7 as the second compound (claim 27), which has identical structure as Applicant’s compound H-96 of the instant claim 26.
Patent ‘132 exemplifies B-1 as the third compound (claim 28), which has identical structure as Applicant’s compound X-1 of the instant claim 28.
PNG
media_image15.png
172
186
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
227
161
media_image16.png
Greyscale
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the electroluminescent device of Patent ‘132 by incorporating GD-5 as the first compound, A-7 as the second compound, B-1 as the third compound in the emissive layer of the device, as taught by Patent ‘132.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Each substitution would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified electroluminescent device of Patent ‘132 comprising an anode, an emissive layer (Compound GD-5 as a dopant, compound A-7 as a host, compound B-1 as a host), and a cathode, wherein the first organic layer materials are a compound composition, meeting all the limitations of claims 20-21 and 23-30.
The Modified electroluminescent device of Patent ‘132 reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach that the emissive layer emits green light.
It is reasonable to presume that the Modified electroluminescent device of Patent ‘132 emits green light.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
The instant specification states the electroluminescent device of the present disclosure emits green light ([00128]). The Modified electroluminescent device of Patent ‘132 reads on the features of the electroluminescent device of the present disclosure ([00126]-[00127], [00130]-[00144]).
Furthermore, the instant specification discloses an electroluminescence device comprising the metal complex whose metal center is Ir, the ligand La is represented by Formula 1, and the ligand Lb is phenyl pyridine ligand, emits green light (See inventive examples in Table 2).
The color of the emission light of an electroluminescence device is determined by the emission property of the dopant. The Compound GD-5 of Patent ‘132 which is the emitting material of the Modified electroluminescent device of Patent ‘132, and the compound has the same features as the inventive complexes of the examples (i.e. the metal center is Ir, the ligand La is represented by Formula 1, and the ligand Lb is phenyl pyridine ligand). Therefore, Modified electroluminescent device of Patent ‘132 emits green light, meeting all the limitations of claim 22.
The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once Modified electroluminescent device of Patent ‘132 is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977). Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though the rejection is based on Section 103 instead of 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
Claims 1-6, 8-17, 19-23, and 30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 11-12 of Application No. 17/989,201 (reference application, hereafter Application ‘201. Note that this application has been patented but the patent no. has not been provided yet). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed at the same aspects of the same invention.
Regarding claims 1-6, 8-17, 19-23, and 30, Application ‘201 discloses an organic electroluminescent device comprising an anode, an emissive layer containing a triazine compound of Formula I (claim 1) as a host and a first metal complex having a general formula of M(La)m(Lb)n(Lc)q (claim 11). Application ‘201 teaches compound GD1 as the metal complex (claim 12).
PNG
media_image17.png
158
251
media_image17.png
Greyscale
The right ligand of the Compound GD1 has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-6, 8-17, and 19.
Application ‘201 does not disclose a specific electroluminescent device comprising the Compound GD1; however, Application ‘201 does teach that a first metal complex can be incorporated in the emissive layer with a triazine host compound (claim 11) and the first metal complex can be selected to compounds GD1 (claim 12).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound GD1 of Application ‘201 by incorporating it into the emissive layer of an electroluminescent device as a dopant with a triazine host, as taught by Application ‘201.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the first metal complexes in the device of Application ‘201 would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified electroluminescent device of Application ‘201 comprising an anode, an emissive layer (Compound GD1 of Application ‘201 and a triazine compound as a host), and a cathode, wherein the emissive layer is an organic layer; and the emissive layer materials is a compound composition, meeting all the limitations of claims 20-21, 23 and 30.
The Modified electroluminescent device of Application ‘201 reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach that the emissive layer emits green light.
It is reasonable to presume that the Modified electroluminescent device of Application ‘201 emits green light.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
The instant specification states the electroluminescent device of the present disclosure emits green light ([00128]). The Modified electroluminescent device of Application ‘201 reads on the features of the electroluminescent device of the present disclosure ([00126]-[00127], [00130]-[00144]).
Furthermore, the instant specification discloses an electroluminescence device comprising the metal complex whose metal center is Ir, the ligand La is represented by Formula 1, and the ligand Lb is phenyl pyridine ligand, emits green light (See inventive examples in Table 2).
The color of the emission light of an electroluminescence device is determined by the emission property of the dopant. The Compound GD1 of Application ‘201 which is the emitting material of the Modified electroluminescent device of Application ‘201, and the compound has the same features as the inventive complexes of the examples (i.e. the metal center is Ir, the ligand La is represented by Formula 1, and the ligand Lb is phenyl pyridine ligand). Therefore, Modified electroluminescent device of Application ‘201 emits green light, meeting all the limitations of claim 22.
The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once Modified electroluminescent device of Application ‘201 is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977). Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though the rejection is based on Section 103 instead of 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
Claims 1-6, 8-17, 19-23, and 30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 17, and 20 of Application No. 18/237,579 (reference application, hereafter Application ‘579. Note that this application has been patented but the patent no. has not been provided yet). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed at the same aspects of the same invention.
Regarding claims 1-6, 8-15, 20-23, and 30, Application ‘579 disclose a metal complex of Formula 1 and exemplifies Compound 93 having structure of Ir(La272)(Lb1)2 as the metal complex (claim 17).
PNG
media_image18.png
300
785
media_image18.png
Greyscale
The right ligand of the Compound 93 has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-6 and 8-15.
Application ‘579 does not disclose a specific organic electroluminescent device comprising the Compound 93; however, Application ‘579 does teach the metal complex can be used as the light emitting layer material with a first host compound comprising benzene in the emissive layer of an organic electroluminescent device having structure comprising an anode, an emissive layer, and a cathode (claim 20).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound 93 by incorporating it into the emissive layer with a host compound comprising benzene of an organic electroluminescent device having structure of an anode, an emissive layer, and a cathode, as taught by Application ‘579.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified electroluminescent device of Application ‘579 comprising an anode, an emissive layer (Compound 93 and a compound comprising benzene as a host), and a cathode, wherein the emissive layer is an organic layer; and the emissive layer materials is a compound composition, meeting all the limitations of claims 20-21, 23 and 30.
The Modified electroluminescent device of Application ‘579 reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach that the emissive layer emits green light.
It is reasonable to presume that the Modified electroluminescent device of Application ‘579 emits green light.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
The instant specification states the electroluminescent device of the present disclosure emits green light ([00128]). The Modified electroluminescent device of Application ‘579 reads on the features of the electroluminescent device of the present disclosure ([00126]-[00127], [00130]-[00144]).
Furthermore, the instant specification discloses an electroluminescence device comprising the metal complex whose metal center is Ir, the ligand La is represented by Formula 1, and the ligand Lb is phenyl pyridine ligand, emits green light (See inventive examples in Table 2).
The color of the emission light of an electroluminescence device is determined by the emission property of the dopant. The Compound 93 which is the emitting dopant of the Modified electroluminescent device of Application ‘573, and the compound has the same features as the inventive complexes of the examples (i.e. the metal center is Ir, the ligand La is represented by Formula 1, and the ligand Lb is phenyl pyridine ligand). Therefore, Modified electroluminescent device of Application ‘573 emits green light, meeting all the limitations of claim 22.
The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once Modified electroluminescent device of Application ‘573 is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977). Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though the rejection is based on Section 103 instead of 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
Claims 1-6, 8-17, 19-22, and 30 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 17-20 of copending Application No. 17/526,358 (reference application, hereafter Application ‘358). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed at the same aspects of the same invention. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claims 1-6, 8-17, 19-22, and 30, Application ‘358 discloses a metal complex comprising a ligand Lb represented by Formula 1Ba (claim 1). Application ‘358 exemplifies ligand La1 as the ligand La (claim 17). Application ‘358 exemplifies Lb623 as the ligand Lb (claim 18). Application ‘358 exemplifies a metal complex having structure of Ir(La)2(Lb) (claim 19).
PNG
media_image19.png
291
624
media_image19.png
Greyscale
The complex has a phenyl group (i.e. the part enclosed by a dashed circle in the figure above) at the position corresponding to Rx of Formula 1Ba of Application ‘358, which does not read on the limitation of the instant claims; however, Application ‘358 does teach that Rx can be a substituted or unsubstituted aryl group having 6 to 30 carbon atoms (claim 1).
Tsai ‘010 discloses a metal complex comprising a first ligand LA of Formula I and used for an electroluminescent device ([0002], [0006]), wherein the first ligand LA has a biphenyl group at the position 1 of the dibenzofuranyl group (Fig. 3, and see the part enclosed by a dashed circle in the figure below).
PNG
media_image5.png
334
697
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Tsai ‘010 teaches that the biphenyl substitution in the dibenzofuran has better alignment with transition dipolar moment of the molecule such that the inventive compound having the diphenyl group provides narrower FWHM, higher efficiency parameters as compared to the comparative compound having no diphenyl group otherwise same ([0170], compare Inventive OLED comprising the Inventive example with the Comparative OLED comprising Comparative example in [0168], Tables 1-2).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the ligand Lb623 of the metal complex Ir(La)2(Lb) of Application ‘358 by substituting the phenyl group at the positions corresponding to Rx of Formula 1Ba of Application ‘358 with a biphenyl group, as taught by Application ‘358 and Tsai ‘010.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide better alignment with transition dipolar moment of the molecule, narrower FWHM, and higher efficiency parameters based on the teaching of Tsai ‘010.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of phenyl with biphenyl at the position corresponding to Rx of Formula 1 of Patent ‘010 would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
PNG
media_image20.png
247
732
media_image20.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Metal complex of Application ‘358 as modified by Tsai ‘010, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-6, 8-17, and 19.
Application ‘358 in view of Tsai ‘010 does not disclose a specific electroluminescent device comprising the Compound of Application ‘358 as modified by Tsai ‘010; however, Application ‘358 does teach that the compound of Application ‘358 can be used as an emitter in the emissive layer with a host in an electroluminescent device having structure of an anode, an emissive layer, and a cathode (claim 20).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound of Application ‘358 as modified by Tsai ‘010 by incorporating it into the emissive layer of an electroluminescent device as a dopant with a host, as taught by Application ‘358 and Tsai ‘010.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of dopants of Application ‘358 in the device of Application ‘358 would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Electroluminescent device of Application ‘358 as modified by Tsai ‘010 comprising an anode, an emissive layer (Compound of Application ‘358 as modified by Tsai ‘010 as a dopant and a host), and a cathode, wherein the emissive layer is an organic layer; and the emissive layer materials is a compound composition, meeting all the limitations of claims 20-21 and 30.
The Electroluminescent device of Application ‘358 as modified by Tsai ‘010 reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach that the emissive layer emits green light.
It is reasonable to presume that the Electroluminescent device of Application ‘358 as modified by Tsai ‘010 emits green light.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
The instant specification states the electroluminescent device of the present disclosure emits green light ([00128]). The Electroluminescent device of Application ‘358 as modified by Tsai ‘010 reads on the features of the electroluminescent device of the present disclosure ([00126]-[00127], [00130]-[00144]).
Furthermore, the instant specification discloses an electroluminescence device comprising the metal complex whose metal center is Ir, the ligand La is represented by Formula 1, and the ligand Lb is phenyl pyridine ligand, emits green light (See inventive examples in Table 2).
The color of the emission light of an electroluminescence device is determined by the emission property of the dopant. The Compound of Application ‘358 as modified by Tsai ‘010 which is the emitting dopant of the Electroluminescent device of Application ‘358 as modified by Tsai ‘010, and the compound has the same features as the inventive complexes of the examples (i.e. the metal center is Ir, the ligand La is represented by Formula 1, and the ligand Lb is phenyl pyridine ligand). Therefore, Electroluminescent device of Application ‘358 as modified by Tsai ‘010 emits green light, meeting all the limitations of claim 22.
The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once Electroluminescent device of Application ‘358 as modified by Tsai ‘010 is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977). Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though the rejection is based on Section 103 instead of 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
Claims 1-6, 8-15, 20-22, and 30 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 17-20 of copending Application No. 17/530,611 (reference application, hereafter Application ‘611). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed at the same aspects of the same invention. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claims 1-6, 8-15, 20-22, and 30, Application ‘611 discloses a metal complex represented by Formula 2 (claim 1). Application ‘611 exemplifies ligand La477 as the ligand La (claim 14). Application ‘611 exemplifies Lb623 as the ligand Lb (claim 15). Application ‘611 exemplifies a metal complex 27 having structure of Ir(La477)(Lb1)2 (claim 16).
PNG
media_image21.png
269
681
media_image21.png
Greyscale
The complex has a phenyl group (i.e. the part enclosed by a dashed circle in the figure above) at the position corresponding to Rx of Formula 2 of Application ‘611, which does not read on the limitation of the instant claims; however, Application ‘611 does teach that Rx can be a substituted or unsubstituted aryl group having 6 to 30 carbon atoms (claim 1).
Tsai ‘010 discloses a metal complex comprising a first ligand LA of Formula I and used for an electroluminescent device ([0002], [0006]), wherein the first ligand LA has a biphenyl group at the position 1 of the dibenzofuranyl group (Fig. 3, and see the part enclosed by a dashed circle in the figure below).
PNG
media_image5.png
334
697
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Tsai ‘010 teaches that the biphenyl substitution in the dibenzofuran has better alignment with transition dipolar moment of the molecule such that the inventive compound having the diphenyl group provides narrower FWHM, higher efficiency parameters as compared to the comparative compound having no diphenyl group otherwise same ([0170], compare Inventive OLED comprising the Inventive example with the Comparative OLED comprising Comparative example in [0168], Tables 1-2).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the ligand La477 of the metal complex 27 of Application ‘611 by substituting the phenyl group at the positions corresponding to Rx of Formula 2 of Application ‘611 with a biphenyl group, as taught by Application ‘611 and Tsai ‘010.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide better alignment with transition dipolar moment of the molecule, narrower FWHM, and higher efficiency parameters based on the teaching of Tsai ‘010.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of phenyl with biphenyl at the position corresponding to Rx of Formula 2 of Patent ‘010 would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
PNG
media_image22.png
259
781
media_image22.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Metal complex of Application ‘611 as modified by Tsai ‘010, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-6 and 8-15.
Application ‘611 in view of Tsai ‘010 does not disclose a specific electroluminescent device comprising the Compound of Application ‘611 as modified by Tsai ‘010; however, Application ‘611 does teach that the compound of Application ‘611 can be used as an emitter in the emissive layer with a host in an electroluminescent device having structure of an anode, an emissive layer, and a cathode (claim 20).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound of Application ‘611 as modified by Tsai ‘010 by incorporating it into the emissive layer of an electroluminescent device as a dopant with a host, as taught by Application ‘611 and Tsai ‘010.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of dopants of Application ‘611 in the device of Application ‘611 would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Electroluminescent device of Application ‘611 as modified by Tsai ‘010 comprising an anode, an emissive layer (Compound of Application ‘611 as modified by Tsai ‘010 as a dopant and a host), and a cathode, wherein the emissive layer is an organic layer; and the emissive layer materials is a compound composition, meeting all the limitations of claims 20-21 and 30.
The Electroluminescent device of Application ‘611 as modified by Tsai ‘010 reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach that the emissive layer emits green light.
It is reasonable to presume that the Electroluminescent device of Application ‘611 as modified by Tsai ‘010 emits green light.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
The instant specification states the electroluminescent device of the present disclosure emits green light ([00128]). The Electroluminescent device of Application ‘611 as modified by Tsai ‘010 reads on the features of the electroluminescent device of the present disclosure ([00126]-[00127], [00130]-[00144]).
Furthermore, the instant specification discloses an electroluminescence device comprising the metal complex whose metal center is Ir, the ligand La is represented by Formula 1, and the ligand Lb is phenyl pyridine ligand, emits green light (See inventive examples in Table 2).
The color of the emission light of an electroluminescence device is determined by the emission property of the dopant. The Compound of Application ‘611 as modified by Tsai ‘010 which is the emitting dopant of the Electroluminescent device of Application ‘611 as modified by Tsai ‘010, and the compound has the same features as the inventive complexes of the examples (i.e. the metal center is Ir, the ligand La is represented by Formula 1, and the ligand Lb is phenyl pyridine ligand). Therefore, Electroluminescent device of Application ‘611 as modified by Tsai ‘010 emits green light, meeting all the limitations of claim 22.
The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once Electroluminescent device of Application ‘611 as modified by Tsai ‘010 is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977). Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though the rejection is based on Section 103 instead of 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEOKMIN JEON whose telephone number is (571)272-4599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm EST.
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 at (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.
/SEOKMIN JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
