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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/05/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 02/05/2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claim 18 has been canceled.
Claims 1-17 and 19-30 are pending.
Claims 1, 3-4, 8, 16, and 19 have been amended.
Upon further consideration, the rejections of claims 1-17 and 19-30 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
The amendments of claims 1, 3-4, 8, 16, and 19 have overcome:
the rejections of claim 1-6, 8-11, 13-15, 20-25, and 29-30 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al. (US 2020/0251664 A1, hereafter Tsai) 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, hereafter Wang) and Lee et al. (US 2022/0102652 A1, hereafter Lee),
the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al. (US 2020/0251664 A1) 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) and Lee et al. (US 2022/0102652 A1) as applied to claims 1-6, 8-11, 13-15, 20-25, 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),
the rejections of claims 20-30 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al. (US 2020/0251664 A1) 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) and Lee et al. (US 2022/0102652 A1) as applied to claims 1-6, 8-11, 13-15, 20-25, and 29-30 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 126-133 of the reply filed 02/05/2026 regarding the rejections of claim 1-6, 8-11, 13-15, 20-25, and 29-30 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai ‘664/Wang/Lee, the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai ‘664/Wang/Lee/Hwang ‘2005, the rejections of claims 20-30 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai ‘664/Wang/Lee/Park set forth in the Office Action of 11/07/2025 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the amended claim is not obvious over Tsai ‘664 in view of Lee and Wang (page 133).
The cited rejections refer to the Compound of Tsai as modified by Wang and Lee (see section 63 of the last Office Action). The compound does not read on the proviso of the amended claim 1, wherein the substituent Rx cannot be joined with its adjacent substituent Rx to form a ring, and the substituent Rx cannot be joined with the substituent Ra1 or Ra2 to form a ring. Thus, the rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments see page 126-134 of the reply filed 02/05/2026 regarding the rejections of claim 1-2, 5-6, 8-13, 16, 20-25, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang ‘483/Wang and the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang ‘433/Wang/Hwang ‘2005, and the rejections of claims 20-30 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang ‘433/Wang/Park set forth in the Office Action of 11/07/2025 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the amended claim 1 is not obvious over Hwang in view of Wang (page 134).
The cited rejections refer to the Compound of Hwang ‘483 as modified by Wang (see section 106 of the last Office Action). The compound has a fluoro group substituted at the position corresponding to X4 of Formula 1. However, the amended claims require the fluoro group to be substituted to at least one of X5 to X8. Thus, the rejections are withdrawn.
However, the cited references are sill applicable to reject the amended claims.
Hwang ‘483 teaches Compound 1186 ([0084]).
PNG
media_image1.png
341
803
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Compound 1186 of Hwang ‘483 does not have a fluoro group at the position corresponding to T6 (i.e. the position pointed by an arrow in the figure above); however, Hwang ‘483 does teach that the substituent Z2 at the position T6 can be a fluoro group ([0006]). Hwang exemplifies a compound (see examples including at least compound 1132 in [0084]), wherein a fluoro group and an aryl group both substituted to the terminal benzene ring (i.e. the ring containing T5 to T6 in Formula 2A) of the Formula 2A. Hwang ‘483 exemplifies positions T7 and T6 as the substitution positions of the substituent Z2 ([0077], see Formula CY2-1020,
PNG
media_image2.png
164
210
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein Z26 and Z27 have same definition as Z2).
Wang teaches the benefits of conversion of C-H to C-F. Wang teaches that conversion of C-H bond to C-F bond provides several benefits including reduction of radiationless deactivation, enhancement of PL efficiency, better sublimation, minimizing self-quenching, enhancement of electron mobility and tunability of color (page 450, col. 1, par. 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound 1186 of Hwang ‘483 by substituting the hydrogen substituent at the position corresponding to T6 of Formula 2A with a fluoro group, as taught by Hwang ‘483 and Wang.
New grounds of rejection is applied.
Applicant argues that the inventive compounds have unexpected results including FWHM, CE, PE, and EQE compared to the comparative compounds GD1 and GD8 (page 127-130).
Respectfully, the Examiner does not agree.
It is unclear whether the experimental data show unexpected results at least for the following reason.
None of the comparative compounds GD1 to GD8 is directed to the closes prior art of Hwang which is the compounds of Hwang, because the compounds of Hwang require a ligand of Formula 2B wherein the ligand necessarily comprises a Si or Ge atoms at X1 (check the limitation of Formula 1 of Hwang in [0006]). Similarly, none of the comparative compounds GD1 to GD8 is directed to the closes prior art of Lee which is the compounds of Lee, because the compounds of Lee require at least one Si or Ge atoms (check the limitation of Formula 1 of Lee in [0008]-[0040]). Thus, the comparison was not made to the closest prior art.
An affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979). "A comparison of the claimed invention with the disclosure of each cited reference to determine the number of claim limitations in common with each reference, bearing in mind the relative importance of particular limitations, will usually yield the closest single prior art reference." In re Merchant, 575 F.2d 865, 868, 197 USPQ 785, 787 (CCPA 1978) (emphasis in original). Where the comparison is not identical with the reference disclosure, deviations therefrom should be explained, In re Finley, 174 F.2d 130, 81 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1949), and if not explained should be noted and evaluated, and if significant, explanation should be required. In re Armstrong, 280 F.2d 132, 126 USPQ 281 (CCPA 1960) (deviations from example were inconsequential). See MPEP 716.02(e).
For at least this reason, the argument is not found to be persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1-3, 5, 8-13, 16, 20-25, and 30 are rejected 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).
Regarding claims 1-3, 5, 9-13, 16, 20-25, and 30, Hwang ‘483 discloses a metal complex (Formula 1) used for an electroluminescent device ([0004]) and represented by Formula 1 (M(L1)n1(L2)n2), wherein L1 is represented by Formula 2A and L2 is represented by Formula 2B ([0006]). Hwang ‘483 exemplifies Compound 1186 ([0084]).
PNG
media_image1.png
341
803
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Compound 1186 of Hwang ‘483 does not have a fluoro group at the position corresponding to T6 (i.e. the position pointed by an arrow in the figure above); however, Hwang ‘483 does teach that the substituent Z2 at the position T6 can be a fluoro group ([0006]). Hwang exemplifies a compound (see examples including at least compound 1132 in [0084]), wherein a fluoro group and an aryl group both substituted to the terminal benzene ring (i.e. the ring containing T5 to T6 in Formula 2A) of the Formula 2A. Hwang ‘483 exemplifies positions T7 and T6 as the substitution positions of the substituent Z2 ([0077], see Formula CY2-1020,
PNG
media_image2.png
164
210
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein Z26 and Z27 have same definition as Z2).
Wang discloses an Ir-based metal complex used for electroluminescent device (Abstract). Wang teaches that conversion of C-H bond to C-F bond provides several benefits including reduction of radiationless deactivation, enhancement of PL efficiency, better sublimation, minimizing self-quenching, enhancement of electron mobility and tunability of color (page 450, col. 1, par. 1).
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 1186 of Hwang ‘483 by substituting the hydrogen substituent at the position corresponding to T6 of Formula 2A with a fluoro group, as taught by Hwang ‘483 and Wang.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide reduction of radiationless deactivation, enhancement of PL efficiency, better sublimation, minimizing self-quenching, enhancement of electron mobility, and tunability of color, based on the teaching of Wang.
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 hydrogen with a fluoro group as the variable Z2 at the position T6 of Formula 2A of Hwang ‘483 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 Hwang ‘483 as modified by Wang.
PNG
media_image3.png
203
654
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It is noted that the germyl group reads on the limitation of the substituted or unsubstituted heteroalkyl having 1 to 20 carbon atoms at position Ra of ligand
PNG
media_image4.png
149
87
media_image4.png
Greyscale
of the instant claims, because the hetero atom of a heteroalkyl can be a germanium atom according to the paragraph [0035] of the instant specification.
The right ligand of the Compound of Hwang ‘483 as modified by Wang has identical structure as the first ligand La represented by Applicant’s Formula 1 of claim 1 and the ligand La710
PNG
media_image5.png
164
222
media_image5.png
Greyscale
of claim 16, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-3, 5, 9-13, and 16.
Hwang ‘483 in view of Wang does not disclose a specific electroluminescent device comprising the Compound of Hwang ‘483 as modified by Wang; however, Hwang ‘483 does teach that the compound of Hwang ‘483 can be used as the dopant ([0092]).
Hwang ‘483 teaches the structure of an electroluminescent device comprising an anode, an emissive layer (2 wt% compound of Hwang ‘483 as a dopant, CBP as a host), and a cathode ([0236]-[0239]).
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 Hwang ‘483 as modified by Wang by incorporating it into the emissive layer of an electroluminescent device as a dopant, as taught by Hwang ‘483 and Wang.
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 Electroluminescent device of Hwang ‘483 as modified by Wang comprising an anode, an emissive layer (2 wt% Compound of Hwang ‘483 as modified by Wang as a dopant, CBP 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, 23-25, and 30.
The Electroluminescent device of Hwang ‘483 as modified by Wang 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 Hwang ‘483 as modified by Wang 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 Hwang ‘483 as modified by Wang 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 Hwang ‘483 as modified by Wang which is the emitting dopant of the Electroluminescent device of Hwang ‘483 as modified by Wang, 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 Hwang ‘483 as modified by Wang 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 Hwang ‘483 as modified by Wang 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.
Regarding claim 8, the Compound of Hwang ‘483 as modified by Wang reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The fluoro group as the Z2 of Formula 2A of Hwang ‘483 is substituted to the position corresponding to the T6 of Formula 2A, which does not read on the limitation of the claim 8; however, Hwang ‘483 does teach the substituent Z2 can be substituted to any one of T1 to T8 ([0006]). Hwang ‘483 exemplifies positions T7 and T8 as the substitution positions of the substituent Z2 ([0077], see Formula CY2-1022,
PNG
media_image6.png
156
230
media_image6.png
Greyscale
wherein Z27 and Z28 have same definition of Z2).
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 1186 of Hwang ‘483 as modified by Wang by substituting the substitution position of the fluoro group from T6 to T8 of Formula 2A, as taught by Hwang ‘483 and Wang.
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 hydrogen with a fluoro group as the variable Z2 at the position T8 of Formula 2A of Hwang ‘483 would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Furthermore, the Compound of Hwang ‘483 as modified by Wang is a position isomer with a similar compound in which the fluoro group is substituted to the position T8 of Formula 2A of Hwang ‘483.
With respect to position isomers, the examiner points to the MPEP which states: A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. “An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties.” In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1991) for an extensive review of the case law pertaining to obviousness based on close structural similarity of chemical compounds. Compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) or homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties.” In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). See also In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978) (stereoisomers prima facie obvious). See MPEP 2144.09 I and 2144.09 II.
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Compounds of Hwang ‘483 as modified by Wang shown above such that the fluoro group is substituted to the position corresponding to the T8 of Formula 2A of Hwang ‘483. A compound in which the fluoro group is substituted to the position T8 of Formula 2A of Hwang ‘483 would represent a position isomer of the Compound of Hwang ‘483 as modified by Wang. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the position isomers having each respective structure would act in similar manner.
The modification provides Position isomer of Compound of Hwang ‘483 as modified by Wang which has identical structure as the Compound of Hwang ‘483 as modified by Wang except the fluoro group is substituted to the position corresponding to T8 of Formula 2A of Hwang ‘483.
Claims 20-30 are rejected 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).
Regarding claims 20-30, the Electroluminescent device of Hwang ‘483 as modified by Wang reads on all the features of claim 20 as outlined above.
The device comprises an anode, an emissive layer (2 wt% Compound of Hwang ‘483 as modified by Wang as a dopant, CBP as a host), and a cathode, wherein the emissive layer is an organic layer; and the emissive layer materials is a compound composition.
The host material does not contains two hosts comprising triazine.
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 Hwang ‘483 as modified by Wang by incorporating it as an emissive dopant having ratio of 2 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 Hwang ‘483, Wang, 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 Hwang ‘483 as modified by Wang and Park comprising an anode, an emissive layer (2 wt% Compound of Hwang ‘483 as modified by Wang 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.
Claim 1-3, 5, 8-13, 16, 20-25, and 30 are rejected 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).
Regarding claims 1-3, 5, 8-13, 16, 20-25, and 30, Lee discloses a metal complex of Formula 1 comprising a first ligand of Formula 2A and a second ligand of Formula 2B used for an electroluminescent device ([0006]-[0040]) and exemplifies Compound 2 ([0208]).
PNG
media_image8.png
331
803
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The Compound 2 does not have an aryl substituent at the position 1 of the dibenzofuranyl group (i.e. the position pointed by an arrow in the figure above) which corresponds to the R2 of Formula 2A of Lee; however, Lee does teach R2 can be a substituted or unsubstituted C6-C60 aryl group ([0026]) and exemplify a biphenyl group as the substituent of R2 ([0106], [0108]).
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_image9.png
334
697
media_image9.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 Compound 2 of Lee by incorporating a biphenyl group at the position 1 of the dibenzofuranyl group, as taught by Lee 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 hydrogen with biphenyl at the position corresponding to R2 of Formula 2A of Lee would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
PNG
media_image10.png
278
630
media_image10.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Compound of Lee as modified by Tsai ‘010.
The right ligand of the Compound of Lee as modified by Tsai ‘010 has identical structure as the first ligand La represented by Applicant’s Formula 1 of claim 1 and the ligand La416
PNG
media_image11.png
169
178
media_image11.png
Greyscale
of claim 16, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-3, 5, 8-13, and 16.
Lee in view of Tsai ‘010 does not disclose a specific electroluminescent device comprising the Compound of Lee as modified by Tsai ‘010; however, Lee does teach that the compound of Hwang ‘483 can be used as the dopant ([0042]).
Lee teaches the structure of an electroluminescent device comprising an anode, an emissive layer (2 wt% compound of Lee as a dopant, CBP as a host), and a cathode ([0367]-[0370]).
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 Lee as modified by Tsai ‘010 by incorporating it into the emissive layer of an electroluminescent device as a dopant, as taught by Lee 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 Lee in the device of Lee 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 Lee as modified by Tsai ‘010 comprising an anode, an emissive layer (2 wt% Compound of Lee as modified by Tsai ‘010 as a dopant, CBP 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, 23-25, and 30.
The Electroluminescent device of Lee 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 Lee 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 Lee 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 Lee as modified by Tsai ‘010 which is the emitting dopant of the Electroluminescent device of Lee 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 Lee 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 Lee 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 20-30 are rejected 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).
Regarding claims 20-30, the Electroluminescent device of Lee as modified by Tsai ‘010 reads on all the features of claim 20 as outlined above.
The device comprises an anode, an emissive layer (2 wt% Compound of Lee as modified by Tsai ‘010 as a dopant, CBP as a host), and a cathode, wherein the emissive layer is an organic layer; and the emissive layer materials is a compound composition.
The host material does not contains two hosts comprising triazine.
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 Lee as modified by Tsai ‘010 by incorporating it as an emissive dopant having ratio of 2 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 Lee, Tsai ‘010, 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 Lee as modified by Tsai ‘010 and Park comprising an anode, an emissive layer (2 wt% Compound of Lee 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.
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_image12.png
273
610
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 ‘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_image9.png
334
697
media_image9.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_image13.png
260
758
media_image13.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 contains 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_image14.png
296
722
media_image14.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_image9.png
334
697
media_image9.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_image15.png
219
625
media_image15.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_image16.png
279
569
media_image16.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_image9.png
334
697
media_image9.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_image17.png
276
755
media_image17.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_image18.png
276
585
media_image18.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_image9.png
334
697
media_image9.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_image19.png
273
766
media_image19.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, 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_image20.png
291
624
media_image20.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_image9.png
334
697
media_image9.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_image21.png
247
732
media_image21.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_image22.png
269
681
media_image22.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_image9.png
334
697
media_image9.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_image23.png
259
781
media_image23.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.
Claims 1-6, 8-17, 19-23, and 30 are provisionally rejected 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). 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, 19-23, 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_image24.png
158
251
media_image24.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, and 19-30 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 17-20 of copending Application No. 17/989,164 (reference application, hereafter Application ‘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. 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, and 19-30, Application ‘164 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). Application ‘164 teaches compound GD-1 as the first compound (claim 26).
PNG
media_image24.png
158
251
media_image24.png
Greyscale
The right ligand of the Compound GD-1 has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-6, 8-17, and 19.
Application ‘164 does not disclose a specific electroluminescent device comprising the Compound GD-1; however, the first compound can be compound GD-1 (claim 26).
Application ‘164 exemplifies A-7 as the second compound (claim 27), which has identical structure as Applicant’s compound H-96 of the instant claim 26.
Application ‘164 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_image25.png
172
186
media_image25.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image26.png
227
161
media_image26.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 Application ‘164 by incorporating GD-1 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 Application ‘164.
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 Application ‘164 comprising an anode, an emissive layer (Compound GD-1 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 Application ‘164 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 ‘164 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 ‘164 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-1 of Application ‘164 which is the emitting material of the Modified electroluminescent device of Application ‘164, 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 ‘164 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 ‘164 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, 20-23, and 30 are provisionally rejected 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). 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, 20-23, 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_image27.png
300
785
media_image27.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.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights