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 .
Summary of Claims
Claims 1, 3, 9, 14-17, and 19-20 are amended, claim 18 is cancelled, and claims 21-23 are new due to Applicant's amendment dated 03/18/2026. Claims 1-10, 14-17, and 19-23 are pending.
Response to Amendment
The objection to claim 20 as set forth in the previous Office Action is not overcome due to the Applicant's amendment dated 03/18/2026.
The rejections of claim 18 as set forth in the previous Office Action is moot because claim 18 is cancelled due to the Applicant's amendment dated 03/18/2026.
The rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention as set forth in the previous Office Action is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 03/18/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 9-10 and 14-17 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Li (US 2019/0367546 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 03/18/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-2 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 03/18/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Kwong (US 2006/0280965 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 03/18/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Tamaru (US 2009/0236974 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 03/18/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Jeong (US 7,652,287 B2) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 03/18/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Yoon (English translation of KR 20180074644 A obtained from Google Patents) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 03/18/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-2, 5-6, 9-10, 14-17, and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2020/0411775 A1) in view of Han (English translation of CN 108570077 A obtained from Global Dossier) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 03/18/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Han and Kwong is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 03/18/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Han and Tamaru is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 03/18/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Han and Jeong (US 7,652,287 B2) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 03/18/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Han and Yoon (English translation of KR 20180074644 A obtained by Google Patents) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 03/18/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on page 37-42 of the reply dated 03/18/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-10, 14-17, and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument –On page 37, Applicant argues the compounds in claim 20 have been enlarged to improve clarity.
Examiner's response –While the compounds have been enlarged, the structures are still blurry and thus the objection to claim 20 is maintained.
Applicant's argument –On pages 38-42, Applicant argues the cited references fail to teach the claim 1 as amended which requires R42 to be selected from groups that do not include hydrogen.
Examiner's response –As discussed in greater detail in the rejection below, Chen teaches R1 in Formula I (which corresponds to the claimed R42) may be an alkyl group wherein examples thereof include t-butyl, as shown in the compound on pg. 38 (¶ [0006]). Accordingly, a t-butyl group in the location of the claimed R42 is within the scope of Chen’s Formula I. Additionally, the newly cited reference Kwong ‘789 (US 2007/0003789 A1) provides motivation to include a t-butyl group on Chen’s compound. Accordingly, the cited references teach the claims as amended.
Applicant's argument –On pages 41-42, Applicant argues that one cannot use hindsight reconstruction to pick and choose among isolated disclosures of elements in the prior art to obviate the claimed invention.
Examiner's response –In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. As discussed above and outlined below, the rejections take into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the Applicant's disclosure.
Applicant's argument –Applicant argues the cited references fail to teach the limitations of the newly added claims 21-23.
Examiner's response –As discussed in greater detail in the rejection below, Chen in view of Han teach the limitations of the newly added claims 21 and 23, and Tsai (US 2013/0168656 A1) in view of Han teach the limitations of the newly added claims 21-22.
Claim Objections
Claims 16-17 and 20-23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The periods for claims 16-17 appear to be deleted.
Claims 20 and 22-23 recite blurry compounds.
When reciting the definition for CY1 in claim 21, the text and structures are blurry.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 16 recites definitions for variables Y2 and Y3. However, Y2 and Y3 are not present in Formulae CY1-1 to CY1-70 and thus it is unclear how to interpret Y2 and Y3. For purposes of examination, Y2 and Y3 will be interpreted as not present.
Claim 20 recites the organometallic compound is selected from Compounds 41 to 43, 46 to 48, 51 to 53, 56 to 58, 61 to 63, 66 to 68, 71 to 73, 76 to 78, 81 to 83, 86 to 88, 91 to 93, 96 to 100, and 147 to 150. However, claim 20 also recites the structure of compound 128. Thus it is unclear if the organometallic compound may be selected as compound 128. For purposes of examination, compound 128 will be interpreted as not present.
Claim 21 recites definitions for variables R1a and R1b. However, R1a and R1b are not present in Formula 1 and thus it is unclear how to interpret R1a and R1b. For purposes of examination, R1a and R1b will be interpreted as not present.
Claims 22-23 are rejected for being dependent upon indefinite claim 21.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 9-10, and 14-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2020/0411775 A1) in view of Han (English translation of CN 108570077 A obtained from Global Dossier) and Kwong ‘789 (US 2007/0003789 A1), as evidenced provided by Chen ‘481 (US 2020/0216481 A1), Djurovich (US 2005/0258433 A1), Lee (English translation of KR 20160014205 A obtained by Espacenet), Xia (US 2014/0131665 A1), and Akiyama (English translation of JP 2007045742 A obtained by Espacenet).
Regarding claims 1-2, 5-6, 9-10, 14-17, and 19, Chen teaches a highly efficient deep blue phosphorescent OLED having the structure of anode, hole injection layer, hole transport layer, electron blocking layer, emissive layer, hole blocking layer, electron transport layer, electron injection layer, and cathode, wherein the emissive layer comprises a host and an emitter having the structure of Formula I (abstract; ¶ [0087], [0095], and [0144]). Chen teaches compounds represented by Formula I emit blue light (¶ [0144]) (claim 5). Chen teaches examples of compounds represented by Formula I including the compound below on pg. 48.
I:
PNG
media_image1.png
165
241
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Chen’s compound:
PNG
media_image2.png
284
257
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Chen’s compound fails to read on the claimed Formula 1 as the definition of the claimed Z does not include substituted carbazole. However, Chen teaches in Formula I, the substituent of the pyridine group (variable R1) may be a heteroaryl, which includes pyridine and isoquinoline (¶ [0006] and [0041]).
Han teaches a metal-containing organic complex for use as a dopant in an organic light-emitting device, wherein the metal-containing organic complex contains at least one RA substituent (bottom of pg. 1; beginning of pg. 2; beginning of pg. 7). These RA substituents have electron-withdrawing characteristics, which improve the electron transport capability of the material, improve the recombination rate of holes and electrons in the light-emitting layer, and improve the luminous efficiency of the organic light-emitting device (beginning of pg. 7). Han teaches examples of such metal-containing organic complexes including compound 49, which include the RA substituent of pyridine (pgs. 9-10).
compound 49:
PNG
media_image3.png
160
194
media_image3.png
Greyscale
compound 65:
PNG
media_image4.png
152
183
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the substituted carbazole group in Chen’s compound with pyridine (as shown in Han’s compound 49, based on the teaching of Han. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the electron transport capability of the material, improve the recombination rate of holes and electrons in the emissive layer, and improve the luminous efficiency of the device, as taught by Han.
The modified compound of Chen in view of Han fails to include a group other than hydrogen in the location of the claimed R42. However, Chen does teach R1 in Formula I may be an alkyl group wherein examples thereof include t-butyl, as shown in the compound on pg. 38 (¶ [0006]). The compound on pg. 38 shows a t-butyl group in the location of R1 connected to X3.
compound on pg. 38:
PNG
media_image5.png
350
326
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Kwong ‘789 teaches substituting alkyl groups (such as t-butyl) on organometallic complexes used in OLEDs provide tunability in terms of evaporation temperature, solubility, energy levels, and device efficiency, and may specifically improve material and device properties such as color tunability and device stability and efficiency (¶ [0207]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a t-butyl group in the location of R1 connected to X3, as shown in Chen’s compound on pg. 38, based on the teaching of Chen and Kwong ‘789. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide tunability in terms of evaporation temperature, solubility, energy levels, and device efficiency, and specifically improve material and device properties such as color tunability and device stability and efficiency, as taught by Kwong ‘789.
The modified compound of Chen in view of Han and Kwong ‘789 is hereinafter referred to as Compound A.
Compound A is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Formula 1.
Compound A:
PNG
media_image6.png
379
376
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Formula 1:
PNG
media_image7.png
293
435
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Compound A of Chen in view of Han and Kwong ‘789 reads on the claimed Formula 1 and Formula 1-1 (claims 9 and 19) wherein:
M is the transition metal Pt (claim 10);
CY1 is a C7 heterocyclic group of benzimidazole, CY2 is unsubstituted benzene, and CY3 is unsubstituted carbazole (claim 15);
Y1 to Y3 are each C and Y4 is N;
A1 to A4 are each a chemical bond;
T1 and T3 are each a single bond, and T2 is *-O-*’;
a1 to a3 are each 1;
X41 is C(R41), X42 is C(R42), and X43 is C(R43);
R1 is a C12 carbocyclic group, and R2 and R3 are each hydrogen;
R41 and R43 are each hydrogen, and R42 is a C4 alkyl group;
d1 is an integer of 1, d2 is an integer of 3, and d3 is an integer of 6; and
Z is an unsubstituted pyridine.
Z reads on the claimed Formula 4-4 wherein Y21 to Y23 and Y25 to Y26 are each C-H and Y24 is N (claim 14).
CY1 is a group represented by Formula CY1-15 wherein X15 to X18 is C(R15) to C(R18), R14 is a C12 carbocyclic group, and R15 to R17 is hydrogen and R18 is a C4 alkyl group (claim 16), and the moiety represented by
PNG
media_image8.png
153
128
media_image8.png
Greyscale
is represented by Formula FY4-6 (claim 17).
Regarding claim 6, although the instant claim is drawn to an apparatus, the only positive limitation of the claimed apparatus is organic light-emitting device of claim 1. Claim 6 does not add any further structural or functional limitations to the device and/or organometallic compound. Chen in view of Han and Kwong ‘789 teach the organic light emitting device according to claim 1, as described above, and does not include any components that would make it unfit for use as an apparatus. Therefore, the OLED of Chen in view of Han and Kwong ‘789 according to claim 1 may be considered an apparatus.
Regarding claim 20, Chen in view of Han and Kwong ‘789 teach Compound A, as described above with respect to claim 9.
compound A:
PNG
media_image6.png
379
376
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Compound A fails to read on a claimed compound. However, Chen does teach in R in Formula I may be selected from R39 (as shown in the compound on pg. 48) or alternatively R2, among others (¶ [0072]).
Formula I:
PNG
media_image9.png
163
243
media_image9.png
Greyscale
compound on pg. 48:
PNG
media_image2.png
284
257
media_image2.png
Greyscale
R39:
PNG
media_image10.png
104
118
media_image10.png
Greyscale
R2:
PNG
media_image11.png
102
180
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Chen, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute R39 with R2 in the location of R, because Chen teaches the R may suitably be selected as R2. The substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as the emitter in the emissive layer of the device of Chen and possess the benefits taught by Chen above. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
In particular, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select R2 for R because it would have been choosing from a list of groups suitable for R taught by Chen, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the emitter in the emissive layer of the device of Chen and possessing the benefits taught by Chen above. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Chen’s Formula I having the benefits taught by Chen in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
modified Compound A:
PNG
media_image12.png
397
445
media_image12.png
Greyscale
In the modified Compound A, the Pt metal center is bound to the benzimidazole moiety through a single bond
PNG
media_image13.png
129
200
media_image13.png
Greyscale
. However, the structure may alternatively be drawn as
PNG
media_image14.png
126
199
media_image14.png
Greyscale
, wherein the Pt metal center is bound to the benzimidazole moiety through a double bond, as evidenced by Chen ‘481, Djurovich, Lee, Xia, and Akiyama.
Chen ‘481 (the parent US PGPUB of Chen) recites tetradentate platinum complexes comprising an imidazole/benzimidazole carbene have the structure of Formula I (abstract). Chen ‘481 teaches examples of compounds represented by Formula I, which all have a double bond between CA and the top N of the imidazole/benzimidazole group (see pgs. 10-14 and 107-125). For example, see the compound below on pg. 111
Formula I:
PNG
media_image15.png
196
218
media_image15.png
Greyscale
pg. 111:
PNG
media_image16.png
323
275
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, like the compounds of Chen ‘481, the benzimidazole group of the modified Compound A is a benzimidazole carbene.
Djurovich recites that some references may define “carbene” as a carbon ligand that forms a double bond to a metal (¶ [058]).
Lee’s Compound PD-1 and Akiyama’s Formula 23 show that a bond between a metal center and a carbene carbon of a N-heterocyclic carbene ring may be represented by a double bond, while Xia’s compound on page 84 shows that a bond between a metal center and a carbene carbon of the N-heterocyclic carbene ring may be represented by a single bond (Lee, ¶ [0030]; Akiyama,¶ [0049]). Note that Akiyama’s Formula 23 and Xia’s compound have the same structure except for the presentation of the bond between the metal center and the carbene carbon of the N-heterocyclic carbene ring.
Lee’s Compound PD-1:
PNG
media_image17.png
116
183
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Akiyama’s Formula 23:
PNG
media_image18.png
202
193
media_image18.png
Greyscale
Xia’s compound:
PNG
media_image19.png
120
92
media_image19.png
Greyscale
As evidenced by the above compounds, a bond between a carbene carbon and a metal center can be represented by a single bond or double bond. Thus, the bonds between the platinum metal and the carbene carbon of the benzimidazole rings in the modified Compound A can be represented by a double bond and therefore the modified Compound A reads on the claimed compound 48 (claim 20).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2020/0411775 A1) in view of Han (English translation of CN 10857077 A obtained from Global Dossier) and Kwong ‘789 (US 2007/0003789 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kwong (US 2006/0280965 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Chen in view of Han and Kwong ‘789 teach the OLED including Compound A, as described above with respect to claim 1.
While Chen teaches the emissive layer may include a host material (¶ [0087] and [0124]), Chen fails to teach the emissive layer includes Compound A in combination with a particular host material. However, Chen does teach the compound below is suitable as a host material, and teaches the compounds represented by Formula I are phosphorescent (¶ [0130] and [0144]; pg. 88).
Chen’s host:
PNG
media_image20.png
166
303
media_image20.png
Greyscale
Kwong teaches an organic light emitting diode comprising an organic emissive layer including a phosphorescent material and a triphenylene compound for use as a host (abstract; ¶ [0010]). Such a device obtains high efficiency and stability (¶ [0010] and [0090]-[0091]). Kwong teaches examples of triphenylene compounds including 1,3-bis(triphenylene-3-yl)benzene (pg. 20), which is identical to Chen’s compound above.
1,3-bis(triphenylene-3-yl)benzene:
PNG
media_image21.png
155
318
media_image21.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a triphenylene host material in the emissive layer of Chen in view of Han and Kwong ‘789, based on the teaching of Kwong. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with high efficiency and stability, as taught by Kwong.
In particular, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select 1,3-bis(triphenylene-3-yl)benzene as the triphenylene host material, because Chen teaches it is a suitable host material and because it would have been choosing from a list of exemplified triphenylene host materials taught by Kwong, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the host material in the emissive layer of the device of Chen in view of Han, Kwong ‘789, and Kwong and possessing the benefits taught by Kwong. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising triphenylene host materials having the benefits taught by Kwong in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
1,3-bis(triphenylene-3-yl)benzene reads on the claimed Formula 301 wherein: Ar301 is an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group; L301 is not required to be present; xb11 is 1; xb1 is 0; R301 is an unsubstituted C18 carbocyclic group; and xb21 is 2.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2020/0411775 A1) in view of Han (English translation of CN 108570077 A obtained from Global Dossier) and Kwong ‘789 (US 2007/0003789 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tamaru (US 2009/0236974 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Chen in view of Han and Kwong ‘789 teach the OLED including Compound A, as described above with respect to claim 1.
While Chen teaches the emissive layer may include a host material (¶ [0087] and [0124]), Chen fails to teach the emissive layer includes a host material and the emitter Compound A, wherein the amount of the host material is greater than the emitter.
Tamaru teaches an organic EL device comprising a light emission layer containing two or more kinds of host compounds and at least one phosphorescent dopant, wherein at least one of the two or more kinds of host compounds has an excited triplet energy of not less than 2.7 eV, and the two or more kinds of host compounds are represented by Formula (1) (¶ [0017]-[0019]). Tamaru teaches an organic EL device as described above has high emission luminance, high emission efficiency, high color purity, and high durability (¶ [0016]-[0019]).
Tamaru teaches the phosphorescent dopant is preferably a platinum complex (¶ [0111]) and the content in the light emission layer of the phosphorescent dopant is preferably lower than that of the host compound (¶ [0109]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the emissive layer two or more kinds of host compounds represented by Tamaru’s Formula (1), wherein the host compounds are present in a higher content than that of Compound A, and wherein at least one of the host compounds has an excited triplet energy of not less than 2.7 eV, based on the teaching of Tamaru. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device having high emission luminance, high emission efficiency, high color purity, and high durability, as taught by Tamaru.
As the emissive layer includes the host compounds and the emitter of Compound A wherein the host compounds are present in a higher content than that of the emitter, the emitter is necessarily is present in an amount of about 0.01 parts by weight to about 49.99 parts by weight based on a total of 100 parts by weight of the emission layer.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2020/0411775 A1) in view of Han (English translation of CN 108570077 A obtained from Global Dossier) and Kwong ‘789 (US 2007/0003789 A1) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Jeong (US 7,652,287 B2).
Regarding claim 7, Chen in view of Han and Kwong ‘789 teach the OLED of claim 6, as described above.
Chen fails to teach the OLED further comprises a thin-film transistor.
Jeong teaches a light emitting display device including a thin film transistor (TNT) and a light emitting diode, wherein the TNT includes an N-type oxide semiconductor layer, a source electrode, and a drain electrode (abstract and col. 2 lines 64-67). Jeong teaches the cathode electrode of the OLED may electrically contact the drain electrode of the TFT (col. 6, lines 54-58). As the cathode is electrically connected to the anode, the anode would also be electrically connected to the drain electrode.
Jeong teaches the light emitting display including the TNT substantially overcomes one or more of the problems of the related art, which includes low mobility of the semiconductor layer, leakage current, and increased contact resistance (col. 1, 12-45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the device of Chen in view of Han and Kwong ‘789 as the OLED of the light emitting display device of Jeong, based on the teaching of Jeong. The motivation for doing so would have been to substantially overcome the problems of the related art discussed above, as taught by Jeong, and to provide a highly efficient deep blue phosphorescent device, as taught by Chen.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2020/0411775 A1) in view of Han (English translation of CN 108570077 A obtained from Global Dossier) and Kwong ‘789 (US 2007/0003789 A1) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Yoon (English translation of KR 20180074644 A obtained by Google Patents).
Regarding claim 8, Chen in view of Han and Kwong ‘789 teaches the OLED of claim 6, as described above.
Chen fails to teach wherein the device further includes a color conversion layer or color filter layer.
Yoon teaches an organic light emitting diode display device that can efficiently prevent external light reflection (abstract). This device comprises a first substrate 210 that includes a white pixel region, a red pixel region, a green pixel region, and a blue pixel region, and a second substrate 260 facing the first substrate (first half of pg. 3, first half of pg. 4, and Fig. 4). A color filter layer 220 is located between the organic light emitting diode 240 and the first substrate 210, and corresponds to the red, green, and blue pixel regions (middle of pg. 4, and see Fig. 4). An antireflective layer 230 includes a color conversion pattern 232, which is located between the first substrate 210 and organic light emitting diode (bottom of pg. 4, and see Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further provide in the device of Chen in view of Han and Kwong ‘789 a substrate comprising a white pixel region, a red pixel region, a green pixel region, and a blue pixel region, and to further provide in the device a second substrate, a color filter layer located between the device and the substrate, and an antireflective layer including a color conversion pattern located between the substrate and the device, as shown in Yoon’s Fig. 4. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device that can efficiently prevent external light reflection, as taught by Yoon.
Claims 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2020/0411775 A1) in view of Han (English translation of CN 108570077 A obtained from Global Dossier).
Regarding claim 21, Chen teaches a highly efficient deep blue phosphorescent OLED having comprising an emitter having the structure of Formula I (abstract; ¶ [0087], [0095], and [0144]). Chen teaches examples of compounds represented by Formula I including the compound below on pg. 49.
I:
PNG
media_image1.png
165
241
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Chen’s compound:
PNG
media_image22.png
283
319
media_image22.png
Greyscale
Chen’s compound fails to read on the claimed Formula 1 as the definition of the claimed Z does not include substituted carbazole. However, Chen teaches in Formula I, the substituent of the pyridine group (variable R1) may be a heteroaryl, which includes pyridine and isoquinoline (¶ [0006] and [0041]).
Han teaches a metal-containing organic complex for use as a dopant in an organic light-emitting device, wherein the metal-containing organic complex contains at least one RA substituent (bottom of pg. 1; beginning of pg. 2; beginning of pg. 7). These RA substituents have electron-withdrawing characteristics, which improve the electron transport capability of the material, improve the recombination rate of holes and electrons in the light-emitting layer, and improve the luminous efficiency of the organic light-emitting device (beginning of pg. 7). Han teaches examples of such metal-containing organic complexes including compound 49, which include the RA substituent of pyridine (pgs. 9-10).
compound 49:
PNG
media_image3.png
160
194
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the substituted carbazole group in Chen’s compound with pyridine (as shown in Han’s compound 49), based on the teaching of Han. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the electron transport capability of the material, improve the recombination rate of holes and electrons in the emissive layer, and improve the luminous efficiency of the device, as taught by Han.
The modified compound of Chen in view of Han is hereinafter referred to as Compound B.
Compound B is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Formula 1.
B:
PNG
media_image23.png
377
495
media_image23.png
Greyscale
Formula 1:
PNG
media_image7.png
293
435
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Compound B of Chen in view of Han reads on the claimed Formula 1 wherein:
M is the transition metal Pt;
CY1 is a C7 heterocyclic group, CY2 is unsubstituted benzene, and CY3 is unsubstituted carbazole;
Y1 to Y3 are each C and Y4 is N;
A1 to A4 are each a chemical bond;
T1 and T3 are each a single bond, and T2 is *-O-*’;
a1 to a3 are each 1;
X41 is C(R41), X42 is C(R42), and X43 is C(R43);
R1 is a C12 carbocyclic group, R2 is hydrogen, and R3 is a benzene;
R41 to R43 are each hydrogen;
d1 to d3 are each 1; and
Z is an unsubstituted pyridine.
Regarding claim 23, Chen in view of Han teach Compound B, as described above with respect to claim 21.
Compound B:
PNG
media_image23.png
377
495
media_image23.png
Greyscale
Compound B fails to read on a claimed compound. However, Chen does teach in R in Formula I may be selected from R39 (as shown in the compound on pg. 48) or alternatively R2, among others (¶ [0072]).
Formula I:
PNG
media_image9.png
163
243
media_image9.png
Greyscale
compound on pg. 48:
PNG
media_image2.png
284
257
media_image2.png
Greyscale
R39:
PNG
media_image10.png
104
118
media_image10.png
Greyscale
R2:
PNG
media_image11.png
102
180
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Chen, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute R39 with R2 in the location of R, because Chen teaches the R may suitably be selected as R2. The substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as the emitter in the emissive layer of the device of Chen and possess the benefits taught by Chen above. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
In particular, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select R2 for R because it would have been choosing from a list of groups suitable for R taught by Chen, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the emitter in the emissive layer of the device of Chen and possessing the benefits taught by Chen above. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Chen’s Formula I having the benefits taught by Chen in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
The modified Compound B fails to read on a claimed compound as it comprises a benzene group in the location of the claimed R3 rather than the claimed R2. However, Chen teaches in Formula I R2 and R4 may each represent hydrogen or aryl, among others (¶ [0006]).
Given the general formula and teachings of Chen, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the positional isomer of the modified Compound B wherein the benzene substituent is provided in the location of the claimed R2 in the meta position with respect to the C-O bond. One of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Chen’s Formula I in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as the emitter in the device of Chen and possess the properties taught by Chen. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. Compounds which are positional isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II.
The modified Compound B reads on the claimed compound 107.
modified Compound B:
PNG
media_image24.png
230
235
media_image24.png
Greyscale
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai (US 2013/0168656 A1) in view of Han (English translation of CN 108570077 A obtained from Global Dossier).
Regarding claims 21-22, Tsai teaches phosphorescent platinum complexes having desirable electronic properties for use in OLEDs, wherein the complexes are represented by Formula I (abstract; ¶ [0016]). Examples of complexes represented by Formula I include Compound 17 (pg. 11).
I:
PNG
media_image25.png
128
131
media_image25.png
Greyscale
17:
PNG
media_image26.png
212
270
media_image26.png
Greyscale
Compound 17 fails to read on the claimed Formula 1 as it does not include a pyridine in the location of the claimed Z. However, Tsai teaches in Formula I, R4 may be an aryl or heteroaryl, among others (¶ [0016]).
Han teaches a metal-containing organic complex for use as a dopant in an organic light-emitting device, wherein the metal-containing organic complex contains at least one RA substituent (bottom of pg. 1; beginning of pg. 2; beginning of pg. 7). These RA substituents have electron-withdrawing characteristics, which improve the electron transport capability of the material, improve the recombination rate of holes and electrons in the light-emitting layer, and improve the luminous efficiency of the organic light-emitting device (beginning of pg. 7). Han teaches examples of such metal-containing organic complexes including compound 49, which include the RA substituent of pyridine (pgs. 9-10).
compound 49:
PNG
media_image3.png
160
194
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute one of the benzene groups in Compound 17 with pyridine (as shown in Han’s compound 49), based on the teaching of Han. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the electron transport capability of the material, improve the recombination rate of holes and electrons in the emissive layer, and improve the luminous efficiency of the device, as taught by Han.
The modified Compound 17 fails to read on the claimed Formula I as it does not contain hydrogen in the location of the claimed X12. However, Tsai does teach R1 in Formula I each be selected from hydrogen and aryl, among others (¶ [0017]).
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Tsai, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the benzene group in the location of R1 with hydrogen, because Tsai teaches R1 may suitably be selected as hydrogen. The substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as in the device of Tsai and possess the benefits taught by Tsai. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
In particular, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select hydrogen for R1, because it would have been choosing from a list of groups suitable for R1, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful in the device of Tsai and possessing the benefits taught by Tsai. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Tsai’s Formula I having the benefits taught by Tsai in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
The modified Compound 17 is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Formula 1.
Modified 17:
PNG
media_image27.png
153
185
media_image27.png
Greyscale
Formula 1:
PNG
media_image7.png
293
435
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The modified Compound 17 of Tsai in view of Han reads on the claimed Formula 1 wherein:
M is the transition metal Pt;
CY1 is a group represented by Formula CY1-1, CY2 and CY3 are each carbazole;
Y2 and Y3 are each C and Y1 and Y4 are each N;
A1 to A4 are each a chemical bond;
T1 and T3 are each a single bond, and T2 is *-O-*’;
a1 to a3 are each 1;
X41 is C(R41), X42 is C(R42), and X43 is C(R43);
X11, X12, and X14 are each CH, and X13 is C(R13)
R2, R3, and R13 are each hydrogen;
R41 to R43 are each hydrogen;
d2 and d3 are each 6; and
Z is an unsubstituted pyridine.
The modified Compound 17 reads on the claimed compound 126 (claim 22).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRAELYN R WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Boyd can be reached on 571-272-7783. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRAELYN R WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights