DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 8 December 2025 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 1, 7, 10, 12, 16-17, and 19-20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
The amendment to claim 19 has overcome the objection to claim 19 set forth in the last Office action. The objection has been withdrawn.
The amendment to claim 10 has overcome the rejection of claims 10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the last Office action. The rejection has been withdrawn.
The amendment to claim 12 has overcome the rejections of claims 12-16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the last Office action. The rejection has been withdrawn.
The amendments to claims 1, 17, and 20 have overcome the rejections of claims 1-5 and 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Duan et al. (CN 110642893 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Duan”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claims 17-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan et al. (CN 110642893 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Duan”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan et al. (CN 110642893 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Duan”), and further in view of in view of Ma (US 2010/0237334 A1); and the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan et al. (CN 110642893 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Duan”), and further in view of Lamansky et al. (US 2002/0182441 A1) (hereafter “Lamansky”) set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn. However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1-5 and 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Duan et al. (CN 110642893 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Duan”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claims 17-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan et al. (CN 110642893 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Duan”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan et al. (CN 110642893 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Duan”), and further in view of in view of Ma (US 2010/0237334 A1); and the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan et al. (CN 110642893 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Duan”), and further in view of Lamansky et al. (US 2002/0182441 A1) (hereafter “Lamansky”) set forth in the last Office action have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments, see the final paragraph of p. 106 through the 5th paragraph of p. 112 of the reply filed 8 December 2025 regarding the rejections of claims 1-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (JP 2016-219490 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Ito”) set forth in the last Office action and the rejections of claims 12-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (JP 2016-219490 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Ito”), and further in view of Ma et al. (US 2005/0170206 A1) (hereafter “Ma”) set forth in the last Office action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the Examiner has not followed the two prong inquiry typically called a "lead compound analysis". Applicant argues that the selection of Ito’s Compound C-22 would not have been obvious; that the modification of Ito’s Compound C-22 would not have been obvious due to insufficient reasons to modify; and that therefore the rejections should be withdrawn.
Ito teaches metal complex compounds of similar use to those of the current claims. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select a compound from the exemplified compounds of Ito to modify in order to produce additional compounds having the beneficial properties taught by Ito. Specifically, it would have been obvious to modify an exemplified compound of Ito in order to produce additional phosphorescent light emitting materials for beneficial use in organic light emitting devices, i.e. to provide devices having emission efficiency and long lifetime {paragraphs [0027]-[0028], [0049], and [0285]-[0287]}.
Ito’s compound C-22 is a compound used in an example device of Ito {paragraphs [0264]-[0272] and Tables 1 and 2: Example 1-13}. The device comprising Ito’s compound C-22 has high efficiency and good lifetime {Tables 1 and 2: Example 1-13}. It would have been obvious to select Ito’s compound C-22 as a compound for modification due to its use in an example device that demonstrates high efficiency and good lifetime.
Regarding the modification itself, the moiety for substitution is explicitly exemplified by Ito in Compound A-5, as outlined below. Selecting this specifically exemplified option from the limited number of options exemplified by Takada for the substitution pattern of the ligand portion comprising Ito’s ring B would have been a selection from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions. As described above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select a compound from the exemplified compounds of Ito to modify in order to produce additional compounds having the beneficial properties taught by Ito.
While the Takeda decision requires that the prior art to have suggested making the specific molecular modifications necessary to achieve the claimed invention, this requirement is met by the teachings of Ito as described above. Ito teaches that the compounds of Ito provide organic light emitting devices that have high efficiency and good lifetime. This is demonstrated by the device comprising Ito’s Compound C-22, as described above. Furthermore, the substituted ligand portion comprising Ito’s ring B is explicitly exemplified by Ito in Compound A-5 of Ito. Thus, the Ito reference exemplifies each of the moieties making up the resultant compound of the rejection. Ito suggests each of the portions of the resultant compound of the rejection. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select a compound from the exemplified compounds of Ito to modify in order to produce additional compounds having the beneficial properties taught by Ito. Therefore, the rejection establishes that ordinary skill in the art would have known of the proposed modifications and would have been motivated to make the proposed modifications.
Furthermore, the fact pattern in the Takeda decision is different than the current case. Notably, the lead compound selected for modification in the Takeda decision had been shown to have negative effects that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to not select the compound for modification (Takeda at 1175). There is no such teaching regarding either of Ito’s Compounds C-22 or A-5.
The fact pattern between the instant case and Otsuka Pharm. Co., Ltd., v. Sandoz, Inc., 678 F.3d 1280 Fed. Cir. 2012 are different. Ito’s Compounds C-22 and A-5 are each compounds that are not only structurally similar but was known to have similar uses as the claimed compounds. Furthermore, as described above, the selection of Ito’s Compound C-22 for modification would have been a selection for a finite number of compounds exemplified in the device examples of Ito (the exemplified device having high efficiency and good lifetime, as described above).
The Examiner further notes that the fact pattern of the Eisai Co. Ltd. v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs., Ltd. , 533 F.3d 1353, 87 USPQ2d 1452 (Fed. Cir. 2008) differs from the instant scenario. Specifically, the proposed modification of lansoprazole was to substitute a trifluoroethoxy group with a methoxypropoxy. The prior art taught that such a modification would have led to a compound having poorer properties than lansoprazole. Therefore, upon consideration of all of the facts of the case, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would not have had a reason to modify lansoprazole so as to form rabeprazole. See MPEP 2143. This differs from the instant scenario in that there is no evidence of unexpectedly different properties upon the substitution described in the rejection.
Therefore, for at least these reasons, the argument is not found persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (JP 2016-219490 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Ito”).
Regarding claims 1-6 and 8-9: Ito discloses the compound shown below {(paragraph [0109]: The compounds of the disclosure of Ito having the structure of general formulas [1] to [4] are exemplified by the compounds in paragraphs [0110] to [0146].), (paragraph [0123]: Compound C-22)}.
PNG
media_image1.png
632
476
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ito does not teach a similar compound similar to the compound shown above except for having a ligand comprising a ring that can be equated with the instant ring B.
However, Ito teaches that the compounds of Ito have the structure of general formula [1], shown below {paragraphs [0016] and [0056]}.
PNG
media_image2.png
270
302
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As exemplified by Ito’s compound A-5, the ligand portion comprising Ito’s ring B can have the structure shown below {(paragraph [0109]: The compounds of the disclosure of Ito having the structure of general formulas [1] to [4] are exemplified by the compounds in paragraphs [0110] to [0146].), (paragraph [0110]: Compound A-5)}.
PNG
media_image3.png
240
274
media_image3.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 compound C-22 of Ito by substituting the ligand portion comprising Ito’s ring B with the ligand portion comprising Ito’s ring B of Ito’s compound A-5, based on the teaching of Ito. The substitution would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of substituent and substituent positions to be used to make compounds for use in an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light emitting devices.
The resultant compound would have the structure shown below.
PNG
media_image4.png
312
536
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (JP 2016-219490 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Ito”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ma et al. (US 2005/0170206 A1) (hereafter “Ma”).
Regarding claims 12-14: Ito teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Ito does not teach that the two ligands in the metal complex shown above are linked together to form a tetradentate ligand.
Ma teaches metal coordination compounds for use as light-emitting dopants in organic light-emitting devices {paragraphs [0008] and [0064]}.
Ma teaches that linking bidentate ligands together to give a tetradentate ligand increases the stability of the metal complex {paragraph [0064]}.
Two bidentate ligands can be covalently linked together by a linking group {paragraphs [0120]-[0121]}.
The ligands can be linked to linking group through either ring that links to the metal atom {paragraphs [0123]-[0124]}.
Ma teaches that the linking group can be an oxygen atom {paragraphs [0152]-[0164]: }.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Ito’s Compound shown above by covalently linking two of the ligands through a linking group that is an oxygen atom, based on the teaching of Ma. The motivation for doing so would have been to produce a metal complex with increased stability, as taught by Ma. The selection of an alkyl group as the linking group would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. The selection of the two phenyl pyrazole ligands as the ligands to be linked together would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, it would have been within the level of ordinary skill of a worker in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device.
Claim(s) 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (JP 2016-219490 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Ito”).
Regarding claims 17-18: Ito discloses an organic light emitting device (an organic electroluminescent device) comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode {paragraphs [0264]-[0272] and Tables 1 and 2: Example 1-13}.
The organic layer comprises a light-emitting layer comprising a host and a light-emitting dopant {paragraphs [0264]-[0272] and Tables 1 and 2: Example 1-13}.
The host has the structure shown below {(paragraphs [0264]-[0272] and Tables 1 and 2: Example 1-13 uses Ito’s Compound OC-29 as the host material.), (paragraph [0260]: Compound OC-29)}.
PNG
media_image5.png
126
288
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The light-emitting dopant has the structure shown below {(paragraphs [0264]-[0272] and Tables 1 and 2: Example 1-13 uses Ito’s Compound C-2e as the light-emitting dopant.), (paragraph [0123]: Compound C-22)}
PNG
media_image1.png
632
476
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ito does not teach a similar compound similar to the compound shown above except for having a ligand comprising a ring that can be equated with the instant ring B.
However, Ito teaches that the compounds of Ito have the structure of general formula [1], shown below {paragraphs [0016] and [0056]}.
PNG
media_image2.png
270
302
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As exemplified by Ito’s compound A-5, the ligand portion comprising Ito’s ring B can have the structure shown below {(paragraph [0109]: The compounds of the disclosure of Ito having the structure of general formulas [1] to [4] are exemplified by the compounds in paragraphs [0110] to [0146].), (paragraph [0110]: Compound A-5)}.
PNG
media_image3.png
240
274
media_image3.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 compound C-22 of Ito by substituting the ligand portion comprising Ito’s ring B with the ligand portion comprising Ito’s ring B of Ito’s compound A-5, based on the teaching of Ito. The substitution would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of substituent and substituent positions to be used to make compounds for use in an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light emitting devices.
The resultant compound would have the structure shown below.
PNG
media_image4.png
312
536
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (JP 2016-219490 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Ito”) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of in view of Ma (US 2010/0237334 A1).
Regarding claim 19: Ito teaches all of the features with respect to claim 17, as outlined above.
Ito does not exemplify a first organic light-emitting device comprising the complex of Ito shown above and a host material meeting the limitations of the instant claim 19.
Ma teaches host materials for phosphorescent dopants for a light-emitting layer of an organic light-emitting device {(p. 1, ¶ [0014]; The triphenylene-containing benzofused thiophenes are useful as host compounds in organic light emitting devices.), (paragraph [0101] and Table 1: The organic light-emitting devices comprise phosphorescent dopants in the light-emitting layer.)}.
The host material comprises a triphenylene containing benzo-fused thiophene, having the structure shown below {(p. 2, paragraph [0015]; The triphenylene-containing benzofused thiophenes include compounds having the structure of Formula (III).), (p. 9, ¶ [0045]; Compounds having the structure of Formula III are exemplified by the compounds on pp. 9-11.), (p. 9, Compound 2’), (paragraph [0053]: Compound 2S has the same structure as Compound 2’.)}.
[AltContent: textbox (Ma’s Compound 2S)]
PNG
media_image6.png
200
400
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Ma sought to provide host compounds with improved film forming properties that when used in organic electroluminescent devices provided devices with improved device stability and efficiency {p. 4, paragraphs [0033] and [0037]}.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have modified the organic light-emitting device taught by Ito by using Ma’s Compound 2S as the host material, based on the teachings of Ma. The motivation for doing so would have been to use a host compound with improved film forming properties that when used in organic electroluminescent devices provided devices with improved device lifetime, as taught by Ma. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would know to use the host materials as they were intended, which in this case means finding the best material to create an efficient light-emitting device for the given material set based on the teaching of Ma.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (JP 2016-219490 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Ito”) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Lamansky et al. (US 2002/0182441 A1) (hereafter “Lamansky”).
Regarding claim 20: Ito teaches all of the features with respect to claims 17, as outlined above.
Claim 20 differs from claim 17 in the organic light-emitting device is comprised in a consumer product.
Ito does not exemplify a consumer product comprising the organic light-emitting device of Ito described above.
Lamansky teaches the use of organic electroluminescent devices in display devices {paragraph [0139]}. Lamansky teaches that flat panel displays utilizing organic light emitting devices (which are organic electroluminescent devices) would have bright colors, wide viewing angle, low power requirements, broad temperature ranges, and thin form factor {paragraph [0010]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the organic light-emitting device of Ito to be part of a display device, based on the teachings of Lamansky. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a display device with bright colors, wide viewing angle, low power requirements, broad temperature ranges, and thin form factor, as taught by Lamansky.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 10-11, and 15-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As described above, Ito is the closest prior art. However, the structure of the ligands of Ito are different from those of the compounds of the current claims 7, 10-11, and 15-16.
For example, Ito requires atom equivalent to the instant E to be carbon. However, none of the compounds of the current claims 7 or 10-11 comprise the atom equivalent to the instant E as carbon. Neither Ito nor the broader prior art teach modifying the compounds of E to comprise the atom equivalent to the instant E to be S or O, which would be consistent with the compounds of the instant claims 7 or 10-11.
With respect to claim 15, Ito does not teach tetradentate complexes having the structure of the compounds of claim 15. While, as outlined above, the device of Ito can be modified to have the structure of a tetradentate ligand, it would not have been obvious to have further modified the compound of Ito to have a second ligand having the structure required to meet the limitations of the current claim 15. Neither Ito nor the broader prior art provide teaching or motivation to modify the compounds of Ito to provide such a compound.
With respect to claim 16, Ito does not teach the structure of the ligand LA required by the current claim 16. Neither Ito nor the broader prior art provide teaching or motivation to modify the compounds of Ito to provide such a compound.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DYLAN CLAY KERSHNER whose telephone number is (303)297-4257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm (Mountain).
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.
/DYLAN C KERSHNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786