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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-21 and 24-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kottas et al (US 2013/0026452) (Kottas) in view of Bae et al (US .
In reference to claims 1-6, 17, and 28-29, Kottas teaches a compound of the formula as shown below (Kottas [0040])
PNG
media_image1.png
310
468
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein in the formula, n is 1, R1, R2, and R4 are each methyl, R3, R5, R6 and Rb are each H, X is O, to Ra is a combination of aryl and nitrile and X is O or compound 159 with an additional substituent Ra (Kottas [0040]; [0044]).
Kottas discloses the formula that encompasses the presently claimed material, including n is 1, R1, R2, and R4 are each methyl, R3, R5, R6 and Rb are each H, X is O, to Ra is a combination of aryl and nitrile and X is O or compound 159 with an additional substituent Ra. Each of the disclosed substituents from the substituent groups of Kottas are considered functionally equivalent and their selection would lead to obvious variants of the compound of the formula.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, in the absence of unexpected results, to have selected these substituents among those disclosed for the compound of the formula to provide the compound described above, which is both disclosed by Kottas and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Kottas does not exemplify the compound with the cyano group as claimed but teaches it as one of a limited number of options.
Bae teaches cyano group substitution on organometallic ligands (Bae Abstract). Bae teaches that by supplying a cyano group substitution to the ligand, the organometallic compound may have a deep HOMO energy level creating high triplet energy levels due to an increased band gap (Bae [0185]) that provides a deep emission color.
In light of the motivation of using cyano group substituents as described above, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the cyano group as described by Bae in order to provide a deep HOMO energy level and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
For Claim 1: Reads on a complex as claimed wherein m is 1, n is 2, Lb is
PNG
media_image2.png
134
78
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, Ra is methyl, Rb is H, Cy is pyridine, Rw is aryl, X is O, each of X# are carbon substituted with hydrogen or a bond to Rw, Cy or a metal.
For Claim 2: Reads on the pyridine group row 1 column 6.
For Claim 3: Reads on m is 1 n is 2 and q is 0, La is
PNG
media_image3.png
198
216
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, and Lb is
PNG
media_image2.png
134
78
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
For Claim 4: Reads on formula 3.
For Claim 5: Reads on X is O.
For Claim 6: Reads on wherein each of Y1 to Y4 is CH.
For Claim 8: Reads on wherein each Rx is H.
For Claim 9: Reads on Rw is arylene.
For Claim 10: Reads on wherein Rw is e.g. A-42.
For Claim 11: Reads on wherein each Ry is H or alkyl.
For Claim 12: Reads on wherein R7 is optionally alkyl.
For Claim 13: Reads on wherein R7 is optionally alkyl.
For Claim 14: Reads on La10.
For Claim 15: Reads on Lb3.
For Claim 17: Reads on 502.
For Claim 28: Reads on wherein Rw is phenylene.
For Claim 29: Reads on Ir(La)2(Lb) wherein each of La10 and Lb3.
In reference to claims 18-23 and 26-27, Kottas in view of Bae teaches the compound as described above for claim 1 and further teaches that the compound is used in a device comprising an anode and a cathode, and an organic layer between the electrodes as a dopant at 5 to 15 percent by weight in an emission layer further comprising a host and emitting a green light (Kottas [0019] [0020] [0023] [0053] abstract).
PNG
media_image4.png
224
306
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Given that Kottas discloses the device structure that encompasses the presently claimed device, including an anode a cathode an emitting layer with a host that emits green light, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, to use the device, which is both disclosed by Kottas and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
In reference to claims 24-25, the second host is an optional group and therefore the claims are rejected optionally not including the second host.
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kottas et al (US 2013/0026452) (Kottas) in view of Bae et al (US 2016/0233440) (Bae) and further in view of Tsai et al (US 2021/0054010) (Tsai).
In reference to claims 22-23, Kottas in view of Bae teaches the device as described above for claim 21 comprising a host that can be mixtures of known materials including carbazole materials (Kottas [0078] [0095] [0070] [0034]).
Kottas in view of Bae does not expressly teach that the host material is one of the claimed materials.
With respect to the difference, Tsai teaches host materials for phosphorescent dopants in OLED devices for example the compound shown below (Tsai [0096]-[0099]) as shown below.
PNG
media_image5.png
162
342
media_image5.png
Greyscale
That is, the substitution of the host of Tsai for the carbazole host of Kottas, absent unexpected results, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application with the predictable result of providing an emitting layer host material. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (See MPEP § 2143, B).
Claims 1-5 and 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al (US 2020/0287144) (Hwang).
In reference to claims 1-5 and 7-13, Hwang teaches a compound of formula 1 as shown below (Hwang [0053])
PNG
media_image6.png
26
410
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
234
468
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
328
468
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
178
450
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
132
404
media_image10.png
Greyscale
wherein in the formula 1, M is Ir (Hwang [0051]), L1 is a group of formula 2a (Hwang [0058]), CY1 is pyrimidine (Hwang [0077]), the ring system comprising T1 to T8 is CY2-1007 (Hwang [0202]), X21 is O (Hwang [0066]), Z28 is phenyl substituted with cyano (Hwang [0101] [0104] [0205]), L2 is a group of formula 2B (Hwang [0059]), CY14 is CY14(1), R12 is a group 9-12 (Hwang [0154]), X1 is Si (Hwang [0065]), R21 to R23 are each methyl (Hwang [0083]), n1 is 1, n2 is 2 (Hwang [0058] [0059]).
Hwang discloses the formula 1 that encompasses the presently claimed material, including wherein M is Ir, L1 is a group of formula 2a, CY1 is pyrimidine, the ring system comprising T1 to T8 is CY2-1007, X21 is O, Z28 is phenyl substituted with cyano, L2 is a group of formula 2B wherein CY14 is CY14(1), R12 is a group 9-12, X1 is Si, R21 to R23 are each methyl, n1 is 1, n2 is 2. Each of the disclosed substituents from the substituent groups of Hwang are considered functionally equivalent and their selection would lead to obvious variants of the compound of formula 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, in the absence of unexpected results, to have selected these substituents among those disclosed for the compound of formula 1 to provide the compound described above, which is both disclosed by Hwang and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
For Claim 1: Reads on a complex as claimed wherein Cy is pyridine, R1 is phenyl, X is O, other X# are carbon or N atoms substituted with hydrogen or a bond to Rw, Cy or a metal and M is Ir, Lb is
PNG
media_image2.png
134
78
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein Ra is a heteroalkyl.
For Claim 2: Reads on the pyrimidine groups.
For Claim 3: Reads on m is 1 n is 2 and q is 0, La is the group row 2 column 2, and Lb is a group row 1 column 6.
For Claim 4: Reads on formula 3.
For Claim 5: Reads on X is O.
For Claim 7: Reads on wherein one of X3 to X7 is N.
For Claim 8: Reds on wherein each Rx is H.
For Claim 9: Reads on Rw is phenyl.
For Claim 10: Reads on wherein Rw is A-42.
For Claim 11: Reads on wherein each Ry is H.
For Claim 12: Reads on wherein R6 is alkyl.
For Claim 13: Reads on wherein R6 is alkyl.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 04/24/2026 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.
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 Sean M DeGuire whose telephone number is (571)270-1027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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 A. 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.
/Sean M DeGuire/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights