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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 12/29/2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of the US Patent no. 12,369,488 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election of (A1) compounds where metal M is Ir, and (B3) formula II is fused to X3 and X4, and each of X1 to X4 is C, in the reply filed on 6/26/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
In the Office Action of 07/29/2025, the Examiner partially withdraws the requirement of election of species to identify atoms at X1 through X4. Applicant’s election is equated with (A1) compounds where metal M is Ir, and (B3) formula II is fused to X3 and X4, and each of X1 to X4 is C or N.
Claim 16 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 10/29/2025 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim 16 has been withdrawn.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 14, 15, 17, and 19-20 have been amended.
The Terminal disclaimer of 12/29/2025 obviates the rejections of claims 1-14 and 17-20 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 16-17, and 20 of US Patent 12,369,488 B2 (hereafter Patent ‘488).
The amendments of claim 10 has overcome the rejections of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the last Office Action. The rejection has been withdrawn.
The amendments of claims 1, 17, and 20 have overcome the rejections of claims 1-15 and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the last Office Action. The rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see page 67 of the reply filed 10/29/2025 regarding the rejections of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the Office Action of 07/29/2025 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the amended claim 14 overcomes the rejection.
While the amendment has resolved the issue pointed out in the previous rejection, the claim is still indefinite. See details under 112(b) rejection section below. A new ground of rejection is applied. The amendment necessitates new ground of rejection, making this Office Action final.
Applicant’s arguments see page 67 of the reply filed 10/29/2025 regarding The rejections of claims 1-4, 6-15, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamovich et al. (US 2019/0280213 A1, hereafter Adamovich) in view of Kim et al. (US 2008/0194853 A1, hereafter Kim) and Zhang et al. (US 20200354391 A1, hereafter Zhang), and the rejections of claims 1-7, 9, 11-14, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamovich et al. (US 2019/0280213 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 2008/0194853 A1) set forth in the Office Action of 07/29/2025 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the amendment overcomes the cited rejections.
The cited rejections refer to Compound of Adamovich as modified by Kim and Zhang and Compound of Adamovich as modified by Kim and Zhang (2) (sections 37 and 66 of the last Office Action).
Those compounds do not read on the limitation of the Formula I of the amended claims. Thus, rejections are withdrawn.
However, the references are still applicable to make new grounds of rejections. The amendment necessitates new grounds of rejections, making this Office Action final.
Applicant’s arguments see page 67 of the reply filed 10/29/2025 regarding the provisional rejections of claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-14, and 17-20 are on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 15, 18, and 20 of copending Application No. 17/404,311 (reference application, hereafter Application ‘311), the provisional rejections of claims 1-15 and 17-20 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 16, 19, and 20 of copending Application No. 17/745,939 (reference application, hereafter Application ‘939), and the provisional rejections of claims 1-14 and 17-20 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 15, 19, and 20 of copending Application No. 17/669,864 (reference application, hereafter Application ‘864) set forth in the Office Action of 07/29/2025 have been considered.
No argument is provide and the references are still applicable to reject the amended claims. The rejections are maintained
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 14, Applicant claims the compound of claim 12, wherein the compound comprises a ligand LAi-m-x (i.e. one from LA1-1-1 to LA1200-57-7); however, claim 12 claims LA only. No limitation of the ligand LAi-m-x is provided. It is unclear what is the limitation of the ligand LAi-m-x.
For the purpose of prosecution, the Examiner interprets the limitation to mean that the limitation of the ligand LAi-m-x is same as the ligand LA defined in the claim 12.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9, 11-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamovich et al. (US 2019/0280213 A1, hereafter Adamovich) 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 Kim et al. (US 2008/0194853 A1, hereafter Kim).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9, 11-14, and 17-20, Adamovich discloses a composition (“second composition”) used as the emissive layer material of an organic light emitting device, wherein the composition comprises a first compound of Formula I as a host and a second compound of Formulas III, wherein R represents Formula IV ([0020]-[0024]).
Adamovich exemplifies a compound as the second compound ([0093], the 9th compound on page 17, hereafter Compound p17-9).
PNG
media_image1.png
322
801
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Compound p17-9 does not have a fluoro group at the position corresponding to RA of Formula III of Adamovich; however, Adamovich does teach that RA can be a general substituent ([0020]). Adamovich exemplifies fluorine as one of more preferred substituents ([0064]). Adamovich exemplifies a compound comprising a structure of
PNG
media_image2.png
104
106
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(the last compound on page 19).
Wang teaches that conversion of C-H bond to C-F bond provides reduced radiationless deactivation, enhanced photoluminescence efficiency, better sublimation, minimized self-quenching, and enhanced electron mobility (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 p17-9 of Adamovich by substituting a fluoro group to the benzene ring corresponding to the ring A of Formula III of Adamovich, as taught by Adamovich and Wang.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide reduced radiationless deactivation, enhanced photoluminescence efficiency, better sublimation, minimized self-quenching, and enhanced electron mobility, 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). Fluorine is specifically-exemplified and preferred substituent at the position corresponding to RA of Formula III. The substitution of hydrogen with fluorine at the position corresponding to RA of Formula III 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 Adamovich as modified by Wang.
PNG
media_image3.png
261
728
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The left ligand of the Compound of Adamovich as modified by Wang is not substituted by deuterium; however, Adamovich does teach the R groups of the first ligand of Adamovich can be deuterium ([0021], [0061]).
Kim discloses a deuterated Ir complex used as the luminescent material of an organic light emitting device ([0001]). Kim exemplifies the all the hydrogen atoms substituted to the aromatic and heteroaromatic rings of the left ligand of the complex are substituted by deuterium ([0045]).
Kim teaches that substitution of hydrogen with deuterium provides lower zero point energy, lower vibration energy, decreased van der Waals force, and reduced intermolecular collision, improved efficiency and thermal stability ([0021]-[0022]).
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 Adamovich as modified by Wang by substituting all the hydrogen atoms substituted to the left ligand of the complex with deuterium, as taught by Adamovich and Kim.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide lower zero point energy, lower vibration energy, decreased van der Waals force, and reduced intermolecular collision, improved efficiency and thermal stability base on the teaching of Kim.
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 as the R groups of the Formulas III and IV of Adamovich 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 Adamovich as modified by Wang and Kim which has identical structure as Compound of Adamovich as modified by Wang except the all the hydrogen atoms in the left ligand including the hydrogen atoms bonded to the benzene ring of the benzothieno group (i.e. the first fused ring moiety) and the rings A and B are substituted with deuterium, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9, 11-14, and 19.
Adamovich in view of Wang and Kim does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising the Compound of Adamovich as modified by Wang and Kim; however, Adamovich does teach that the second compound of Adamovich can be used as the emitter of an organic light emitting device ([0024], [0015]).
Adamovich teaches the structure of the organic light emitting device comprising an anode, an emissive layer (Compound H1 as a host, a second compound of Adamovich), and a cathode ([0156]). The Compound H1 of Adamovich comprises carbazole.
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 Adamovich as modified by Wang and Kim by incorporating it as the emitter of an organic light emitting device, as taught by Adamovich.
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 second compounds of Adamovich 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 Organic light emitting device of Adamovich as modified by Wang and Kim comprising an anode, an emissive layer (Compound H1 as a host, and Compound of Adamovich as modified by Wang and Kim as an emitter), and a cathode, meeting all the limitations of claims 17-18.
Adamovich does not disclose a specific consumer product comprising the Organic light emitting device of Adamovich as modified by Wang and Kim; however, Adamovich does teach a consumer product comprising the organic light emitting device of Adamovich ([0024]).
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 Organic light emitting device of Adamovich as modified by Wang and Kim by incorporating it into a consumer product, as taught by Adamovich.
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 organic light emitting devices in a consumer product 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 consumer product comprising the Organic light emitting device of Adamovich as modified by Wang and Kim, meeting all the limitations of claim 20.
Claims 1-4, 6-15, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2021/0355148 A1, hereafter Choi) in view of Kim et al. (US 2008/0194853 A1) and Zhang et al. (US 20200354391 A1, hereafter Zhang).
Regarding claims 1-4, 6-14, 17-18, and 20, Choi discloses a compound (Formula 1) used for an organic light emitting device ([0005]) wherein the ring CY1 of the Formula 1 can be Formula CY1-4 or CY1-5 ([0007]). Choi exemplifies Compounds 6 and 9 ([0169]).
PNG
media_image4.png
570
739
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The Compound 6 (or 9) has similar structure as Applicant’s Formula I. The only difference between two compounds is that the hydrogen atom of the Compound 6 (or 9) corresponding to the R11 of Formulas CY1-4 or CY1-5 substituted to the carbon at the position corresponding to X11 (i.e. the hydrogen pointed by an arrow in the figure above) is required to be deuterium; however, Choi does teach that R11 can be deuterium ([0013]).
Kim discloses a deuterated Ir complex used as the luminescent material of an organic light emitting device ([0001]).
Kim teaches that substitution of hydrogen with deuterium provides lower zero point energy, lower vibration energy, decreased van der Waals force, and reduced intermolecular collision, improved efficiency and thermal stability ([0021]-[0022]).
Zhang discloses an Ir complex comprising a phenyl isoquinoline ligand used for an organic light emitting device ([0018], [0164]).
PNG
media_image5.png
276
638
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Zhang teaches that substitution of the deuterium atom at the position 3 of the isoquinoline ring provides lower voltage, higher power efficiency, and longer lifetime to the organic light emitting device when the compound is used as the emitter of the device, otherwise same (Compare Embodiment 1 comprising Compound Ir(La126)2(Lb101) vs. Comparative Example 1 comprising Compound RD1 in Tables 1 and 2). Choi and Zhang are in the similar field of art, red phosphorescent Ir complex. Ir complex of Zhang having an isoquinoline ligand has a great similarity in structure and emission color as the Ir complex of Choi such that an ordinary skill in the art would expect similar advantages in the complex of Choi when the substitution of hydrogen with deuterium at the position 3 of the pyridine ring coordinating to the Ir occurs.
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 6 (or 9) of Choi by substituting the hydrogen at the position corresponding to the R11 of Formulas CY1-5 (or CY1-4) of Choi with deuterium, as taught by Choi, Kim and Zhang.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide lower zero point energy, lower vibration energy, decreased van der Waals force, and reduced intermolecular collision, improved efficiency and thermal stability based on the teaching of Kim, and provide lower voltage, higher power efficiency, and longer lifetime to the organic light emitting device comprising the compound based on the teaching of Zhang.
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 deuterium at R11 of Formulas CY-5 and CY-6 would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
PNG
media_image6.png
309
738
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Compound of Choi as modified by Kim and Zhang (1), meeting all the limitations of claims 1-4, 6-9, and 11-14.
The modification provides Compound of Choi as modified by Kim and Zhang (2), meeting all the limitations of claims 1-4, 6-7, and 9-14.
Choi does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising the Compound of Choi as modified by Kim and Zhang; however, Choi does teach that the compound of Choi can be used as the dopant of the emissive layer of an organic light emitting device ([0029]-[0030]).
Choi teaches the structure of the organic light emitting device comprising an anode, an emissive layer (Compound H52 as a host, a compound of Choi as a dopant), and a cathode (Example 1 in [0474]-[0477]). The Compound H52 of Choi comprises carbazole ([0477]).
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 Choi as modified by Kim and Zhang by incorporating it as the emitter of an organic light emitting device, as taught by Choi.
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 compounds of Choi in the device of Choi 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 Organic light emitting device of Choi as modified by Kim and Zhang comprising an anode, an emissive layer (a carbazole Compound H52 of Choi as a host, and Compound of Choi as modified by Kim and Zhang as a dopant), and a cathode, meeting all the limitations of claims 17-18.
Choi does not disclose a specific consumer product comprising the Organic light emitting device of Choi as modified by Kim and Zhang; however, Choi does teach that the organic light emitting device can be incorporated into a consumer product such as an illumination device ([0246]).
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 Organic light emitting device of Choi as modified by Kim and Zhang by incorporating it into a consumer product, as taught by Choi.
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 organic light emitting devices in a consumer product 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 consumer product comprising the Organic light emitting device of Choi as modified by Kim and Zhang, meeting all the limitations of claim 20.
Regarding claim 15, Choi discloses a compound (Formula 1) used for an organic light emitting device ([0005]) wherein the ring CY1 of the Formula 1 can be Formula CY1-4 ([0007]). Choi exemplifies Compound 9 ([0169]).
PNG
media_image7.png
398
723
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The Compound 9 of Choi has similar structure as Applicant’s specific embodiment of claim 15,
PNG
media_image8.png
158
307
media_image8.png
Greyscale
(the 9th compound on page 58).
The difference between two compounds is: 1) the phenyl at the position corresponding to CY12 is required to be biphenyl, 2) the hydrogen substituted to the carbon at the position corresponding to X15 is required to be methyl, 3) the hydrogen substituted to the carbon at the position corresponding to X11 is required to be deuterium, 4) the methyl group at the position corresponding to R23 is required to be t-butyl, and 5) the 1,1-dimehtyl-propyl group at the positions corresponding to R30a and R30b are each required to be 1-ethyl-1-methyl-propyl.
However, Choi does teach that: 1) the phenyl at the position corresponding to CY12 can be biphenyl ([0087], Formula 10-60); 2) the hydrogen substituted to the carbon at the position corresponding to X15 can be methyl (i.e. R15 at position X15 can be -CH3 in [0085]); 3) the hydrogen substituted to the carbon at the position corresponding to X11 can be deuterium (i.e. R11 at position X11 can be deuterium in [0085]); 4) the methyl group at the position corresponding to R23 can be t-butyl (see example compounds including at least compound 6 in [0169]); and 5) the 1,1-dimehtyl-propyl group at the positions corresponding to R30a and R30b can be 1-ethyl-1-methyl-propyl (see example compounds including at least compound 1 in [0169]).
Kim discloses a deuterated Ir complex used as the luminescent material of an organic light emitting device ([0001]).
Kim teaches that substitution of hydrogen with deuterium provides lower zero point energy, lower vibration energy, decreased van der Waals force, and reduced intermolecular collision, improved efficiency and thermal stability ([0021]-[0022]).
Zhang discloses an Ir complex comprising a phenyl isoquinoline ligand used for an organic light emitting device ([0018], [0164]).
PNG
media_image5.png
276
638
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Zhang teaches that substitution of the deuterium atom at the position 3 of the isoquinoline ring provides lower voltage, higher power efficiency, and longer lifetime to the organic light emitting device when the compound is used as the emitter of the device, otherwise same (Compare Embodiment 1 comprising Compound Ir(La126)2(Lb101) vs. Comparative Example 1 comprising Compound RD1 in Tables 1 and 2). Choi and Zhang are in the similar field of art, red phosphorescent Ir complex. Ir complex of Zhang having an isoquinoline ligand has a great similarity in structure and emission color as the Ir complex of Choi such that an ordinary skill in the art would expect similar advantages in the complex of Choi when the substitution of hydrogen with deuterium at the position 3 of the pyridine ring coordinating to the Ir occurs.
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 9 of Choi by substituting 1) the phenyl at the position corresponding to CY12 with biphenyl; 2) the hydrogen substituted to the carbon at the position corresponding to X15 with methyl; 3) the hydrogen substituted to the carbon at the position corresponding to X11 with deuterium; 4) the methyl group at the position corresponding to R23 with t-butyl; and 5) the 1,1-dimehtyl-propyl group at the positions corresponding to R30a and R30b with 1-ethyl-1-methyl-propyl, as taught by Choi, Kim, and Zhang
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide lower zero point energy, lower vibration energy, decreased van der Waals force, and reduced intermolecular collision, improved efficiency and thermal stability based on the teaching of Kim, and provide lower voltage, higher power efficiency, and longer lifetime to the organic light emitting device comprising the compound based on the teaching of Zhang.
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 biphenyl at the position corresponding to CY12; 2) the methyl substituted to the carbon at the position corresponding to X15; 3) the deuterium substituted to the carbon at the position corresponding to X11; 4) the t-butyl group at the position corresponding to R23; and 5) the 1-ethyl-1-methyl-propyl group at the positions corresponding to R30a and R30b are each specifically exemplified substituent groups. Each substitution among the exemplified substituent groups 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 Choi as modified by Kim and Zhang (3) which has identical structure as
PNG
media_image8.png
158
307
media_image8.png
Greyscale
(the 9th compound on page 58).
Claims 1-7, 9, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2021/0355148 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 Kim et al. (US 2008/0194853 A1).
Regarding claims 1-7, 9, and 11-14, Choi discloses a compound (Formula 1) used for an organic light emitting device ([0005]) wherein the ring CY1 of the Formula 1 can be Formula CY1-5 ([0007]). Choi exemplifies Compound 6 ([0169]).
PNG
media_image9.png
515
592
media_image9.png
Greyscale
The naphthalene ring of the left ligand of the Compound 6 of Cho (i.e. the part enclosed by a dashed circle in the figure above) is not a fluoro naphthalene; however, Choi does teach that R21 and R22 of Formula 1 can be hydrogen, alkyl, or fluorine ([0013]) and exemplifies Compound 16 ([0169]), wherein the naphthalene ring is a fluoro naphthalene
PNG
media_image10.png
126
115
media_image10.png
Greyscale
.
Wang teaches that conversion of C-H bond to C-F bond provides reduced radiationless deactivation, enhanced photoluminescence efficiency, better sublimation, minimized self-quenching, and enhanced electron mobility (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 6 of Choi by substituting the t-butyl naphthalene ring with a fluoro naphthalene ring, as taught by Choi and Wang.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide reduced radiationless deactivation, enhanced photoluminescence efficiency, better sublimation, minimized self-quenching, and enhanced electron mobility, 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). Both t-butyl naphthalene and fluoro naphthalene are specific examples of the bottom ring of the ligand of Formula 1 of Choi. The substitution of the naphthalene ring with a fluoro naphthalene ring in the compound of Formula 1 of Choi 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 Choi as modified by Wang.
PNG
media_image11.png
226
608
media_image11.png
Greyscale
The left ligand of the Compound of Choi as modified by Wang is not deuterated; however, Choi does teach that the hydrogen substituted to the R groups of the left ligand of Formula 1 can be deuterium ([0007]-[0028]).
Kim discloses a deuterated Ir complex used as the luminescent material of an organic light emitting device ([0001]). Kim exemplifies the all the hydrogen atoms substituted to the aromatic and heteroaromatic rings of the left ligand of the complex are substituted by deuterium ([0045]).
Kim teaches that substitution of hydrogen with deuterium provides lower zero point energy, lower vibration energy, decreased van der Waals force, and reduced intermolecular collision, improved efficiency and thermal stability ([0021]-[0022]).
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 Choi as modified by Wang by substituting all the hydrogen atoms substituted to the aromatic and heteroaromatic rings of the left ligand of the complex with deuterium, as taught by Choi, Wang, and Kim.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide lower zero point energy, lower vibration energy, decreased van der Waals force, and reduced intermolecular collision, improved efficiency and thermal stability base on the teaching of Kim.
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 deuterium at the substituent positions of Formula 1 of Choi 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 Choi as modified by Wang and Kim which has identical structure as Compound of Choi as modified by Wang except the all the hydrogen atoms in the left ligand including the hydrogen atoms bonded to the naphthalene ring are substituted with deuterium.
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 1-4, 6-9, 11-14, 17-18, and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 15, 18, and 20 of copending Application No. 17/404,311 (reference application, hereafter Application ‘311). 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 1-4, 6-9, 11-14, 17-18, and 20, Application ‘311 discloses a compound of Formula I (claim 1) and exemplifies a compound as shown below (claim 15) (hereafter Compound A).
PNG
media_image12.png
171
294
media_image12.png
Greyscale
The left ligand of the Compound A has identical structure as the Formula I of the instant claims, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-4, 6-9, and 11-14.
Application ‘311 does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising the Compound A; however, Application ‘311 does teach an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, an organic layer comprising the compound of Formula I, and a cathode, wherein the organic layer further comprises a host, dicarbazolyl dibenzothiophene (claim 18). The dicarbazolyl dibenzothiophene compound has identical structure as the first compound of the instant claim 19.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Compound A by incorporating it into the organic layer with dicarbazolyl dibenzothiophene host in the organic layer of an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, an organic layer, and a cathode, as taught by Application ‘311.
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 compounds 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 organic light emitting device of Patent ‘443 comprising an anode, an organic layer (dicarbazolyl dibenzothiophene as a host, Compound A), and a cathode, meeting all the limitations of claims 17-18.
Application ‘311 does not disclose a specific consumer product comprising the Modified organic light emitting device of Application ‘311; however, Application ‘311 does teach a consumer product comprising the organic light emitting device of Application ‘311 (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 Modified Organic light emitting device of Application ‘311 by incorporating it into a consumer product, as taught by Application ‘311.
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 organic light emitting devices in a consumer product 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 consumer product comprising the Modified organic light emitting device of Application ‘311, meeting all the limitations of claim 20.
Claims 1-15, 17-18, and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 16, 19, and 20 of copending Application No. 17/745,939 (reference application, hereafter Application ‘939). 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 1-15, 17-18, and 20, Application ‘939 discloses a compound of Formula I (claim 1) and exemplifies compounds (the second compound on page 319, hereafter Compound p319-2, the first compound on page 324, hereafter Compound p324-1) (claim 16).
PNG
media_image13.png
331
800
media_image13.png
Greyscale
The left ligand of the Compound p319-2 has identical structure as the Formula I of the instant claims, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-4 and 6-15.
The left ligand of the Compound p324-1 has identical structure as the Formula I of the instant claims, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-7, 9, and 11-14.
Application ‘939 does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising the Compound p319-2 or p324-1; however, Application ‘939 does teach an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, an organic layer comprising the compound of Formula I, and a cathode, wherein the organic layer further comprises a host, dicarbazolyl dibenzothiophene (claim 19). The dicarbazolyl dibenzothiophene compound has identical structure as the first compound of the instant claim 19.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Compound p319-2 (or p324-1) by incorporating it into the organic layer with dicarbazolyl dibenzothiophene host in the organic layer of an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, an organic layer, and a cathode, as taught by Application ‘939.
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 compounds 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 organic light emitting device of Patent ‘443 comprising an anode, an organic layer (dicarbazolyl dibenzothiophene as a host, Compound p319-2 (or p324-1)), and a cathode, meeting all the limitations of claims 17-18.
Application ‘939 does not disclose a specific consumer product comprising the Modified organic light emitting device of Application ‘939; however, Application ‘939 does teach a consumer product comprising the organic light emitting device of Application ‘939 (claim 17).
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 Modified Organic light emitting device of Application ‘939 by incorporating it into a consumer product, as taught by Application ‘939.
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 organic light emitting devices in a consumer product 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 consumer product comprising the Modified organic light emitting device of Application ‘939, meeting all the limitations of claim 20.
Claims 1-14 and 17-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 15, 19, and 20 of copending Application No. 17/669,864 (reference application, hereafter Application ‘864). 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 1-14 and 17-20, Application ‘864 discloses a compound of Formula I (claim 1) and exemplifies compounds (the second compound on page 263, hereafter Compound p263-2, the first compound on page 265, hereafter Compound p265-1) (claim 15).
PNG
media_image14.png
310
693
media_image14.png
Greyscale
The left ligand of the Compound p263-2 has identical structure as the Formula I of the instant claims, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-4 and 6-14.
The left ligand of the Compound p265-1 has identical structure as the Formula I of the instant claims, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-7, 9, and 11-14.
Application ‘864 does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising the Compound p263-2 or p265-1; however, Application ‘864 does teach an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, an organic layer comprising the compound of Formula I, and a cathode, wherein the organic layer further comprises a host, dicarbazolyl dibenzothiophene (claim 19). The dicarbazolyl dibenzothiophene compound has identical structure as the first compound of the instant claim 19.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Compound p263-2 (or p265-1) by incorporating it into the organic layer with dicarbazolyl dibenzothiophene host in the organic layer of an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, an organic layer, and a cathode, as taught by Application ‘864.
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 compounds 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 organic light emitting device of Patent ‘443 comprising an anode, an organic layer (dicarbazolyl dibenzothiophene as a host, Compound p263-2 (or p265-1)), and a cathode, meeting all the limitations of claims 17-19.
Application ‘864 does not disclose a specific consumer product comprising the Modified organic light emitting device of Application ‘864; however, Application ‘864 does teach a consumer product comprising the organic light emitting device of Application ‘864 (claim 17).
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 Modified Organic light emitting device of Application ‘864 by incorporating it into a consumer product, as taught by Application ‘864.
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 organic light emitting devices in a consumer product 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 consumer product comprising the Modified organic light emitting device of Application ‘864, meeting all the limitations of claim 20.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEOKMIN JEON whose telephone number is (571)272-4599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JENNIFER BOYD can be reached at (571)272-7783. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SEOKMIN JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights