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 .
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)).
Upon further consideration, the Examiner partially withdraws the requirement of election of species to identify atoms at X1 through X4. It turns out there is no search burden for the subspecies having different definitions at the positions X1 through X4.
Applicant’s election filed in the reply of 6/26/2025 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Claim 16 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group.
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 10 and 14 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.
Regarding claim 10, Applicant claims LISTs 1 to 4 in the claim 10. However, there is no definitions of the LISTs 1 to 4 are provided. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purpose of prosecution, the Examiner interprets the limitation to refer to the definitions of LISTs 1 to 4 on page 15-30 of the instant specification.
Regarding claim 14, Applicant claims LISTs 5-7 in the claim 14. However, there is no definitions of the LISTs 5-7 are provided. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purpose of prosecution, the Examiner interprets the limitation to refer to the definitions of LISTs 5 to 7 on page 36-65 of the instant specification.
Claims 1-15 and 17-20 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.
Regarding claims 1, 17, and 20, Applicant recites “wherein at least one 6-membered ring carbon that is part of Ring A, Ring B, or a fused ring system comprising Ring A or Ring B is substituted with deuterium”.
When a ring is substituted with deuterium, it is unclear whether the claim requires at least one of the ring carbon atoms to have a direct bond with a deuterium atom (i.e. deuterium is a primary substituent), or whether the claim limitation is met if the ring carbon atom is substituted by a substituent comprising a deuterium atom. The latter definition includes a ring wherein the ring carbon atom is substituted by a primary substituent and the primary substituent is further substituted by deuterium (i.e. deuterium is a secondary substituent). For example, it is unclear whether a compound having a ligand LA of Formula 1 of the instant claim 1, wherein the ring A is benzene and R1 is -CD3.
For the purpose of prosecution, the Examiner interprets the limitation to mean that wherein at least one 6-membered ring carbon that is part of Ring A, Ring B, or a fused ring system comprising Ring A or Ring B has a direct bond with a deuterium atom. For example, a compound having a ligand LA of Formula 1 of the instant claim 1, wherein the ring A is benzene and R1 is -CD3 does not read on the limitation.
Regarding claims 2-15 and 18-19, claims 2-15 and 18-19 are rejection due to the dependency from claims 1 and 17.
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 1-4, 6-15, 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 Kim et al. (US 2008/0194853 A1, hereafter Kim) and Zhang et al. (US 20200354391 A1, hereafter Zhang).
Regarding claims 1-4, 6-15, 17-18, and 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
299
746
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Compound p17-9 has similar structure as Applicant’s Formula I, specifically, the 9th exemplary compound on page 126 (hereafter Applicant’s Compound p126-9). The only difference between two compounds is that the hydrogen atom of the Compound p17-9 corresponding to the RB of Formula III substituted to the carbon at the position corresponding to Z1 (i.e. the hydrogen pointed by an arrow in the figure above) is required to be deuterium; however, Adamovich does teach that RB can be a general substituent ([0020]). Adamovich exemplifies deuterium as the general substituent ([0061]).
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_image2.png
276
638
media_image2.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). Adamovich 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 Adamovich such that an ordinary skill in the art would expect similar advantages in the complex of Adamovich 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 p17-9 of Adamovich by substituting the hydrogen at the position corresponding to the Z1 of Formula III of Adamovich with deuterium, as taught by Adamovich, 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 base don 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). Deuterium is one of exemplary substituents at the RB of Formula III substituted at the position corresponding to the Z1 of the Formula III. The substitution of hydrogen with deuterium at RB 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 Kim and Zhang, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-4 and 6-15.
PNG
media_image3.png
229
699
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Adamovich does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising the Compound of Adamovich as modified by Kim and Zhang; 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 Kim and Zhang 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 Kim and Zhang comprising an anode, an emissive layer (Compound H1 as a host, and Compound of Adamovich as modified by Kim and Zhang 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 Kim and Zhang; 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 Kim and Zhang 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 Kim and Zhang, meeting all the limitations of claim 20.
Regarding claim 19, the Organic light emitting device of Adamovich as modified by Kim and Zhang reads on all the features of claim 17 as outlined above.
The device comprises an anode, an emissive layer (Compound H1 as a host, and Compound of Adamovich as modified by Kim and Zhang as an emitter), and a cathode.
The device does not a second host; however, Adamovich does teach that an additional host material can be used ([0136]; H-transporting cohost in [0156] and Table 2).
Adamovich exemplifies a bicarbazolyl compound which has identical structure as Applicant’s compound of claim 19 ([0141], page 54).
PNG
media_image4.png
222
358
media_image4.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 Organic light emitting device of Adamovich as modified by Kim and Zhang by incorporating the bicarbazolyl compound of Adamovich as an additional host, 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 modification provides Organic light emitting device of Adamovich as modified by Kim and Zhang (2) comprising an anode, an emissive layer (Compound H1 as a host, bicarbazolyl compound of Adamovich as a host, and Compound of Adamovich as modified by Kim and Zhang as an emitter), and a cathode.
Claims 1-7, 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) in view of Kim et al. (US 2008/0194853 A1).
Regarding claims 1-7, 9, 11-14, 17-18, and 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
299
746
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The benzo thieno pyrimidine ring of the left ligand of the Compound p17-9 of Adamovich is not substituted by deuterium; however, Adamovich does teach substituents at the positions corresponding to the RB and RC 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 p17-9 of Adamovich 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 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 with deuterium at the positions corresponding to RB and RC of 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 Kim and Zhang (2) which has identical structure as Compound of Adamovich as modified by Kim and Zhang except the all the hydrogen atoms in the left ligand including the hydrogen atoms bonded to the benzo thieno pyrimidine ring are substituted with deuterium, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-7, 9, 11-14.
Adamovich does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising the Compound of Adamovich as modified by 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 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 Kim comprising an anode, an emissive layer (Compound H1 as a host, and Compound of Adamovich as modified by 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 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 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 Kim, meeting all the limitations of claim 20.
Regarding claim 19, the Organic light emitting device of Adamovich as modified by Kim reads on all the features of claim 17 as outlined above.
The device comprises an anode, an emissive layer (Compound H1 as a host, and Compound of Adamovich as modified by Kim as an emitter), and a cathode.
The device does not a second host; however, Adamovich does teach that an additional host material can be used ([0136]; H-transporting cohost in [0156] and Table 2).
Adamovich exemplifies a bicarbazolyl compound which has identical structure as Applicant’s compound of claim 19 ([0141], page 54).
PNG
media_image4.png
222
358
media_image4.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 Organic light emitting device of Adamovich as modified by Kim by incorporating the bicarbazolyl compound of Adamovich as an additional host, 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 modification provides Organic light emitting device of Adamovich as modified by Kim (2) comprising an anode, an emissive layer (Compound H1 as a host, bicarbazolyl compound of Adamovich as a host, and Compound of Adamovich as modified by Kim as an emitter), and a cathode.
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 1-14 and 17-20 are rejected 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). 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, Patent ‘488 discloses a compound of Formula I (claim 1) and exemplifies compounds (the fifth compound in column 515, hereafter Compound c515-5, the first compound on column 553, hereafter Compound c553-1) (claim 20).
PNG
media_image5.png
316
851
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The left ligand of the Compound c515-5 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 c553-1 has identical structure as the Formula I of the instant claims, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-7, 9, and 11-14.
Patent ‘448 does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising the Compound c515-5 or c553-1; however, Patent ‘448 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 16). 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 c515-5 (or c553-1) 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 Patent ‘448.
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 c515-5 (or c553-1)), and a cathode, meeting all the limitations of claims 17-19.
Patent ‘448 does not disclose a specific consumer product comprising the Modified organic light emitting device of Patent ‘448; however, Patent ‘448 does teach a consumer product comprising the organic light emitting device of Patent ‘448 (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 patent ‘448 by incorporating it into a consumer product, as taught by Patent ‘448.
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 Patent ‘448, meeting all the limitations of claim 20.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-14, and 17-20 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, and 17-20, Application ‘311 discloses a compound of Formula I (claim 1) and exemplifies a compound (the third compound on page 237, hereafter Compound p237-3) (claim 15).
PNG
media_image6.png
178
578
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The left ligand of the Compound p237-3 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 p237-3; 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 p237-3 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 p237-3), and a cathode, meeting all the limitations of claims 17-19.
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 and 17-20 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 and 17-20, 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_image7.png
331
800
media_image7.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 17-19.
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_image8.png
310
693
media_image8.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
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