DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Summary of Claims
Claims 1 and 14 are amended due to Applicant's amendment dated 04/27/2026. Claims 1-14, 17, and 19-20 are pending.
Response to Amendment
The objection to claim 1 as set forth in the previous Office Action is not overcome due to the Applicant's amendment dated 04/27/2026.
The rejection of claim 14 is under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention as set forth in the previous Office Action is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 04/27/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 8, 10-14, 17, and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 2015/0105556 A1) in view of Chen (US 2020/0216481 A1) is not overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 04/27/2026. The rejection is maintained.
The rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Chen and Tamaru (US 2009/0236974 A1) is not overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 04/27/2026. The rejection is maintained.
The rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Chen and Joo (US 2018/0118742 A1) is not overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 04/27/2026. The rejection is maintained.
The rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Chen and Yoon (English translation of KR 20180074644 A obtained by Google Patents) is not overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 04/27/2026. The rejection is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 26-31 of the reply dated 04/27/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-14, 17, and 19-20 as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument –On page 26, Applicant argues claim 1 is amended to include bigger and clearer representation of Formula A3-1.
Examiner's response –While the amended claim 1 includes a bigger Formula A3-1, the formula is not clearer. For this reason the objection to claim 1 is not overcome.
Applicant's argument –On pages 27-31, Applicant argues the inventive devices of Examples 1 to 5 achieve unexpected results with respect to T90 lifespan in comparison to the claimed Comparative Examples 5 to 6 (see Modified Table 3 in the Declaration filed 04/30/2026). Examples 1 to 5 comprise compounds BD1, BD4, BD8, BD10, and BD17, respectively, Comparative Example 5 comprises Compound C4 (corresponding to Li’s compound), and Comparative Example 6 comprises Compound C5 (corresponding to Chen’s compound). Applicant argues the unexpected results are due to the claimed specific combination of substituents.
PNG
media_image1.png
261
401
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
242
402
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
330
401
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
371
407
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
328
402
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
240
521
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Examiner's response –Overcoming a rejection based on unexpected results requires at least the combination of three different elements: (i) the results must fairly compare with the closest prior art in an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132, (ii) the claims must be commensurate in scope, and (iii) the results must truly be unexpected. MPEP 716.02. Additionally, the burden rests with Applicant to establish the results are unexpected and significant. MPEP 716.02(b).
Comparison with closest prior art
Applicant has not made a comparison to the closest prior art. The device examples of the Declaration filed 04/30/2026 comprise different device structure and materials than the devices of Li.
With respect to the device structure, Li teaches devices having the following structure and materials (¶ [0207]):
Anode: ITO
Hole injection layer: Compound A
Hole transport layer: Compound B
Electron blocking layer: Compound C
Emissive layer: Compound D doped with 10% compound represented by Formulas I or II
Electron transport layer: Compound G doped with 35% Compound F
Electron injection layer: Compound G
Cathode: Al
A:
PNG
media_image7.png
172
204
media_image7.png
Greyscale
B:
PNG
media_image8.png
250
330
media_image8.png
Greyscale
C:
PNG
media_image9.png
307
313
media_image9.png
Greyscale
D:
PNG
media_image10.png
129
285
media_image10.png
Greyscale
E:
PNG
media_image11.png
225
265
media_image11.png
Greyscale
F:
PNG
media_image12.png
222
263
media_image12.png
Greyscale
G:
PNG
media_image13.png
88
93
media_image13.png
Greyscale
The instant devices of the Declaration include the following (instant ¶ [00451]-[00454]):
Anode: ITO
Hole injection layer: 2-TNATA
Hole transport layer: NPB
Emission layer: mCBP and inventive compound in a weight ratio of 90:10
Hole blocking layer: TSPO1
Electron transport layer: Alq3
Electron injection layer: LiF
Cathode: LiF/Al
2-TNATA:
PNG
media_image14.png
375
383
media_image14.png
Greyscale
NPB:
PNG
media_image15.png
175
341
media_image15.png
Greyscale
As shown above, the devices of the Declaration contain both a different layer structure and different layer materials as compared to the device of Li. Applicant has not provided an explanation regarding this difference. It is unclear if the device comprising the same structure and materials of Li that also contain compounds of the claimed Formula 1 would obtain the results as discussed by Applicant.
As the devices of Applicant and the devices of Li comprise different structure and materials, a comparison is not being made to the closest prior art. Where the comparison is not identical with the reference disclosure, deviations therefrom should be explained, and if not explained should be noted and evaluated, and if significant, explanation should be required. MPEP 716.02(e).
Commensurate in Scope
As claims 1-9 claim a broad device structure including any materials but the devices discussed in Examples 1 to 5 only recite one specific device structure and materials (instant ¶ [00451]-[00454]), the claims are not commensurate in scope. For example, as discussed above, the prior art teaches different device structure and materials than the instant specification. The structures and materials discussed in the prior art are within the claim scope of the instant application. As there are no results comprising the structures and materials of the prior art, it is unclear if the same results discussed by Applicant would be present.
Additionally, the data shown in Modified Table 3 is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention for at least the reasons that the data is shown for the use of a compound in the emission layer of a device, whereas claims 10-14, 17, and 19-20 are directed to a compound. The improved properties of T90 lifespan are shown when the compound is used in a emission layer of an OLED and with a particular host material (mCBP). None of these limitations are required by claims 10-14, 17, and 19-20. No evidence has been provided to show that the unexpected results would be present for the use of the inventive compounds in other layers or with other host materials in the emission layer.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 includes Formula A3-1, which is small and blurry.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 10-14, 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 2015/0105556 A1) in view of Chen (US 2020/0216481 A1).
Regarding claims 1-4, 6, 8, 10-14, 17 and 19-20, Li teaches platinum compounds represented by Formulas I and II for use as emitters in an organic light-emitting diodes (OLED) (abstract). The OLED comprises an anode, a hole-transporting layer, a light-emitting layer including a host and the emitter represented by Formula I or II, an electron-transporting layer, and a cathode (¶ [0192]). Li teaches examples of compounds represented by Formulas I and II including the compound on page 297.
Formula I:
PNG
media_image16.png
162
169
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Li’s compound on pg. 297:
PNG
media_image17.png
138
232
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Li’s compound fails to read on the claimed Formula 1 as it does not comprise a substituent that reads on the claimed Formula 6-1. However, Li does teach Ra may be an unsubstituted alkyl (as shown in Li’s compound above), a substituted aryl group, deuterium, and combinations thereof, among others (¶ [0014]).
Chen teaches tetradentate platinum complexes having the structure of Formula I comprising specific substituents that allow for the tuning of physical properties, such as sublimation temperature, emission color, and device stability (abstract). The specific substituents are represented by Formula II (¶ [0017]). Examples of compounds represented by Chen’s Formula I include the compound below on pg. 115.
Formula I:
PNG
media_image18.png
195
219
media_image18.png
Greyscale
Formula II:
PNG
media_image19.png
75
166
media_image19.png
Greyscale
Chen’s compound:
PNG
media_image20.png
278
236
media_image20.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the methyl group in Li’s compound with a specific substituent as shown in Chen’s compound on pg. 115, based on the teaching of Chen. The motivation for doing so would have been to tune physical properties, such as sublimation temperature, emission color, and device stability, as taught by Chen.
The modified compound of Li in view of Chen reads on Chen’s Formula I wherein: M is Pt; ring B is a 6-membered heterocyclic ring, rings C and D are each a 6-membered carbocyclic ring; X1 and X3 are each C and X2 is N; Y1 to Y3 are each a direct bond; CA is a carbene carbon; L1 is NR’, L2 is O, and L3 is a direct bond; m and n are each 1; R is represented by Formula II, R’ is a substituent that combines with ring B, RA is a substituent that combines with ring A, and RB, RC, and RD are each hydrogen; [X] and rings E and F are each a 6-membered carbocyclic ring; and RE and RF are each a substituent (see Chen, ¶ [0017]). Accordingly, the modified compound of Li in view of Chen is expected to obtain the benefits of Chen.
The modified compound of Li in view of Chen has the structure below.
Formula 1:
PNG
media_image21.png
354
636
media_image21.png
Greyscale
Li in view of Chen:
PNG
media_image22.png
441
405
media_image22.png
Greyscale
The modified compound of Li in view of Chen reads on the claimed Formula 1 (claims 1 and 10) wherein:
M1 is Pt;
Y1 to Y3 are each C (claim 11);
A1 is a C7 heterocyclic group of benzimidazole, A2 is a C6 carbocyclic group of benzene, and A3 is a group represented by Formula A3-1 (claim 13);
Z31 to Z33 are each C;
the A4-A5 moiety is represented by Formula A4-1;
B1 to B4 are each a chemical bond (claim 12);
L1 and L3 are each a single bond, and L2 is *-O-*’;
a1 to a3 are each 1;
R1 is a group represented by Formula 6-1, and R2, R41 to R43, and R51 to R54 are each hydrogen;
wherein in Formula 6-1, Z71 and Z72 are each a phenyl group substituted with deuterium, and Z73 to Z75 are each hydrogen; and
b1 is 1 and b2 to b3 are each 3.
Additionally, A1 is a group represented by Formula A1-15 and A2 is a group represented by Formula A2-1 (claim 14); R1 is a terphenyl group substituted with deuterium (claim 17); Li’s compound reads on the claimed Formula 1B wherein X11 to X14 are each C(H) and R15 is represented by Formula 6-1 (claim 19), and reads on the claimed Formula 1B-1 wherein R15 is represented by Formula 6-1, R21 to R23, are each hydrogen, and X31 to X33 are each C(H) (claim 20).
With respect to claim 6, Li in view of Chen appear silent with respect to the property of the light-emitting layer emitting blue light having a maximum emission wavelength in a range of about 430 nm to about 490 nm.
The instant specification recites that an emission layer including the organometallic compound represented by the instant Formula 1 emits blue light having a maximum emission wavelength in a range of about 430 nm to about 490 nm (instant ¶ [0032] and [00176]). Examples of the organometallic compound represented by the instant Formula 1 include the instant compounds BD8, BD9, and BD17 (see instant pg. 31). Additionally, the instant specification recites the instant compound BD8 has a maximum emission wavelength of 459 nm and the instant compound BD17 has a maximum emission wavelength of 455 nm (see instant Table 3 on pg. 113). Since Li in view of Chen teach the modified compound, which is identical in structure to the instant BD9 and substantially identical in structure to the instant compounds BD8 and BD17, the property of the light-emitting layer emitting blue light having a maximum emission wavelength in a range of about 430 nm to about 490 nm is considered to be inherent (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 8, although the instant claim is drawn to an apparatus, the only positive limitation of the claimed apparatus is organic light-emitting device of claim 1. Claim 8 does not add any further structural or functional limitations to the device and/or organometallic compound. Li in view of Chen teach the organic light emitting device according to claim 1, as described above, and does not include any components that would make it unfit for use as an apparatus. Therefore, the OLED of Li in view of Chen according to claim 1 may be considered an apparatus.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 2015/0105556 A1) in view of Chen (US 2020/0216481 A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Tamaru (US 2009/0236974 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Li in view of Chen teach the OLED of claim 4 including the modified compound of Li in view of Chen, as described above.
While Li teaches the light-emitting layer may include a host material (¶ [0192]), Li fails to teach the light-emitting layer includes a host material and Li’s modified compound, wherein the content of Li’s modified compound is in a range of about 0.01 parts to about 49.99 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the light-emitting layer.
Tamaru teaches an organic EL device comprising a light emission layer containing two or more kinds of host compounds and at least one phosphorescent dopant, wherein at least one of the two or more kinds of host compounds has an excited triplet energy of not less than 2.7 eV, and the two or more kinds of host compounds are represented by Formula (1) (¶ [0017]-[0019]). Tamaru teaches an organic EL device as described above has high emission luminance, high emission efficiency, high color purity, and high durability (¶ [0016]-[0019]).
Tamaru teaches the phosphorescent dopant is preferably a platinum complex (¶ [0111]) and the content in the light emission layer of the phosphorescent dopant is preferably lower than that of the host compound (¶ [0109]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the light-emitting layer two or more kinds of host compounds represented by Tamaru’s Formula (1), wherein the host compounds are present in a higher content than that of the modified compound, and wherein at least one of the host compounds has an excited triplet energy of not less than 2.7 eV, based on the teaching of Tamaru. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device having high emission luminance, high emission efficiency, high color purity, and high durability, as taught by Tamaru.
As the light-emitting layer of Li in view of Chen and Tamaru comprises two kinds of host compounds and the modified compound of Li in view of Chen as a phosphorescent dopant, and the host compounds are present in a higher content than the modified compound, a content of the modified compound in the light-emitting layer is expected to fall within the claimed range.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 2015/0105556 A1) in view of Chen (US 2020/0216481 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Joo (US 2018/0118742 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Li in view of Chen teach the OLED including an electron-transporting layer, as described above with respect to claim 2.
Li in view of Chen fail to teach the electron-transporting layer includes a phosphine oxide-containing compound.
Joo teaches an organic light emitting diode including an organic compound represented by the formula below (¶ [0007]). When an electron transport layer includes the organic compound, electrons are efficiently transported or injected into the emission layer, resulting in reduced driving voltage and improved lifetime and efficiency (¶ [0144]). As seen from the formula, the organic compound includes a phosphine oxide moiety (¶ [0144]).
PNG
media_image23.png
119
201
media_image23.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a compound of Joo’s Formula in the electron-transporting layer of the OLED of Li in view of Chen to reduce driving voltage and improve lifetime efficiency, as taught by Joo.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 2015/0105556 A1) in view of Chen (US 2020/0216481 A1) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Yoon (English translation of KR 20180074644 A obtained by Google Patents).
Regarding claim 9, Li in view of Chen teach the OLED as described above with respect to claim 8.
Li in view of Chen fail to teach wherein the OLED further includes a color conversion layer or color filter layer.
Yoon teaches an organic light emitting diode display device that can efficiently prevent external light reflection (abstract). This device comprises a first substrate 210 that includes a white pixel region, a red pixel region, a green pixel region, and a blue pixel region, and a second substrate 260 facing the first substrate (first half of pg. 3, first half of pg. 4, and Fig. 4). A color filter layer 220 is located between the organic light emitting diode 240 and the first substrate 210, and corresponds to the red, green, and blue pixel regions (middle of pg. 4, and see Fig. 4). An antireflective layer 230 includes a color conversion pattern 232, which is located between the first substrate 210 and organic light emitting diode (bottom of pg. 4, and see Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further provide in the device of Li in view of Chen a substrate comprising a white pixel region, a red pixel region, a green pixel region, and a blue pixel region, and to further provide in the device a second substrate, a color filter layer located between the device and the substrate, and an antireflective layer including a color conversion pattern located between the substrate and the device, as shown in Yoon’s Fig. 4. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device that can efficiently prevent external light reflection, as taught by Yoon.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRAELYN R WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Boyd can be reached on 571-272-7783. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRAELYN R WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights