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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/21/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 10/27/2025 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 4-7 has been canceled.
Claims 1-6 and 8-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 10, 13, and 15 have been amended.
The cancellation of claims 4-6 obviates the rejections of claims 4-6.
The amendments of claims 1, 10, 13, and 15 have overcome:
the rejections of claims 1-3, 8-14, and 16-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al. (US 2007/0237981 A1, hereafter Shen) in view of Boerner et al. (US 2010/0127215 A1, hereafter Boerner),
the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al. (US 2007/0237981 A1) in view of Boerner et al. (US 2010/0127215 A1) as applied to claims 1-3, 8-14, and 16-19 above, further in view of Pang et al. (“A full-color, low-power, wearable display for mobile applications”, SPIE, 03/29/2012, hereafter Pang)
rejections of claims 1-3 and 8-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2019/0326527 A1, hereafter Choi) in view of Shang et al. (“DFT/TDDFT study on the electronic structures and optoelectronic properties of a series of iridium(III) complexes based on quinoline derivatives in OLEDs”, J. Phys. Org. Chem. 2013, vol. 26, page 784-790, hereafter Shang), and
the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2019/0326527 A1) in view of Shang et al. (“DFT/TDDFT study on the electronic structures and optoelectronic properties of a series of iridium(III) complexes based on quinoline derivatives in OLEDs”, J. Phys. Org. Chem. 2013, vol. 26, page 784-790) as applied to claims 1-3 and 8-19 above, further in view of Pang et al. (“A full-color, low-power, wearable display for mobile applications”, SPIE, 03/29/2012) set forth in the last Office Action.
The rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see page 28-30 of the reply filed 10/27/2025 regarding the rejections of claims 1-3, 8-14, and 16-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen/Boerner, and the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen/Boerner/Pang set forth in the Office Action of 04/08/2025 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the amended claims are nonobvious over the combination of Shen and Boerner.
The rejections refer to the Compound of Shen as modified by Boerner (see section 49 of the last Office Action), which does not read on the limitation of Formula 1 of the amended claims. Thus, the rejections are withdrawn.
However, the reference by Shen can still be applicable in combination of other teaching reference.
Shen discloses an organometallic compound (Formula (I) in [0005]) used for an organic light emitting device ([0001]) and exemplifies Compound 1 ([0019]).
PNG
media_image1.png
263
510
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In the Compound 1 of Shen, the phenyl group at the position corresponding to the A2 of the Formula (I) of Shen is phenyl which does not read on the limitation of the instant claims; however, Shen does teach that the A2 can be a substituted or non-substituted aryl group ([0005]).
Kurotaki discloses a perylene-containing metal complex used as the emitter of an organic light emitting device ([0005]-[0007], [0019]).
Kurotaki teaches a perylene skeleton provides high fluorescence quantum efficiency, high color purity, and excellent thermal resistance ([0010]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound 1 of Shen by substituting the phenyl group at the position corresponding to A2 of Formula (I) of Shen with perylene, as taught by Shen and Kurotaki.
PNG
media_image2.png
308
497
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In the Compound of Shen as modified by Kurotaki, the ligand at the position corresponding to the A3 of Formula (I) of Shen is acetylacetonate which does not read on the limitation of claim 9; however, Shen does teach that the ligand at the A3 can be a picolinic acid ligand ([0011]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound of Shen as modified by Kurotaki by substituting the acetylacetonate ligand with a picolinic acid ligand as taught by Shen.
PNG
media_image3.png
350
541
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Compound of Shen as modified by Kurotaki (2).
It should be noted that the perylene moiety reads on the phenanthrene moiety of Applicant’s Formula 11-2, wherein R21 through R24 can be each an alkenyl group; and the groups at R21 and R22 and the groups at R23 and R24 are each bound to form a carbocyclic group (i.e. benzene). The instant specification recites “at least two of R21 to R28 are optionally bound to form a carbocyclic group (page 2, par. 2) such that the claim is interpreted in the broadest reasonable manner (BRI). The instant claim 1 recites “R22 and R23 are not bound to form a substituted or unsubstituted C5-C30 carbocyclic group”, which does not prevent bounding between R21 and R22, and between R23 and R24.
New grounds of rejections are applied.
Applicant’s arguments see page 30-34 of the reply filed 10/27/2025 regarding the rejections of claims 1-3 and 8-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi/Shang, and the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi/Shang/Pang set forth in the Office Action of 04/08/2025 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the organometallic compounds of Formula 1 provide unexpected results over the comparative compositions (such as those of Choi) (page 31-34).
Respectfully, the Examiner does not agree.
Applicant argues that the inventive OLED devices (Examples 1-3) comprising Compounds 5, 25, and 13 provides lower driving voltage, lower roll-off ratio, and longer lifetime than the comparative OLED devices (Comparative Examples 3-4) comprising Compound C and D.
It is unclear the data supports unexpected results at least for the following reasons.
First, a direct comparison between any of the comparative compounds C and D and any of the inventive compounds 5, 25, and 13 cannot be made. That is to say, the structure of Compound C (or D) and that of the exemplary compound 5 (or 25 or 13) differs by such an extent that the effect of the modification at issue (the substitution of dimethyl benzene with phenanthrene) cannot be isolated. Accordingly, it is unclear to what degree the substitution alone causes changes in driving voltage, roll-off ratio, and lifetime of the device. For instance, Compound 13 differs from Compound D in that loss of the t-butyl group, change of the beta ketonate ligand, and substitution of the dimethyl benzene with phenanthrene. It is unclear whether substitution of dimethyl benzene with phenanthrene alone provides low driving voltage, low roll-off ratio, and long lifetime of the device.
Moreover, the data is not commensurate in scope with the claims. For instance, one of the multiple differences between inventive compound 13 and the comparative compound D is the structures of the beta ketonate ligands. The reason why the OLED comprising the compound 13 (i.e. Example 3) has improved properties than the comparative OLED comprising the compound D (i.e. Comparative Example 4) is not necessarily because the dimethyl benzene is replaced by phenanthrene, but because the beta ketonate ligand is changed. The instant claims do not require the beta ketonate ligand to be same as that of the compound 13.
Similarly, the inventive compound 13 differs from the comparative compound D in the structures of the R13 of Applicant’s Formula 11-1. The reason why the OLED comprising the compound 13 (i.e. Example 3) has improved properties than the comparative OLED comprising the compound D (i.e. Comparative Example 4) is not necessarily because the dimethyl benzene is replaced by phenanthrene, but because the structure at the position corresponding to R13 is changed. The instant claims do not require the R13 to be an unsubstituted phenyl. Thus, the result is not commensurate in scope with the claims.
Thus, the result is not commensurate in scope with the claims.
With respect to the commensurate in scope with claimed invention, the Examiner points out MPEP 716.02(d), as recited below.
Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range.
In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980) (Claims were directed to a process for removing corrosion at "elevated temperatures" using a certain ion exchange resin (with the exception of claim 8 which recited a temperature in excess of 100C). Appellant demonstrated unexpected results via comparative tests with the prior art ion exchange resin at 110C and 130C. The court affirmed the rejection of claims 1-7 and 9-10 because the term "elevated temperatures" encompassed temperatures as low as 60C where the prior art ion exchange resin was known to perform well. The rejection of claim 8, directed to a temperature in excess of 100C, was reversed.). See also In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329-31, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-85 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (data showing improved alloy strength with the addition of 2% rhenium did not evidence unexpected results for the entire claimed range of about 1-3% rhenium); In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 741, 218 USPQ 769, 777 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (Claims were directed to certain catalysts containing an alkali metal. Evidence presented to rebut an obviousness rejection compared catalysts containing sodium with the prior art. The court held this evidence insufficient to rebut the prima facie case because experiments limited to sodium were not commensurate in scope with the claims.).
Second, the fact that Applicant has recognized another advantage (i.e. low driving voltage, low roll-off ratio, and long lifetime of the device) which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art (i.e. rigid skeletal structure, more conjugated extension (page 787, col. 1, line 21-23), small ionization potential value, and increased hole injection ability from hole transporting layer to the HOMO level of the dopants (page 789, col. 1, line 24-27)) cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
For at least these reasons, the arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amended claims are allowable.
The rejections refer to the Compound of Choi as modified by Shang (see section 76 of the last Office Action). The acetylacetonate ligand of the compound does not read on the limitation of Formula 2-1 of the amended claims. For that reason the rejections are withdrawn.
However, Choi does teach the ancillary ligand is represented by Formula 3-111 ,
PNG
media_image4.png
125
133
media_image4.png
Greyscale
([0131]), wherein Z11 and Z13 can be a substituted or unsubstituted C1-C60 alkyl ([0133], [0022]).
Boudreault discloses an Ir complex comprising an acetylacetonate ligand of Formula I and used for an organic light emitting device ([0015], [0002]) and exemplifies ligand LA1 ([0041]).
PNG
media_image5.png
300
567
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Boudreault teaches that the device comprising an Ir complex containing the ligand LA1 provides smaller FWHM, lower voltage and higher luminous, external quantum, and power efficiencies than the comparative device comprising an acetylacetonate ligand (Compare Example 1 comprising Compound 8 with the Comparative Example 1 comprising Comparative Compound 1 in [0073]-[0076] and Table 3).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound of Choi as modified by Shang by substituting the acetylacetonate ligand with the ligand LA1 of Boudreault, as taught by Choi and Boudreault.
The modification provides Compound of Choi as modified by Shang and Boudreault.
PNG
media_image6.png
274
621
media_image6.png
Greyscale
New grounds of rejections are applied.
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 1-3 and 8-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2019/0326527 A1, hereafter Choi) in view of Shang et al. (“DFT/TDDFT study on the electronic structures and optoelectronic properties of a series of iridium(III) complexes based on quinoline derivatives in OLEDs”, J. Phys. Org. Chem. 2013, vol. 26, page 784-790, hereafter Shang) and Boudreault et al. (US 2015/0001472 A1, hereafter Boudreault).
Regarding claims 1-3, 8, and 10-19, Choi discloses an organometallic compound of M(L1)n1(L2)n2, wherein L1 is a ligand of Formula 2 ([0008]-[0033]) used for an organic light emitting device ([0006]) and exemplifies Compound 6 ([0019]).
Choi exemplifies an organic light emitting device (Example 3 in [0279]-[0283] and Table 4) comprising a first electrode (anode, ITO), a hole transport layer (NPB), an emission layer (Compound 6 as a dopant and CBP as a host with weight ratio 2:98), an electron transport layer (Alq3), and a second electrode (cathode, Mg/Ag).
PNG
media_image7.png
285
604
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The Compound 6 of Choi has similar structure as Applicant’s Compound 13 of claim 15,
PNG
media_image8.png
134
188
media_image8.png
Greyscale
. The dimethyl phenyl group at the position corresponding to CY21 of the Formula 2 of Choi is required to be phenanthrene; however, Choi does teach that the ring CY21 can be phenanthrene ([0055]).
Shang discloses an Ir complex comprising phenanthrene in the ligand of the complex (Complex 6 in Fig. 1).
Shang teaches that the phenanthrene containing complex of Shang provides rigid skeletal structure, more conjugated extension (page 787, col. 1, line 21-23), small ionization potential value, and increased hole injection ability from hole transporting layer to the HOMO level of the dopants (page 789, col. 1, line 24-27).
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 dimethyl phenyl group at the position corresponding to the CY21 of Formula 2 of Choi with phenanthrene, as taught by Choi and Shang.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide rigid skeletal structure, more conjugated extension, small ionization potential value, and increased hole injection ability from hole transporting layer to the HOMO level of the dopants, based on the teaching of Shang.
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). A phenanthrene group is one of exemplified structures at the position corresponding to the CY21 of Formula 2 of Choi. The substitution of dimethyl phenyl with phenanthrene at the position corresponding to the CY21 of Formula 2 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 Shang.
PNG
media_image9.png
231
486
media_image9.png
Greyscale
The acetylacetonate ancillary ligand differs from the ancillary ligand of Applicant’s Compound 13 of claim 15; however, Choi does teach the ancillary ligand is represented by Formula 3-111 ,
PNG
media_image4.png
125
133
media_image4.png
Greyscale
([0131]), wherein Z11 and Z13 can be a substituted or unsubstituted C1-C60 alkyl ([0133], [0022]).
Boudreault discloses an Ir complex comprising an acetylacetonate ligand of Formula I and used for an organic light emitting device ([0015], [0002]) and exemplifies ligand LA1 ([0041]).
PNG
media_image5.png
300
567
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Boudreault teaches that the device comprising an Ir complex containing the ligand LA1 provides smaller FWHM, lower voltage and higher luminous, external quantum, and power efficiencies than the comparative device comprising an acetylacetonate ligand (Compare Example 1 comprising Compound 8 with the Comparative Example 1 comprising Comparative Compound 1 in [0073]-[0076] and Table 3).
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 Shang by substituting the acetylacetonate ligand with the ligand LA1 of Boudreault, as taught by Choi and Boudreault.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide smaller FWHM, lower voltage and higher luminous, external quantum, and power efficiencies based on the teaching of Boudreault.
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 the ancillary ligands represented by Formula 3-111 of Choi 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
274
621
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Compound of Choi as modified by Shang and Boudreault which has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1 and Applicant’s Compound 13, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-3, 8, and 10-15.
The modification also provides Organic light emitting device of Choi as modified by Shang and Boudreault comprising a first electrode (anode, ITO), a hole transport layer (NPB), an emission layer (Compound of Choi as modified by Shang and Boudreault as a dopant and CBP as a host with weight ratio 2:98), an electron transport layer (Alq3), and a second electrode (cathode, Mg/Ag), wherein the hole transport layer, the emission layer, and the electron transport layer are an organic layer, meeting all the limitations of claims 16-19.
Regarding claims 9 and 12, the Compound of Choi as modified by Shang and Boudreault reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
In the Compound of Choi as modified by Shang and Boudreault, the ligand at the position corresponding to L2 of Formula 1 of Choi is acetylacetonate which does not read on the limitation of claim 9; however, Choi does teach that the ligand L2 can be a picolinic acid ([0116] and 3-118 in [0131]).
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 Shang and Boudreault by substituting the acetylacetonate ligand with a picolinic acid ligand 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 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 Shang and Boudreault (2) which has identical structure as the Compound of Choi as modified by Shang and Boudreault except that the acetylacetonate ligand is substituted by a picolinic acid ligand which has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 22-1.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2019/0326527 A1) in view of Shang et al. (“DFT/TDDFT study on the electronic structures and optoelectronic properties of a series of iridium(III) complexes based on quinoline derivatives in OLEDs”, J. Phys. Org. Chem. 2013, vol. 26, page 784-790) and Boudreault et al. (US 2015/0001472 A1) as applied to claims 1-3 and 8-19 above, further in view of Pang et al. (“A full-color, low-power, wearable display for mobile applications”, SPIE, 03/29/2012, hereafter Pang).
Regarding claim 20, the Organic light emitting device of Choi as modified by Shang and Boudreault reads on all the features of claim 16 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode (anode, ITO), a hole transport layer (NPB), an emission layer (Compound of Choi as modified by Shang and Boudreault as a dopant and CBP as a host with weight ratio 2:98), an electron transport layer (Alq3), and a second electrode (cathode, Mg/Ag),
Choi in view of Shang does not disclose a specific display device comprising the Organic light emitting device of Choi as modified by Shang and Boudreault.
Pang discloses a display device (“flexible active matrix OLED display” in Fig. 3) comprising an organic light emitting device (“C: OLED” in Fig. 3).
Pang teaches the display device provide a full-color, low-power, wearable display for mobile application (title and abstract).
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 Shang and Boudreault by incorporating it into a display device, as taught by Choi, Shang, and Pang.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide a full-color, low-power, wearable display for mobile application based on the teaching of Pang.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material and method to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the organic light emitting devices in a display device 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 Display device of Choi as modified by Shang and Boudreault and Pang comprising the Organic light emitting device of Choi as modified by Shang and Boudreault, wherein the display device is an electronic apparatus.
Claims 1-3, 8, and 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2017/0155065 A1, hereafter Lin) in view of Shang et al. (“DFT/TDDFT study on the electronic structures and optoelectronic properties of a series of iridium(III) complexes based on quinoline derivatives in OLEDs”, J. Phys. Org. Chem. 2013, vol. 26, page 784-790, hereafter Shang) and Boudreault et al. (US 2015/0001472 A1).
Regarding claims 1-3, 8, and 10-19, Lin discloses a compound (Formula I in [0006]) used for an organic light emitting device ([0002]) and exemplifies Compound 17 ([0112]).
PNG
media_image10.png
279
587
media_image10.png
Greyscale
The Compound 17 of Lin has similar structure as Applicant’s Compound 7 of claim 15,
PNG
media_image11.png
144
174
media_image11.png
Greyscale
. The Compound 17 of Lin has substituents hydrogen and methyl at the positions corresponding to R3 and R4 of Formula I of Lin, which does not read on the limitation of the instant claims; however, Lin does teach that R3 and R4 can be attached to each other to form an aryl group ([0007]).
Shang discloses an Ir complex comprising phenanthrene in the ligand of the complex (Complex 6 in Fig. 1).
Shang teaches that the phenanthrene containing complex of Shang provides rigid skeletal structure, more conjugated extension (page 787, col. 1, line 21-23), small ionization potential value, and increased hole injection ability from hole transporting layer to the HOMO level of the dopants (page 789, col. 1, line 24-27).
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 methyl phenyl group corresponding to
PNG
media_image12.png
111
121
media_image12.png
Greyscale
of Formula I of Lin with a phenanthrene group, as taught by Lin and Shang.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide rigid skeletal structure, more conjugated extension, small ionization potential value, and increased hole injection ability from hole transporting layer to the HOMO level of the dopants, based on the teaching of Shang.
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 the methyl phenyl group with phenanthrene at the position corresponding to the
PNG
media_image12.png
111
121
media_image12.png
Greyscale
of Formula I of Lin 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 Shang.
PNG
media_image13.png
295
569
media_image13.png
Greyscale
The acetylacetonate ancillary ligand of the resultant compound differs from the ancillary ligand of Applicant’s Compound 7 of claim 15; however, Lin does teach that the substituents R6 and R7 of Formula I of Shang can be C1-C6 alkyl group ([0007]).
Boudreault discloses an Ir complex comprising an acetylacetonate ligand of Formula I and used for an organic light emitting device ([0015], [0002]) and exemplifies ligand LA1 ([0041]).
PNG
media_image5.png
300
567
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Boudreault teaches that the device comprising an Ir complex containing the ligand LA1 provides smaller FWHM, lower voltage and higher luminous, external quantum, and power efficiencies than the comparative device comprising an acetylacetonate ligand (Compare Example 1 comprising Compound 8 with the Comparative Example 1 comprising Comparative Compound 1 in [0073]-[0076] and Table 3).
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 Lin as modified by Shang by substituting the acetylacetonate ligand with the ligand LA1 of Boudreault, as taught by Lin and Boudreault.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide smaller FWHM, lower voltage and higher luminous, external quantum, and power efficiencies based on the teaching of Boudreault.
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 the alkyl substituents at the positions corresponding to R6 and R7 of Formula I of Shang would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
PNG
media_image14.png
312
633
media_image14.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Compound of Lin as modified by Shang and Boudreault which has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1 and Applicant’s Compound 7, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-3, 8, and 10-15.
Lin in view of Shang and Boudreault does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising the Compound of Lin as modified by Shang and Boudreault; however, Lin does teach that the compound of Lin can be used for an organic light emitting device ([0008]).
Lin teaches the structure of the organic light emitting device comprising a first electrode (anode, ITO), a hole transport layer (TAPC), an emission layer (Compound of Lin as a dopant and TCTA as a host with weight ratio 6:94), an electron transport layer (TmPyPB), and a second electrode (cathode, Al) ([0217]-[0218]).
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 Lin as modified by Shang and Boudreault by incorporating it into the emission layer of an organic light emitting device, as taught by Lin.
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 light emitting dopants 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 Lin as modified by Shang and Boudreault comprising a first electrode (anode, ITO), a hole transport layer (TAPC), an emission layer (Compound of Lin as modified by Shang and Boudreault as a dopant and TCTA as a host with weight ratio 6:94), an electron transport layer (TmPyPB), and a second electrode (cathode, Al), meeting all the limitations of claims 16-19.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2017/0155065 A1) in view of Shang et al. (“DFT/TDDFT study on the electronic structures and optoelectronic properties of a series of iridium(III) complexes based on quinoline derivatives in OLEDs”, J. Phys. Org. Chem. 2013, vol. 26, page 784-790, hereafter Shang) and Boudreault et al. (US 2015/0001472 A1) as applied to claims 1-3, 8, and 10-19 above, further in view of Pang et al. (“A full-color, low-power, wearable display for mobile applications”, SPIE, 03/29/2012, hereafter Pang).
Regarding claim 20, the Organic light emitting device of Lin as modified by Shang and Boudreault reads on all the features of claim 16 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode (anode, ITO), a hole transport layer (TAPC), an emission layer (Compound of Lin as modified by Shang and Boudreault as a dopant and TCTA as a host with weight ratio 6:94), an electron transport layer (TmPyPB), and a second electrode (cathode, Al).
Lin in view of Shang and Boudreault does not disclose a specific display device comprising the Organic light emitting device of Lin as modified by Shang and Boudreault.
Pang discloses a display device (“flexible active matrix OLED display” in Fig. 3) comprising an organic light emitting device (“C: OLED” in Fig. 3).
Pang teaches the display device provide a full-color, low-power, wearable display for mobile application (title and abstract).
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 Lin as modified by Shang and Boudreault by incorporating it into a display device, as taught by Pang.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide a full-color, low-power, wearable display for mobile application based on the teaching of Pang.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material and method to achieve predictable results.
The modification provides Display device of Lin as modified by Shang and Boudreault and Pang comprising the Organic light emitting device of Lin as modified by Shang and Boudreault, wherein the display device is an electronic apparatus.
Claims 1-3, 9-14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al. (US 2007/0237981 A1, hereafter Shen) in view of Kurotaki et al. (JP 2005/213348 A, machine translated English version is referred to, hereafter Kurotaki).
Regarding claims 1-3, 9-14, and 16-19, Shen discloses an organometallic compound (Formula (I) in [0005]) used for an organic light emitting device ([0001]) and exemplifies Compound 1 ([0019]).
Shen exemplifies an organic light emitting device (Example 3 in [0021]) comprising a first electrode (anode, ITO), a hole transport layer (NPB), an emission layer (Compound 1 as a dopant and CBP as a host with dopant/host volumetric ratio of 6%), an electron transport layer (Alq3), and a second electrode (cathode, Al)([0017], [0021]).
PNG
media_image1.png
263
510
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In the Compound 1 of Shen, the phenyl group at the position corresponding to the A2 of the Formula (I) of Shen is phenyl which does not read on the limitation of the instant claims; however, Shen does teach that the A2 can be a substituted or non-substituted aryl group ([0005]).
Kurotaki discloses a perylene-containing metal complex used as the emitter of an organic light emitting device ([0005]-[0007], [0019]).
Kurotaki teaches a perylene skeleton provides high fluorescence quantum efficiency, high color purity, and excellent thermal resistance ([0010]).
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 1 of Shen by substituting the phenyl group at the position corresponding to A2 of Formula (I) of Shen with perylene, as taught by Shen and Kurotaki.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide high fluorescence quantum efficiency, high color purity, and excellent thermal resistance, based on the teaching of Kurotaki.
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).
PNG
media_image2.png
308
497
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In the Compound of Shen as modified by Kurotaki, the ligand at the position corresponding to the A3 of Formula (I) of Shen is acetylacetonate which does not read on the limitation of claim 9; however, Shen does teach that the ligand at the A3 can be a picolinic acid ligand ([0011]).
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 Shen as modified by Kurotaki by substituting the acetylacetonate ligand with a picolinic acid ligand as taught by Shen.
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 would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
PNG
media_image3.png
350
541
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Compound of Shen as modified by Kurotaki (2), meeting all the limitations of claims 1-3 and 9-14.
It should be noted that the perylene moiety reads on the phenanthrene moiety of Applicant’s Formula 11-2, wherein R21 through R24 can be each an alkenyl group; and the groups at R21 and R22 and the groups at R23 and R24 are each bound to form a carbocyclic group (i.e. benzene). The instant specification recites “at least two of R21 to R28 are optionally bound to form a carbocyclic group (page 2, par. 2) such that the claim is interpreted in the broadest reasonable manner (BRI). The instant claim 1 recites “R22 and R23 are not bound to form a substituted or unsubstituted C5-C30 carbocyclic group”, which does not prevent bounding between R21 and R22, and between R23 and R24.
The modification also provides Organic light emitting device of Shen as modified by Kurotaki (2) comprising a first electrode (anode, ITO), a hole transport layer (NPB), an emission layer (Compound of Shen as modified by Kurotaki (2) as a dopant and CBP as a host with dopant/host volumetric ratio of 6%), an electron transport layer (Alq3), and a second electrode (cathode, Al), wherein the hole transport layer, the emission layer, and the electron transport layer are an organic layer, meeting all the limitations of claims 16-19.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al. (US 2007/0237981 A1) in view of Kurotaki et al. (JP 2005/213348 A, machine translated English version is referred to), as applied to claims 1-3, 9-14, and 16-19 above, further in view of Pang et al. (“A full-color, low-power, wearable display for mobile applications”, SPIE, 03/29/2012, hereafter Pang).
Regarding claim 20, the Organic light emitting device of Shen as modified by Kurotaki (2) reads on all the features of claim 16 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode (anode, ITO), a hole transport layer (NPB), an emission layer (Compound of Shen as modified by Kurotaki (2) as a dopant and CBP as a host with dopant/host volumetric ratio of 6%), an electron transport layer (Alq3), and a second electrode (cathode, Al), wherein the hole transport layer, the emission layer, and the electron transport layer are an organic layer.
Shen in view of Kurotaki does not disclose a specific display device comprising the Organic light emitting device of Shen as modified by Kurotaki (2).
Pang discloses a display device (“flexible active matrix OLED display” in Fig. 3) comprising an organic light emitting device (“C: OLED” in Fig. 3).
Pang teaches the display device provide a full-color, low-power, wearable display for mobile application (title and abstract).
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 Shen as modified by Kurotaki (2) by incorporating it into a display device, as taught by Shen, Kurotaki (2), and Pang.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide a full-color, low-power, wearable display for mobile application based on the teaching of Pang.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material and method to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the organic light emitting devices in a display device 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 Display device of Shen as modified by Kurotaki and Pang comprising the Organic light emitting device of Kurotaki (2), wherein the display device is an electronic apparatus.
Claims 1-3, 8, 10-14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al. (US 2007/0237981 A1) in view of Kurotaki et al. (JP 2005/213348 A, machine translated English version is referred to) and Boudreault et al. (US 2015/0001472 A1).
Regarding claims 1-3, 8, 10-14, and 16-19, Shen discloses an organometallic compound (Formula (I) in [0005]) used for an organic light emitting device ([0001]) and exemplifies Compound 1 ([0019]).
Shen exemplifies an organic light emitting device (Example 3 in [0021]) comprising a first electrode (anode, ITO), a hole transport layer (NPB), an emission layer (Compound 1 as a dopant and CBP as a host with dopant/host volumetric ratio of 6%), an electron transport layer (Alq3), and a second electrode (cathode, Al)([0017], [0021]).
PNG
media_image1.png
263
510
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In the Compound 1 of Shen, the phenyl group at the position corresponding to the A2 of the Formula (I) of Shen is phenyl which does not read on the limitation of the instant claims; however, Shen does teach that the A2 can be a substituted or non-substituted aryl group ([0005]).
Kurotaki discloses a perylene-containing metal complex used as the emitter of an organic light emitting device ([0005]-[0007], [0019]).
Kurotaki teaches a perylene skeleton provides high fluorescence quantum efficiency, high color purity, and excellent thermal resistance ([0010]).
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 1 of Shen by substituting the phenyl group at the position corresponding to A2 of Formula (I) of Shen with perylene, as taught by Shen and Kurotaki.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide high fluorescence quantum efficiency, high color purity, and excellent thermal resistance, based on the teaching of Kurotaki.
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).
PNG
media_image2.png
308
497
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Compound of Shen as modified by Kurotaki.
The acetylacetonate ancillary ligand does not read on the limitation of Applicant’s Formula 2-1.
Boudreault discloses an Ir complex comprising an acetylacetonate ligand of Formula I and used for an organic light emitting device ([0015], [0002]) and exemplifies ligand LA1 ([0041]).
PNG
media_image5.png
300
567
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Boudreault teaches that the device comprising an Ir complex containing the ligand LA1 provides smaller FWHM, lower voltage and higher luminous, external quantum, and power efficiencies than the comparative device comprising an acetylacetonate ligand (Compare Example 1 comprising Compound 8 with the Comparative Example 1 comprising Comparative Compound 1 in [0073]-[0076] and Table 3).
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 Shen as modified by Kurotaki by substituting the acetylacetonate ligand with the ligand LA1 of Boudreault, as taught by Boudreault.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide smaller FWHM, lower voltage and higher luminous, external quantum, and power efficiencies based on the teaching of Boudreault.
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).
PNG
media_image15.png
327
545
media_image15.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Compound of Shen as modified by Kurotaki and Boudreault, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-3, 8, and 10-14.
It should be noted that the perylene moiety reads on the phenanthrene moiety of Applicant’s Formula 11-2, wherein R21 through R24 can be each an alkenyl group; and the groups at R21 and R22 and the groups at R23 and R24 are each bound to form a carbocyclic group (i.e. benzene). The instant specification recites “at least two of R21 to R28 are optionally bound to form a carbocyclic group (page 2, par. 2) such that the claim is interpreted in the broadest reasonable manner (BRI). The instant claim 1 recites “R22 and R23 are not bound to form a substituted or unsubstituted C5-C30 carbocyclic group”, which does not prevent bounding between R21 and R22, and between R23 and R24.
The modification also provides Organic light emitting device of Shen as modified by Kurotaki and Boudreault comprising a first electrode (anode, ITO), a hole transport layer (NPB), an emission layer (Compound of Shen as modified by Kurotaki and Boudreault as a dopant and CBP as a host with dopant/host volumetric ratio of 6%), an electron transport layer (Alq3), and a second electrode (cathode, Al), wherein the hole transport layer, the emission layer, and the electron transport layer are an organic layer, meeting all the limitations of claims 16-19.
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