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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/01/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 11/14/2025 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 3-9 and 13 have been canceled.
Claims 1-2, 10-12 and 14-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 10-11, and 15 have been amended.
The cancellation of claims 3-9 and 13 obviates the rejections of claims 3-9 and 13 set forth in the last Office Action.
The amendment of claim 15 has overcome the rejections of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 112(d) set forth in the last Office Action. The rejections have been withdrawn.
The amendment of claims 1, 10-11, and 15 has overcome:
the rejections of claims 1-2, 10-12, 14, and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR 2019/0130513 A, the original document is referred to for figures and tables and the English translation is referred to for the remainder body of the patent, hereafter Kim) in view of Noboru et al. (JP 2012/074444 A, a machine translated English version is referred to, hereafter Noboru), and
the rejections of claims 1-2, 10-12, and 14-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng et al. (US 2017/0069848, hereafter Zeng) in view of Park et al. (KR 2013/0110934 A, the original document is referred to for figures and tables and the English translation is referred to for the remainder body of the patent, hereafter Park) and Noboru et al. (JP 2012/074444 A, a machine translated English version is referred to) set forth in the last Office Action.
The rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see pages 28-36 of the reply filed 11/14/2025 regarding the rejections of claims 1-2, 10-12, 14, and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim/Noboru, and the rejections of claims 1-2, 10-12, and 14-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng/Park/Noboru set forth in the Office Action of 09/17/2025 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the amended claims are nonobvious over the cited rejections.
The rejections have been withdrawn because of the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 10-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. (US 2016/0141522 A1, hereafter Ma) in view of Lee et al. (US 2013/0334521 A1, hereafter Lee).
Regarding claims 1-2, 10-12, 14, and 16-20, Ma discloses an organometallic compound used for an organic light emitting device ([0003]), wherein the compound Ma comprises a ligand LA represented by Formula I, wherein R is a 5-6 condensed ring as shown below ([0017]-[0019]).
PNG
media_image1.png
366
732
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ma exemplifies an organic light emitting device (Example 1) comprising a first electrode (anode), a hole injection layer, an emission layer (Compound 1 as a dopant (10 wt%) and Compound B as a host), an electron injection layer, and a second electrode (cathode) ([0125], Table 1).
The Compound 1 has similar structure as Applicant’s Formula 30-2. The only difference is that the pyridine ring of the phenyl pyridine ligand (i.e. the left ligand) does not contain a germanium substituent.
Lee discloses an Ir compound comprising a phenyl pyridine ligand containing a germanium substituent (Formula 1 in [0031]) and used for an organic light emitting device ([0015]).
Lee teaches a germanium substituent provides controlled intermolecular interaction and improved emission efficiency ([0023]). Lee teaches an organic light emitting device comprising Ir(MeGe-ppy)3 as an emitter provides higher current efficiency than a device comprising Ir(ppy)3 (Example 5 vs. Comparative example 1 in [0102]-[0106] and Table 1). The only difference between two devices is the compound Ir(MeGe-ppy)3 has trimethyl germyl group substituted to the position 3 of the pyridine ring of a phenyl pyridine ligand ([0045]).
PNG
media_image2.png
248
152
media_image2.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 Compound 1 of Ma by substituting a trimethyl germy group at the position 3 of the pyridine ring of the phenyl pyridine ligand, as taught by Lee.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide controlled intermolecular interaction and improved emission efficiency, based on the teaching of Lee.
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_image3.png
293
603
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Compound of Ma as modified by Lee, which has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 30-2, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-2, 10-12 and 14.
The modification also provides Organic light emitting device of Ma as modified by Lee comprising a first electrode (anode), a hole injection layer, an emission layer (Compound of Ma as modified by Lee as a dopant (10 wt%) and Compound B as a host), an electron injection layer, and a second electrode (cathode), wherein the device is an electronic apparatus, meeting all the limitations of claims 16-20.
Ma in view of Lee does not disclose a specific display device comprising the Organic light emitting device of Ma as modified by Lee; however, Ma does teach that the organic light emitting device can be incorporated in a consumer product ([0030]) and exemplifies a flat panel display device as the consumer product ([0105]).
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 Ma as modified by Lee by incorporating it into a flat panel display device, as taught by Ma.
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 OLEDs in a flat panel 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 an electronic apparatus (flat panel display device) comprising the Organic light emitting device of Ma as modified by Lee, meeting all the limitations of claim 20.
Regarding claim 15, the Compound of Ma as modified by Lee reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The compound has similar structure as Applicant’s Compound 10. The only difference is that the substituent of the pyridine ring of the right ligand of the Compound of Ma as modified by Lee which corresponds to the R1 of Formula I of Ma is required to have isopropyl group; however, Ma does teach that R1 of Formula I can be alkyl ([0018]). Ma exemplifies LA165 wherein the ligand has isopropyl group at the position 4 of the pyridine ring ([0085]).
PNG
media_image4.png
225
331
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 Compound of Ma as modified by Lee by substituting the substituents at the position corresponding to the R1 of Formula I of Ma with an isopropyl group (or substituting the right ligand LA of the compound with the ligand LA165 of Ma), as taught by Ma.
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 exemplified substituent groups at position R1 (or exemplified ligands LA) 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 Ma as modified by Lee (2) which has identical structure as Applicant’s Compound 10.
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