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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 05/13/2026 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 and 15 have been amended.
The amendment of claims 1 and 15 has overcome the rejections of claims 1-2, 10-12 and 14-20 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) set forth in the last Office Action. The rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see pages 27-30 of the reply filed 05/13/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1-2, 10-12 and 14-20 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) set forth in the Office Action of 03/09/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the amended claims are nonobvious over the cited rejections.
The rejection refers to the Compound of Ma as modified by Lee (see section 27 of the last Office Action). The compound does not read on any of the limitation of Formulas 30-1 to 30-6 of the amended claims. Thus, the rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 15, the period (“.”) is located in the middle of the page 25. It is suggested to move the period directly after the last compound 48.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al. (US 2020/0144519 A1, hereafter Tsai) in view of Zhou (“Robust Tris-Cyclometalated Iridium Phosphors with Ligands for Effective Charge Carrier Injection/Transport: Synthesis, Redox, Photophysical, and Electrophosphorescent Behavior”, Chem. Asian J. 2008, vol. 3, page 1830-1841, hereafter Zhou) and Lee et al. (US 2013/0334521 A1, hereafter Lee).
Regarding claims 1-2, 10-12, 14, and 16-20, Tsai discloses an organometallic compound used for an organic light emitting device ([0002]), wherein the compound of Tsai comprises a ligand LA represented by Formula I ([0016]). Tsai teaches a detailed structural formula as the ligand LA ([0071], the first structure on page 7, hereafter Formula p7-1).
PNG
media_image1.png
284
524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Tsai exemplifies ligand LA4 ([0072]) which has a structure of
PNG
media_image2.png
129
112
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, wherein R1A and R2A are each H; and Gy is G4
PNG
media_image3.png
214
331
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, wherein Q1 an Q2 can be each O ([0072]). Tsai exemplifies an embodiment wherein Q1 and Q2 are both O (see examples in [0086] including the 3rd compound).
Tsai teaches that the compound of Tsai can be represented by Ir(LA)(LB)2 ([0074]). Tsai teaches LB can be
PNG
media_image4.png
197
97
media_image4.png
Greyscale
([0076]) and exemplifies ligand LB1
PNG
media_image5.png
165
93
media_image5.png
Greyscale
([0077]).
Tsai does not exemplifies a specific compound having structure of Ir(LA4)(LB1)2, wherein in LA4 both Q1 and Q2 are each O; however, Tsai does teach a compound represented by Ir(LA)(LB)2 ([0074]) wherein LA can be LA4; Q1 and Q2 can be each O ([0072]); and LB can be LB1 ([0077]).
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 Tsai represented by Ir(LA)(LB)2 by incorporating LA4 as the LA, LB1 as the LB, and oxygen as Q1 and Q2, as taught by Tsai.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Each substitution of exemplified ligands at the positions LA and LB of the compound Ir(LA)(LB)2 of Tsai 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 compound of Tsai.
PNG
media_image6.png
314
642
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Tsai does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising the Modified compound of Tsai; however, Tsai does teach that the compound of Tsai can be used as the emitter of an organic light emitting device ([0002], [0017]).
Tsai teaches the structure of the organic light emitting device comprising a first electrode, a hole injection layer, an emission layer (the compound of Tsai as a dopant (12 wt%) and a host), an electron injection layer, and a second electrode ([0165]).
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 compound of Tsai by incorporating it as the emitter of an organic light emitting device, as taught by Tsai.
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 compounds of Tsai in the device of Tsai 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 Tsai comprising a first electrode, a hole injection layer, an emission layer (the Modified compound of Tsai as a dopant (12 wt%) and a host), an electron injection layer, and a second electrode.
Tsai does not disclose a specific consumer product comprising the Modified organic light emitting device of Tsai; however, Tsai does teach that the organic light emitting device can be incorporated in a consumer product such as televisions ([0031]).
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 Tsai by incorporating it into a consumer product such as televisions, as taught by Tsai.
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 of Tsai in a consumer product of Tsai 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 such as a television comprising the Modified organic light emitting device of Tsai.
The Modified compound of Tsai does not have a germyl group at the position corresponding to the substituent Ra of X2 of the formula
PNG
media_image4.png
197
97
media_image4.png
Greyscale
([0076]).
However, Tsai does teach that the substituent at Ra can be a silyl group ([0076], [0054]).
Silicon and germanium are in the same group of the periodic table such that they are used alternatively in Ir based organometallic compounds. Zhou discloses an Ir complex substituted by a triphenyl silyl or triphenyl germyl group and used for an organic light emitting device (Abstract, Scheme 1, and Fig. 5). Zhou teaches that two complexes show comparable device performance, and triphenyl silyl and triphenyl germy provide good steric hindrance to protect the reactive center (page 1836, column 2, line 8-10 and 20-24).
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(PhGe-ppy)3 as an emitter provides higher current efficiency than a device comprising Ir(ppy)3 (Example 4 vs. Comparative example 1 in [0102]-[0106] and Table 1). The only difference between two devices is the compound Ir(PhGe-ppy)3 has triphenyl germyl group substituted to the position 3 of the pyridine ring of a phenyl pyridine ligand ([0045]).
PNG
media_image7.png
304
192
media_image7.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 Modified compound of Tsai by substituting the hydrogen atom at the position corresponding to Ra of the X2 of the formula
PNG
media_image4.png
197
97
media_image4.png
Greyscale
with a triphenyl germyl group, as taught by Zhou and 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_image8.png
313
681
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Compound of Tsai as modified by Zhou and Lee, which has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 30-4, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-2, 10-12 and 14.
The modification also provides Organic light emitting device of Tsai as modified by Zhou and Lee comprising a first electrode (anode), a hole injection layer, an emission layer (Compound of Tsai as modified by Zhou and Lee as a dopant (12 wt%) and 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.
The modification also provides an electronic apparatus such as a television comprising the Organic light emitting device of Tsai as modified by Zhou and Lee, meeting all the limitations of claim 20.
Claims 1-2, 10-12, 14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji et al. (US 2020/0251664 A1, hereafter Tsai) in view of Zhou (“Robust Tris-Cyclometalated Iridium Phosphors with Ligands for Effective Charge Carrier Injection/Transport: Synthesis, Redox, Photophysical, and Electrophosphorescent Behavior”, Chem. Asian J. 2008, vol. 3, page 1830-1841, hereafter Zhou) and Lee et al. (US 2013/0334521 A1, hereafter Lee).
Regarding claims 1-2, 10-12, 14, and 16-20, Ji discloses an organometallic compound used for an organic light emitting device ([0002]), wherein the compound of Ji comprises a ligand LA represented by Formula I, wherein at least two adjacent Y7 to Y10 are carbon atoms that are fused to Formula II ([0015]-[0026]). Tsai exemplifies IrLA104(LB461)2 ([0164], hereafter Compound A).
PNG
media_image9.png
358
716
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Ma exemplifies an organic light emitting device (Example 1) comprising a first electrode (anode), a hole injection layer, an emission layer (Compound A as a dopant (12 %), Host-1 as a first host, and Host-2 as a second host), an electron injection layer, and a second electrode (cathode) ([0199], Table 1).
The Compound A has similar structure as Applicant’s Formula 30-4. The only difference is that the deuterated alkyl group
PNG
media_image10.png
77
82
media_image10.png
Greyscale
at the position corresponding to RA of Formula I of Ji is required to be a germyl group.
However, Ji does teach that the substituent at RA of Formula I of Ji can be a silyl group ([0022]).
Silicon and germanium are in the same group of the periodic table such that they are used alternatively in Ir based organometallic compounds. Zhou discloses an Ir complex substituted by a triphenyl silyl or triphenyl germyl group and used for an organic light emitting device (Abstract, Scheme 1, and Fig. 5). Zhou teaches that two complexes show comparable device performance, and triphenyl silyl and triphenyl germy provide good steric hindrance to protect the reactive center (page 1836, column 2, line 8-10 and 20-24).
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(PhGe-ppy)3 as an emitter provides higher current efficiency than a device comprising Ir(ppy)3 (Example 4 vs. Comparative example 1 in [0102]-[0106] and Table 1). The only difference between two devices is the compound Ir(PhGe-ppy)3 has triphenyl germyl group substituted to the position 3 of the pyridine ring of a phenyl pyridine ligand ([0045]).
PNG
media_image7.png
304
192
media_image7.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 A of Ji by substituting the deuterated alkyl group with a triphenyl germyl group, as taught by Zhou and 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_image11.png
243
610
media_image11.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Compound of Ji as modified by Zhou and Lee, which has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 30-4, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-2, 10-12 and 14.
The modification also provides Organic light emitting device of Ji as modified by Zhou and Lee comprising a first electrode (anode), a hole injection layer, an emission layer (Compound of Ji as modified by Zhou and Lee as a dopant (12 %), Host-1 as a first host, and Host-2 as a second 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.
Ji in view of Zhou and Lee does not disclose a specific display device comprising the Organic light emitting device of Ji in view of Zhou and Lee; however, Ji does teach that the organic light emitting device can be incorporated in an electronic apparatus such as lighting device or lighting panel ([0041]).
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 Ji in view of Zhou and Lee by incorporating it into an electronic apparatus, as taught by Ji.
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 lighting device or lighting panel 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 (lighting device or lighting panel) comprising the Organic light emitting device of Ji in view of Zhou and Lee, meeting all the limitations of claim 20.
Claim Objections / Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, and a minor informality described above, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and after resolving the informality issue.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As outlined above, Ji in view of Zhou and Lee is a representation of the closest prior arts. As described in more detail above, Ji in view of Zhou and Lee teaches an organometallic Ir compound comprising a pyridino benzofurodibenzofuran ligand and a germyl-substituted phenyl pyridine ligand; however, Ji in view of Zhou and Lee does not teach specific embodiments claimed in the instant claim 15.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEOKMIN JEON whose telephone number is (571)272-4599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JENNIFER BOYD can be reached at (571)272-7783. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SEOKMIN JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights