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 .
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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 16, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on June 16, 2026.
Claims 1, 7, 10, 13, and 15 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 9 and 12 have been canceled. Claims 4 – 6 had been cancelled previously.
Claims 1 – 3, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 13 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed June 16, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1 – 3, 7 – 14, and 16 – 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Thomas as set forth in the office action filed April 30, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed June 16, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1 – 3, and 7 – 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Thomas as set forth in the office action filed April 30, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argus that there would have been no motivation to modify the ligand of Kim based on the teachings of Thomas because Kim teaches that the organometallic compound should emit light having a wavelength range of 440nm to 480 nm to provide deep blue color and Thomas teaches that the iridium complexes with a phenanthroline ligand are red-light emitting compounds. Applicant argues that the modification provided by Thomas would red shift the emission from the blue region of Kim and this would render the organometallic compounds of Kim unsuitable for its intended purpose of providing a deep blue color of light. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In [0164] of Kim, Kim teaches that the emission layer using Formula 1 may emit blue light. It does not appear that Kim requires the emitting layer to emit blue light. Examiner further notes that Formula 1 of Kim explicitly allows for a phenanthrene group in the claimed position ([0080]). Therefore, the claimed ligand falls within the scope of Formula 1 of Kim. Examiner further notes that the teachings that a phenanthrene group would predictably red-shift the compound are not in contradiction with the teachings of Kim, as a red-shift in the emission layer could still result in a blue-light emitting compound and Kim does not require that the compounds emit blue light, let alone deep blue light. Finally, Applicant has not provided any evidence that the substitution of a phenanthrene group for the benzene group would behave differently than the teachings of Thomas. Therefore, it appears that a person of ordinary skill in the art would know the expected behavior of the argued substitution.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 – 3, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 13 – 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 13 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US20190112324A1) in view of Thomas (Thomas, K. R. Justin et al. “Efficient Red-Emitting Cyclometalated Iridium (III) Complexes Containing Lepidine-Based Ligands.” Inorganic Chemistry. 44 (2005): 5677 – 5685., cited in the IDS filed August 11, 2022 and provided by Applicant).
As per claims 1 – 3, 7, 8, 10,11, 13 and 14, Kim teaches:
An organometallic compound, represented by Formula 1
PNG
media_image1.png
64
190
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, wherein Ln1 is represented by Formula 1A-2
PNG
media_image2.png
282
222
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and Ln2 is a ligand represented by Formula 2-1 or Formula 2-2
PNG
media_image3.png
244
366
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Kim teaches organometallic compounds of Formula 1
PNG
media_image4.png
34
216
media_image4.png
Greyscale
([0052]) with a ligand represented by Formula 2-3
PNG
media_image5.png
180
300
media_image5.png
Greyscale
or
PNG
media_image6.png
160
298
media_image6.png
Greyscale
([0119]). A particular compound Kim teaches is compound 7
PNG
media_image7.png
176
304
media_image7.png
Greyscale
([0152]), which differs from the claimed compound in that the ligand of Kim contains a benzene ring instead of the claimed phenanthrene ring and that the condensed ring group is represented by Formula 2-3 instead of Formula 2-6. However, Kim teaches that CY21 can be a phenanthrene group ([0080]) Furthermore, Thomas teaches that Ir (III) ligands with phenathrenyl groups are red-shifted as compared to benzene rings (Page 5682, Right Column, Last Paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the compound of Kim to replace the benzene ring with a phenanthrene ring motivated by the desire to predictably produce a red-shift in the compound as taught by Thomas (Page 5682, Right Column, Last Paragraph) and because Kim teaches that the group may be a phenanthrene group ([0080]). It also would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to adjust the bonding of the thiophene ring of compound 7 in an isomeric position, such as represented by Formula 2-6. Additionally, compound 7 of Kim does not contain an auxiliary ligand. However, in Formula 1 of Kim, Kim teaches that ligand L2 can be selected from 3-111
PNG
media_image8.png
110
304
media_image8.png
Greyscale
([0144]). Therefore, it would have further been obvious replace one of the ligands of Kim with an auxiliary ligand represented by Formula 3-111. When modified in this way, the compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein M1 is a transition metal, namely Iridium (Ir) as required by claim 2; n1 is 2; n2 is 1, so that the sum of n1 and n2 is 3 as required by claim 3; X11 – X14 are C(R15); X1 is S; all the R groups are hydrogen. The ligand represented by Formula 11-1 in claim 7. The ancillary ligand is represented by Formula 21-1 in claim 8. The entire compound is represented by Formula 31-1 in claim 13. The compound is electrically neutral as required by claim 14.)
Kim includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Kim being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of organic light-emitting devices with high efficiency and long lifespan ([0153]), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
As per claim 15, the differences between modified compound 7 above with the acac ligand of claim 8 and claimed compound 4
PNG
media_image9.png
140
174
media_image9.png
Greyscale
is the methyl substituent. However, Kim teaches compound such as compound 38
PNG
media_image10.png
200
306
media_image10.png
Greyscale
, which contains the methyl group in the claimed position. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the compound to include a methyl group substituent and arrive at claimed compound 1.
Kim includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Kim being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of organic light-emitting devices with high efficiency and long lifespan ([0153]), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
As per claims 16 and 17, Kim teaches:
An organic light emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode, and an organic layer located between the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein the organic layer comprises an emission layer, wherein the organic layer further comprises at least one of the organometallic compound of claim 1 ([0164]: “The organometallic compound of Formula 1 may be used between a pair of electrodes of an organic light-emitting device. For example, the organometallic compound represented by Formula 1 may be included in the emission layer.”)
As per claim 18, Kim teaches:
Wherein the emission layer further comprises a host, and an amount of the host in the emission layer is greater than an amount of the organometallic compound in the emission layer ([0164]: “In this regard, the organometallic compound may act as a dopant, and the emission layer may further include a host (that is, an amount of the organometallic compound represented by Formula 1 is smaller than an amount of the host).”)
As per claim 19, Kim teaches:
Wherein the first electrode is an anode, the second electrode is a cathode, the organic layer further comprises a hole transport region located between the first electrode and the emission layer, and an electron transport region located between the emission layer and the second electrode, the hole transport region comprises a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer, a buffer layer or a combination thereof and the electron transport region comprises a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, or a combination thereof ([0168]: “In an embodiment, in the organic light-emitting device, the first electrode is an anode, and the second electrode is a cathode, and the organic layer further includes a hole transport region disposed between the first electrode and the emission layer and an electron transport region disposed between the emission layer and the second electrode, wherein the hole transport region includes a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer, a buffer layer or any combination thereof, and wherein the electron transport region includes a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, or any combination thereof.”)
As per claim 20, Kim teaches:
An electronic apparatus, comprising the organic light-emitting device (As an OLED is considered to be an electronic apparatus, Kim teaches the claimed limitations.)
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA N CHANDHOK whose telephone number is (571)272-5780. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 6:30 - 3:30.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. 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.
/JENNA N CHANDHOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights