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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 14 January 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 22 December 2025 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 1, 6-7, and 14 have been amended.
Claims 4-5 and 8-13 are cancelled.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, and 14-19 are pending.
The amendments to claim 1 have overcome the rejections of claims 1-3, 6, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji et al. (US 2020/0087334 A1) (hereafter “Ji”) in view of Ma et al. (US 2012/0217868 A1) (hereafter “Ma”) set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn.
The amendments to claim 1 have overcome the rejections of claims 1, 6-7, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji et al. (US 2020/0087334 A1) (hereafter “Ji”) in view of Ma et al. (US 2012/0217868 A1) (hereafter “Ma”) set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1-3, 6, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji et al. (US 2020/0087334 A1) (hereafter “Ji”) in view of Ma et al. (US 2012/0217868 A1) (hereafter “Ma”) set forth in the last Office action 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.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 6-7, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji et al. (US 2020/0087334 A1) (hereafter “Ji”) in view of Ma et al. (US 2012/0217868 A1) (hereafter “Ma”) set forth in the last Office action 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 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.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boerner et al. (US 2010/0127215 A1) (hereafter “Boerner”), Kim et al. (US 2009/0145483 A1) (hereafter “Kim”), and Ragini et al. (US 2006/0228582 A1) (hereafter “Ragini”).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 6-7: Boerner discloses the compound shown below {(paragraphs [0009]-[0020]: The compounds of the disclosure of Boerner has the structure of formula (I) of Boerner. Formula (I) describes a metal complex having L1, L2, and L3 where L1 is required to be present and L2 and L3 are optionally present.), (paragraph [0110]: The compounds having the structure of Formula (I) of Boerner are exemplified by Compounds (1a) to (1f).), (p. 8, Compound (1b) shown below)}.
PNG
media_image1.png
713
772
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The compound is useful as a material of the light-emitting layer of an organic light-emitting device {paragraphs [0020] and [0116]-[0117]}.
Boerner does not exemplify a compound in which one of the instant R1 or R2 is an alkyl or a cycloalkyl group comprising five or more C atoms or in which the compound comprises a 2-phenyl-pyridine ligand.
However, as outlined above, Boerner teaches that the compounds of Boerner have the structure of Boerner’s Formula (I), which describes a metal complex having a ligand L1 of Boerner and optionally, ligands L2 and L3 of Boerner {paragraphs [0009]-[0020]: The compounds of the disclosure of Boerner has the structure of formula (I) of Boerner. Formula (I) describes a metal complex having L1, L2, and L3 where L1 is required to be present and L2 and L3 are optionally present.}.
The ligands L2 can be acetylacetonate or phenylpyridine {paragraph [0086]}.
Kim teaches compounds useful as the light-emitting material of the light-emitting layer of an organic light-emitting device {paragraphs [0007]-[0010], [0024], [0027]}. The compounds are iridium complexes comprising a 2-phenylquinoline ligand and a secondary ligand {paragraphs [0007]-[0010], [0024], [0027]}. The secondary ligand can be 2-phenylpyridine or acetylacetonate {paragraph [0033]}.
Thus, an unsubstituted 2-phenylpyridine is a known alternative to acetylacetonate.
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 Boerner shown above by substituting a 2-phenylpyridine in place of the acetylacetonate ligand, based on the teaching of Boerner and Kim. 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 choice of a 2-phenylpyridine ligand would have been one from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions—the types of ligands L2 identified by Boerner—with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices.
Boerner as modified by Kim does not teach that the 2-phenylpyridine ligand is substituted with a silyl substituent.
Ragini teaches metal complex compounds having the structure shown below {paragraph [0016]}.
PNG
media_image2.png
500
454
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Where in the structurally formula above rings CY1 and CY2 can each be aromatic rings and A^B is a monoanionic bidentate ligand {paragraph [0016]}. At least one of CY1, CY2, and A^B comprises a silyl substituent {paragraph [0016]}.
The compounds of Ragini are useful as phosphorescent light-emitting dopants in the light-emitting layer of organic light-emitting devices {abstract and paragraphs [0014]-[0015] and [0057]-[0060]}.
Ragini teaches that silyl substituted cyclometalated transition metal complexes have heat stability {paragraph [0029]}. Ragini exemplifies trimethylsilyl {paragraphs [0057]-[0060]}.
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 Boerner described above by substituting the compounds with a trimethylsilyl group, based on the teaching of Ragini. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a metal complex having heat stability and efficient luminescence, as taught by Ragini.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to have placed the substituent at one of the positions the correspond to the instant T11 to T14 or T21 to T24. The selection of one of the positions the correspond to the instant T11 to T14 or T21 to T24 would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions—the possible places where the substituent could be placed—with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of substituent and substituent positions to be used to make compounds for use in an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light emitting devices.
Boerner does not exemplify a compound in which one of the instant R31 to R34 is alkyl having 1 to 4 carbon atoms.
However, as outlined above, Boerner teaches that the compounds of Boerner have the structure of Boerner’s Formula (I), which describes a metal complex having a ligand L1 of Boerner {paragraphs [0009]-[0020]: The compounds of the disclosure of Boerner has the structure of formula (I) of Boerner. Formula (I) describes a metal complex having L1, L2, and L3 where L1 is required to be present and L2 and L3 are optionally present.}.
The ligand L1 of the compound of Boerner shown above comprises the structure shown below {paragraph [0026]}.
PNG
media_image3.png
530
635
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Where R1 is an N-comprising moiety that bonds to the metal center {paragraphs [0011]-[0013] and [0026]}. R1 can be pyridine and can be substituted by an alkyl group {paragraph [0078]}. Boerner teaches that the alkyl groups of the disclosure of Boerner can be isobutyl {paragraph [0035]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the compound of Boerner by substituting isobutyl onto the compound, based on the teaching of Boerner. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to have placed the isobutyl substituent on the pyridine rings of the triphenylene containing ligands, because the positions on the pyridine rings of the triphenylene containing ligands would represent a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of substituent and substituent positions to be used to make compounds for use in an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light emitting devices.
Regarding claim 14: Boerner as modified by, Kim, and Ragini teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Boerner as modified by, Kim, and Ragini does not exemplify that the isobutyl substituent and trimethylsilyl substituents are in the positions of the instant Compound 3.
However, the substituent positions of the instant Compound 3 each represent selections form a finite number of identified, predictable solutions.
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 taught by Boerner as modified by, Kim, and Ragini such that the isobutyl substituent and trimethylsilyl substituents are in the positions of the instant Compound 3, based on the teaching of Boerner as modified by, Kim, and Ragini. The modification would have each been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (the finite number of possible positions for substitution), with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of substituent and substituent positions to be used to make compounds for use in an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light emitting devices.
Claim(s) 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boerner et al. (US 2010/0127215 A1) (hereafter “Boerner”), Kim et al. (US 2009/0145483 A1) (hereafter “Kim”), and Ragini et al. (US 2006/0228582 A1) (hereafter “Ragini”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ma (US 2010/0237334 A1) (hereafter “Ma”).
Regarding claims 15-17 and 19: Boerner as modified by, Kim, and Ragini teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Claim 12 differs from claim 1 in that the compound having the structure of the instant Formula I is required to be comprised in the organic layer of an organic light emitting device.
Boerner does not exemplify a specific device comprising the compound of Boerner.
However, Boerner teaches that the compounds of Boerner are useful as emitter materials in the light emitting layer of an organic light emitting device and can be mixed with a host material {paragraphs [0116]-[0121]}. Boerner teaches that organic light-emitting devices using the metal complexes of Boerner as light emitting materials have high efficiency and high color purity {paragraphs [0020]-[0021]}.
Ma teaches an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode {paragraphs [0021]-[0024] as well as paragraphs [0098]-[0099]: Example 1}.
The organic layer comprises a hole transport layer (that can be equated with a hole transport region), a light emitting layer, and an electron transport layer (that can be equated with an electron transport region) {paragraphs [0021]-[0024] as well as paragraphs [0098]-[0099]: Example 1}.
The light emitting layer comprises a host material having the structure of the compounds of Ma and an iridium metal complex as a light-emitting material in which the amount of the host in the emission layer is greater than the amount of the iridium metal complex {(abstract as well as paragraphs [0014], [0033], and [0047] in addition to paragraphs [0098]-[0099]: Example 1 all show compounds of Ma as host materials), (claims 24 and 25: the light-emitting material can be an iridium complex; This is also demonstrated in paragraphs [0098]-[0099]: Example 1.)}.
Ma exemplifies the compound shown below as a host material {(paragraph [0045]: The compounds of the invention include Compound 1S, shown below), (paragraphs [0048]-[0050]: Compound 1S.), (paragraphs [0098]-[0099]: Example 1)}.
PNG
media_image4.png
603
671
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Ma additionally teaches that the host materials of Ma can be used to produce organic light emitting devices having good lifetime, good efficiency, and low driving voltage {paragraph [0033]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the compound of Boerner by using it as the light-emitting material of the light-emitting layer in the organic light emitting device of Ma, using the host of Ma described above, based on the teaching of Boerner and Ma. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide an organic light emitting device having high efficiency and high color purity due to the presence of the modified iridium metal complex of Boerner, based on the teaching of Boerner and Ma, as well as good lifetime, good efficiency, and low driving voltage due to the presence of the host material of Ma, based on the teaching of Ma.
Regarding claim 18: Boerner as modified by, Kim, Ragini, and Ma teaches all of the features with respect to claim 16, as outlined above.
Boerner as modified by, Kim, Ragini, and Ma teaches the claimed invention above but fails to teach the compound emits blue light and has a peak emission wavelength of between 500 nm and 600 nm. It is reasonable to presume that emitting blue light and having a peak emission wavelength of between 500 nm and 600 nm is inherent to Boerner as modified by, Kim, Ragini, and Ma. Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials and like processes which would result in the claimed property.
The modified compound of Boerner is similar to the example and comparative compounds of Table 2 of the instant specification. The aryl and heteroaryl rings of the compounds are the same. Furthermore, the substituents of the modified compound of Boerner of each of the aryl and heteroaryl rings are similar to a substituent in at least one of the example and comparative compounds of Table 2 of the instant specification. Each of the example and comparative compounds of Table 2 of the instant specification have a peak emission wavelength of between 522 nm and 534 nm. Thus, the peak emission wavelength of the modified compound of Boerner would be between 500 nm and 600 nm. Furthermore, given that phosphorescent light-emitting compounds emit light across a spectrum of wavelengths, the compound would also emit at least some blue light.
The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once the Boerner as modified by, Kim, Ragini, and Ma product is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977). Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though the rejection is based on Section 103 instead of 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DYLAN CLAY KERSHNER whose telephone number is (303)297-4257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm (Mountain).
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.
/DYLAN C KERSHNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786