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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Species (A1) (M is Ir or Os) and (B1) (ligand LA is Formula I, IV, V, VII, or IX) in the reply filed on 08/19/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 16 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 01/20/2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 2-3, 5, 11, and 18-19 have been canceled.
Claims 21-26 have been added.
Claims 1, 4, 6-10, 12-17, and 20-26 are pending.
Claim 16 have been withdrawn.
Claims 1, 6-7, 9, 14-15, 17, and 20 have been amended.
The cancellation of claims 2-3, 5, 11, and 18-19 obviates the rejections of claims 2-3, 5, 11, and 18-19 set forth in the last Office Action.
The amendments of claims 1, 6-7, 9, 14-15, 17, and 20 have overcome:
the rejections of claims 1, 4, 6-10, and 12-14 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (US 2020/0354391 A1, hereafter Zhang), and
the rejections of claims 1, 4, 6-8, 10, 12-15, 17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boudreault at al. (US 2020/0098999 A1, hereafter Boudreault) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2020/0354391 A1, hereafter Zhang) set forth in the last Office Action.
The rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see page 56-57 of the reply filed 01/20/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1, 4, 6-10, and 12-14 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (US 2020/0354391 A1, hereafter Zhang) set forth in the Office Action of 09/17/2025 have been considered.
Applicant argues that claims are patentable over Zhang.
The rejections refer to Compound Ir(La3)2(Lb31) (see section 9 of the last Office Action, hereafter Compound 1) which does not read on the limitation of the Formula I of the amended claims. Thus, the rejections have been withdrawn.
PNG
media_image1.png
393
639
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Compound 1 of Zhang has carbon atom at the position corresponding to Y1 of Formula 1 of Zhang (i.e. the carbon pointed by an arrow in the figure above); however, Zhang does teach that Y1 can be N ([0025]).
Hwang discloses red emitting Ir complex used for an organic light emitting device (Abstract). Hwang teaches that incorporation of nitrogen at the position corresponding to Y2 of Formula 1 of Lu provides red shift in the emission (rout B4 in Fig. 7).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound 1 of Zhang by substituting the carbon atom at the position corresponding to Y1 with nitrogen, as taught by Zhang and Hwang.
The modification provides Compound of Zhang as modified by Hwang.
PNG
media_image2.png
279
594
media_image2.png
Greyscale
New grounds of rejections are applied. The amendment necessitates new grounds of rejections, making this Office Action final.
Applicant’s arguments see page 57 of the reply filed 01/20/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1, 4, 6-10, and 12-13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lu et al. (US 2020/0358010 A1, hereafter Lu), the rejections of claims 1, 4, 6-10, 12-13, 17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (US 2020/0358010 A1) in view of Hwang et al. (“Iridium(III) Complexes with Orthometalated Quinoxaline Ligands: Subtle Tuning of Emission to the Saturated Red Color”, Inorg. Chem. 2005, vol. 44, page 1344-1353, hereafter Hwang), Lecloux et al. (US 20110260140 A1, hereafter Lecloux) and Kamatani et al. (US 2010/0219407 A1, hereafter Kamatani) set forth in the Office Action of 09/17/2025 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the amended claims are patentable over the combination of Lu, Hwang, Lecloux, and Kamatani.
The rejections referring to the Compound A of Lu (see section 20 of the last Office Action) are withdrawn because the Compound A of Lu does not read on the Formula I of the amended claims.
PNG
media_image3.png
315
779
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, the Compound of Lu as modified by Hwang, Lecloux, and Kamatani (see section 45 of the last Office Action) still reads on the limitation of Formula I of the amended claims; thus, the rejections are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments see page 59 of the reply filed 01/20/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1, 4, 6-8, 10, 12-15, 17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boudreault at al. (US 2020/0098999 A1, hereafter Boudreault) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2020/0354391 A1, hereafter Zhang) set forth in the Office Action of 09/17/2025 have been considered.
The rejections refer to the Compound of Boudreault as modified by Zhang (see section 81 of the last Office Action) which does not read on the limitation of Formula IX of the amended claims; thus the rejections are withdrawn.
PNG
media_image4.png
319
600
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, Boudreault does teach that R1 and R2 can be each a general substituent ([0065]), and the general substituent can be deuterium ([0054]).
Kim discloses an Ir complex used for an organic light emitting device (Abstract).
Kim teaches that the atomic mass of deuterium is twice as great as hydrogen such that substitution of hydrogen with deuterium provides lowered vibration energy, decreased Van der Waals force, decreased proton efficiency, and prevented intermolecular collision by vibration ([021]-[022]).
Kim exemplifies an Ir complex wherein all the hydrogen atoms of the first ligand (i.e. phenyl pyridine based ligand) are substituted by deuterium ([0045]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound 1 of Boudreault by substituting all the hydrogen atoms at the positions corresponding to R1 and R2 of Formula I of Boudreault with deuterium, as taught by Boudreault and Kim.
PNG
media_image5.png
277
634
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Compound of Boudreault as modified by Kim. The amendment necessitates new grounds of rejection, making this Office Action final.
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, 4, 6-10, 12-14, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2020/0354391 A1, hereafter Zhang) in view of Hwang et al. (“Iridium(III) Complexes with Orthometalated Quinoxaline Ligands: Subtle Tuning of Emission to the Saturated Red Color”, Inorg. Chem. 2005, vol. 44, page 1344-1353, hereafter Hwang).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 6-10, 12-14, 17, and 20, Zhang discloses a complex compound comprising a first ligand La of Formula 1 ([0023]) used as the emitter of an organic light emitting device ([0018]) and exemplifies a compound ([0123], Ir(La3)2(Lb31), hereafter Compound 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
393
639
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Compound 1 of Zhang has carbon atom at the position corresponding to Y1 of Formula 1 of Zhang (i.e. the carbon pointed by an arrow in the figure above); however, Zhang does teach that Y1 can be N ([0025]).
Hwang discloses red emitting Ir complex used for an organic light emitting device (Abstract). Hwang teaches that incorporation of nitrogen at the position corresponding to Y2 of Formula 1 of Lu provides red shift in the emission (rout B4 in Fig. 7).
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 Zhang by substituting the carbon atom at the position corresponding to Y1 with nitrogen, as taught by Zhang and Hwang.
The motivation of doing so would have been to red-shift the emission color of the compound based on the teaching of Hwang.
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). Substitution of carbon with nitrogen at the position Y1 of Formula 1 of Zhang 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 Zhang as modified by Hwang.
PNG
media_image2.png
279
594
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Compound of Zhang as modified by Hwang reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach that the compound is capable of emitting light with a peak maximum wavelength >= 700 at room temperature.
It is reasonable to presume that emitting light with a peak maximum wavelength >= 700 at room temperature is an inherent property of the Compound of Zhang as modified by Hwang.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
Applicant discloses that the compound comprising a first ligand LA of Formula I of the instant specification is capable of emitting light with a peak maximum wavelength >= 700 at room temperature ([0006]). The Compound of Zhang as modified by Hwang has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula I and has identical structural features as the specific embodiments of the instant specification (the embodiments described in [0053]-[0080]).
Therefore, the Compound of Zhang as modified by Hwang is capable of emitting light with a peak maximum wavelength >= 700 at room temperature, meeting all the limitations of claims 1, 4, 6-10, and 12-14.
Zhang does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising the Compound of Zhang as modified by Hwang; however, Zhang does teach that the compound of Zhang can be used as the light emitting material ([0034]). Zhang teaches the structure of an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, an emissive layer comprising a dopant and a host (carbazole compound RH), and a cathode ([0162]).
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 Zhang as modified by Hwang by incorporating it into the emissive layer of an organic light emitting device with a carbazole host compound, as taught by Zhang.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Substitution of the emitters in an organic light emitting 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 Organic light emitting device of Zhang as modified by Hwang comprising an anode, an emissive layer (Compound of Zhang as modified by Hwang as an emitter, carbazole compound as a host), and a cathode, meeting all the limitations of claim 17.
Zhang does not disclose a specific consumer product comprising the Organic light emitting device of Zhang as modified by Hwang; however, Zhang does teach that the organic light emitting device of Zhang can be incorporated in a consumer product ([0042]).
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 Zhang as modified by Hwang by incorporating it into a consumer product, as taught by Zhang.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Substitution of the organic light emitting devices in a consumer product 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 a consumer product comprising the Organic light emitting device of Zhang as modified by Hwang, meeting all the limitations of claim 20.
Claims 21-23 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2020/0354391 A1, hereafter Zhang) in view of Hwang et al. (“Iridium(III) Complexes with Orthometalated Quinoxaline Ligands: Subtle Tuning of Emission to the Saturated Red Color”, Inorg. Chem. 2005, vol. 44, page 1344-1353) as applied to claims 1, 4, 6-10, 12-14, 17, and 20, further in view of Kim et al. (US 2008/0194853 A1, hereafter Kim).
Regarding claims 21-23 and 26, the Compound of Zhang as modified Hwang reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The compound does not have deuterium substituents at the position corresponding to R1 and R2 of Formula 1 of Zhang; however, Zhang does teach X1 to X4 can be CR1 and Y1 to Y5 can be CR2, wherein R1 and R2 can be deuterium ([0024]-[0026]).
Kim discloses an Ir complex used for an organic light emitting device (Abstract).
Kim teaches that the atomic mass of deuterium is twice as great as hydrogen such that substitution of hydrogen with deuterium provides lowered vibration energy, decreased Van der Waals force, decreased proton efficiency, and prevented intermolecular collision by vibration ([021]-[022]).
Kim exemplifies an Ir complex wherein all the hydrogen atoms of the first ligand (i.e. phenyl pyridine based ligand) are substituted by deuterium ([0045]).
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 Zhang as modified by Hwang by substituting all the hydrogen atoms at the positions corresponding to R1 and R2 of Formula 1 of Zhang with deuterium, as taught by Zhang and Kim.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide lowered vibration energy, decreased Van der Waals force, decreased proton efficiency, and prevented intermolecular collision by vibration, based on the teaching of Kim.
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). Substitution of the exemplified substituents at the positions corresponding to R1 and R2 of Formula 1 of Zhang with deuterium in the compound of Zhang 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 Zhang as modified by Hwang and Kim.
PNG
media_image6.png
326
813
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claims 1, 4, 6-10, 12-13, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (US 2020/0358010 A1) in view of Hwang et al. (“Iridium(III) Complexes with Orthometalated Quinoxaline Ligands: Subtle Tuning of Emission to the Saturated Red Color”, Inorg. Chem. 2005, vol. 44, page 1344-1353, hereafter Hwang), Lecloux et al. (US 20110260140 A1, hereafter Lecloux) and Kamatani et al. (US 2010/0219407 A1, hereafter Kamatani).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 6-10, 12-13, 17, and 20, Lu discloses a complex compound comprising a first ligand of Formula 1 ([0018]) used as the emitter of an organic light emitting device ([0015]) and exemplifies a first compound ([0102], the first compound on page 16, Ir(La759)(Lb639)(Lc31), hereafter Compound A).
PNG
media_image7.png
354
611
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The Compound A of Lu has carbon atom at the position corresponding to Y2 of Formula 1 (i.e. the carbon pointed by an arrow in the figure above); however, Lu does teach that Y2 can be N ([0020]).
Hwang discloses red emitting Ir complex used for an organic light emitting device (Abstract). Hwang teaches that incorporation of nitrogen at the position corresponding to Y2 of Formula 1 of Lu provides red shift in the emission (rout B4 in Fig. 7).
The Compound A of Lu has no electron withdrawing group of fluoro alkyl at position Y4 of Formula 1 of Lu; however, Lu does teach that Y4 can be CR2; and R2 can be a combination of a substituted alkyl having 1 carbon atom and a halogen atom ([0021]).
Lecloux teaches that substituting an electron withdrawing group at the position corresponding to Y4 of Formula 1 of Lu shifts the emission color to longer wavelength ([0093]). Lecloux exemplifies trifluoromethyl ([0069], [0086]).
Kamatani teaches substituting methyl with halogen atom provides reduced concentration quenching and improved solubility of the ligand upon synthesis ([0106]).
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 Lu by substituting the carbon atom at the position corresponding to Y2 with nitrogen and substituting the methyl group at the position corresponding to Y4 with trifluoromethyl, as taught by Lu, Hwang and Lecloux.
The motivation of doing so would have been to red-shift the emission color of the compound, based on the teaching of Hwang and Lecloux and provide reduced concentration quenching and improved solubility of the ligand upon synthesis based on the teaching of Kamatani.
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). Substitution of carbon with nitrogen at the position Y2 of Formula I of Lu would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). The substitution of the substituent methyl at the position corresponding to R2 of Formula I of Lu with trifluoromethyl 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 Lu as modified by Hwang, Lecloux, and Kamatani.
PNG
media_image3.png
315
779
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The Compound of Lu as modified by Hwang, Lecloux, and Kamatani reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach that the compound is capable of emitting light with a peak maximum wavelength >= 700 at room temperature.
It is reasonable to presume that emitting light with a peak maximum wavelength >= 700 at room temperature is an inherent property of the Compound of Hwang, Lecloux, and Kamatani.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
Applicant discloses that the compound comprising a first ligand LA of Formula I of the instant specification is capable of emitting light with a peak maximum wavelength >= 700 at room temperature ([0006]). The Compound of Hwang, Lecloux, and Kamatani has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula I and has identical structural features as the specific embodiments of the instant specification (the embodiments described in [0053]-[0081]).
Therefore, the Compound of Hwang, Lecloux, and Kamatani is capable of emitting light with a peak maximum wavelength >= 700 at room temperature, meeting all the limitations of claims 1, 4, 6-10, and 12-13.
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 Compound of Lu as modified by Hwang, Lecloux, and Kamatani 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.
Lu does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising the Compound of Lu as modified by Hwang, Lecloux, and Kamatani; however, Lu does teach that the compound of Lu can be used as the light emitting material ([0015]). Lu teaches the structure of an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, an emissive layer comprising a dopant and a host (carbazole compound RH), and a cathode ([0031], [0159]).
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 Lu as modified by Hwang, Lecloux, and Kamatani by incorporating it into the emissive layer of an organic light emitting device with a carbazole host compound, as taught by Lu.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Substitution of the emitters in an organic light emitting 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 Organic light emitting device of Lu as modified by Hwang, Lecloux, and Kamatani comprising an anode, an emissive layer (Compound of Lu as modified by Hwang, Lecloux, and Kamatani as an emitter, carbazole compound as a host), and a cathode, meeting all the limitations of claim 17.
Lu in view of Zhang does not disclose a specific consumer product comprising the Organic light emitting device of Lu as modified by Hwang, Lecloux, and Kamatani; however, Lu does teach that the organic light emitting device of Lu can be incorporated in a consumer product including a flat panel display ([0036]).
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 Lu as modified by Hwang, Lecloux, and Kamatani by incorporating it into a consumer product, as taught by Lu.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Substitution of the organic light emitting devices in a consumer product 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 a consumer product comprising the Organic light emitting device of Lu as modified by Hwang, Lecloux, and Kamatani, meeting all the limitations of claim 20.
Claims 21-23 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (US 2020/0358010 A1) in view of Hwang et al. (“Iridium(III) Complexes with Orthometalated Quinoxaline Ligands: Subtle Tuning of Emission to the Saturated Red Color”, Inorg. Chem. 2005, vol. 44, page 1344-1353), Lecloux et al. (US 20110260140 A1) and Kamatani et al. (US 2010/0219407 A1) as applied to claims 1, 4, 6-10, 12-13, 17, and 20 above, further in view of Kim et al. (US 2008/0194853 A1).
Regarding claims 21-23 and 26, the Compound of Lu as modified by Hwang, Lecloux, and Kamatani reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The compound does not have deuterium substituents at the position corresponding to R1 and R2 of Formula 1 of Lu; however, Lu does teach X1 to X4 can be CR1 and Y1 to Y6 can be CR2, wherein R1 and R2 can be deuterium ([0024]-[0026]).
Kim discloses an Ir complex used for an organic light emitting device (Abstract).
Kim teaches that the atomic mass of deuterium is twice as great as hydrogen such that substitution of hydrogen with deuterium provides lowered vibration energy, decreased Van der Waals force, decreased proton efficiency, and prevented intermolecular collision by vibration ([021]-[022]).
Kim exemplifies an Ir complex wherein all the hydrogen atoms of the first ligand (i.e. phenyl pyridine based ligand) are substituted by deuterium ([0045]).
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 Lu as modified by Hwang, Lecloux, and Kamatani by substituting all the hydrogen atoms at the positions corresponding to R1 and R2 of Formula 1 of Lu with deuterium, as taught by Lu and Kim.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide lowered vibration energy, decreased Van der Waals force, decreased proton efficiency, and prevented intermolecular collision by vibration, based on the teaching of Kim.
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). Substitution of the exemplified substituents at the positions corresponding to R1 and R2 of Formula 1 of Lu with deuterium in the compound of Lu 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 Lu as modified by Lu as modified by Hwang, Lecloux, Kamatani, and Kim.
PNG
media_image8.png
385
876
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Claims 1, 4, 6-8, 10, 12-13, 15, 17, 20-23, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boudreault at al. (US 2020/0098999 A1, hereafter Boudreault) in view of Kim et al. (US 2008/0194853 A1, hereafter Kim).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 6-8, 10, 12-13, 15, 17, 20-23, and 26, Boudreault discloses an Ir complex compound comprising a ligand LA of Formula I used as the emissive dopant of an organic light emitting device ([0015], [0064]-[0065]). Boudreault exemplifies Compound 1 ([0078], the first compound of paragraph 78, hereafter Compound 1).
PNG
media_image4.png
319
600
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The Compound 1 has similar structure as Applicant’s specific embodiment (the last compound of the instant claim 15. The only difference is that Compound 1 of Boudreault does not have a deuterium substituent at the position corresponding to R1 and R2 of Formula I of Boudreault; however, Boudreault does teach that R1 and R2 can be each a general substituent ([0065]), and the general substituent can be deuterium ([0054]).
Kim discloses an Ir complex used for an organic light emitting device (Abstract).
Kim teaches that the atomic mass of deuterium is twice as great as hydrogen such that substitution of hydrogen with deuterium provides lowered vibration energy, decreased Van der Waals force, decreased proton efficiency, and prevented intermolecular collision by vibration ([021]-[022]).
Kim exemplifies an Ir complex wherein all the hydrogen atoms of the first ligand (i.e. phenyl pyridine based ligand) are substituted by deuterium ([0045]).
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 Boudreault by substituting all the hydrogen atoms at the positions corresponding to R1 and R2 of Formula I of Boudreault with deuterium, as taught by Boudreault and Kim.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide lowered vibration energy, decreased Van der Waals force, decreased proton efficiency, and prevented intermolecular collision by vibration, based on the teaching of Kim.
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 hydrogen with deuterium at the positions corresponding to R1 and R2 of Formula I of Boudreault would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
PNG
media_image5.png
277
634
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Compound of Boudreault as modified by Kim, which has identical structure as Applicant’s last compound of the instant claim 15.
The Compound of Boudreault as modified by Kim reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach that the compound is capable of emitting light with a peak maximum wavelength >= 700 at room temperature.
It is reasonable to presume that emitting light with a peak maximum wavelength >= 700 at room temperature is an inherent property of the Compound of Boudreault as modified by Kim.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
Applicant discloses that the compound comprising a first ligand LA of Formula IX of the instant specification is capable of emitting light with a peak maximum wavelength >= 700 at room temperature ([0006]). The Compound of Boudreault as modified by Kim has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula IX and the specific embodiment of instant disclosure ([0081]).
Furthermore, Boudreault teaches the compound of Boudreault emits red to near infrared (NIR) light ([0064]).
Therefore, the Compound of Boudreault as modified by Kim is capable of emitting light with a peak maximum wavelength >= 700 at room temperature, meeting all the limitations of claims 1, 4, 6-8, 10, 12-13, 15, 21-23, and 26.
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 Compound of Boudreault as modified by Kim 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.
Boudreault in view of Kim does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising the Compound of Boudreault as modified by Kim; however, Boudreault does teach that the emissive layer comprises the compound of Boudreault can be used as the emitter with a host ([0092], [0095]) and exemplifies dicarbazolyl dibenzothiophene as the host ([0090]), which has identical structure as the first compound of the instant claim 19.
Boudreault teaches the structure of an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, an emissive layer, and a cathode ([0024]).
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 Boudreault as modified by Kim by incorporating it into the emissive layer of an organic light emitting device with a host dicarbazolyl dibenzothiophene, as taught by Boudreault.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Substitution of the emitters in an organic light emitting 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 Organic light emitting device of Boudreault as modified by Kim comprising an anode, an emissive layer (Compound of Boudreault as modified by Kim as an emitter, dicarbazolyl dibenzothiophene as a host), and a cathode, meeting all the limitations of claim 17.
Boudreault in view of Kim does not disclose a specific consumer product comprising the Organic light emitting device of Boudreault as modified by Kim; however, Boudreault does teach that the organic light emitting device of Boudreault can be incorporated in a consumer product including a lighting panel ([0088]).
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 Boudreault as modified by Kim by incorporating it into a consumer product, as taught by Boudreault.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Substitution of the organic light emitting devices in a consumer product 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 a consumer product comprising the Organic light emitting device of Boudreault as modified by Kim, meeting all the limitations of claim 20.
Claims 1, 4, 6-10, 12-14, 17, and 20-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo at al. (US 2019/0062357 A1, hereafter Yoo) in view of Kim et al. (US 2008/0194853 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 6-10, 12-14, 17, and 20-26, Yoo discloses a compound (Formula I) comprising a ligand of Formula 2 and used for an organic light emitting device ([0002], [0008]). Yoo exemplifies Compounds 2 and 11 ([0119]). Yoo exemplifies an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, an emissive layer (Compound 2 or 11), and a cathode (Example 2 and 11 in Table 1).
PNG
media_image9.png
387
784
media_image9.png
Greyscale
The left ligand of each of Compounds 2 and 11 do not have deuterium at the positions corresponding to R1 and R2 of Formula 2 of Yoo; however, Yoo does teach that R1 and R2 can be each deuterium ([0017]) or a substituted C1-C60 alkyl which can be further substituted by deuterium ([0017], [0020]).
Kim discloses an Ir complex used for an organic light emitting device (Abstract).
Kim teaches that the atomic mass of deuterium is twice as great as hydrogen such that substitution of hydrogen with deuterium provides lowered vibration energy, decreased Van der Waals force, decreased proton efficiency, and prevented intermolecular collision by vibration ([0021]-[0022]).
Kim exemplifies an Ir complex wherein all the hydrogen atoms of the first ligand (i.e. aromatic or heteroaromatic ring containing ligand) are substituted by deuterium ([0045]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified each of the Compounds 2 and 11 of Yoo by substituting all the hydrogen atoms of the aromatic or heteroaromatic ring containing ligand with deuterium, as taught by Yoo and Kim.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide lowered vibration energy, decreased Van der Waals force, decreased proton efficiency, and prevented intermolecular collision by vibration, based on the teaching of Kim.
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 hydrogen with deuterium and the substitution of methyl with CD3 at the positions corresponding to R1 and R2 of Formula 2 of Yoo would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
PNG
media_image10.png
446
819
media_image10.png
Greyscale
The modifications provide Compound of Yoo as modified by Kim (1) and (2).
The Compounds of Yoo as modified by Kim (1) and (2) read on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach that the compound is capable of emitting light with a peak maximum wavelength >= 700 at room temperature.
It is reasonable to presume that emitting light with a peak maximum wavelength >= 700 at room temperature is an inherent property of the Compounds of Yoo as modified by Kim (1) and (2).
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
Applicant discloses that the compound comprising a first ligand LA of Formula VI of the instant specification is capable of emitting light with a peak maximum wavelength >= 700 at room temperature ([0006]). The Compounds of Yoo as modified by Kim (1) and (2) has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula VI and has similar structure as the specific embodiment of instant disclosure ([0081]).
Furthermore, Yoo teaches the OLED containing Compounds 2 or 11 of Yoo provides emission wavelength over 800 nm (Table 1).
Therefore, the Compounds of Yoo as modified by Kim (1) and (2) are capable of emitting light with a peak maximum wavelength >= 700 at room temperature.
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 Compounds of Yoo as modified by Kim (1) and (2) are 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.
The Compound of Yoo as modified by Kim (1) reads on all the limitations of claims 1, 4, 6-7, 9-10, 12-14, 21-24, and 26.
The Compound of Yoo as modified by Kim (2) reads on all the limitations of claims 1, 4, 6-8, 10, 12-13, and 21-26.
The modification of Compounds 2 and 11 provides Organic light emitting device of Yoo as modified by Kim (1) (or (2)) comprising an anode, an emissive layer (Compound of Yoo as modified by Kim (1) (or (2))), and a cathode, meeting all the limitations of claim 17.
Yoo in view of Kim does not disclose a specific consumer product comprising the Organic light emitting device of Yoo as modified by Kim; however, Yoo does teach that the organic light emitting device can be incorporated in a display device ([0315]).
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 Yoo as modified by Kim by incorporating it into a display device, as taught by Yoo.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). 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 a consumer product (display device) comprising the Organic light emitting device of Yoo as modified by Kim, meeting all the limitations of claim 20.
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