DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/29/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 12/30/2025 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 11-12 have been canceled.
Claim 22-23 have been added.
Claims 1-10 and 13-23 are pending.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see page 27-33 of the reply filed 12/30/2025 regarding the rejections of claims 1-6, 10, 13-15, and 17-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji/Watanabe/Esteruelas, the rejections of claims 7-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji/Watanabe/Esteruelas/Inoue, the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji/Watanabe/Esteruelas/Wu, the rejections of claims 16 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji/Watanabe/Esteruelas/Thompson, the rejections of claims 1-6, 10, and 13-21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji/Watanabe/Esteruelas, the rejections of claims 7-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji/Watanabe/Esteruelas/Inoue, and the rejections of claims 16 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji/Watanabe/Esteruelas/Thompson set forth in the Office Action of 11/07/2025 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the amended claims claim the following critical and distinct compositional features which are not disclosed or suggested by the cited references (page 29).
PNG
media_image1.png
305
615
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Respectfully, the Examiner does not agree.
The features should be met once the organometallic compound has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1 of the amended claims 1 and 10, and the cited reference teaches all the limitations of the Formula 1; thus, the features are obvious by the cited references.
Ji in view of Watanabe, Esteruelas, and Thompson teaches the following compound (see details in the 103 rejection section below).
PNG
media_image2.png
444
630
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This compound reads on all the limitations of Applicant’s Formula 1 of the amended claims 1 and 10 and has identical structure as Applicant’s specific embodiment BD02 of the instant claim 21.
For at least this reason, the argument is not found persuasive.
Applicant argues that Ji fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness (see Compounds 1-13 of Ji on page 30 of the Applicant’s remarks).
Respectfully, the Examiner does not agree.
Applicant shows Compounds 1-13 of Ji. However, those compounds are some limited examples of the compounds of Ji. See MPEP 2123 (I) and (II).
"The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain." In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (reference disclosing optional inclusion of a particular component teaches compositions that both do and do not contain that component); Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522-23 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (The court held that the prior art anticipated the claims even though it taught away from the claimed invention. "The fact that a modem with a single carrier data signal is shown to be less than optimal does not vitiate the fact that it is disclosed.")
Furthermore, disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). "A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use." In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (The invention was directed to an epoxy impregnated fiber-reinforced printed circuit material. The applied prior art reference taught a printed circuit material similar to that of the claims but impregnated with polyester-imide resin instead of epoxy. The reference, however, disclosed that epoxy was known for this use, but that epoxy impregnated circuit boards have "relatively acceptable dimensional stability" and "some degree of flexibility," but are inferior to circuit boards impregnated with polyester-imide resins. The court upheld the rejection concluding that applicant’s argument that the reference teaches away from using epoxy was insufficient to overcome the rejection since "Gurley asserted no discovery beyond what was known in the art." Id. at 554, 31 USPQ2d at 1132.). Furthermore, "[t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
The compounds of Ji are represented by Formula I of Ji ([0016]) and Ji exemplifies compound (LB2)2IrA14745, ([0074], page 13).
PNG
media_image3.png
343
612
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The compound (LB2)2IrA14745 has similar structure as Applicant’s specific embodiment BD02 of claim 21. The compound of Ji differs from the BD02 in that 1) the methyl group of each of the benzimidazole carbene ligands pointed by an arrow in the figure above is not crosslinked to form a multidentate ligand, and 2) the phenyl dimethyl pyridine ligand coordinating to the Pt atom at the position corresponding to the ligand CY7-CY8 of Applicant’s Formula 1 (i.e. the part enclosed by a dashed box in the figure above) is not a phenyl benzimidazole carbene ligand.
However, Ji teaches two differences 1) and 2), and the secondary references of Watanabe, Esteruelas, and Thompson further teach benefits why an ordinary skill in the art would modify the compound of Ji to arrive at the claimed compound.
That is, regarding the difference 1), Ji teaches that the benzimidazole carbene ligand has a general formula of
PNG
media_image4.png
220
186
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, wherein Ra can be alkyl group; and any two adjacent Ra can be joined to form a multidentate ligand ([0071]). Ji exemplifies ethyl and butyl as the alkyl group ([0044]).
Watanabe teaches that crosslinking the ligands of a transition metal complex provides an ability to adjust the luminous wavelength to a desired one and provides the organic light emitting device comprising the compound with high luminous efficiency and blue light ([0050]).
Watanabe exemplifies a butyl crosslinking group to connect two bidentate ligands comprising imidazole carbene (the third example in [0092]; Compound 1 in [0251]; see the part enclosed by a dashed circle in the figure below).
PNG
media_image5.png
303
476
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Esteruelas teaches that crosslinking the ligands (“donor groups”) coordinated to the metal center reduces number of possible isomers and provides narrow and bluer emission (the second paragraph of Introduction at page 3720, col. 1). Esteruelas further teaches that the compounds of Esteruelas having a crosslinking groups provides higher quantum yield (0.87-0.96) than the compounds having unlinked free imidazole-carbene ligands (the last five lines of column 1 and the first two lines of column 2 on page 3724).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compound (LB2)2IrA14745 of Ji by crosslinking two benzimidazole carbene ligands using a butyl crosslinking group.
Furthermore, regarding the difference 2), Ji teaches that the ligand coordinating to the Pt atom can be represented by
PNG
media_image6.png
223
178
media_image6.png
Greyscale
([0072]).
Thompson discloses an organometallic complex comprising an imidazole carbene ligand ([0086], [0135]). Thompson exemplifies a metal complex comprising a phenyl methyl benzimidazole carbene ligand ([0140], see the left ligand of the structural formula below), wherein M can be Pt ([0110]) and the ligand X-Y can be any photoactive or ancillary ligand ([0095]).
PNG
media_image7.png
220
282
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Thompson teaches the carbene ligand provides desirable properties in OLED applications including high thermal stability and saturated blue color emission ([0065], [0069], [0073]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified compound (LB2)2IrA14745 of Ji by substituting the phenyl dimethyl pyridine ligand with a phenyl methyl benzimidazole carbene ligand (i.e. the left ligand of the structural formula of Thompson).
The modification provides the resultant compound having identical structure as Applicant’s BD02.
At least for this reason, the argument is not found persuasive.
Applicant argues that Watanabe teaches compounds that need one Ir atom and should not provide Pt (page 31) and Esteruelas teaches compounds that need to have two Ir atom and should not provide Pt.
Respectfully, the Examiner does not agree.
The rejections are made by Ji in combination of Watanabe and Esteruelas, not Watanabe alone, nor Esteruelas alone.
As outlined above, the compound of Ji is represented by Formula I of Ji and exemplifies compound (LB2)2IrA14745. Ji teaches the deficiency of the compound (LB2)2IrA14745 to read on Applicant’s BD02. That is, Ji teaches that the benzimidazole carbene ligand has a general formula of
PNG
media_image4.png
220
186
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, wherein Ra can be alkyl group; and any two adjacent Ra can be joined to form a multidentate ligand ([0071]). Ji exemplifies ethyl and butyl as the alkyl group ([0044]).
The only knowledge that an ordinary skill in the art would rely upon from Watanabe and Esteruelas is the benefits of the butyl group to crosslink two phenyl benzimidazole ligands of the compound (LB2)2IrA14745 of Ji.
Watanabe teaches that crosslinking the ligands of a transition metal complex provides an ability to adjust the luminous wavelength to a desired one and provides the organic light emitting device comprising the compound with high luminous efficiency and blue light ([0050]).
Esteruelas teaches that crosslinking the ligands (“donor groups”) coordinated to the metal center reduces number of possible isomers and provides narrow and bluer emission (the second paragraph of Introduction at page 3720, col. 1). Esteruelas further teaches that the compounds of Esteruelas having a crosslinking groups provides higher quantum yield (0.87-0.96) than the compounds having unlinked free imidazole-carbene ligands (the last five lines of column 1 and the first two lines of column 2 on page 3724).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the compound (LB2)2IrA14745 of Ji by crosslinking two benzimidazole carbene ligands to achieve the benefits taught by Watanabe and Esteruelas.
For at least this reason, the argument is not found persuasive.
Applicant argues that Ji’s Ir-Pt complexes rely on pyridine-type ligands at the position corresponding to CY8 and do not teach or suggest a carbene-type carbon directly bonded to Pt within a five-membered heterocycle (page 31).
Respectfully, the Examiner does not agree.
Ji in view of Watanabe and Esteruelas provides Compound of Ji as modified by Watanabe and Esteruelas.
PNG
media_image8.png
442
663
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The phenyl dimethyl pyridine ligand coordinating to the Pt atom at the position corresponding to the ligand CY7-CY8 of Applicant’s Formula 1 (i.e. the part enclosed by a dashed box in the figure above) is not a phenyl benzimidazole carbene ligand; however, Ji does teach that the ligand coordinating to the Pt atom can be
PNG
media_image6.png
223
178
media_image6.png
Greyscale
([0072]).
Thompson discloses an organometallic complex comprising an imidazole carbene ligand ([0086], [0135]). Thompson exemplifies a metal complex comprising a phenyl methyl benzimidazole carbene ligand ([0140], see the left ligand of the structural formula below), wherein M can be Pt ([0110]) and the ligand X-Y can be any photoactive or ancillary ligand ([0095]).
PNG
media_image7.png
220
282
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Thompson teaches the carbene ligand provides desirable properties in OLED applications including high thermal stability and saturated blue color emission ([0065], [0069], [0073]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound of Ji as modified by Watanabe and Esteruelas by substituting the phenyl dimethyl pyridine ligand with a phenyl methyl benzimidazole carbene ligand (i.e. the left ligand of the structural formula of Thompson).
The resultant compound has identical structure as Applicant’s BD02.
For at least this reason, the argument is not found persuasive.
Applicant argues that Applicant’s specification demonstrates improved luminance efficiency and lower driving voltage for compounds BD01-BD41 versus comparative examples (page 32).
Respectfully, the Examiner does not agree. For at least the following reason below, it is unclear whether the data proves unexpected and superior performance of the instant invention as compared to the closest prior art, Ji.
Applicant compares the OLED (Examples 1-5) comprising compounds BD01, BD17, BD25, BD33, and BD41 with the OLED (Comparative Examples CE1, CE2, A, and B) comprising compounds CE1, CE2, A, and B (Table 2).
First, the Comparative Examples CE1, CE2, and A are not the closest prior art because none of the Comparative compounds CE1, CE2, and A is directed to the compound of Ji represented by Formula I of Ji ([0065]). Additionally, even Comparative compound B is not closest prior art. The closest prior art is the compound (LB2)2IrA14745 ([0074], page 13) because the compound has benzimidazole rings at the positions CY1 and CY3 similarly as the inventive compounds BD17, BD25, and BD33.
PNG
media_image9.png
346
451
media_image9.png
Greyscale
An affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979). "A comparison of the claimed invention with the disclosure of each cited reference to determine the number of claim limitations in common with each reference, bearing in mind the relative importance of particular limitations, will usually yield the closest single prior art reference." In re Merchant, 575 F.2d 865, 868, 197 USPQ 785, 787 (CCPA 1978) (emphasis in original). Where the comparison is not identical with the reference disclosure, deviations therefrom should be explained, In re Finley, 174 F.2d 130, 81 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1949), and if not explained should be noted and evaluated, and if significant, explanation should be required. In re Armstrong, 280 F.2d 132, 126 USPQ 281 (CCPA 1960) (deviations from example were inconsequential). See MPEP 716.02(e).
Second, the Comparative Example B has luminance efficiency of 9.11 cd/A and the inventive Examples 1 to 5 have luminance efficiency 9.12, 9.14, 9.26, 9.18, and 9.12 cd/A. There are only 0.1%, 0.3%, 1.6%, 0.8%, and 0.1% improvements in the luminance efficiency as compared to the comparative Example B. Similarly, each of the inventive devices has -2.9%, -2.9%, -2.0%, -1.6%, and -1.8% lower voltage, and 0.37%, 0.40%, 0.50%, 0.42%, and 0.27% higher luminance than the comparative device. That is, the inventive devices have improvements up to 2.9% in voltage, 0.50% in luminance, and 1.6% in luminance efficiency. It is unclear whether such subtle improvements are statistically and practically meaningful. It is unclear whether the improvements are even larger than the measurement error (i.e. error range). It is Applicant’s burden to establish the differences being up to 2.9% in voltage, 0.50% in luminance, and 1.6% in luminance efficiency are both statistically and practically significant (MPEP 716.02(b)).
The evidence relied upon should establish "that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance." Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1319 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (Mere conclusions in appellants’ brief that the claimed polymer had an unexpectedly increased impact strength "are not entitled to the weight of conclusions accompanying the evidence, either in the specification or in a declaration."); Ex parte C, 27 USPQ2d 1492 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (Applicant alleged unexpected results with regard to the claimed soybean plant, however there was no basis for judging the practical significance of data with regard to maturity date, flowering date, flower color, or height of the plant.). See also In re Nolan, 553 F.2d 1261, 1267, 193 USPQ 641, 645 (CCPA 1977) and In re Eli Lilly, 902 F.2d 943, 14 USPQ2d 1741 (Fed. Cir. 1990) as discussed in MPEP § 716.02(c).
Third, there are multiple differences in structure between each of the inventive compounds and the comparative compound B. For example all the inventive compounds have a benzimidazole ring at the position corresponding to the ring CY8 of Applicant’s Formula 1 while the comparative compound B has pyridine. One reason why the inventive OLED device has improved performance may stem from the benzimidazole ring at the position corresponding to the ring CY8 of Formula I. However, at least instant independent claims 1 and 10 do not require the ring CY8 to be benzimidazole. The claims allow the ring CY8 to be any of Formulae CY8-1 to CY8-48.
Additionally, all the inventive compounds have a dipyridine structure,
PNG
media_image10.png
103
41
media_image10.png
Greyscale
at the positions corresponding to rings CY5 and CY6 while the comparative compound B has a phenyl pyrimidine structure
PNG
media_image11.png
169
73
media_image11.png
Greyscale
. One reason why the inventive OLED device has improved performance may stem from the dipyridine structure at the position corresponding to the rings CY5 and CY6 of Formula I. However, at least instant independent claims 1 and 10 do not require the rings CY5 and CY6 to be dipyridine. The prior art does not require the rings CY5 and CY6 to be phenyl pyrimidine. The instant claims allow the ring CY5 and CY6 to be any C3-C60 carbocyclic group or a C1-C60 heterocyclic group. Thus, the data is not commensurate in scope with the claims.
With respect to the commensurate in scope with claimed invention, the Examiner points out MPEP 716.02(d), as recited below.
Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range.
In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980) (Claims were directed to a process for removing corrosion at "elevated temperatures" using a certain ion exchange resin (with the exception of claim 8 which recited a temperature in excess of 100C). Appellant demonstrated unexpected results via comparative tests with the prior art ion exchange resin at 110C and 130C. The court affirmed the rejection of claims 1-7 and 9-10 because the term "elevated temperatures" encompassed temperatures as low as 60C where the prior art ion exchange resin was known to perform well. The rejection of claim 8, directed to a temperature in excess of 100C, was reversed.). See also In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329-31, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-85 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (data showing improved alloy strength with the addition of 2% rhenium did not evidence unexpected results for the entire claimed range of about 1-3% rhenium); In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 741, 218 USPQ 769, 777 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (Claims were directed to certain catalysts containing an alkali metal. Evidence presented to rebut an obviousness rejection compared catalysts containing sodium with the prior art. The court held this evidence insufficient to rebut the prima facie case because experiments limited to sodium were not commensurate in scope with the claims.).
Fourth, the fact that applicant has recognized another advantage (i.e. low driving voltage, high luminance, and high luminance efficiency) which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art (i.e. ability to adjust the luminous wavelength to a desired one, high luminous efficiency, and blue light based on the teaching of Watanabe; reduced number of possible isomers, narrow and bluer emission, and higher quantum efficiency based on the teaching of Esteruelas; and high thermal stability and saturated blue color emission based on the teaching of Thompson) cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Fifth, high luminance efficiency is not unexpected.
Watanabe teaches that crosslinking the ligands of a transition metal complex provides high luminous efficiency ([0050]). Esteruelas teaches that the a compound having a crosslinking groups provides higher quantum yield (0.87-0.96) than the compound having unlinked free imidazole-carbene ligands (the last five lines of column 1 and the first two lines of column 2 on page 3724). Thus, high luminance efficiency is known property for the complex comprising an alkyl crosslinking structure between imidazole carbene ligands.
For at least this reason, the applicant’s argument is not found to be persuasive.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, the variables, especially, the subscripts of the variables in the structural Formulae CY8-1 to CY8-48 such as X8 and Z81 are too small and illegible. It is suggested to enlarge the structural formulas maintaining resolution high.
In claim 10, the variables, especially, the subscripts of the variables in the structural Formulae CY8-1 to CY8-48 are too small and illegible. It is suggested to enlarge the structural formulas maintaining resolution high.
In claim 19, the variables, especially, the subscripts of the variables in the structural Formulae CY1-1 to CY1-9, CY2-1 to CY2-17, CY3-1 to CY3-9, CY4-1 to CY4-17, CY5-1 to CY5-10, and CY6-1 to CY6-6 are too small and illegible.
In claim 19, Applicant recites a phrase “Formulae CY1-1 to CY1-9” in multiple locations; however, there are only CY1-1 and CY1-2. The phrase should be Formulae CY1-1 and CY1-2.
In claim 19, Applicant recites a phrase “Formulae CY3-1 to CY3-9” in multiple locations; however, there are only CY3-1 and CY3-2. The phrase should be Formulae CY3-1 and CY3-2.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 23, Applicant claims “The light-emitting device of claim 1, wherein the emission layer … exhibits a CIE y-coordinate of 0.1 or less at 1000 cd/m2.”
It appears that the instant specification does not disclose anything related to the CIE y-coordinate at 1000 cd/m2. The instant specification does not provides sufficient support for the claimed specificity regarding the CIE y-coordinate at 1000 cd/m2 of the claimed device; thus, the claim includes new matter.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 23, Applicant claims “The light-emitting device of claim 1, wherein the emission layer … and exhibits a CIE y-coordinate of 0.1 or less at 1000 cd/m2 and a peak emission wavelength in the range of 440 nm to 470 nm”
As outlined above, the claim includes new matter and it is unclear how to interpret the limitation of a CIE y-coordinate of 0.1 or less at 1000 cd/m2, rendering this claim indefinite.
For the purpose of prosecution, the Examiner interprets the limitation to mean that the light-emitting device of claim 1, wherein the emission layer … and exhibits a peak emission wavelength in the range of 440 nm to 470 nm.
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 1-6, 10, and 13-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji et al. (US 2019/0337974 A1, hereafter Ji) in view of Watanabe et al. (US 2010/0219397 A1, hereafter Watanabe), Esteruelas et al. (“Preparation of Phosphorescent Iridium(III) Complexes with a Dianionic C,C,C,C-Tetradentate Ligand”, Inorg. Chem. 2018, vol. 57, page 3720-3730, hereafter Esteruelas), and Thompson et al. (US 2005/0260441 A1, hereafter Thompson).
Regarding claims 1-5, 10, and 13-23, Ji discloses an Ir-Pt dinuclear compound comprising a first ligand LA of Formula I and used as the emitter of a light emitting device ([0015]-[0017]). Ji exemplifies a dinuclear compound (LB2)2IrA14745, wherein Az has structure of
PNG
media_image12.png
200
220
media_image12.png
Greyscale
, R1=R2=RE1 which is -CH3 and X=Xx1 which is -O- ([0074], page 13).
PNG
media_image9.png
346
451
media_image9.png
Greyscale
The methyl group of each of the benzimidazole carbene ligands pointed by an arrow in the figure above are not crosslinked to form a multidentate ligand; however, Ji does teach that the benzimidazole carbene ligand has a general formula of
PNG
media_image4.png
220
186
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, wherein Ra can be alkyl group; and any two adjacent Ra can be joined to form a multidentate ligand ([0071]). Ji exemplifies ethyl and butyl as the alkyl group ([0044]).
Watanabe discloses an organometallic compound comprising a crosslinking group to connect two bidentate ligands (Formula (1) in [0083]- [0095]) and used for an organic light emitting device ([0049]).
Watanabe teaches that crosslinking the ligands of a transition metal complex provides an ability to adjust the luminous wavelength to a desired one and provides the organic light emitting device comprising the compound with high luminous efficiency and blue light ([0050]).
Watanabe exemplifies a butyl crosslinking group to connect two bidentate ligands comprising imidazole carbene (the third example in [0092]; Compound 1 in [0251]; see the part enclosed by a dashed circle in the figure below).
PNG
media_image5.png
303
476
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Esteruelas discloses an Ir-based organometallic compound comprising imidazole carbene ligands connected by a butyl crosslinking group (Abstract; Compounds 4-7 in Scheme 4).
Esteruelas teaches that crosslinking the ligands (“donor groups”) coordinated to the metal center reduces number of possible isomers and provides narrow and bluer emission (the second paragraph of Introduction at page 3720, col. 1). Esteruelas further teaches that the compounds of Esteruelas having a crosslinking groups provides higher quantum yield (0.87-0.96) than the compounds having unlinked free imidazole-carbene ligands (the last five lines of column 1 and the first two lines of column 2 on page 3724).
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 (LB2)2IrA14745 of Ji by crosslinking two benzimidazole carbene ligands using a butyl crosslinking group as taught by Ji, Watanabe, and Esteruelas.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provides ability to adjust the luminous wavelength to a desired one and provides the organic light emitting device comprising the compound with high luminous efficiency and blue light based on the teaching of Watanabe, and reduces number of possible isomers and provides narrow and bluer emission and higher quantum efficiency based on the teaching of Esteruelas.
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 methyl group at the position corresponding to Ra of the ligand LB of Ji with ethyl wherein each of the ethyl groups of two benzimidazole carbene ligands are joined to form a multidentate ligand would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
PNG
media_image8.png
442
663
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Compound of Ji as modified by Watanabe and Esteruelas.
The phenyl dimethyl pyridine ligand coordinating to the Pt atom at the position corresponding to the ligand CY7-CY8 of Applicant’s Formula 1 (i.e. the part enclosed by a dashed box in the figure above) is not a phenyl benzimidazole carbene ligand; however, Ji does teach that the ligand coordinating to the Pt atom can be
PNG
media_image6.png
223
178
media_image6.png
Greyscale
([0072]).
Thompson discloses an organometallic complex comprising an imidazole carbene ligand ([0086], [0135]). Thompson exemplifies a metal complex comprising a phenyl methyl benzimidazole carbene ligand ([0140], see the left ligand of the structural formula below), wherein M can be Pt ([0110]) and the ligand X-Y can be any photoactive or ancillary ligand ([0095]).
PNG
media_image7.png
220
282
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Thompson teaches the carbene ligand provides desirable properties in OLED applications including high thermal stability and saturated blue color emission ([0065], [0069], [0073]).
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 Ji as modified by Watanabe and Esteruelas by substituting the phenyl dimethyl pyridine ligand with a phenyl methyl benzimidazole carbene ligand (i.e. the left ligand of the structural formula of Thompson), as taught by Ji and Thompson.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide desirable properties for OLED applications including high thermal stability and saturated blue color emission based on the teaching of Thompson.
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). Ji teaches a phenyl methyl benzimidazole carbene ligand can be the ligand coordinating to the Pt atom ([0072]). Substitution of the phenyl dimethyl pyridine ligand to a phenyl methyl benzimidazole carbene ligand would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
PNG
media_image2.png
444
630
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The modification provides the Compound of Ji as modified by Watanabe, Esteruelas, and Thompson, which has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1 of claim 10 and the specific compound d BD02 of claim 21, meeting all the limitations of claims 10 and 13-22.
Ji dos not disclose a specific light emitting device comprising the Compound of Ji as modified by Watanabe, Esteruelas, and Thompson; however, Ji does teach that the compound of Ji represented by Formula I of Ji can be used for a light emitting device ([0075]).
Ji teaches the structure of the light emitting device comprising an anode, a hole injection layer, an emission layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode (Fig. 1, [0025]).
Ji teaches the compound of Ji is used as a dopant with a host compound ([0077]). Ji exemplifies dicarbazolyl dibenzothiophene as the host compound (the first compound in [0078]).
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 Ji as modified by Watanabe, Esteruelas, and Thompson by incorporating it as the emissive dopant with dicarbazolyl dibenzothiophene as the host in the emission layer of a light emitting device, 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). Substitution of emissive dopants represented by Formula I of Ji in the light emitting device of Ji 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 Light emitting device of Ji as modified by Watanabe, Esteruelas, and Thompson comprising a first electrode (anode), a hole injection layer, an emission layer (Compound of Ji as modified by Watanabe, Esteruelas, and Thompson as a dopant, dicarbazolyl dibenzothiophene as a host), an electron injection layer, and a second electrode (cathode), wherein the hole injection layer, the emission layer, the electron injection layer are an interlayer, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-4.
The Light emitting device of Ji as modified by Watanabe, Esteruelas, and Thompson reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach the properties of the device including 1) the device is configured to emit blue light (claim 5), and 2) the emission layer exhibits a peak emission wavelength in the range of 440 nm to 470 nm (claim 23).
It is reasonable to presume that the Light emitting device of Ji as modified by Watanabe, Esteruelas, and Thompson inherently possesses the properties.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
The emission color and the wavelength of the light from a light emitting device is determined by the emission properties of the emitter of the device. The emitter of the Light emitting device of Ji as modified by Watanabe, Esteruelas, and Thompson is the Compound of Ji as modified by Watanabe, Esteruelas, and Thompson which has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1 and the specific embodiment BD02 of the instant disclosure.
Applicant discloses that the emission layer of the light emitting device of the instant invention may be configured to emit blue light ([0010], [0014]).
Applicant discloses the Example 2-4 devices have maximum emission wavelength of 458-461 nm (Table 2). The Compound of Ji as modified by Watanabe, Esteruelas, and Thompson has identical core structure as the emitters (BD17, BD25, and BD33) of the Example 2-4 devices.
Therefore, the Light emitting device of Ji as modified by Watanabe, Esteruelas, and Thompson should have the properties 1) and 2), meeting all the limitations of claims 5 and 23.
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 Light emitting device of Ji as modified by Watanabe, Esteruelas, and Thompson 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.
Regarding claim 6, the Light emitting device of Ji as modified by Watanabe, Esteruelas, and Thompson reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode (anode), a hole injection layer, an emission layer (Compound of Ji as modified by Watanabe, Esteruelas, and Thompson as a dopant, dicarbazolyl dibenzothiophene as a host), an electron injection layer, and a second electrode (cathode), wherein the hole injection layer, the emission layer, the electron injection layer are an interlayer.
The relative amount of the dopant and the host in the device is not specific.
Watanabe teaches the metal complex has preferably 1 to 30 wt% in the emission layer of a light emitting device ([0194]).
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 Light emitting device of Ji as modified by Watanabe, Esteruelas, and Thompson by incorporating the emitting dopant with the mass percentage of 1 to 30 with respect to the total mass of the emission layer.
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 modification provides Light emitting device of Ji as modified by Watanabe, Esteruelas, and Thompson (2) comprising a first electrode (anode), a hole injection layer, an emission layer (Compound of Ji as modified by Watanabe, Esteruelas, and Thompson as a dopant with 1 to 30 wt%, dicarbazolyl dibenzothiophene as a host), an electron injection layer, and a second electrode (cathode), wherein the hole injection layer, the emission layer, the electron injection layer are an interlayer.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji et al. (US 2019/0337974 A1) in view of Watanabe et al. (US 2010/0219397 A1), Esteruelas et al. (“Preparation of Phosphorescent Iridium(III) Complexes with a Dianionic C,C,C,C-Tetradentate Ligand”, Inorg. Chem. 2018, vol. 57, page 3720-3730), and Thompson et al. (US 2005/0260441 A1), as applied to claims 1-6, 10, and 13-23 above, further in view of Inoue et al. (US 2016/0028027 A1, hereafter Inoue).
Regarding claims 7-9, the Light emitting device of Ji as modified by Watanabe, Esteruelas, and Thompson reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode (anode), a hole injection layer, an emission layer (Compound of Ji as modified by Watanabe, Esteruelas, and Thompson as a dopant, dicarbazolyl dibenzothiophene as a host), an electron injection layer, and a second electrode (cathode), wherein the hole injection layer, the emission layer, the electron injection layer are an interlayer.
Ji does not disclose a specific electronic apparatus comprising the Light emitting device of Ji as modified by Watanabe, Esteruelas, and Thompson and a thin film transistor; however, Ji does teach that the light emitting device can be incorporated in a wide variety of electronic components including display devices ([0032]).
Inoue discloses an electronic apparatus (“computer” in Fig. 7B2 and [0170], [0174]) which comprises a touch screen layer (7210 in Fig. 7B2 and [0174]).
Inoue teaches a display part of an electronic apparatus (“light-emitting device” in [0138] and Figs 2A and 2B) comprising a thin film transistor (FET 611 in [0142]), wherein the first electrode of the light emitting device (“light-emitting element”) is electrically connected to a drain of the thin film transistor.
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 Light emitting device of Ji as modified by Watanabe, Esteruelas, and Thompson by incorporating it into the display part of an electronic apparatus containing a touch screen layer, wherein the electronic apparatus comprises the Light emitting device of Ji as modified by Watanabe, Esteruelas, and Thompson and a thin film transistor, wherein the first electrode of the light emitting device is electrically connected to a drain of the thin film transistor, as taught by Inoue.
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 light emitting devices in an electronic apparatus 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 Electronic apparatus of Ji as modified by Watanabe, Esteruelas and Inoue containing a touch screen layer, wherein the electronic apparatus comprises the Light emitting device of Ji as modified by Watanabe, Esteruelas, and Thompson and a thin film transistor, wherein the first electrode of the light emitting device is electrically connected to a drain of the thin film transistor.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEOKMIN JEON whose telephone number is (571)272-4599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JENNIFER BOYD can be reached at (571)272-7783. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SEOKMIN JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786