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
Claims 20, 24-26, 32 and 34-36 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/14/2025.
Examiner would like to point out that the Response to Election Requirement did not include claim 24 in the withdrawn claims, but it is directed to a withdrawn species.
Priority
The claimed subject matter does not appear to be supported by the documents in Provisional application 63/196,878. The claims will be given the effective filing date of 04/11/2022, the filing date of Provisional application 63/329,536.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 17-19, 21-27 and 34-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Hatekayama et al (US 20190181350 A1).
This reference is used to reject some withdrawn claims, in the interest of compact prosecution. However, that other withdrawn claims may be anticipated or obvious over Hatekayama, and the lack of rejection of those claims does not indicate that they are allowable over this reference.
Hatekayama discloses organic EL element has a structure having a pair of electrodes composed of a positive electrode and a negative electrode. and a single layer or a plurality of layers which are disposed between the pair of electrodes and contain an organic compound of the following formula (1) the layer containing an organic compound includes a light emitting layer [0003] and the compound includes 100% deuterated compounds such as 1-4
PNG
media_image1.png
139
133
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
199
329
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[0011, p24]. The compound may also replace at least one hydrogen atom in a compound or a structure represented by formula (1) may be substituted by cyano or a halogen atom [0016], and the rings of Formula (1) may include naphthalene rings [0091]. The compound can emit light from a triplet excited state to a ground singlet state in an OLED, i.e. a delayed fluorescent emitter [0080].
The light emitting layer also includes a host including:
PNG
media_image3.png
413
269
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[p114] which reads on the host of claim 18 on p3 of the instant claims 10/14/2025. The OLED further contains an acceptor such as a singlet (fluorescent) or triplet (phosphorescent) emitter [0006, 0174-0075].
Claim(s) 17-18, 21, 23, 27-31 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Cao et al (CN 108191916 A).
Cao discloses an OLED comprising an anode, cathode, and an organic layer therebetween [abstract, claims] which includes a metal complex exemplified by the fully deuterated compound:
PNG
media_image4.png
176
179
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[p15] which is the same compound on p22 of claims 10/14/2025, second row far right. The OLED example include a carbazole containing host material CBP [0264, p34].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 17-19, 21, 23 and 27-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Xia et al (US 20140231755 A1).
Xia discloses OLEDs having an organic layer comprising a compound exemplified by Compound 2 and similar compounds:
PNG
media_image5.png
223
244
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[p6] and also discloses that the compounds may be fully deuterated [0090] which is 100% deuteration. The organic layer may also include hosts such as:
PNG
media_image6.png
162
301
media_image6.png
Greyscale
[p38].
This rejection is made under both 35 USC 102 anticipation and 35 USC 103 obviousness. Examiner holds the opinion that the disclosure of “fully deuterated” embodiments of the compounds in Xia would allow the ordinarily skilled artisan to readily envisage the claimed compounds having 100% deuteration, therefore the claims are anticipated. In the alternative, the claims are certainly obvious over the combination of elements disclosed, and the mere fact that a reference suggests a multitude of possible combinations does not in and of itself make any one of those combinations less obvious. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).
Claim(s) 17-19, 21-23, 27-31 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ji et al (US 20180287070 A1).
Ji discloses OLEDs having an organic layer comprising a compound exemplified by the below compounds:
PNG
media_image7.png
152
165
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
151
148
media_image8.png
Greyscale
[p140] and also discloses that the compounds may be fully deuterated [0169] which is 100% deuteration. The organic layer may also include hosts such as:
PNG
media_image9.png
186
292
media_image9.png
Greyscale
[p92] which reads on claim 19.
This rejection is made under both 35 USC 102 anticipation and 35 USC 103 obviousness. Examiner holds the opinion that the disclosure of “fully deuterated” embodiments of the compounds in Ji would allow the ordinarily skilled artisan to readily envisage the claimed compounds having 100% deuteration, therefore the claims are anticipated. In the alternative, the claims are certainly obvious over the combination of elements disclosed, and the mere fact that a reference suggests a multitude of possible combinations does not in and of itself make any one of those combinations less obvious. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia ‘755 (US 20140231755 A1).
As discussed above, Xia discloses compound 2 and similar compound, below, and the claimed elected embodiment is provided for comparison
PNG
media_image5.png
223
244
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
173
202
media_image10.png
Greyscale
The difference between the elected claimed embodiment and the fully deuterated compound 2 of Xia is that the disclosed compound includes an additional deuterated methyl group on the LHS ligands.
One having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have expected the disclosed and elected claimed compound to have similar if not equivalent properties based on the structural similarities of the two compounds. A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. “An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties.” In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) or homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). See also In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978).
Claim(s) 17-19, 21-23, 27-31 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia ‘916 (US 20100270916 A1) in view of Xia ‘755 (US 20140231755 A1) or Li et al (US 6699599 B2).
Xia ‘916 discloses OLEDs having an organic layer with a compound comprising deuterated methyl groups, such as Compound 30:
PNG
media_image11.png
269
258
media_image11.png
Greyscale
[p58]. This is the same compound as the elected compound of claim 33, only with hydrogens in place of the deuterium groups.
Xia ‘916 does not explicitly disclose the deuteration of the other hydrogen groups, but does disclose that the deuteration of Iridium complexes in OLEDs is known from Li et al (US 6699599 B2) [0059]. Xia ‘916 also discloses that the deuterium substitution provides many benefits, e.g., increased efficiency and lifetime [0067].
Li discloses that deuterium substitution, and full deuterium substitution [Example 8], provides iridium complexes in OLEDs with higher quantum and luminance efficiency, excellent stability and good lifetime [col 24 line 59 to col 25 line 15; Fig 8 and 9].
Xia ‘755, discussed above, teaches similar Ir complexes to Xia ‘916 and teaches that the compounds may be partially or fully deuterated on top of the CD3 substitution [0090].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of Applicant’s invention to have fully deuterated the compound 30 of Xia ‘916 to arrive at the elected compound of the claims because Li and Xia ‘916, as well as Xia ‘916 itself, teach that deuteration improves efficiency and lifetime of the OLEDs compared to the non-deuterated Ir complexes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL M DOLLINGER whose telephone number is (571)270-5464. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6:30pm M-F.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-272-1302. 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.
MICHAEL M. DOLLINGER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1766
/MICHAEL M DOLLINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766