DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 15 December 2025 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 1, 8, and 13 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
The amendment to the specification has overcome the objection to the specification set forth in the last Office action. The objection has been withdrawn.
The amended claim 13 has overcome the objection to claim 13 set forth in the last Office action. The objection has been withdrawn.
The amendment to claim 8 has overcome the rejections of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn. However, the amended claim limitations raise new issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), as set forth below.
The amendment to claim 1 has overcome the rejections of claims 1-12, 14-18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jeon et al. (US 2020/0321537 A1) (hereafter “Jeon”) and as evidenced by Mizuki et al. (US 2012/0112169 A1) (hereafter “Mizuki”) set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn.
The amendment to claim 1 has overcome the rejections of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 2020/0140471 A1) (hereafter “Chen”) set forth in the last Office action as well as the rejections of claims 13-17 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2020/0140471 A1) (hereafter “Chen”) set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn. However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection based upon the same cited references have been made.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) the rejections of claims 1-12, 14-18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jeon et al. (US 2020/0321537 A1) (hereafter “Jeon”) and as evidenced by Mizuki et al. (US 2012/0112169 A1) (hereafter “Mizuki”) set forth in the last Office action have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 15 December 2025 regarding the rejections of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 2020/0140471 A1) (hereafter “Chen”) set forth in the last Office action as well as the rejections of claims 13-17 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2020/0140471 A1) (hereafter “Chen”) set forth in the last Office action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Chen does not teach compounds having the structure required by the current claim 1.
However, for the reasons outlined below, Chen does teach compounds having the structure required by the current claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 8 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 8: Claim 8 recites the limitations that the instant Ar1 is selected from one of the instant Ar1(1) to Ar1(104).
Where claim 1 requires the proviso that when E1 is a substituted or unsubstituted phenyl group, then neither E3 nor E5 is a substituted or unsubstituted C1-C60 alkyl group or a carbazolyl group.
However, several of the structures of claim 8 appear to not meet this proviso. For example, the structures Ar1(20) and Ar1(22) do not meet the conditions of the proviso. Therefore, it is unclear whether the structures meet the limitations of claim 8 or not. For the purposes of examination, the claim is being interpreted such that the group Ar1(3) does not meet the limitations of the current claim 8.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 8: Claim 8 recites the limitations that the instant Ar1 is selected from one of the instant Ar1(1) to Ar1(104).
Where claim 1 requires the proviso that when E1 is a substituted or unsubstituted phenyl group, then neither E3 nor E5 is a substituted or unsubstituted C1-C60 alkyl group or a carbazolyl group.
However, several of the structures of claim 8 appear to not meet this proviso. For example, the structures Ar1(20) and Ar1(22) do not meet the conditions of the proviso.
Therefore, the claim fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2020/0140471 A1) (hereafter “Chen”).
Regarding claims 1-13: Chen discloses the compound shown below {(paragraphs [0015]-[0016] and [0064]: The compounds of the disclosure of Chen have the structure of Formula I.), (paragraph [0079]: The compounds of the disclosure of Chen are exemplified by the compounds on pp. 69-95.), (p. 79, the compound shown below)}.
PNG
media_image1.png
662
676
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Chen does not exemplify a similar compound differing from the compound shown above in that the ortho tertiary butyl group of the substituent phenyl group on the benzimidazole ring is instead placed at the meta position that is para to the phenyl substituent of the substituent phenyl group on the benzimidazole ring. However, the only difference is the position of the tertiary butyl group. Therefore, the compound of Chen shown above is a position isomer with a similar compound in which the ortho tertiary butyl group of the substituent phenyl group on the benzimidazole ring is instead placed at the meta position that is para to the phenyl substituent of the substituent phenyl group on the benzimidazole ring.
With respect to position isomers, the MPEP states: 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) for an extensive review of the case law pertaining to obviousness based on close structural similarity of chemical compounds. 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) (stereoisomers prima facie obvious). See MPEP 2144.09 I and 2144.09 II.
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the compound of Chen shown above such that the ortho tertiary butyl group of the substituent phenyl group on the benzimidazole ring is instead placed at the meta position that is para to the phenyl substituent of the substituent phenyl group on the benzimidazole ring. A compound in which the ortho tertiary butyl group of the substituent phenyl group on the benzimidazole ring is instead placed at the meta position that is para to the phenyl substituent of the substituent phenyl group on the benzimidazole ring would represent a position isomer of the compound of Chen shown above. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect that iridium complexes having each respective structure would act in similar manner.
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of substituent and substituent positions to be used to make compounds for use in an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light emitting devices.
The resultant compound would have the instant Ar1 as the instant Ar1(1) and have the structure of the instant Compound 4.
Regarding claims 14-19: Chen discloses all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Chen does not disclose a specific device comprising the compound of Chen shown above.
However, Chen teaches an organic light-emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode, and an organic layer located between the first electrode and the second electrode {paragraph [0024]}.
The organic layer comprises an emission layer, and the emission layer comprises can comprise the compound of Chen shown above as a light-emitting dopant {(paragraph [0024]: The structure of the disclosure of Chen.), (paragraphs [0085], [0094], [0099]: The compounds of Chen can be the emissive dopant of the light-emitting layer.)}. The emissive layer can further comprise a host {paragraphs [0091]-[0092] and [0100]}. An amount of the host in the emission layer is greater than an amount of the organometallic compound in the emission layer {paragraph [0258]}.
The organic layer further comprises a hole transport region located between the first electrode and the emission layer, and an electron transport region located between the emission layer and the second electrode {paragraphs [0439]-[0443] and Table 8: Example 5}.
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 Chen by using it as the light-emitting material of the emissive layer of the device of Chen described above, based on the teaching of Chen. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices.
The compound of Chen would be the only light-emitting material of the device of Chen. Thus, a proportion of luminescent components emitted from the organometallic compound with respect to total luminescent components emitted from the emission layer is about 80% or greater.
Chen teaches the claimed invention above but fails to teach that the emission layer emits blue light having a maximum emission wavelength of about 410 nm to about 390 nm. It is reasonable to presume that the emission layer emits blue light having a maximum emission wavelength of about 410 nm to about 390 nm is inherent to the device of Chen described above. Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials and like processes which would result in the claimed property.
The compound of Chen has the structure of Compound 1 of the instant disclosure. Compound 1 of the instant disclosure has a peak emission wavelength of 461 nm as described in Table 2 of the instant disclosure.
The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once the Chen product is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977). Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though the rejection is based on Section 103 instead of 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
Regarding claims 1-6 and 9-12: Chen discloses the compound shown below {(paragraphs [0015]-[0016] and [0064]: The compounds of the disclosure of Chen have the structure of Formula I.), (paragraph [0079]: The compounds of the disclosure of Chen are exemplified by the compounds on pp. 69-95.), (p. 79, the compound shown below)}.
PNG
media_image1.png
662
676
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Chen does not exemplify a similar compound differing from the compound shown above in that the group that can be equated with the instant Ar1 has the instant E1 as unsubstituted phenyl and the instant E5 as heteroaryl.
However, Chen teaches that the compounds of Chen have the structure of Formula I of Chen shown below {paragraphs [0016] and [0064]}.
PNG
media_image2.png
424
476
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Where R can have the structure shown below as an alternate option to the structure of R in the compound of Chen shown above {paragraph [0076]: Structure of LA79699—ligands comprising substituent R169 on p. 50}.
PNG
media_image3.png
228
514
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 Chen shown above, by using the substituent having the structure R169 of Chen shown above as R of Chen, based on the teaching of Chen. The substitution would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). The selection of R169 of Chen would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (the described ligands LA of Chen), with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of substituent and substituent positions to be used to make compounds for use in an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light emitting devices.
Regarding claims 14-16 and 18-19: Chen discloses all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Chen does not disclose a specific device comprising the compound of Chen shown above.
However, Chen teaches an organic light-emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode, and an organic layer located between the first electrode and the second electrode {paragraph [0024]}.
The organic layer comprises an emission layer, and the emission layer comprises can comprise the compound of Chen shown above as a light-emitting dopant {(paragraph [0024]: The structure of the disclosure of Chen.), (paragraphs [0085], [0094], [0099]: The compounds of Chen can be the emissive dopant of the light-emitting layer.)}. The emissive layer can further comprise a host {paragraphs [0091]-[0092] and [0100]}. An amount of the host in the emission layer is greater than an amount of the organometallic compound in the emission layer {paragraph [0258]}.
The organic layer further comprises a hole transport region located between the first electrode and the emission layer, and an electron transport region located between the emission layer and the second electrode {paragraphs [0439]-[0443] and Table 8: Example 5}.
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 Chen by using it as the light-emitting material of the emissive layer of the device of Chen described above, based on the teaching of Chen. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices.
The compound of Chen would be the only light-emitting material of the device of Chen. Thus, a proportion of luminescent components emitted from the organometallic compound with respect to total luminescent components emitted from the emission layer is about 80% or greater.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2020/0140471 A1) (hereafter “Chen”) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of So et al. (US 2014/0077172 A1) (hereinafter “So”).
Regarding claim 20: Chen teaches all of the features with respect to claim 16, as outlined above.
Chen does not teach that the light-emitting layer additionally comprises a fluorescent dopant. Chen does not teach that the compound of Lee is used as a phosphorescent sensitizer for a thermally activated delayed fluorescence material.
So teaches organic light emitting devices in which the emissive layer comprises a thermally activated delayed fluorescence material and a sensitizer that is a phosphorescent material {abstract; Fig. 4 as described in paragraph [0039]}.
So teaches that such an arrangement leads to reduced degradation and provide sensitization of up to 100% exciton utilization {paragraphs [0035] and [0038]-[0039]}.
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 device taught by Chen such that the emissive layer comprised a thermally activated delayed fluorescence material and the modified compound of Boerner was used as a phosphorescent sensitizer for the thermally activated delayed fluorescence material, based on the teaching of So. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with reduced degradation and sensitization of up to 100% exciton utilization, as taught by So.
In the resultant device, the thermally activated delayed fluorescence material is a fluorescent dopant that would be the light-emitting dopant of the emissive layer. Thus, the proportion of luminescent components emitted from the fluorescent dopant with respect to total luminescent components emitted from the emission layer would be about 80% or more.
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 DYLAN CLAY KERSHNER whose telephone number is (303)297-4257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm (Mountain).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DYLAN C KERSHNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786