DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/20/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-10, 12-13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Su et al (US 2018/0097185).
Regarding claim 1, Su et al discloses an organometallic complex with the formula Ir(LAi)2(LCk) ([0097]), where LAi corresponds to LA522 (Page 118):
PNG
media_image1.png
302
268
media_image1.png
Greyscale
;
and LCk corresponds to one of the following bidentate ligands ([0099] – LC1 to LC13):
PNG
media_image2.png
272
440
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
214
310
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
766
446
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the recited Chemical Formula (1):
PNG
media_image5.png
216
390
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
where M is Ir; Y is O; and R is H. The bidentate ligand:
PNG
media_image6.png
84
108
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
corresponds to one of LC1 to LC13 discussed above. In recited Chemical Formula (1) the integer m is two (2), and the integer n is one (1).
The difference between the compound disclosed by the reference and that claimed is in the compound disclosed by the reference X1 is C; X2 is N, while the claim requires that X1 is N and X2 is C. However, the compound disclosed by the reference is but one embodiment, and attention is directed to Formula I ([0016]):
PNG
media_image7.png
254
240
media_image7.png
Greyscale
,
where A1 to A4 are either CR or N ([0068]). Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses an embodiment where in Chemical Formula (1), X1 is N and X2 is C as required by the present claims.
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed compound nor can the claimed compound be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed compound and the compound disclosed by the reference, absent a showing of criticality for the presently claimed compound, it is urged that it would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the compound which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Su et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the combination of ligand LA:
PNG
media_image1.png
302
268
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
and ligand LC:
PNG
media_image2.png
272
440
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
214
310
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
766
446
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
correspond to recited Chemical Formula 2:
PNG
media_image8.png
200
378
media_image8.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 3, Su et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the combination of ligand LA:
PNG
media_image1.png
302
268
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
and ligand LC:
PNG
media_image2.png
272
440
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
214
310
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
766
446
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
corresponds to recited Chemical Formula 4:
PNG
media_image9.png
214
408
media_image9.png
Greyscale
,
where R3 and R5 are C1-7 alkyls; and R4 is H.
Regarding claim 4, Su et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, M is Ir.
Regarding claim 5, Su et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Y is O.
Regarding claim 6, Su et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the reference discloses recited Compound 1:
PNG
media_image10.png
314
436
media_image10.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 7, Su et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. The recitation in the claims that compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 is “used as a red phosphorescent material or a green phosphorescent material” is merely an intended use. Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that the reference discloses the compound as presently claimed, it is clear that the compound of the reference would be capable of performing the intended use presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8, Su et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses the following organic light emitting device (Figure 1):
PNG
media_image11.png
501
514
media_image11.png
Greyscale
,
where the anode (115) corresponds to the recited first electrode; the cathode (160) corresponds to the recited second electrode; layers 150-120 correspond to the recited organic layer; and layer 135 corresponds to the recited light emitting layer ([0041]). The light emitting layer comprises the disclosed compound ([0002], [0116], and [0132]).
Regarding claim 9, Su et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses that the compound is used a dopant in the light emitting layer ([0063] and [0113]-[0114]).
Regarding claim 10, Su et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the reference discloses the following organic light emitting device (Figure 1):
PNG
media_image11.png
501
514
media_image11.png
Greyscale
,
where the organic layer comprises a hole injection layer (120); a hole transport layer (125); an electron transport layer (145); and an electron injection layer (150) ([0041]).
Regarding claim 12, Su et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the reference discloses the following organic light emitting device (Figure 1):
PNG
media_image11.png
501
514
media_image11.png
Greyscale
,
where the organic layer comprises a hole injection layer (120); a hole transport layer (125); an electron transport layer (145); and an electron injection layer (150) ([0041]), sequentially stacked on the first electrode (115).
Regarding claim 13, Su et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses that the hole injection layer comprises PEDOT/PSS ([0124]).
Regarding claim 15, Su et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses that the light emitting layer comprises the disclosed organometallic compound as a host, where the host is CBP ([0138 and Page 262), i.e.
PNG
media_image12.png
138
278
media_image12.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 16, Su et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the reference discloses the following organic light emitting device (Figure 1):
PNG
media_image11.png
501
514
media_image11.png
Greyscale
,
where the organic layer comprises a hole injection layer (120); a hole transport layer (125); an electron transport layer (145); and an electron injection layer (150) ([0041]). Thus, the electron transport layer (145) and the electron injection layer (150) are sequentially stacked between the light emitting layer (135) and the second electrode (160).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (WO 2019093746, cited on IDS filed on 1/19/2023, see English language equivalent US 2020/0266365) as applied to claims 1-10, 12-13, and 15-16 above, and in view of Shin et al (US 2012/0049192).
The discussion with respect to Kim et al as set forth in Paragraph 6 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 11, Su et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. While the reference discloses a display device, the reference does not disclose that the display apparatus comprises a thin film transistor as recited in the present claims (Abstract).
Shin et al discloses a flat display apparatus comprising a thin film transistor, i.e. a driving element on a substrate (Abstract). The thin film transistor further comprises an organic light emitting device, where the first electrode of the organic light emitting device is connected to the drain electrode of the thing film transistor ([0048]). Accordingly, the reference discloses an organic light emitting device comprising a substrate and a driving element and an organic light emitting element disposed on the substrate as recited in the present claim. The reference discloses that the flat panel display apparatus comprising the thin film transistor easily provide uniform electrical characteristics and display characteristics.
Given that both Su et al and Shin et al are drawn to display devices comprising organic light emitting devices, and given that Shin et al does not explicitly prohibit other device elements, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the thin film transistor as taught by Shin et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device disclosed by Su et al to include the thin film transistor disclosed by Shin et al with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 14, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su et al (US 2018/0097185) as applied to claims 1-10, 12-13, and 15-16 above, and in view of Birnstock et al (US 2010/0065825).
The discussion with respect to Su et al as set forth in Paragraph 6 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 14, Su et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. However, the reference does not disclose that the hole transport layer comprises TPD as recited in the present claim.
Birnstock et al discloses that a typical structure of an organic light-emitting diode is (1) carrier substrate; (2) anode; (3) hole-injecting layer formed from CuPc; (4) hole transport layer formed from TPD; (5) hole-side blocking layer; (6) light-emitting area; (7) electron-side blocking layer; (8) electron transport layer formed from Alq3; (9) electron injection layer formed from lithium fluoride; and (10) cathode. In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use TPD for the hole transport layer of the device disclosed by Su et al, as doing so would amount to nothing more than use of a known hole transport material for its intended use, in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected results.
Regarding claim 17, Su et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. However, the reference does not disclose that the electron transport layer comprises Alq3 as recited in the present claim.
Birnstock et al discloses that a typical structure of an organic light-emitting diode is (1) carrier substrate; (2) anode; (3) hole-injecting layer formed from CuPc; (4) hole transport layer formed from TPD; (5) hole-side blocking layer; (6) light-emitting area; (7) electron-side blocking layer; (8) electron transport layer formed from Alq3; (9) electron injection layer formed from lithium fluoride; and (10) cathode. In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Alq3 for the electron transport layer of the device disclosed by Su et al, as doing so would amount to nothing more than use of a known electron transport material for its intended use, in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected results.
Regarding claim 19, Su et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. However, the reference does not disclose that the electron injection layer comprises LiF as recited in the present claim.
Birnstock et al discloses that a typical structure of an organic light-emitting diode is (1) carrier substrate; (2) anode; (3) hole-injecting layer formed from CuPc; (4) hole transport layer formed from TPD; (5) hole-side blocking layer; (6) light-emitting area; (7) electron-side blocking layer; (8) electron transport layer formed from Alq3; (9) electron injection layer formed from lithium fluoride; and (10) cathode. In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use LiF for the electron injection layer of the device disclosed by Su et al, as doing so would amount to nothing more than use of a known electron injection material for its intended use, in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected results.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su et al (US 2018/0097185) as applied to claims 1-10, 12-13, and 15-16 above, and in view of Yoo et al (US 2008/0218090).
The discussion with respect to Su et al as set forth in Paragraph 6 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 18, Su et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. While the reference discloses that the organic light emitting device comprises an electron injection layer, the reference does not disclose that the electron injection layer comprises Alq3, TAZ, etc., as recited in the present claims.
Yoo et al discloses an organic light emitting device, which comprises an electron injection layer to facilitate the injection of electrons, where the injection layer is form of Alq3, PBD, spiro-PBD, BAlq or SAlq (Abstract and [0117]). In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Alq3, PBD, spiro-PBD, BAlq or SAlq for the electron injection layer of the device disclosed by Yoo et al, as doing so would amount to nothing more than use of a known electron injection material for its intended use, in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected results.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su et al (US 2018/0097185) as applied to claims 1-10, 12-13, and 15-16 above, and in view of Forrest et al (US 5,707,745).
The discussion with respect to Su et al as set forth in Paragraph 6 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 20, Su et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Paragraph [0045] of the reference incorporates subject matter drawn to stacked OLEDS disclosed by Forrest et al. Forrest et al discloses an organic light emitting device comprising three (3) stacks, i.e. a red emitting stack, a green emitting stack and a blue emitting stack (Abstract).
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed organic light emitting device nor can the claimed organic light emitting device be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed organic light emitting device and organic light emitting device disclosed by the reference, absent a showing of criticality for the presently claimed light emitting stacks, it is urged that it would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the organic light emitting device which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In light of the amendments to the claims, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections set forth in the previous Office Action are withdrawn. Furthermore, in light of the properly filed terminal disclaimer, filed on 2/20/2206, the obviousness-type double patenting rejections set forth in the previous Office Action are withdrawn.
As evidence of unexpected results, Applicants point to the inventive and comparative examples presented in the instant Specification (n.b. the inventive and comparative examples are presented in Table 1 and 2, see Pages 86 to 89 of the as-filed Specification). However, the data presented in the Specification are not found to be persuasive for the reasons set forth below.
Table 1 compares Comparative Example 1 utilizing the Dopant RD, i.e.
PNG
media_image13.png
240
370
media_image13.png
Greyscale
,
to Inventive Examples 1-23, which utilize Compounds 1, 4, 24, 36, 58, 88, 127, 129, 163, 171, 220, 232, 236, 239, 241, 264, 266, 286, 301, 311, 360, 403, and 412. It is significant to note that of the inventive examples, only Inventive Example 1:
PNG
media_image14.png
220
322
media_image14.png
Greyscale
,
is properly side-by-side comparable to the comparative example. The remaining inventive examples all differ from the inventive compound in more than one aspect, i.e. different types of fused ring, substituents, and/or ancillary ligands.
Table 2 compares Comparative Example 1 utilizing the Dopant RD, i.e.
PNG
media_image13.png
240
370
media_image13.png
Greyscale
,
to Inventive Examples 24-57, which utilize Inventive Compounds 433-466. However, the inventive examples are not properly side-by-side comparable to the comparative example given that all the inventive example utilizes a different ancillary co-ligand than present on the comparative examples, and the inventive examples possess different substituents, as well as different fused rings than found present on the comparative examples, i.e. the inventive examples possess a naphthalene ring instead of a phenyl ring as found on the comparative example.
Even if the inventive compounds were properly comparable to the comparative compounds, it is noted that the inventive compounds are not commensurate in scope with the scope of the claims for at least the following reasons. Firstly it is noted that inventive compounds possess acac, quinoline, phenyl-pyridine co-ligands, while claim 1 does not require the co-ligand to be present, or if present, the co-ligand is a generic bidentate ligand. Furthermore, in the inventive compounds the metal is Ir, while the claims recite that M is Mo, W, Pt, Ir, Au, etc. In the inventive compounds, the group R corresponds to H and alkyls such as isopropyl, tert-butyl, methyl, cyclopentyl, cyclohexyl, as well as deuterated variants thereof, while the claims recite that R is hydrogen, deuterium halogen, hydroxyl, substituted or unsubstituted C1-20 alkyl, substituted or unsubstituted C3-20 cycloalkyl, substituted or unsubstituted C6-30 aryl, substituted or unsubstituted C3-30 heteroaryl, etc. Accordingly, it is unclear if the obtained results are indicative of all compounds encompassed by the present claims or only for the particular exemplified inventive compound.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER C. KOLLIAS whose telephone number is (571)-270-3869. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM – 5:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Boyd can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER C KOLLIAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights