DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Amendment filed 03/25/26.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The objection to the disclosure as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 01/27/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claim 19 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 as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 01/27/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
5. The rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Andrade et al. (US 2002/0197511 A1) in view of Hwang et al. (US 2021/0083205 A1) and Lee et al. (US 2019/0058144 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 01/27/26 is herein withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s arguments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Andrade et al. (US 2002/0197511 A1) in view of Tsai et al. (US 2022/0140259 A1) and Lee et al. (US 2019/0058144 A1).
Regarding Claims 1-14 and 17-20, D’Andrade et al. discloses an organic electroluminescent (EL) device (light-emitting device) comprising a pair of electrodes, interposed therein a hole-transporting layer, light-emitting layer, and electron-transporting layer (Claim 9; Fig. 1); the light-emitting layer comprises a plurality of emissive dopants which are phosphorescent (organometallic compounds) ([0011]; Claim 5). Each of the phosphorescent dopants is doped into a separate emission band which can be overlapping; alternatively, the emission band of one phosphorescent dopant “may be contained in its entirety within the doped region of another phosphorescent dopant” ([0012], [0059], [0063]). However, D’Andrade et al. does not explicitly disclose the first and second compounds as recited in Claim 1.
Tsai et al. discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image1.png
294
556
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 228) (second compound) such that M2 = iridium, n11 = 2, n12 = 1, n13 = 0, L11 = Applicant’s Formula 2-1 (with ring A1 = C5 heterocyclic group (pyridine), ring A2 = C6 carbocyclic group (benzene), d2 = 1, W2 = single bond, e2 = 1, Z2 = unsubstituted C6 aryl group (phenyl), d1 = 1, e1 = 1, W1 = single bond, Z1 = Si(CH3)3, Y1 = N, and Y2 = C), and L12 = Applicant’s Formula 2-2 (with d3 = 1, e3 = 1, W3 = single bond, Z3 = substituted C6 aryl group (substituted phenyl), d4 = 1, W4 = single bond, e4 = 1, Z4 = substituted C6 aryl group (substituted phenyl), Y3 = N, Y4 = C, ring A3 = C7 heterocyclic group (benzimidazole), and ring A4 = C12 heterocyclic group (dibenzofuran)) of Applicant’s Formula 2; Y39 = N-[W3-(Z3)e3] of Applicant’s Formula NR30. Tsai et al. discloses its inventive compounds as dopant material in the light-emitting layer of an organic EL device (in combination with host material), the use of which results in a device with improved efficiency ([0101], [0181]-[0183]). It would have been obvious to incorporate the compound as disclosed by Tsai et al. (above) into the light-emitting layer of the organic EL device as disclosed by D’Andrade et al. (as dopant material). The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Tsai et al., which teaches that the use of its inventive compounds in such a manner results in a device with improved efficiency. However, D’Andrade et al. in view of Tsai et al. does not explicitly disclose a first compound as recited in Claim 1.
Lee et al. discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image2.png
290
396
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 10) (first compound) such that M1 = platinum, n4 = 0, n1-3 = 1, T11-13 = single bond, X5 = O, X6-8 = chemical bond, ring CY1 = C6 carbocyclic group (benzene), X1 = C, X2 = N, ring CY2 = C7 heterocyclic group (benzimidazole), a2 = 1, b2 = 1, L2 = single bond, c1 = 1, R2 = unsubstituted C1 alkyl group (methyl), X3 = C, a3 = 1, b3 = 1, L3 = single bond, c3 = 1, R3 = unsubstituted C12 heteroaryl group (carbazolyl), a4 = 0, X4 = N, and ring CY4 = C5 heterocyclic group (pyridine) of Applicant’s Formula 1; X29 = N-[(L2)b2-(R2)c2] (N-methyl) and X2 = N of Applicant’s Formula CY2(16); X11-14 = CH, X29 = N-[(L2)b2-(R2)c2] (N-methyl), X21-23 = CH, X32 = C(N-carbazolyl), X31 = X33 = CH, and X41-44 = CH of Applicant’s Formula 1-1. Lee et al. discloses its inventive compounds as dopant material in the light-emitting layer of an organic EL device ([0078]-[0079], [0173]); the use results in a device with high emission efficiency and long lifespan ([0006], [0426]). It would have been obvious to incorporate the compound as disclosed by Lee et al. (above) into the light-emitting layer of the organic EL device as disclosed by D’Andrade et al. in view of Tsai et al. (as additional dopant material). The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Lee et al., which teaches that the use of its inventive compound in such a manner results in a device with high emission efficiency and long lifespan.
Regarding Claim 15, Tsai et al. discloses another embodiment:
PNG
media_image3.png
256
604
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 229) such that L11 = Applicant’s Formula 2-1 (with ring A1 = C5 heterocyclic group (pyridine), ring A2 = C6 carbocyclic group (benzene), d2 = 0, d1 = 2, e1 = 2, W1 = single bond, Z1 = Si(CH3)3 or substituted C1 alkyl group (substituted methyl), Y1 = N, and Y2 = C), and L12 = Applicant’s Formula 2-2 (with d3 = 1, e3 = 1, W3 = single bond, Z3 = substituted C6 aryl group (substituted phenyl), d4 = 1, W4 = single bond, e4 = 1, Z4 = substituted C12 heteroaryl group (substituted dibenzofuranyl), Y3 = N, Y4 = C, ring A3 = C7 heterocyclic group (benzimidazole)) of Applicant’s Formula 2; Y49 = O, Y23-24 = C, and ring A40 = (substituted) C6 carbocyclic group (benzene) of Applicant’s Formula CR24.
Regarding Claim 16, it is the position of the Office that the use of the compounds as disclosed by Tsai et al. and Lee et al. would inherently read on the emission limitation as recited in the claim. Evidence is provided by the fact that the compound as disclosed by Lee et al. (above) is exactly identical to the Applicant’s preferred embodiment 1-2; Tsai et al. discloses its inventive compounds to generally emit ~520 nm (Table 5). Furthermore, notice that the compound as disclosed by Tsai et al. is fully encompassed by the Applicant’s Formula 2, and wherein the emission wavelength as recited in the claim can also be easily achieved during the normal course of experimentation (via substituent modifications) given Tsai et al.’s Formula I ([0006]).
Response to Arguments
9. The Applicant’s arguments on pages 543-544 in regards to the disqualification of Hwang et al. as cited in the previous Office Action under the exception under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(1)(A) are persuasive. Hence, the previous rejection has been withdrawn. Nevertheless, the Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as set forth above.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY L YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1137. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 6am-3pm.
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 A 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.
/JAY YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights