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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/13/2026 has been entered.
Summary of Claims
Claims 1 and 3 are amended due to Applicant's amendment dated 01/13/2026. Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are pending.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claims 1-9 and 11-20 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 previous Office Action is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 01/13/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-9 and 11-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2004/01787820 A1) in view of Thompson (US 2016/0359123 A1) and Lee ‘545 (US 2019/0100545 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 01/13/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 11-14 of the reply dated 01/13/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-9 and 11-20 as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument –Applicant argues that the cited prior art fails to read on the claimed amendments which require a second compound comprising iridium and at least one of a silyl group or a germyl group wherein µ(Ir) is about 4.5 debye to about 7.5 debye.
Examiner's response –As described in greater detail in the new grounds of rejection below, the newly cited reference Ha (English translation of KR 20180020878 A obtained from Espacenet) teaches compound 1 which includes a silyl and is expected to have a dipole moment of about 4.5 debye to about 7.5 debye, absent evidence otherwise. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP 2112.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the instant specification contains blurry structures. See the structures in at least ¶ [0160]. 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.
Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are 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.
The newly amended claim 1 requires a second compound that is an organometallic compound comprising iridium and at least one of a silyl group or a germyl group, and wherein µ(Ir) is about 4.5 debye to about 7.5 debye. While the instant specification teaches specific examples of a second compound including iridium and containing silyl or germyl groups (see Groups 2-1 to 2-5 in instant ¶ [0160]), the instant specification does not provide sufficient support for the full scope of any second compound that is an organometallic compound comprising iridium and at least one of a silyl group or a germyl group.
Additionally, while the instant specification recites µ(Pt) is less than µ(Ir) and teaches specific examples of a second compound having dipole moments of 5.3374 and 5.4158 (instant ¶ [0006]; see Ir-1 and Ir-3 in Table 1 on instant pg. 427), the instant specification does not provide sufficient support for the second compound having a dipole moment of about 4.5 debye to about 7.5 debye given that the endpoints of 4.5 and 7.5 debye are not specifically recited in the specification.
Accordingly, claim 1 is considered to have new matter.
Claim 3 is amended to recite wherein µ(Ir) is about 5.0 debye to about 7.0 debye. While the instant specification teaches specific examples of a second compound having dipole moments of 5.3374 and 5.4158 (instant ¶ [0006]; see Ir-1 and Ir-3 in Table 1 on instant pg. 427), the specification does not recite the second compound has a dipole moment in the range of about 5.0 debye to about 7.0 debye. That is, the endpoints of 5.0 and 7.0 debye are not recited in the instant specification. Accordingly, the instant specification does not provide sufficient support for wherein µ(Ir) is about 5.0 debye to about 7.0 debye and thus claim 3 is considered to have new matter.
Claims 2-9 and 11-20 are rejected due to their dependency upon claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2004/0178720 A1) in view of Ha (English translation of KR 20180020878 A obtained from Espacenet) and Lee ‘042 (US 2019/0211042 A1), as evidenced by Kim (US 2017/0346029 A1).
Regarding claims 1-9 and 11-20, Lee teaches an organic electroluminescent display device having superior efficiency and life cycle characteristics by including a first electrode, at least one emission layer, a charge transport layer, and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer includes at least two or more dopants and a host material (abstract). The two or more dopants include a first phosphorescent dopant and a second phosphorescent dopant and include iridium or platinum (abstract). Lee teaches an example of such a device in the Example, which includes an emission layer formed from a host of CBP, a first phosphorescent dopant of Ir(ppy)3 and a second phosphorescent dopant comprising iridium (¶ [0039]).
As evidenced by Kim, CBP is an example of a hole transporting host (see Kim, ¶ [0051]) (claim 15).
Ir(ppy)3 fails to read on the claimed second compound as it comprises three identical ligands and does not comprise a silyl or germyl group. However, Lee does not limit the first phosphorescent dopant to Ir(ppy)3 (¶ [0030]).
Ha teaches an organometallic compound represented by chemical formula 1 for use as a phosphorescent dopant in an organic light emitting device, wherein the organometallic compound provides improved light emitting efficiency and lifespan characteristics (¶ [0041]). Examples of compounds represented by chemical formula 1 include the compound on pg. 51, hereinafter referred to as compound 1.
compound 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
179
231
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the first phosphorescent dopant of Ir(ppy)3 in Lee’s device with a compound represented by Ha’s chemical formula 1, based on the teaching of formula. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with improved light emitting efficiency and lifespan characteristics, as taught by Ha.
In particular, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select compound 1, because it would have been choosing from a list of compounds represented by Ha’s chemical formula 1, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the second phosphorescent dopant in the emission layer of the device of Lee in view of Ha and possessing the benefits taught by Ha. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising compounds represented by Ha’s chemical formula 1 having the benefits taught by Thompson in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
As shown by the structure above, compound 1 includes a silyl group and includes three ligands wherein the first and second ligand are identical and the second and third ligand are different from each other, and each of the three ligands comprise a bidentate ligand bound to iridium via a nitrogen and a carbon atom.
Lee in view of Ha fail to teach an example of a device in which the second phosphorescent dopant of the emission layer is a platinum organometallic compound. However, Lee does not limit the structure of the second phosphorescent dopant (¶ [0030]).
Lee ‘042 teaches an organometallic compound represented by Formula 1 for use as a dopant in an emission layer of an organic light-emitting device, wherein the compound provides the device with low driving voltage, high efficiency, high power efficiency, high power efficiency, high quantum efficiency, long lifespan, low roll-off ratio, and excellent color purity (abstract; ¶ [0044] and [0271]-[0272]). Lee ‘042 teaches examples of organometallic compounds represented by Formula 1 including Compound 16 (pg. 50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the second phosphorescent dopant in Lee’s device with a compound represented by Formula 1 of Lee ‘042, based on the teaching of Lee ‘042. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with low driving voltage, high efficiency, high power efficiency, high power efficiency, high quantum efficiency, long lifespan, low roll-off ratio, and excellent color purity, as taught by Lee ‘042.
In particular, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select Compound 16, because it would have been choosing from a list of compounds represented by Formula 1 and taught by Lee ‘042, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the second phosphorescent dopant in the emission layer of the device of Lee in view of Lee ‘042 and possessing the benefits taught by Lee ‘042. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising compounds represented by Formula 1 of Lee ‘042 having the benefits taught by Lee ‘042 in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Compound 16 is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Formula 1.
16:
PNG
media_image2.png
242
271
media_image2.png
Greyscale
1:
PNG
media_image3.png
333
658
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Compound 16 reads on the claimed Formula 1 wherein:
M1 is Pt;
X1 and X3 are each C and X2 and X4 are each N;
X5 is O and X6 to X8 are each a chemical bond;
Ring CY1 and ring CY3 are each a C6 carbocyclic group, ring CY2 is a C7 heterocyclic group, and ring CY4 is a C5 heterocyclic group;
T11 to T13 are each a single bond and T14 is not required to be present;
n3 is 1 and n4 is 0;
L1 to L4 are each a single bond;
a1 is 2 and a2 to a4 are each 1;
c1 to c4 are each 1; and
R1 and R3 are each an unsubstituted C4 alkyl group, R2 is an unsubstituted C12 aryl group, and R4 is a C6 aryl group substituted with deuterium.
Additionally, as seen by the structure above, Compound 16 comprises a chemical bond between a carbon atom of the tetradentate ligand and platinum, and a chemical bond between an oxygen atom of the tetradentate ligand and platinum (claim 9).
The resulting emission layer comprises a second phosphorescent dopant of Compound 16 and a first phosphorescent dopant of compound 1.
Lee in view of Ha and Lee ‘042 appear silent with respect to the dipole moments and emission peak wavelengths of compound 1 and Compound 16. However, the structure of compound 1 is substantially identical to Ir-1 and Ir-3 and the compounds of Group 2-2 (see structures on instant pgs. 341-381 and 427), and the structure of Compound 16 is identical to the instant Pt(1) (see structure on instant pg. 427).
The instant specification recites that Ir-1 and Ir-3 have dipole moments of 5.3374 and 5.4158, respectively, based on a calculation using density functional theory (DFT) (see instant ¶ [0296] and Table 1 on instant pg. 427). Additionally, the instant specification recites that Ir-1 and Ir-3 have emission peak wavelengths of 526 and 525, respectively, wherein the emission peak wavelengths are evaluated from a photoluminescence spectrum measured for films including Ir-1 and Ir-3 (see instant ¶ [0296] and Table 2 on instant pg. 429). Since Lee in view of Ha and Lee ‘042 teach compound 1, which is substantially identical to Ir-1 and Ir-3, and the compounds of Group 2-2 disclosed by the Applicant, compound 1 having a dipole moment in the range of about 4.5 debye to about 7.5 debye and an emission peak wavelength in the range of 510 nm to about 570 nm is considered to be inherent, absent evidence otherwise.
Similarly, Pt(1) has a dipole moment of 2.0263 debye, based on a calculation using DFT (see instant ¶ [0296] and Table 1on instant pg. 427). Additionally, the instant specification recites Pt(1) has an emission peak wavelength of 526 nm, wherein the emission peak wavelengths are evaluated from a photoluminescence spectrum measured for a film including Pt(1) (see instant ¶ [0041]-[0043] and [0296]-[0297]; Table 2 on instant pg. 429). Since Lee in view of Thompson and Lee ‘042 teach Compound 16, which is the same structure as instant Pt(1) disclosed by the Applicant, Compound 16 having a dipole moment of 2.063 debye and an emission peak wavelength of 526 nm is considered to be inherent, absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP 2112.
Accordingly, when the emission layer comprises compound 1 and Compound 16, µ(Pt) is 2.0263 debye and µ(Ir) is in the range of about 4.5 debye to about 7.5 debye (claims 1-4). Additionally, λP(Pt) is 526 nm and λP(Ir) is in the range of 510 nm to about 570 nm (claims 5-8 and 17). Per claims 4-8, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the pertinent art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05.
Per claims 16-19, Lee in view of Ha and Lee ‘042 are silent as to the emission peak wavelength of the emission layer comprising Compound 16 and compound 1. However, it is reasonable to presume that the emission layer has an emission peak wavelength of about 526 nm (i.e., the emission peak wavelength of Compound 16). Support for this presumption is found in instant Table 4 which shows the emission peak wavelengths (λmax) of individual iridium and platinum compounds and in instant Table 3 which shows the emission peak wavelengths (λmax) of emission layers comprising both platinum and iridium compounds (see instant pgs. 431-432). The emission layers comprising both platinum and iridium compounds obtain emission peak wavelengths of equal to or slightly higher than (i.e., about) the individual iridium platinum compounds. For example, see OLED 4 in Tables 3-4 which comprises a first compound Pt(3) having a λmax of 528 nm and a second compound Ir-1 having a λmax of 526 nm wherein the emission layer obtains a λmax of 531 nm. Thus OLED 4 obtains a λmax of slightly higher than (i.e., about) the λmax of Pt(3). This trend can be seen in each of OLEDs 1-4 and C-F of Tables 3-4. Additionally, as described in instant ¶ [0182]-[0183], the emission peak wavelengths of the emission layers are evaluated from an electroluminescence spectrum of the light-emitting device. The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. See MPEP 2112.
Additionally, when the emission layer comprises compound 1, as λP(Pt) is 526 nm and λP(Ir) is in the range of 510 nm to about 570 nm, λP(EML) is expected to be about 526 nm (claims 16-17 and 19).
Per claim 20, although the instant claim is drawn to an apparatus, the only positive limitation of the claimed apparatus is the light-emitting device of claim 12. Claim 20 does not add any further structural or functional limitations to the device and/or first and second compounds. Lee in view of Ha and Lee ‘042 teach the organic electroluminescent display device according to claim 12, as described above, and does not include any components that would make it unfit for use as an apparatus. Therefore, the OLED of Lee in view of Ha and Lee ‘042 according to claim 12 may be considered an apparatus.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRAELYN R WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5pm.
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.
/BRAELYN R WATSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights