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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of species (A2), wherein ring B is a 5-membered ring and ring C is a 6-membered ring, in the reply filed on 11/25/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 4 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group.
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 15 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 15, Applicant claims the compound of claim 11, wherein the compound comprising a ligand selected from LA1-1 to LA2280-71; however, neither claim 15 nor claims 11 and 1 define the structures of the ligands LA1-1 to LA2280-71. It is unclear what is the structural limitation of the first ligand LA of the compound claimed in the claim 15, rendering this claim indefinite.
For the purpose of prosecution, the Examiner interprets the limitation to mean that the first ligand of the claimed compound of the claim 15 is the first ligand of the claim 11. That is, the limitation of each of the ligands LA1-1 to LA2280-71 is the same as the ligand LA of claim 11 from which claim 15 is dependent.
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 15 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 15, Applicant claims the compound of claim 11, wherein the compound comprising a ligand selected from LA1-1 to LA2280-71; however, neither claim 15 nor claims 11 and 1 define the ligands LA1-1 to LA2280-71. Currently claim 15 is dependent from claim 1 via claim 11. Thus, claim 15 fails to incorporate all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
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 § 102
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 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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-9, 11-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kwon et al. (US 2022/0348599 A1, hereafter Kwon).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 5, 7-9, 11-12, and 14-15, Kwon discloses an organometallic compound used for an organic light emitting device and is represented by Formula 1 (M1(Ln1)n1(Ln2)n2), wherein M1 is a transition metal; ligand Ln1 is Formula 1-1 and Ln2 is a bidentate ligand ([0005]-[0041]). Kwon exemplifies Compound 130 ([0200]).
PNG
media_image1.png
319
591
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Compound 130 of Kwon has identical structure as Applicant’s compound of the instant claims.
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, 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 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 13 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. (US 2022/0348599 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Kwon discloses an organometallic compound used for an organic light emitting device and is represented by Formula 1 (M1(Ln1)n1(Ln2)n2), wherein M1 is a transition metal; ligand Ln1 is Formula 1-1 and Ln2 is a bidentate ligand ([0005]-[0041]). Kwon exemplifies Compound 130 ([0200]).
PNG
media_image1.png
319
591
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The acetylacetonate ligand at the position corresponding to Ln2 of Formula 1 of Kwon does is not picolinic acid; however, Kwon does teach that Ln2 can be a bidentate ligand ([0011]) and exemplifies a picolinic ligand of Formula 8-1,
PNG
media_image2.png
120
101
media_image2.png
Greyscale
([0139]).
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 130 of Kwon by substituting the acetylacetonate ligand at the position corresponding to Ln2 of Formula 1 of Kwon with a picolinic acid ligand of Formula 8-1 of Kwon, as taught by Kwon.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the exemplified bidentate ligands at the position corresponding to Ln2 in the compound of Formula 1 of Kwon would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified Compound of Kwon which has identical structure as the Compound 130 of Kwon except the acetylacetonate ligand at the position corresponding to Ln2 with picolinic ligand of Formula 8-1 of Kwon.
Regarding claims 17-18, Kwon discloses an organometallic compound used for an organic light emitting device and is represented by Formula 1 (M1(Ln1)n1(Ln2)n2), wherein M1 is a transition metal; ligand Ln1 is Formula 1-1 and Ln2 is a bidentate ligand ([0005]-[0041]). Kwon exemplifies Compound 130 ([0200]). The Compound 130 of Kwon has identical structure of Applicant’s compound of Ir(LA)x(LB)y(LC)z of the instant claims.
Kwon does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising the Compound 130 of Kwon; however, Kwon does teach that the compound can be used as the emissive layer dopant ([0042]-[0043]). Kwon teaches the structure of an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, an emissive layer (a carbazole compound GH3 as a host and a dopant), and a cathode ([0351]-[0354]).
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 130 of Kwon by incorporating it as an emissive dopant with a carbazole compound GH3 as a host into the emissive layer of an organic light emitting device, as taught by Kwon.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the emissive dopants of Kwon in the device of Kwon would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified organic light emitting device of Kwon comprising an anode, an emissive layer (a carbazole compound GH3 as a host and Compound 130 of Kwon as a dopant), and a cathode.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. (US 2022/0348599 A1) as applied to claims 13 and 17-18 above, further in view of Kai et al. (US 2010/0187977 A1, hereafter Kai).
Regarding claim 19, the Modified organic light emitting device of Kwon reads on all the features of claim 17 as outlined above.
The device comprises an anode, an emissive layer (a carbazole compound GH3 as a host and Compound 130 of Kwon as a dopant), and a cathode.
The host compound GH3 does not reads on the limitation of the instant claim 19; however, Kwon does teach a host can be used with the compound of Kwon to comprise the emissive layer ([0209]).
Kai discloses an organic light-emitting device wherein the emission layer comprises indolocarbazole derivative compound (formulas (1)-(3) in [0019]). The exemplified compound of Kai (Compound (3) in [0038]).
PNG
media_image3.png
288
572
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Kai teaches that the organic light-emitting device of the invention comprising the indolocarbazole derivative compound provides high efficiency with good driving stability ([0018]).
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 Modified organic light emitting device of Kwon by substituting the host compound of the emissive layer with the Compound (3) of Kai, as taught by Kwon and Kai.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide high efficiency with good driving stability, as taught by Kai.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material and structure to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of known host materials would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Organic light emitting device of Kwon as modified by Kai comprising an anode, an emissive layer (Compound (3) of Kai as a host and Compound 130 of Kwon as a dopant), and a cathode.
Regarding claim 20, the Modified organic light emitting device of Kwon reads on all the features of claim 17 as outlined above.
The device comprises an anode, an emissive layer (a carbazole compound GH3 as a host and Compound 130 of Kwon as a dopant), and a cathode.
Kwon does not disclose a specific consumer product comprising the Modified organic light emitting device of Kwon; however, Kwon does teach that the organic light emitting device can be incorporated in an electronic apparatus ([0005]).
Kai teaches that an organic light emitting device can be applicable to a flat panel display ([0077]).
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 Modified organic light emitting device of Kwon by incorporating it into a flat panel display, as taught by Kwon and Kai.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide a flat panel display device, based on the teaching of Kai.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material and structure to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of organic light emitting devices in a flat panel display device would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides a consumer product (i.e. flat panel display) comprising the Modified organic light emitting device of Kwon.
Claims 1, 3, 5-9, 11-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. (US 2022/0348599 A1) in view of Hwang et al. (“Iridium(III) Complexes with Orthometalated Quinoxaline Ligands: Subtle Tuning of Emission to the Saturated Red Color”, Inorg. Chem. 2005, vol. 44, page 1344-1353, hereafter Hwang).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 5-9, 11-12, and 14-15, Kwon discloses an organometallic compound used for an organic light emitting device and is represented by Formula 1 (M1(Ln1)n1(Ln2)n2), wherein M1 is a transition metal; ligand Ln1 is Formula 1-1 and Ln2 is a bidentate ligand ([0005]-[0041]). Kwon exemplifies Compound 130 ([0200]).
PNG
media_image1.png
319
591
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The ring at the position corresponding to the ring CY2 of Formula 1-1 of Kwon is benzene which does not read on the limitation of claim 6; however, Kwon does teach that the ring CY2 can be a C5-C30 carbocyclic group ([0018]) and exemplifies naphthalene as the ring CY2 ([0074]).
Hwang discloses Ir complexes (Abstract and Fig. 7).
Hwang teaches that substitution of benzene to naphthalene (route B3 in Fig. 7) provides emission with long wavelength due to extension of π conjugation (page 1352, column 2, par 1).
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 130 of Kwon by substituting the benzene ring at the position corresponding to CY2 of Formula 1-1 of Kwon with naphthalene, as taught by Kwon and Hwang.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide emission with longer wavelength due to extension of π conjugation, based on the teaching of Hwang.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of benzene with naphthalene at the position corresponding to CY2 of Formula 1-1 of Kwon would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Compound of Kwon as modified by Hwang.
PNG
media_image4.png
262
620
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. (US 2022/0348599 A1) in view of Acharya et al. (“Effect of Selenium Substitution on Intersystem Crossing in π-Conjugated Donor−Acceptor−Donor Chromophores: The LUMO Matters the Most”, J. Phys. Chem. Letts 2016, vol. 7, page 693-697, hereafter Acharya).
Regarding claims 1-3, 5, 7-12, and 14-15, Kwon discloses an organometallic compound used for an organic light emitting device and is represented by Formula 1 (M1(Ln1)n1(Ln2)n2), wherein M1 is a transition metal; ligand Ln1 is Formula 1-1 and Ln2 is a bidentate ligand ([0005]-[0041]). Kwon exemplifies Compound 76 ([0200]).
PNG
media_image5.png
317
662
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The first ligand LA of the Compound 76 of Kwon (i.e. the left ligand of the compound) has similar structure as Applicant’s ligand LA18 which has a structure of formula 1,
PNG
media_image6.png
104
165
media_image6.png
Greyscale
, wherein RE is R18
PNG
media_image7.png
90
53
media_image7.png
Greyscale
; RF is R1
PNG
media_image8.png
63
34
media_image8.png
Greyscale
; and G is G2
PNG
media_image9.png
123
91
media_image9.png
Greyscale
.
The only difference between two compounds is that the sulfur atom at the position corresponding to Y1 of Formula 1-1 of Kwon is required to be selenium; however, Kwon does teach that Y1 can be Se ([0017]) and exemplifies multiple compounds wherein the atom at the position corresponding to Y1 is Se (see examples in [0200] including at least Compound 130).
Acharya teaches that selenium has larger atomic radius, larger dipole moment, larger polarizability than sulfur such that band gap and optical properties can be tuned by replacing sulfur with selenium (page 693, col. 1, lines 10-16).
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 76 of Kwon by substituting the sulfur atom at the position corresponding to Y1 with selenium, as taught by Kwon and Acharya.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide larger atomic radius, larger dipole moment, larger polarizability, and tunability of band gap and optical properties, based on the teaching of Acharya.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Both S and Se are alternative options for the variable Y1 of Formula 1-1. Substitution of S with Se at the position Y1 would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). There are finite number of exemplified structures at the position corresponding to Y-1 in the disclosure. The selection of Se as the structure at the position corresponding to Y1 of Formula 1-1 would have been one from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
The modification provides Compound of Kwon as modified by Acharya, wherein the first ligand has identical structure as Applicant’s ligand Ir(LA18-1)2(LC17-I).
PNG
media_image10.png
238
713
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boudreault et al. (US 2015/0236276 A1, hereafter Boudreault) in view of Acharya et al. (“Effect of Selenium Substitution on Intersystem Crossing in π-Conjugated Donor−Acceptor−Donor Chromophores: The LUMO Matters the Most”, J. Phys. Chem. Letts 2016, vol. 7, page 693-697).
Regarding claims 1-3, 5, 7-12, and 14-20, Boudreault discloses a compound used as the emitter of an organic light emitting device ([0002], [0015]), wherein the compound comprising a ligand LA of Formula I ([0016]-[0028]) and teaches more detailed structural formula (the second structural formula in [0039], hereafter Formula A). Boudreault exemplifies Compound 6898 (Ir(LA178)2(LB43) in [0141]-[0142], LA178 in [0134], and LB43 in [0136]).
PNG
media_image11.png
299
696
media_image11.png
Greyscale
The Compound 6898 of Boudreault has similar structure as Applicant’s specific embodiment
PNG
media_image12.png
158
258
media_image12.png
Greyscale
(the 3rd compound in claim 16). The only difference between two compounds is that the sulfur atom at the position corresponding to Y1 of Formula A of Boudreault is required to be selenium. However, Boudreault does teach that Y1 can be Se ([0024]).
Acharya teaches that selenium has larger atomic radius, larger dipole moment, larger polarizability than sulfur such that band gap and optical properties can be tuned by replacing sulfur with selenium (page 693, col. 1, lines 10-16).
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 6898 of Boudreault by substituting the sulfur atom at the position corresponding to Y1 with selenium, as taught by Boudreault and Acharya.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide larger atomic radius, larger dipole moment, larger polarizability, and tunability of band gap and optical properties, based on the teaching of Acharya.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Both S and Se are alternative options for the variable Y1 of Formula I of Boudreault. Substitution of S with Se at the position Y1 would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Compound of Boudreault as modified by Acharya, which has identical structure as the 3rd embodiment of claim 16, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-3, 5, 7-12, and 14-16.
PNG
media_image13.png
248
677
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Boudreault in view of Acharya does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising the Compound of Boudreault as modified by Acharya; however, Boudreault does teach that the compound of Boudreault can be used as the emitter of an organic light emitting device ([0015]). Boudreault teaches the structure of the organic light emitting device comprising an anode, an emissive layer (a host and a dopant), and a cathode ([0052]-[0054], [0223]-[0225]). Boudreault exemplifies dicarbazolyl dibenzothiophene
PNG
media_image14.png
190
363
media_image14.png
Greyscale
as the host ([0161]).
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 Boudreault as modified by Acharya by incorporating it as the emissive dopant with dicarbazolyl dibenzothiophene as the host in the emissive layer of an organic light emitting device.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the emissive dopants and the hosts of Boudreault in the device of Boudreault would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Organic light emitting device of Boudreault as modified by Acharya comprising an anode, an emissive layer (dicarbazolyl dibenzothiophene as a host and Compound of Boudreault as modified by Acharya as a dopant), and a cathode, meeting all the limitations of claims 17-19.
Boudreault in view of Acharya does not disclose a specific consumer product comprising the Organic light emitting device of Boudreault as modified by Acharya; however, Boudreault does teach that the OLED of Boudreault can be incorporated into a flat panel display ([0095]).
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 Organic light emitting device of Boudreault as modified by Acharya by incorporating it into a flat panel display, as taught by Boudreault.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the OLEDs of Boudreault in a flat panel display of Boudreault would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides a consumer product (i.e. flat panel display) comprising the Organic light emitting device of Boudreault as modified by Acharya, meeting all the limitations of claims 20.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boudreault et al. (US 2015/0236276 A1) in view of Acharya et al. (“Effect of Selenium Substitution on Intersystem Crossing in π-Conjugated Donor−Acceptor−Donor Chromophores: The LUMO Matters the Most”, J. Phys. Chem. Letts 2016, vol. 7, page 693-697) as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 7-12, and 14-20 above, further in view of Hwang et al. (“Iridium(III) Complexes with Orthometalated Quinoxaline Ligands: Subtle Tuning of Emission to the Saturated Red Color”, Inorg. Chem. 2005, vol. 44, page 1344-1353).
Regarding claim 6, the Compound of Boudreault as modified by Acharya reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
In the compound, the ring at the position corresponding to the ring A of Formula I of Boudreault is dimethyl benzene does not read on the limitation of claim 6; however, Boudreault does teach that A can be a 6-membered carbocyclic ring ([0017]) and the substituent R1 of the ring A can be alkenyl groups and two adjacent substituents can be joined to form a ring ([0025]); that is, Boudreault teaches that the ring A substituted by R1 can be naphthalene.
Hwang discloses Ir complexes (Abstract and Fig. 7).
Hwang teaches that substitution of benzene to naphthalene (route B3 in Fig. 7) provides emission with long wavelength due to extension of π conjugation (page 1352, column 2, par 1).
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 Boudreault as modified by Hwang by substituting the ring at the position corresponding to A of Formula I of Boudreault with naphthalene, as taught by Boudreault and Hwang.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide emission with longer wavelength due to extension of π conjugation, based on the teaching of Hwang.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the ring A of the Formula I of Boudreault would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Compound of Kwon as modified by Acharya and Hwang.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boudreault et al. (US 2015/0236276 A1) in view of Acharya et al. (“Effect of Selenium Substitution on Intersystem Crossing in π-Conjugated Donor−Acceptor−Donor Chromophores: The LUMO Matters the Most”, J. Phys. Chem. Letts 2016, vol. 7, page 693-697) as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 7-12, and 14-20 above, further in view of Hou et al. (US 2011/0234089 A1, hereafter Hou).
Regarding claim 13, the Compound of Boudreault as modified by Acharya reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
In the compound, the acetylacetonate ancillary ligand does not read on the limitation of the instant claim 13; however, Boudreault does teach that the compound of Boudreault can comprise other ligands in addition to the first ligand LA ([0027]). That is, Boudreault does not restrict the other ligand except the first ligand LA.
Hou discloses a complex compound represented by Formula (1) ([0026]), wherein the compound necessarily comprises a ligand represented by
PNG
media_image15.png
138
119
media_image15.png
Greyscale
. Hou exemplifies a N,N’-diisopropylbenzamidine (dipba) ligand
PNG
media_image16.png
165
122
media_image16.png
Greyscale
(the right ligand of formula (5) in [0155]).
Hou teaches that the compound of Hou provides low voltage and high efficiency ([0191]) and higher HOMO and smaller HOMO-LUMO gap as compared to an acac ligand (Table 2, [0293]).
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 Boudreault as modified by Acharya by substituting the beta ketonate ancillary ligand with a dipba ligand, as taught by Boudreault and Hou.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide low voltage and high efficiency and higher HOMO and smaller HOMO-LUMO gap as compared to an acac ligand based on the teaching of Hou.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the known ancillary ligands in the compound of Boudreault would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Compound of Kwon as modified by Acharya and Hou.
PNG
media_image17.png
225
701
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, 11-12, 14-15, 17-18, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 15, 18, and 20 of US Patent no. 12,325,717 (hereafter Patent ‘717). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed at the same aspects of the same invention.
Regarding claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, 11-12, 14-15, 17-18, and 20, Patent ‘717 discloses a compound comprising a first ligand LA of Formula I (claim 1) and exemplifies a compound as shown below (claim 15, the 1st compound in column 524, hereafter Compound c524-1).
PNG
media_image18.png
267
541
media_image18.png
Greyscale
The Compound c524-1 has identical structure as Applicant’s compound of the instant claims, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, 11-12, and 14-15.
Patent ‘717 does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising the Compound p524-1 of Patent ‘717; however, Patent ‘717 does teach that the compound of Patent ‘717 can be incorporated in the organic layer of an organic light emitting device with a host, wherein the device comprises an anode, an organic layer, and a cathode; and the host can comprise at least one chemical moiety of carbazole (claim 18).
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 p524-1 of Patent ‘717 by incorporating it into the organic layer with a carbazole host into the organic layer of an organic light emitting device having structure of an anode, an organic layer, and a cathode, as taught by Patent ‘717.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the compound of Patent ‘717 in the OLED device of Patent ‘717 would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified organic light emitting device of Patent ‘717 comprising an anode, an organic layer (Compound p524-1 and a carbazole compound as a host), and a cathode, meeting all the limitations of claims 17-18.
Patent ‘717 does not disclose a specific consumer product comprising the Modified organic light emitting device of Patent ‘717; however, Patent ‘717 does teach that the device of Patent ‘717 can be incorporated in a consumer product (claim 20).
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 Modified organic light emitting device of Patent ‘717 by incorporating it into a consumer product, as taught by Patent ‘717.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the OLEDs in a consumer product would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides a consumer product comprising the Modified organic light emitting device of Patent ‘717, meeting all the limitations of claim 20.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-12, 14-15, and 17-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 15, 17, and 19-20 of US Patent no. 12,473,317 (hereafter Patent ‘317). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed at the same aspects of the same invention.
Regarding claims 1-3, 5, 7-12, 14-15, and 17-20, Patent ‘317 discloses a compound comprising a first ligand LA of Formula I (claim 1) and exemplifies a compound as shown below (claim 15, the 3rd compound in column 497, hereafter Compound c497-3).
PNG
media_image19.png
263
517
media_image19.png
Greyscale
The Compound c497-3 has identical structure as Applicant’s compound of the instant claims, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-3, 5, 7-12, and 14-15.
Patent ‘317 does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising the Compound p497-3 of Patent ‘317; however, Patent ‘317 does teach that the compound of Patent ‘317 can be incorporated in the organic layer of an organic light emitting device with a host, wherein the device comprises an anode, an organic layer, and a cathode; and the host can comprise at least one chemical moiety of carbazole (claim 17). Patent ‘317 exemplifies dicarbazolyl dibenzothiophene as the host (claim 19).
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 p497-3 of Patent ‘317 by incorporating it into the organic layer with dicarbazolyl dibenzothiophene as a host into the organic layer of an organic light emitting device having structure of an anode, an organic layer, and a cathode, as taught by Patent ‘317.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the compound of Patent ‘317 in the OLED device of Patent ‘317 would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified organic light emitting device of Patent ‘317 comprising an anode, an organic layer (Compound p497-3 and dicarbazolyl dibenzothiophene compound as a host), and a cathode, meeting all the limitations of claims 17-19.
Patent ‘317 does not disclose a specific consumer product comprising the Modified organic light emitting device of Patent ‘317; however, Patent ‘317 does teach that the device of Patent ‘317 can be incorporated in a consumer product (claim 20).
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 Modified organic light emitting device of Patent ‘317 by incorporating it into a consumer product, as taught by Patent ‘317.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the OLEDs in a consumer product would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides a consumer product comprising the Modified organic light emitting device of Patent ‘317, meeting all the limitations of claim 20.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEOKMIN JEON whose telephone number is (571)272-4599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm EST.
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.
/SEOKMIN JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786