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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/15/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In the response filed 04/15/2026, the claims were amended.
These amendments are hereby entered.
In light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims, the objection to claim 1 is withdrawn by the Office.
In light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) of claim 11 as being of improper dependent form, and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 of claims 1-3 and 5-9 as being anticipated by Bae et al. (US 2020/0395559 A1), and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 4, 10-15, and 17 as being unpatentable over Bae as applied above, claim 16 as being unpatentable over Bae as applied above and further in view of Lin et al. (US 2020/0119289 A1), and of claim 18 as being unpatentable over Bae as applied above and further in view of Xia et al. (US 2015/0214494 A1) are withdrawn by the Office.
Claims 1-18 were presented for consideration in the original disclosure.
No claims have been added.
Claims 2-4 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 6, 11-12 are currently amended.
Claims 1 and 5-18 are examined herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 5-10, 12-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae et al. (US 2020/0395558 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Bae discloses an organometallic compound comprising at least one cumyl group (abstract), such as compound 39 (page 45), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image1.png
446
472
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This compound is derived from Bae formula 1-1 (paragraph 0062). Bae also teaches that A10 may be a benzimidazole group (paragraph 0063 and formula A10-5 when R13 through R16 are hydrogen atoms, paragraphs 0068 and 0028).
Such a modification produces a compound which meets the requirements of instant Chemical Formula 1 when L1 is represented by Structural Formula 5 and R’ is a cumyl group (aryl-substituted alkyl), L2 is a 5-membered heteroaromatic ring (oxazole), X5 and X6 are both CR7 and the two R7 are joined to form a fused (benzene) ring structure, X7 is an oxygen atom, L3 and L4 are both an unsubstituted aromatic hydrocarbon ring of 6 carbon atoms (benzene), and T is an oxygen atom.
Bae includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Bae being a lack of the aforementioned benzimidazole group being explicitly used. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known preferred A10 group from the finite list of possible definitions for A10 (paragraph 0065) in order to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since any of the A10 groups would have yielded the predictable result of a compound with improved photochemical stability, which is suitable for deep blue emission in an organic light emitting device with excellent luminescence efficiency, lifespan, and color purity, commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 5, Bae teaches the compound of claim 1, and X5 and X6 are both CR7 and the two R7 are joined to form a fused (benzene) ring structure, as discussed above.
With respect to claims 6 and 7, Bae teaches the compound of claim 1, and L2 has the structure of Structural Formula 12 when n is 2 and two R” are joined to form an aromatic hydrocarbon ring of 6 carbon atoms and W is oxygen, as pictured above.
With respect to claims 8 and 9, Bae teaches the compound of claim 1 and L3 and L4 are both an aromatic hydrocarbon ring of 6 carbon atoms (benzene), as discussed above.
With respect to claim 10, Bae teaches the compound of claim 1, and Bae also teaches that the compound may be substituted with deuterium (paragraph 0028, line 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to deuterate the compound, as taught by Bae.
Bae includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Bae being a lack of a deuterium atom being explicitly used. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from the finite list of possible substituents in order to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since any of the A10 groups would have yielded the predictable result of a compound with improved photochemical stability, which is suitable for deep blue emission in an organic light emitting device with excellent luminescence efficiency, lifespan, and color purity, commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claims 12-14, Bae teaches the compound of claim 1, and Bae also teaches an organic light-emitting diode comprising a first electrode (an anode), a second electrode (a cathode), and an organic layer between the electrodes which comprises a hole transport layer, an electron transport layer, and a function layer (an emission layer) (paragraph 0209), and the light-emitting layer (emission layer) comprises a host and dopant and the compound is the dopant (paragraph 0212).
With respect to claim 15, Bae teaches the diode of claim 14, and Bae also teaches that the emission layer may further include a fluorescent dopant (paragraph 0215). Since the two dopants can only be deposited at the same time or sequentially, the presence of a second dopant is interpreted to meet at least one limitation of the instant claim.
With respect to claim 17, Bae teaches the diode of claim 13, and Bae also teaches that the hole injection layer may be formed using spin coating, which involves removal of a solvent (paragraph 0255). This implies the presence of a solution process.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form at least one layer using a solution process, as taught by Bae.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae et al. (US 2020/0395558 A1) as applied above, and further in view of Lin et al. (US 2020/0119289 A1).
With respect to claim 16, Bae teaches the diode of claim 15, comprising a fluorescent dopant, as discussed above.
However, Bae does not teach that the fluorescent compound has thermally activated delayed fluorescent properties.
In analogous art, Lin teaches a tetradentate platinum compound for use in the emitting layer of an organic electroluminescent device (paragraphs 0024, 0102, and 0103, and Figure 1).
Lin teaches that the emission layer should comprise a host a dopant (paragraphs 0102 and 0103) and that the fluorescent dopant may have TADF properties (paragraph 0129).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a TADF fluorescent emitter as the second, fluorescent dopant of Bae, and Lin teaches this was a known application for TADF compounds prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae et al. (US 2020/0395558 A1) as applied above, and further in view of Xia et al. (US 2015/0214494 A1).
With respect to claim 18, Bae teaches the diode of claim 12, as discussed above.
However, Bae does not teach nor fairly suggest any of the claimed devices comprising the diode of claim 12.
In analogous art, Xia teaches an organic electroluminescent device (paragraph 0003).
Xia teaches that opto-electronic devices, such as organic light emitting devices, that make use of organic materials are becoming increasingly desirable for a number of reasons including cost advantage, and inherent properties of organic materials such as their flexibility which make them well suited for fabrication on flexible substrates.
Xia goes on to teach that OLEDs are increasingly interesting technology for use in applications such as consumer products such as flat panel displays, illumination, and backlighting (paragraph 0005).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the OLED of Bae in a consumer product such as a flat panel display, as Xia teaches that organic materials are becoming increasingly desirable for a number of reasons including cost advantage, and inherent properties of organic materials such as their flexibility which make them well suited for fabrication on flexible substrates.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With respect to claim 11, the claim contains 21 specific embodiments of tetradentate, platinum compounds which comprise a coordinated imidazole-derived carbene with at least one additional condensed ring on the imidazole moiety, and at least one coordinated oxazole or thiazole ring system which may be further condensed with a benzene ring.
A search of the prior art did not identify the claimed invention.
The closest identified prior art is Bae et al. (US 2020/0395558 A1).
With respect to claim 11, Bae teaches tetradentate, platinum compounds which may comprise a coordinated imidazole-derived carbene with at least one additional condensed ring on the imidazole moiety, and at least one coordinated oxazole or thiazole ring system which may be further condensed with a benzene ring (see for example the compounds on pages 45 and 54).
However, Bae differs from the instant compounds of claim 11 because Bae teaches that the organometallic compounds must comprise at least one cumyl group (abstract), and none of the compounds of instant claim 11 comprise a cumyl group.
Additionally, there existed no teaching nor motivation to remove the cumyl group in the broader prior art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Han et al. (US 2022/0112231 A1) – teaches compounds with polycyclic imidazole-derived carbenes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL SIMBANA whose telephone number is (571)272-2657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 A.M. - 4:30 P.M..
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.
/RACHEL SIMBANA/Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights