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 .
Response to Amendment
In the response filed 11/07/2025, the claims and specification were amended.
These amendments are hereby entered.
In light of Applicant’s amendments to the specification, the objection to the specification is withdrawn by the Office.
In light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claims 1-18 as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 of claims 1-10 as being anticipated by Lin et al. (US 2020/0119289 A1), and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 11-18 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2020/0119289 A1) are withdrawn by the Office.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, and 11 have been amended.
Claims 1-18 are pending in the application.
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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 is objected to because the preamble of the claim is in incorrect format. Section 608.01(m) of the MPEP states that a claim should be the object of a sentence starting with “I (or we) claim,” “The invention claimed is” (or the equivalent). In the instant case, Examiner suggests truncating the preamble of the independent claim to “An organometallic compound represented by the following Chemical Formula 1:--“, as that is the typical format for a compound claim in this art.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 11 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.
With respect to claim 11, Compound 29 does not conform to the limitation of parent claim 1 that states that X7 is selected from oxygen and sulfur.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bae et al. (US 2020/0395559 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Bae discloses compound 313 (page 90), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image1.png
522
602
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of instant Chemical Formula 1 when L1 is a substituted 5-membered N-heteroaromatic carbene (imidazole carbene), Y is carbon, Z is nitrogen, X1 is NR4 and X2 and X3 are CR3, both R3 are hydrogen atoms and R4 is a substituted (alkyl of 4 carbon atoms and aryl of 6 carbon atoms) aryl of 6 carbon atoms (phenyl), 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.
With respect to claims 2 and 3, Bae teaches the compound of claim 1, and L1 is a substituted 5-membered N-heterocyclic carbene when n is 2 and R is a hydrogen atom and R’ is a substituted aryl of 6 carbon atoms, as discussed above.
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 a 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.
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 4, 10-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae et al. (US 2020/0395559 A1) above.
With respect to claim 4, Bae teaches the compound of claim 3, as discussed above.
Compound 313 above is derived from Bae Formula 1-1 (paragraph 0062), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
358
464
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Bae also teaches that X11 may be C(R11) and X12 may be C(R12) and that R11 and R12 may be linked together to form a benzene group (paragraph 0084).
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of the instant claim when L1 is represented by Structural Formula 5.
Bae includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Bae being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. 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 join R11 and R12 to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of an organometallic compound with improved photochemical stability suitable for deep blue emission and a device with excellent luminescence efficiency, lifespan, and color purity (paragraph 0228), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
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 0030, 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.
With respect to claim 11, Bae teaches the compound of claim 1, as discussed above.
Compound 313 above is derived from Bae Formula 1-1 (paragraph 0062), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
358
464
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Bae also teaches that X11 may be C(R11) and X12 may be C(R12) and that R11 and R12 may be linked together to form a benzene group (paragraph 0084), Ar1 is represented by formula Ar1-8 (below) where each E11 is a C4 alkyl group (paragraph 0028), and R30 is -Si(Q3)(Q4)(Q5) (paragraph 0030), wherein each Q character is a C6 aryl (phenyl) group (paragraph 0043).
PNG
media_image3.png
150
436
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Such a modification produces instant Compound 30.
Bae includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Bae being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. 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 join R11 and R12 to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of an organometallic compound with improved photochemical stability suitable for deep blue emission and a device with excellent luminescence efficiency, lifespan, and color purity (paragraph 0228), 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 0236), and the light-emitting layer (emission layer) comprises a host and dopant and the compound is the dopant (paragraph 0240).
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 0242). 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 0258). 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 2020/0395559 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 compound 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 2020/0395559 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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