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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/18/2026 has been entered.
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 1-6, 8, 11, 15-16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (US 2015/0105556) (Li).
In reference to claims 11, 15-16, 18 and 20, Li teaches compounds of the formula 5 as shown below (Li [0104]),
PNG
media_image1.png
238
302
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
114
124
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
112
100
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
112
118
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
28
60
media_image5.png
Greyscale
for example, wherein in the formula 5, ring L1 is the benzimidazole group above (Li [0146]), L2 is the benzene group above (Li [0166]), and the ring with V4 is a pyridine group as shown above (li [0174]), A is O (Li [0090]), Z is the oxygen linking group above (Li [0116]), X is CR1 (Li [0112]), R1 is phenyl (Li [0097] [0051]), Rd is t-butyl (Li [0017]), and R1 is a deuterated methyl group(Li [0017] [0041]).
Li discloses the compound of formula 5 that encompasses the presently claimed compound, including wherein in the formula 5, ring L1 is the benzimidazole group above, L2 is the benzene group above, and the ring with V4 is a pyridine group as shown above, A is O, Z is the oxygen linking group above, X is CR1, R1 is phenyl, Rd is t-butyl, and R1 is a deuterated methyl group. Each of the disclosed substituents from the substituent groups of Li are considered functionally equivalent and their selection would lead to obvious variants of the compound of formula 5.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, in the absence of unexpected results, to have selected these substituents among those disclosed for the compound of formula 5 to provide the compound described above, which is both disclosed by Li and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
For Claim 11: Reads on formula 1 wherein M1 is Pt, X1 is O, Y1 is N, Y2 to Y4 are each C, Z31 and Z32 are each C, Z21 and Z22 are each C, Z41 and Z42 are each C, A2 is pyridine, A11, A3 and A4 are each benzene, L1 is *-O-*’, L3 is a single bond, R1 is H and t-butyl, R2 is H and -CD3, R3 and R4 are each H and R5 is phenyl.
For Claim 15: Reads on A2 is pyridine, and A3 and A4 are each benzene.
For Claim 16: Reads on A1 is 2A-20, A2 is 2B-18, A3 is 2C-5.
For Claim 18: Reads on R1 is H and t-butyl, R2 is H and -CD3, R3 and R4 are each H and R5 is phenyl.
For Claim 20: Reads on compound 4.
In reference to claims 1-4 and 8, Li teaches a compound of formula 5 as described above for claim 11 and further teaches it is used in a light emitting device such as an OLED including an anode, a cathode, a hole transport layer, an emissive layer, an electron transport layer wherein the emitting layer includes the compound and a host material (Li [0192] to [0195]) and that such devices are for use in full color displays (Li [0083]).
Given that Li discloses the device configuration that encompasses the presently claimed device, including the layer and dopant and host configuration, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, to use the device configuration, which is both disclosed by Li and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
For Claim 1: Reads on a device comprising two electrodes and an interlayer comprising emission layers.
For Claim 2: Reads on an anode, a cathode, a hole transport layer, and an electron transport layer.
For Claim 3: Reads on the interlayer comprising the material.
For Claim 4: Reads on the emission layer comprising the material.
For Claim 8: Reads on an apparatus.
In reference to claim 5, Li teaches the device as described above for claim 1 that comprises a host material. While Li does not expressly state that the dopant is included in an amount that is less than the host(s) in the emission layer, the term dopant implies that the dopant is added in a relatively smaller amount than the host.
In reference to claim 6, Li teaches the device as described above. While Li does not expressly state the emission wavelength of the device, the wavelength of emission is an inherent property of the emitting materials used and therefore is inherently met. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I). Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. General Electric v. Jewe Incandescent Lamp Co., 67 USPQ 155. Titanium Metal Corp. v. Banner, 227 USPQ 772. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 597, 195 USPQ 430.
Claims 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (US 2015/0105556) (Li) in view of Fadhel et al (US 2016/0322568) (Fadhel).
In reference to claim 7, Li teaches the display device as described for claim 2.
Li teaches that known electron transport materials can be used but does not expressly point to the inclusion of a phosphine oxide material.
With respect to the difference, Fadhel teaches, in analogous art, phosphine oxide compositions for use in an electron transport layer and further teaches that the use in a device such as an OLED that has low voltage and high efficiency (Fadhel [0024]; examples).
In light of the motivation of using phosphine oxide electron transport materials as described above, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the phosphine oxide electron transport materials as described by Fadhel in order to provide a device with log voltage and high efficiency and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (US 2015/0105556) (Li) in view of Song et al (US 2020/0028084) (Song).
In reference to claim 9-10, Li teaches the display device as described for claim 8.
Li does not expressly teach that it the display device comprises the claimed features of a thin film transistor or a color filter etc. as instantly claimed. With respect to the difference, Song teaches, in analogous art, display devices with similar materials comprising thin film transistors, source and drain electrodes (Song [0132] to [0134]) and a color filter (Song [0143]).
It would have been obvious to use the device configuration of Song including well known elements such as thin film transistors, source and drain electrodes and a color filter with the expectation of providing an organic EL display device with improved color characteristics, efficiency and lifespan (Song abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art does not disclose, teach or suggest the claimed features. However, as pointed to herein above and before, the prior art of record does disclose these materials and devices.
Applicant further argues that the claimed embodiments exhibit unexpected and desirable results for the reasons previously presented. Applicant previously argued that in comparison to compound A, which is argued to be within the scope of Li, the claimed materials demonstrate superior performance.
For a finding of unexpected results, the results presented need to be of both statistical and practical significance and be commensurate in scope with the subject matter claimed (See MPEP 716.02).
First, while the inventive examples allegedly show improvements in device performance, the specification has provided no information that would allow the analysis of the statistical significance of the results. That is, there is no indication if more than one device was prepared and analyzed for each comparative and exemplary device and there is no information on the reproducibility or precision of the measured parameters presented in the data tables.
Second, the showing of the results of a few examples is not commensurate in scope with the very large number of compounds encompassed by the instant claims. For example, the table 2 shows 3 example compounds whereas the instant claim 1 includes a near infinite number of materials with exceptionally diverse structures. These examples are not intended to be interpreted as the only points in which the data in not commensurate in scope with the claims but merely to illustrate how the breadth of the claimed compounds is much larger than that set forth in the examples, these variables resulting in claiming thousands of more compounds and even more devices. As applicant is attesting that the claimed compounds have properties that would not be expected based on the genus as a whole, for example compounds taught by Li, support for the unexpected results must be provided that covers the scope of what is claimed.
While Applicant has slightly narrowed the scope of the claimed subject matter, it is not sufficient to demonstrate an effect that is commensurate in scope. For example, each of the claimed materials can include R10a that can be a long list of variables that each can be included in “a combination thereof” leading to an essentially limitless number of possible substituents at every possible position that can be substituted with an R10a. Many such substituents and combinations would constitute much larger structural features than those expressly required by the instant formulae whereas the three examples include only hydrogen, deuterium, phenyl, methyl or t-butyl groups as substituents.
Further, Applicant has not addressed the lack of evidence of statistical significance of the results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sean M DeGuire whose telephone number is (571)270-1027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer A. Boyd can be reached at (571) 272-7783. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Sean M DeGuire/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights