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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/29/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the instant application on 07/01/2022. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
In the response filed 12/17/2025, 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In light of Applicant’s amendments to the specification, the objection to the specification is withdrawn by the Office.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 5, 7-13, 15-16, 20, and 23-24 as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention, and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 1-25 as being unpatentable over Cai et al. (US 2020/0091442 A1) in view of Nakamura et al. (US 2005/0287396) are withdrawn by the Office.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-20 and 23-25 have been amended.
Claims 26-37 have been added.
Claims 2, 6, 7, and 19 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-18, and 20-37 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
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-18, and 20-37 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The instant amended claim set is low resolution as a whole and small characters are blurred or completely illegible. In contrast, the instant amended specification is high resolution with all letters and numbers clearly visible. In subsequent submissions, please submit any amendments in whatever format or using whatever method with which the specification was submitted for clarity of record. An example of the instant amended claims and an example of the instant amended specification are pictured below to demonstrate the difference in resolution.
PNG
media_image1.png
237
216
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
335
416
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Also with respect to claim 15, the period appears to have been canceled from the claim (see MPEP 608.01(m).
PNG
media_image3.png
46
128
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Please restore the period.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3-5, 8-18, and 20-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai et al. (US 2020/0251666 A1) further in view of Nakamura et al. (US 2005/0287396 A1).
The applied reference (US 2020/0251666 A1) has a common assignee with the instant application, however, based upon the publication date of the prior art, 08/06/2020, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
Additionally, based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the applied reference (US 2020/0251666 A1), it also constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a certified translation of the foreign priority application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. Until a certified translation of the priority documents is received, the effective filing date of the instant application is 07/01/2022.
With respect to claim 1, Cai discloses the metal complex Ir(La1)(Lb1)2 (page 30) which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image4.png
266
380
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The compound pictured above is derived from Cai Formula 2 (page 16), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image5.png
330
502
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Cai also teaches that Rb is an alkyl group having 4 carbon atoms (paragraph 0107, lines 3-4), and examples of alkyl groups include t-butyl (paragraph 0042, line 4).
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of the instant claim when M is iridium, m is 2, n is 1, La is represented by Formula IA and Lb is represented by Formula IBa, Z is oxygen, Y1 through Y4 are each CRy wherein Ry is a hydrogen atom, X3 to X8 are each CRx-, and the Rx associated with X8 is a cyano group, all other Rx are hydrogen atoms, U1 through U4 are each CRu wherein each Ru is a hydrogen atom, W1 through W3 are each CRw wherein each Rw is a hydrogen atom, RA is represented by Formula 2, and RA1 through RA3 are each a C1 alkyl group and form a t-butyl substituent.
Cai includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Cai being a lack of the aforementioned t-butyl substituent 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 select any known substituent from the finite list of possible substituents to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result a cyano-substituted metal complex which shows many unexpected characteristics such as high efficiency, low voltage, no obvious blue-shifted or red-shifted luminescence, and with very narrow peak width of emitted light (paragraph 0024), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
However, while a t-butyl substituent is within the scope of Cai, Cai does not teach nor fairly suggest this substituent at a specific location such as RA.
In analogous art, Nakamura teaches an organic electroluminescent device comprising a metal complex comprising at least one ligand with a partial structure represented by formula (I) (abstract), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image6.png
438
532
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In this formula, M is iridium (paragraph 0018), R1, R2, and R4 through R8 are a hydrogen atom (paragraph 0012), and R3 represents a group represented by formula (II) (paragraph 0012), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image7.png
174
446
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In formula (II), at least two of R11 through R13 are an alkyl group (paragraph 0013), and preferably, Formula II forms a tert-butyl group (paragraph 0025).
Nakamura teaches that compounds comprising at least one partial structure ligand of the invention can provide an organic electroluminescent device which has high brightness and high luminescent efficiency with high driving durability (paragraph 0142).
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 t-butyl substituent at R3, which is analogous to instant RA, in the compound of Cai in order to provide an organic electroluminescent device which has high brightness and high luminescent efficiency with high driving durability, as taught by Nakamura.
With respect to claim 3, Cai and Nakamura teach the metal complex of claim 1, for the reasons discussed above.
With respect to claim 4, Cai and Nakamura teach the metal complex of claim 1, and the metal complex is represented by Formula 3 when RA1 through RA3 are all a C1 alkyl group, as pictured and discussed above. All other definitions remain the same.
With respect to claim 5, Cai and Nakamura teach the metal complex of claim 1, and Z is oxygen, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 8, Cai and Nakamura teach the metal complex of claim 1, and W1 to W3 are each CRw and each Rw is a hydrogen atom, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 9, Cai and Nakamura teach the metal complex of claim 3, and Y1 to Y4 are each CRy and Ry is a hydrogen atom, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 10, Cai and Nakamura teach the metal complex of claim 1, as discussed above.
Cai also teaches that Ra is a C1 alkyl group (paragraph 0098) and examples of alkyl groups include methyl (paragraph 0042, line 3).
Cai includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Cai being a lack of the aforementioned methyl substituent 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 select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible substituents to arrive at the ligand of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a metal complex ligand which can provide much longer device lifetime, better thermal stability, no blue-shifted illumination, and higher luminous efficiency (abstract), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 11, Cai and Nakamura teach the metal complex of claim 1, as discussed above.
Cai also teaches that Ra is a C4 alkyl group (paragraph 0098) and examples of alkyl groups include t-butyl (paragraph 0042, line 4).
Cai includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Cai being a lack of the aforementioned t-butyl substituent 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 select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible substituents to arrive at the ligand of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a metal complex ligand which can provide much longer device lifetime, better thermal stability, no blue-shifted illumination, and higher luminous efficiency (abstract), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claims 12-14, Cai and Nakamura teach the metal complex of claim 1, and RA1 through RA3 are a C1 alkyl group so that the total number of carbon atoms in RA1 through RA3 is 3 and forms a t-butyl group (A-11), as discussed above.
With respect to claim 15, Cai and Nakamura teach the metal complex of claim 1, and the CRx associated with X8 is a cyano group, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 16, Cai and Nakamura teach the metal complex of claim 1, as discussed above.
Cai also teaches Compound Ir(La962)(Lb3)2 (page 36), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image8.png
302
434
media_image8.png
Greyscale
When modified in the same manner as complex Ir(La1)(Lb1)2, pictured and discussed in claim 1 above, this compound meets the requirements of parent claim 1, as well as the requirements of the instant claim when X8 is a cyano group and X7 is a substituted alkyl of 1 carbon atom.
Cai includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Cai being a lack of the aforementioned methyl substituent 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 select any known substituent from the finite list of possible substituents to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result a cyano-substituted metal complex which shows many unexpected characteristics such as high efficiency, low voltage, no obvious blue-shifted or red-shifted luminescence, and with very narrow peak width of emitted light (paragraph 0024), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 17, Cai and Nakamura teach the metal complex of claim 1, and La is La1-1, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 18, Cai and Nakamura teach the metal complex of claim 1, and Lb is Lb1-1, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 19, Cai and Nakamura teach the metal complex of claim 1, and Lc is not present, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 20, Cai and Nakamura teach the metal complex of claim 1, and the metal complex has a structure of Ir(La)2Lb wherein two La are identical and Lb is different, and La is La1-1 and Lb is Lb2-67 and form instant Compound 361.
With respect to claims 21 and 22, Cai and Nakamura teach the metal complex of claim 1, and Cai also teaches an electroluminescent device (paragraph 0129) comprising an anode (paragraph 0130), a cathode (paragraph 0131), and an organic layer (paragraph 0113) comprising an emissive layer and the emissive layer comprises the compound (abstract).
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 include the compound in the emissive layer of an electroluminescent device with the claimed device structure, as taught by Cai.
With respect to claims 23 and 24, Cai and Nakamura teach the metal complex of claim 22, and Cai teaches that the emissive layer further comprises at least two hosts (paragraph 0144) and the host may comprise a carbazole moiety (paragraph 0145) and Cai gives the composition of the emission layer of example devices in Table 1, and they comprise 46:46:8 ratio of the first host: second host: dopant (the metal complex, see also paragraph 0191).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions. In the instant case, the weight percent of the instant claims (3 % to 13 %) overlaps in scope with the weight percent of the prior art (8 %). Thus, as the ranges overlap, a prima facie case of obviousness is present.
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 incorporate the metal complex into a two host emission layer at an 8% weight ratio, as taught by Cai.
With respect to claim 25, Cai and Nakamura teach the metal complex of claim 1, and Cai also teaches that each layer described may comprise a mixture of multiple materials (paragraph 0030), which implies the existence of a composition comprising the metal complex.
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 create a composition comprising the metal complex in order to obtain a mixture for manufacturing the emission layer of the device, as taught by Cai.
With respect to claims 26 and 27, Cai and Nakamura teach the metal complex of claim 1, and each Ru and each Rw are hydrogen atoms, as discussed above.
With respect to claims 28 and 29, Cai and Nakamura teach the metal complex of claim 1, and each Ry is a hydrogen atom, as discussed above.
With respect to claims 30-32, Cai and Nakamura teach the metal complex of claim 1, as discussed above.
Cai also teaches that Ra is a C4 alkyl group (paragraph 0098) and examples of alkyl groups include t-butyl (paragraph 0042, line 4).
Cai includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Cai being a lack of the aforementioned t-butyl substituent 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 select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible substituents to arrive at the ligand of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a metal complex ligand which can provide much longer device lifetime, better thermal stability, no blue-shifted illumination, and higher luminous efficiency (abstract), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claims 33-34, Cai and Nakamura teach the metal complex of claim 1, and RA1 through RA3 are each a C1 alkyl (methyl) group, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 35, Cai and Nakamura teach the metal complex of claim 1, and X8 is CRx wherein Rx is a cyano group, as discussed above.
With respect to claims 36-37, Cai and Nakamura teach the metal complex of claim 1, as discussed above.
Cai also teaches Compound Ir(La962)(Lb3)2 (page 36), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image8.png
302
434
media_image8.png
Greyscale
When modified in the same manner as complex Ir(La1)(Lb1)2, pictured and discussed in claim 1 above, this compound meets the requirements of parent claim 1, as well as the requirements of the instant claim when X8 is a cyano group and X7 is a substituted alkyl of 1 carbon atom.
Cai includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Cai being a lack of the aforementioned methyl substituent 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 select any known substituent from the finite list of possible substituents to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result a cyano-substituted metal complex which shows many unexpected characteristics such as high efficiency, low voltage, no obvious blue-shifted or red-shifted luminescence, and with very narrow peak width of emitted light (paragraph 0024), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to US 2020/0251666 A1 as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), this rejection might be overcome by submitting a certified translation of the foreign priority documents. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
With respect to US 2020/0251666 A1 as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), the rejection might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the 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