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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/15/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In the response filed 05/15/2026, the claims were amended.
These amendments are hereby entered.
Claims 1-12 were originally filed.
Claims 2-9 have been canceled.
Claims 1 and 10-12 are instantly amended.
Claims 1 and 10-12 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments that (i) the references do not adequately establish why one of ordinary skill in the art would have selected the particular compounds for use as a green phosphorescent material, Examiner disagrees.
A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. An artisan of ordinary skill would recognize that structure is related to function and if the prior art teaches the claimed chemical structure, the compound would inherently be capable of acting as a green phosphorescent dopant in the light-emitting layer of an organic electroluminescent device (MPEP 2112.01(II)). For the sake of discussion, while Egen does teach the compounds may emit in the green region (paragraph 0228), and that the compound may be a phosphorescent dopant in the light-emitting layer of an organic electroluminescent device (paragraphs 0582-0590 and the table on page 89 of the untranslated document) with a carbazole-containing host material (mCP, paragraph 0382), an artisan having ordinary skill in the art, desiring to tune the emissive wavelength of the compounds of Egen, would recognize from the teachings of Kang, that emissive wavelength may be tuned by changing the ancillary ligand of an organometallic emitter. Thus, 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 modify the homoleptic compound of Egen to comprise an auxiliary ligand such as phenylpyridine as Kang teaches this is a known alternative auxiliary ligand which can be used to finely adjust the emission wavelength of iridium complexes.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments that (ii) Kang does not provide sufficient guidance to modify Egen’s compounds to arrive at the recited compounds, Examiner disagrees.
The teaching of Kang which is relied upon is taken from paragraph [0043], which teaches that the purpose of the auxiliary ligand is to finely adjust the emission wavelength of a heteroleptic iridium complex and example auxiliary ligands capable of performing this function include acetylacetonate and phenylpyridine. This citation does not specify that the ability for an auxiliary ligand to change the emissive wavelength of a heteroleptic iridium complex relies upon the identity of the main ligand. Thus, even though Kang and Egen teach heteroleptic iridium complexes with different main ligands, given the teaching of Kang, a person having ordinary skill in the art would expect that changing the auxiliary ligand of the compound would change the emissive wavelength of the compound. Further, Kang does not need to specifically teach that adding a phenylpyridine ligand in place of an acetylacetonate ligand would result in green emission, as such a prediction is impossible. Instead, Kang teaches that the emissive wavelength of a heteroleptic iridium compound can be changed by changing the auxiliary ligand. Such a teaching is sufficient to motivate a person having ordinary skill in the art to pursue such a modification in order to finely adjust the emissive wavelength of an iridium complex.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that (iii) the rejection relies on impermissible hindsight, Examiner disagrees.
It must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
With respect to Applicant’s argument that (iv) the applied art teaches away from the path relied upon in the rejection, Examiner disagrees.
At the outset, Examiner objects to Applicant’s assertion that Egen only presents the organometallic compounds as blue or deep-blue emitters as Egen clearly teaches that the compounds may emit in the red, green, or blue region (paragraph 0228).
Egen teaches that auxiliary ligand, L, is a mono- or dianionic ligand, which may be mono- or bidentate. This limitation clearly encompasses the phenylpyridine ligand taught by Kang. A proposed modification only teaches away from the primary art if it would render the primary art invention as unsatisfactory for it intended purpose. Egen does not teach that certain auxiliary ligands would render the organometallic compounds unsatisfactory to perform as an emitter in the light-emitting layer of an organic electroluminescent device (MPEP 2143.01 (V)). Further, any disclosure of desirable alternatives, such as acetylacetonate, does not negate a suggestion for modifying the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention (MPEP 2143.01 (I)).
For at least these reasons, the rejections are maintained.
However, Applicant’s amendments have necessitated a reinterpretation of the prior art.
A reinterpretation of the prior art is given below to explain how the prior art still reads on the claimed invention.
Also, after additional consideration and in the interest of compact prosecution, a new rejection is included below.
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 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egen et al. (WO 2006/056418 A2, using the previously provided translation for references) and further in view of Kang et al. (US 2022/0333008 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Egen discloses an organic light-emitting diode (OLED, paragraph 0590) comprising a first electrode (ITO, paragraph 0582), a second electrode (Al, paragraph 0589), an organic layer between the electrodes comprising a light-emitting layer (paragraph 0582-0584), and the light emitting layer comprises a host material, such as the carbazole-containing compound CBP (4,4’-N,N’-dicarbazole biphenyl, paragraph 0265), which is doped with a transition metal complex (paragraph 0598) such Ir(pombic)3 (page 78 of the untranslated document), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image1.png
348
274
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ir(pombic)3 is derived from Egen Formula (I), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
234
424
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In this formula, Egen also teaches that L is a monoanionic bidentate auxiliary ligand (paragraph 0016), and m+n is the oxidation state of the metal (paragraphs 0018-0021).
However, while Egen teaches that the monoanionic bidentate auxiliary ligand may be acetylacetonate (paragraph 0059), Egen does not teach nor fairly suggest that the monoanionic bidentate ligand is phenylpyridine.
In analogous art Kang teaches a heteroleptic phosphorescent iridium material for use in an organic light emitting diode (abstract and paragraph 0002) which comprises an auxiliary ligand (paragraph 0015).
Kang teaches that the purpose of the auxiliary ligand is to finely adjust the emission wavelength of the heteroleptic iridium complex. For example, the auxiliary ligand may be selected from at least acetylacetonate and phenylpyridine (paragraph 0043).
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 modify the homoleptic compound of Egen to comprise an auxiliary ligand such as phenylpyridine as Kang teaches this is a known alternative auxiliary ligand which can be used to finely adjust the emission wavelength of iridium complexes.
Such a modification produces instant Compound 1.
Examiner is interpreting this compound to meet the requirements of the instant claim through its use as a preferred embodiment of the claimed invention, as given in paragraph [0072] of the instant specification. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and it has been held that when the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112.01(II)), and the compound of Egen and Kang reads on the claims.
Egen teaches that the compounds of the prior art may emit in the green region (paragraph 0228), but does not give the emission color of this specific compound. However, emission color is considered to be a property of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when the organometallic compound of Egen and Kang is used as a material in the organic layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the claimed property described in the instant claims. Therefore, the claims are considered to be obvious over Egen and Kang, and the burden shifts to applicant to show that there is an unobvious difference between the claimed composition and the composition in the prior art. See MPEP 2112 (V). In addition, the presently claimed properties are considered to be present once the work of Egen and Kang was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
With respect to claim 10, Egen and Kang teach the diode of claim 1, and CBP is the instant first compound.
With respect to claim 11, Egen and Kang teach the diode of claim 1, and Egen also teaches that the diode may comprise a hole transporting layer (paragraph 0263).
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 a hole transporting layer in the diode of Egen and Kang, as taught by Egen.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egen et al. (WO 2006/056418 A2, using the provided translation for references) and Kang et al. (US 2022/0333008 A1) as applied above, and further in view of Shin et al. (US 2018/0166647 A1).
With respect to claim 12, Egen and Kang teach the diode of claim 1, as discussed above.
However, while Egen describes a light-emitting substrate (paragraph 0283) which is meant to support an OLED, neither Egen nor Kang teaches or fairly suggests a driving element positioned on the substrate which is connected to the substrate and light-emitting element.
In analogous art, Shin teaches an organic light emitting diode comprising a substrate which is patterned to support a light emitting diode (paragraph 0122).
Shin describes the process of forming an organic light emitting diode display device including a substrate, a light emitting diode (LED), an encapsulation film covering the LED, and a driving thin film transistor (TFT) connected to the LED and substrate (paragraph 0122).
Shin describes forming the LED in a pixel region (paragraph 0123), and that each pixel may emit one of red, green, and blue and may comprise a color filter layer to filter the light emitted from the LED, for example, to display a full color image (paragraph 0133).
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 the organic light emitting display of Egen and Kang into red, green, and blue pixels, and incorporate a driving thin film transistor in order to achieve a full color display, as taught by Shin.
Claims 1 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egen et al. (WO 2006/056418 A2, using the previously provided translation for references).
With respect to claim 1, Egen discloses an organic light-emitting diode (OLED, paragraph 0590) comprising a first electrode (ITO, paragraph 0582), a second electrode (Al, paragraph 0589), an organic layer between the electrodes comprising a light-emitting layer (paragraph 0582-0584), and the light emitting layer comprises a host material, such as the carbazole-containing compound CBP (4,4’-N,N’-dicarbazole biphenyl, paragraph 0265), which is doped with a transition metal complex (paragraph 0598) such Ir(pombic)3 (page 78 of the untranslated document), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image1.png
348
274
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ir(pombic)3 is derived from Egen Formula (I), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
234
424
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In this formula, Egen also teaches that L is a monoanionic bidentate auxiliary ligand (paragraph 0016), preferably acetylacetonate (paragraph 0059, lines 7-8), and m+n is the oxidation state of the metal (paragraphs 0018-0021).
Such a modification produces instant Compound 351.
Examiner is interpreting this compound to meet the requirements of the instant claim through its use as a preferred embodiment of the claimed invention, as given in compound 351 on page 72 of the instant specification. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and it has been held that when the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112.01(II)), and the compound of Egen reads on the claims.
Egen teaches that the compounds may emit in the green region (paragraph 0228), but does not give the emission color of this specific compound. However, emission color is considered to be a property of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when the organometallic compound of Egen is used as a material in the emissive layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the claimed property described in the instant claims. Therefore, the claims are considered to be obvious over Egen, and the burden shifts to applicant to show that there is an unobvious difference between the claimed composition and the composition in the prior art. See MPEP 2112 (V). In addition, the presently claimed properties are considered to be present once the work of Egen was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
With respect to claim 10, Egen teaches the diode of claim 1, and CBP is the instant first compound.
With respect to claim 11, Egen teaches the diode of claim 1, and Egen also teaches that the diode may comprise a hole transporting layer (paragraph 0263).
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 a hole transporting layer in the diode as taught by Egen.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egen et al. (WO 2006/056418 A2, using the provided translation for references) as applied above, and further in view of Shin et al. (US 2018/0166647 A1).
With respect to claim 12, Egen teaches the diode of claim 1, as discussed above.
However, while Egen describes a light-emitting substrate (paragraph 0283) which is meant to support an OLED, Egen does not teach nor fairly suggest a driving element positioned on the substrate which is connected to the substrate and light-emitting element.
In analogous art, Shin teaches an organic light emitting diode comprising a substrate which is patterned to support a light emitting diode (paragraph 0122).
Shin describes the process of forming an organic light emitting diode display device including a substrate, a light emitting diode (LED), an encapsulation film covering the LED, and a driving thin film transistor (TFT) connected to the LED and substrate (paragraph 0122).
Shin describes forming the LED in a pixel region (paragraph 0123), and that each pixel may emit one of red, green, and blue and may comprise a color filter layer to filter the light emitted from the LED, for example, to display a full color image (paragraph 0133).
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 the organic light emitting display of Egen into red, green, and blue pixels, and incorporate a driving thin film transistor in order to achieve a full color display, as taught by Shin.
Conclusion
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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights