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 01/15/2026, the claims and specification were amended.
These amendments are hereby entered.
In light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims and specification, the objection to claims 1, 5, and 10, and the specification are withdrawn by the Office.
In light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 of claims 1, 4, 7, and 11 as being anticipated by Egen et al. (WO 2006/056418 A2), the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claim 6 as being anticipated by or as obvious over Egen et al. (WO 2006/056418 A2), and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 2, 3, 5, and 8-9 as being unpatentable over Egen et al. WO 2006/056418 A2), claim 10 as being unpatentable over Egen above and further in view of Nagao et al. (US 2014/0070204 A1), and of claim 12 as being unpatentable over Egen above and further in view of Shin et al. (US 2018/0166647 A1) are withdrawn by the Office.
Claims 1, 6, and 10 have been amended.
Claims 2-5 have been canceled.
Claims 1 and 6-12 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 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, 6-9, and 11 are 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 further in view of Kang et al. (US 2022/0333008 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Egen discloses the organometallic compound 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.
With respect to claim 6, Egen and Kang teach the compound of claim 1, as discussed above.
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 7, Egen and Kang teach the compound of claim 1, and Egen also teaches 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 the organometallic iridium compound (see the table on page 89 of the untranslated document).
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 compound in the light emitting layer of a device with the claimed structure, as taught by Egen.
With respect to claim 8, Egen and Kang teach the diode of claim 7, and Egen also teaches that compounds of Formula I are preferably used as emitter molecules in OLEDs (paragraph 0034, line 7), and that the emitter may be doped in concentrations of 2% (paragraph 0598, lines 1-2).
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 use the compound as a dopant in the emitting layer as taught by Egen.
With respect to claim 9, Egen and Kang teach the diode of claim 7, and Egen also teaches that the compound may be doped in mCP (1,3-bis(N-carbazolyl)benzene, paragraph 0382), which comprises a carbazole moiety.
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 host material with a carbazole group, such as mCP, as taught by Egen.
With respect to claim 11, Egen and Kang teach the diode of claim 7, and Egen also teaches that the organic layer further includes a hole conductor (transporting) layer comprising compound V1 (paragraph 0583).
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 a hole transporting layer into the device, as taught by Egen.
Claim 10 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 Nagao et al. (US 2014/0070204 A1).
With respect to claim 10, Egen and Kang teach the diode of claim 9, as discussed above.
However, while Egen teaches that the host material may be the carbazole-containing host material mCP, neither Egen nor Kang teaches or fairly suggests any of the instant host compounds.
In analogous art, Nagao teaches an organic thing-film light emitting device having both high luminance efficiency and durability due to the use of a compound having a specific carbazole skeleton (abstract).
Nagao teaches an example of this compound, compound [6] (page 6) which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image3.png
372
316
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner notes that this is identical to the fourth compound of the instant claim.
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 carbazole compound of Nagao as the host material in the emitting layer of Egen and Kang in order to obtain both high luminance efficiency and durability due to the use of aforementioned compound, as taught by Nagao.
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 7, 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.
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