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
In the IDS filed on 08/10/2022, a US Patent application publication no. 20201002311 (2021-01-07, Ji et al.) is lined through and has not been considered because no such application number could be found.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of species (A1) M is Ir or Os and (B2) ligand LA is Formula II or Formula VI, in the reply filed on 12/17/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 16 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 9, Applicant recites “LAi-m, wherein i is an integer from 1 to 336, and m is an integer from 1 to 60, … LAi-1 to LAi-60 …” and provides the structural formula from LAi-1 to LAi-72. It is suggested to delete the structural formula LAi-61 through LAi-72 because those ligands are not claimed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 14, Applicant recites “The compound of claim 12, wherein: when the compound has formula Ir(LAi-m)3, …”. However, none of the claims 1, 10, 12, and 14 provides the definition of the ligands of LAi-m. Claim 12 claims the structure of the ligand LA only. It is unclear which structural formula is required to be referred to for the ligand LAi-m.
For the purpose of prosecution, the Examiner interprets the limitation to mean that each of the ligands LAi-m has the same structural formula of the ligand LA of claim 12.
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 1-14, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo et al. (US 2019/0062357 A1, hereafter Yoo) in view of Kim et al. (US 2008/0194853 A1, hereafter Kim).
Regarding claims 1-14, 17-18 and 20, Yoo discloses a metal complex comprising a ligand represented by Formula 2 and used for an organic light emitting device ([0001], [0007]-[0008]). Yoo exemplifies Compounds 2 and 11 ([0119]) and organic light emitting devices (Examples 2 (or 11) in [0356]-[0359], Table 1) comprising an anode (ITO), an emissive layer (the Compound 2 (or 11) of Yoo as a dopant and a carbazole compound H-1 as a host), and a cathode (Al), wherein the maximum emission wavelength is 824 nm for Example 2 and 846.5 for Example 11.
PNG
media_image1.png
385
784
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Compounds 2 and 11 of Yoo each has similar structure as Applicant’s Formula VI of the instant claims. The only difference is that each of the compounds of Yoo is not substituted by at least one deuterium; however, Yoo does teach that the substituents at the positions corresponding to R1 and R2 of Formula 2 of Yoo can be can be deuterium ([0017]).
Kim discloses an deuterated iridium complex used for an organic light emitting device ([0001]).
Kim teaches that substitution of hydrogen with deuterium provides lower zero point energy, lower vibration energy level, smaller vibration mode, decreased van der Waals force, reduced intermolecular collision by vibration, improved efficiency, and increased thermal stability ([0021]-[0022]).
Kim exemplifies an Ir complex comprising an organic ligand wherein the hydrogen directly substituted to the aromatic rings of the organic ligand are replaced by deuterium (Example 2 in [0045]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified each of the Compounds 2 and 11 of Yoo by substituting the hydrogen atoms at the positions corresponding to R1 and R2 of Formula 2 of Yoo (i.e. the hydrogen atoms directly substituted to the aromatic rings A1 and A2 of Formula 2) with deuterium, as taught by Yoo and Kim.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide lower zero point energy, lower vibration energy level, smaller vibration mode, decreased van der Waals force, reduced intermolecular collision by vibration, improved efficiency, and increased thermal stability based on the teaching of Kim.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of hydrogen with deuterium at the positions corresponding to R1 and R2 of Formula 2 of Yoo would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
PNG
media_image2.png
451
764
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Compounds of Yoo as modified by Kim (1) and (2).
Each of the Compound of Yoo as modified by Kim (1) and (2) reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach that the compound emits light with a peak maximum wavelength >= 700 nm at room temperature.
It is reasonable to presume that each of the Compound of Yoo as modified by Kim (1) and (2) emits light with a peak maximum wavelength >= 700 nm at room temperature.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
Applicant discloses the compound of the instant invention represented by Formula VI is capable of emitting light with a peak maximum wavelength >= 700 nm at room temperature ([0006], [0053]). The Compound of Yoo as modified by Kim (1) and (2) have identical structure as the Formula VI.
Furthermore, Yoo teaches that the OLED device wherein the Compound 2 (or 11) of Yoo is the emitter emits light having peak wavelength of 824 nm and 846.5 nm, respectively (Examples 2 and 11 in Table 1).
Therefore, each of Compounds of Yoo as modified by Kim (1) and (2) emits light with a peak maximum wavelength >= 700 nm at room temperature.
The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once the Compound of Yoo as modified by Kim (1) or (2) is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977). Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though the rejection is based on Section 103 instead of 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
The Compound of Yoo as modified by Kim (1) reads on all the limitations of claims 1-7 and 9-14.
The Compound of Yoo as modified by Kim (2) reads on all the limitations of claims 1-8 and 10-14.
The modification also provides Organic light emitting device of Yoo as modified by Kim (1) (or (2)) comprising an anode (ITO), an emissive layer (the Compound of Yoo as modified by Kim (1) (or (2)) as a dopant and a carbazole compound H-1 as a host), and a cathode (Al), meeting all the limitations of claims 17-18.
Yoo in view of Kim does not disclose a specific display device comprising the Organic light emitting device of Yoo as modified by Kim (1) (or (2)); however, Yoo does teach that the organic light emitting device can be included in a display device ([0314]-[0315]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Organic light emitting device of Yoo as modified by Kim (1) (or (2)) by incorporating it into a display device, as taught by Yoo and Kim.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of an OLED in a display device would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides a consumer product (i.e. display device) comprising the Organic light emitting device of Yoo as modified by Kim (1) (or (2)), meeting all the limitations of claim 20.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo et al. (US 2019/0062357 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 2008/0194853 A1) as applied to claims 1-14, 17-18 and 20 above, further in view of Kai et al. (US 2010/0187977 A1, hereafter Kai).
Regarding claim 19, the Organic light emitting device of Yoo as modified by Kim reads on all the features of claim 17 above.
The device comprises an anode (ITO), an emissive layer (the Compound of Yoo as modified by Kim as a dopant and a carbazole compound H-1 as a host), and a cathode (Al).
The host compound H-1 of Yoo does not read on the limitation of the claim; however, Yoo does teach a host can be used with the dopant of Yoo in the OLED device of Yoo ([0207]).
Kai discloses an organic light-emitting device wherein the emission layer comprises indolocarbazole derivative compound as a host (formulas (1)-(3) in [0019]). The exemplified compound of Kai (Compound (3) in [0038]).
PNG
media_image3.png
288
572
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Kai teaches that the organic light-emitting device of the invention comprising the indolocarbazole derivative compound provides high efficiency with good driving stability ([0018]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Organic light emitting device of Yoo as modified by Kim by substituting the host compound of the emissive layer with the Compound (3) of Kai, as taught by Yoo and Kai.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide high efficiency with good driving stability, as taught by Kai.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material and structure to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of known host materials would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Organic light emitting device of Yoo as modified by Kim and Kai comprising an anode (ITO), an emissive layer (the Compound of Yoo as modified by Kim as a dopant and Compound (3) of Kai as a host), and a cathode (Al), wherein the Compound (3) of Kai is identical to the 2nd compound of the instant claim 19.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-7, 9-15, 17, and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 15, 17, and 20 of copending Application No. 17/687,895 (reference application, hereafter Application ‘895). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed at the same aspects of the same invention. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claims 1-7, 9-15, 17, and 20, Application ‘895 discloses a compound (claim 1) used for an organic light emitting device (claim 17) and a consumer product (claim 20), wherein the compound is capable of emitting light with a peak maximum wavelength >= 70 nm at room temperature. Application ‘895 exemplifies a compound (claim 15, the 5th compound on page 235, hereafter Compound A).
PNG
media_image4.png
265
601
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The Compound A of Application ‘895 comprises a ligand LA which has identical structure as Applicants Formula 1 and has identical structure as the specific embodiment of claim 15, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-7 and 9-15.
Application ‘895 does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising the Compound A; however, Application ‘895 does teach that the compound can be used for an organic light emitting device comprising a anode, an emissive layer containing the compound, and a cathode (claim 17)
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound A of Application ‘895 by incorporating it into the emissive layer of an organic light emitting device, as taught by Application ‘895.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material and structure to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified organic light emitting device of Application ‘895 comprising an anode, an emissive layer containing the Compound A, and a cathode, meeting all the limitations of claim 17.
Application ‘895 does not disclose a specific consumer product comprising the Modified organic light emitting device of Application ‘895; however, Application ‘895 does teach that the organic light emitting device of the Application ‘895 can be used for a consumer product (claim 20).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified organic light emitting device by incorporating it into a consumer product, as taught by Application ‘895.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material and structure to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides a consumer product comprising the Modified organic light emitting device of Application ‘895, meeting all the limitations of claim 20.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEOKMIN JEON whose telephone number is (571)272-4599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm EST.
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.
/SEOKMIN JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786