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 .
DETAILED ACTION
A third party filed IDS on June 26, 2026 with concise explanations and a copy of the IDS enclosed,
Applicant’s election without traverse of a mixture of species DH3 and GD1 in the reply filed on January 7, 2026 is acknowledged.
The examiner further selects a different mixture of a first host and a phosphorescent metal complex as well as species falling within scope of the recited first host comprising deuterium (i.e., deuterated compound 15-2 taught by He et al. (US 2020/0223857 A1)) and phosphorescent metal complex emitter (i.e., a third metal complex taught in [0221] of He et al. (US 2020/0223857 A1)) recited for claims 1 and 20 and in order to shorten prosecution.
Applicant stated that claim 18 is withdrawn due to an election, but the phosphorescent metal complex emitter (i.e., a third metal complex taught in [0221] of He et al. (US 2020/0223857 A1)) teach the recited 36th metal complex of claim 18.
Thus, all claims are examined and the requirement of the election of species mailed on November 19, 2025 is moot now.
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 15 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.
Claim 15 would be indefinite since a definition for K1” of the recited groups is missing.
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.
Claims 1-15, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US 2015/0126736 A1) (May 7, 2015).
Cho et al. teach the elected first host comprising a triazine substantially in claims 1 and claim 6 (i.e., a compound C-12).
The instant invention further recites that the first host is at least partially deuterated over the compound C-12 taught by Cho et al.
Cho et al. teach an organic electroluminescent device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode and at least one organic layer between the first and second electrodes in [0040] as well as an electron transport layer in [0041]. Cho et al. further teach employing at least one dopant and a second host material in [0042-0056].
Cho et al. teach that substituents R1, R2, R3 and R4 of a formula (1) (i.e., host) taught in claim 1 would include deuterium in claim 1. Cho et al. further teach that a, b and c of the formula (1) represent an integer of 1 to 4 and that d represent an integer of 1 to 3. Thus, the compound C-12 taught by Cho et al. further comprising the all substituents R1, R2, R3 and R4 being the deuterium, a, b and c being 4 and d being 3 would have been obvious and such modified compound C-12 would be expected to have the recited HOMO level greater than -5.6eV of claim 1 inherently since it is same as the elected host DH3. See In re Mills, 477 F.2d 649, 176 USPQ 196 (CCPA), In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976): Reference must be considered for all that it discloses and must not be limited to preferred embodiments or working examples. MPEP 2123.
Regarding the long list of the substituents taught be Cho et al., a prior art reference’s teaching, however, can render a claim obvious even when as ingredient appears without emphasis in a longer list. See Merch & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs, Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989). MPEP 2123.
Cho et al. teach various metal complexes in [0066] and D-93 taught at page 55 would meet the a 35th compound comprising Ir complex taught in the instant claim 18.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention to obtain OLEDs comprising the and anode and cathode with the electron transporting material comprising the deuterated compound C-12 and 35th compound as the metal complex taught by Cho et al. since Cho et al. teach such modifications as discussed above absent showing otherwise.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, the deuterated compound C-12 discussed above is same the elected host DH3 and thus it would be expected to have the recited HOMO level.
Regarding claims 4, the deuterated compound C-12 discussed above is same the elected host DH3 and thus it would meet the recited % of deuteriation.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, the deuterated compound C-12 discussed above comprises carbazole of claim 5 which would further meet the recited first moiety of claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, the deuterated compound C-12 discussed above comprises a second moiety of pyrimidine in addition to the recited first moiety of claim 6 as a first moiety.
Regarding claim 8, the deuterated compound C-12 discussed above is same as the host DH3 which would meet the recited first moiety of claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, the deuterated compound C-12 discussed above is same as the host DH3 which would fall within scope of the recited 9th moiety of claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, the recited linker L’ is directed to an alternative first host of claim 9 which is not mandatory in claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, the deuterated compound C-12 discussed above is same as the recited 15th host of claim 11.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Cho et al. further teach employing a second host material in [0042-0056] and the first structure of the ]0056] comprises carbazole further meeting claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, Cho et al. teach various metal complexes in [0066] and D-93 taught at page 55 would meet the Ir complex taught in the instant claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, a first metal complex taught in [0066] would meet a 3rd moiety taught in claim 15 when Y1 to Y8 are all carbon, Ra is methyl bonded to Y3, Rb is a hydrogen and K1’ is a direct bond.
Regarding claim 18, D-93 taught at page 55 of Cho et al.would meet the a 35th compound comprising Ir complex taught in the instant claim 18
Regarding claim 20, Cho et al. teach an organic electroluminescent device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode and at least one organic layer between the first and second electrodes in [0040] and OLEDs in [0107-0111].
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US 2015/0126736 A1) (May 7, 2015) as applied to claims 1-15, 18 and 20 above, and further in view of Sang et al. (US 2023/0063868 A1) (Mar. 2, 2023).
Although US 2023/0063868 A1 was published after the effective filing date of the instant application (i.e., August 17, 2022), it has a prior filing date of July 7, 2022. Thus, it would be qualified under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(2) and 103 thereof at this time.
Regarding claims 17 and 19, Sang et al. teach the elected GD1 as a phosphorescent emitter in a right column of page 48.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention further to utilize the art well known phosphorescent emitter GD1 taught by Sang et al. in Cho et al. since both teach OLEDS comprising phosphorescent metal complex emitter and since utilization OLEDs comprising the instant metal complex is known as taught by Sang et al absent showing otherwise.
Selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious, see Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). MPEP 2144.07.
The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). MPEP 2141
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 14-16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (US 2020/0223857 A1) (July 16, 2020).
He et al. teach nitrogen-containing fused heterocyclic ring compound and applications thereof in abstract. He et al. teach An about 2.3% deuterated compound 15-2 in [0389] and in table of [0393] as Example 11. He et al. teach that HOMO of the example 11 is -5.41eV in table 2 of the [0399] which would meet the instantly recited first host of claim 1 since claim 1 does not recite any HOMO of when the first host is less than 25% deuterated and since the deuterated compound 15-2 does not have the recited structure of claim 1. He et al. teach the nitrogen-containing fused heterocyclic ring compound can be used as electron transporting material in [0125] meeting the recited clause of claim 1.
He et al. teach triplet emitters comprising a metal complex in [0221] (i.e., third metal complex) and utilization of a mixture of the nitrogen-containing fused heterocyclic ring compound and triplet emitter in [0227]. He et al. teach an application in optoelectronic devices such as OLED in [0003] and the OLED inherently comprises the recited anode and cathode of claim 1.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention to obtain OLEDs comprising the and anode and cathode with the electron transporting material comprising the deuterated compound 15-2 and triplet emitters such as the metal complex taught in [0221] of He et al. since He et al. teach such modifications as discussed above absent showing otherwise.
See In re Mills, 477 F.2d 649, 176 USPQ 196 (CCPA), In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976): Reference must be considered for all that it discloses and must not be limited to preferred embodiments or working examples. MPEP 2123.
Regarding the long list of the triplet emitters comprising a metal complex, a prior art reference’s teaching, however, can render a claim obvious even when as ingredient appears without emphasis in a longer list. See Merch & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs, Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989). MPEP 2123.
Regarding claim 2, HOMO of the example 11 taught as -5.41eV in table 2 would meet claim 2.
Regarding claim 5, the deuterated compound 15-2 taught in [0389] would meet claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, the deuterated compound 15-2 taught in [0389] would meet the recited fourth moiety of claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, the deuterated compound 15-2 taught in [0389] comprises a second moiety of pyrimidine in addition to the recited fourth moiety of claim 6 as a first moiety.
Regarding claim 14, the triplet emitters comprising a metal complex in [0221] comprise Pt or Ir.
Regarding claim 15, a first metal complex taught in [0221] would meet a seventh moiety taught in claim 15 when Y1 to Y10 are all carbon, Ra and Rb is zero and K1’ is a direct bond.
Regarding claim 16, a first metal complex taught in [0221] would meet a seventh moiety taught in claim 15 when Ra’ and Rb’ are hydrogen.
Regarding claim 18, He et al. teach the recited 36th metal complex of claim 18 in [0221].
Regarding claim 20, He et al. teach electronic equipment and device in [0338-0340].
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (US 2020/0223857 A1) (July 16, 2020) as applied to claims 1, 2, 5-7, 14-16, 18 and 20 above, and further in view of WO 2022/255241 (65 pages submitted by applicant).
Regarding claim 4, WO teaches a derivative of triazin moiety comprising more than 40% deuteration as a host at page 27, (e.g., compounds 2-164 and 2-166).
Regarding claim 8, the compound 2-166 would meet the recited first moety of claim 8.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention further to utilize the art well known derivative of triazin moiety comprising more than 40% deuteration as a host (e.g., compounds 2-164 and 2-166) taught WO in He et al. since both teach derivatives of triazin moiety comprising deuterium as a host absent showing otherwise.
Selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious, see Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). MPEP 2144.07.
The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). MPEP 2141.
Claims 3, 12, 13, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (US 2020/0223857 A1) (July 16, 2020) as applied to claims 1, 2, 5-7, 14-16, 18 and 20 above, and further in view of Sang et al. (US 2023/0063868 A1) (Mar. 2, 2023).
Although US 2023/0063868 A1 was published after the effective filing date of the instant application (i.e., August 17, 2022), it has a prior filing date of July 7, 2022. Thus, it would be qualified under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(2) and 103 thereof at this time.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Sang et al. teach OLEDs comprising a first host, a second host comprising the recited third moiety of claim 13 and metal complex in claims 24 and 28.
Regarding claims 3, 17 and 19, Sang et al. teach the elected GD1 as a phosphorescent emitter in a right column of page 48 which would be expected to meet claim 3 since Sang et al. teach the same phosphorescent emitter claimed.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention further to utilize the art well known second host comprising the recited third moiety of claim 13 and phosphorescent emitter GD1 taught by Sang et al. in He et al. since both teach OLEDS comprising phosphorescent metal complex emitter and since utilization OLEDs comprising a first host, a second host comprising the recited third moiety of claim 13 and metal complex is known as taught by Sang et al.absent showing otherwise.
Selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious, see Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). MPEP 2144.07.
The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). MPEP 2141.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAE H YOON whose telephone number is (571)272-1128. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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, Robert Jones can be reached at (571)270-7733. 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.
/TAE H YOON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights