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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 19 March 2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
The amendment to the specification of 19 March 2026 has been entered and overcomes the objection to the specification set forth in the last Office action. The objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
The amendment to claim 1 has overcome the objection to claim 1 set forth in the last Office action. The objection to claim 1 has been withdrawn.
The amendment to claim 1 has overcome the rejections of claims 1-11 and 14-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamatani et al. (US 2010/0219407 A1) (hereafter “Kamatani”) in view of Adamovich et al. (US 2012/0319146 A1) (hereafter “Adamovich”) set forth in the last Office action as well as the rejections of claims 12-13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamatani et al. (US 2010/0219407 A1) (hereafter “Kamatani”) in view of Adamovich et al. (US 2012/0319146 A1) (hereafter “Adamovich”), and further in view of Su et al. (“Highly Efficient Red ElectrophosphorescentDevices Based on Iridium IsoquinolineComplexes: Remarkable External QuantumEfficiency Over a Wide Range of Current”, Advanced Materials (2003) vol. 15, No. 11, pp. 884-888.) (hereafter “Su”) set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn. However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1-11 and 14-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamatani et al. (US 2010/0219407 A1) (hereafter “Kamatani”) in view of Adamovich et al. (US 2012/0319146 A1) (hereafter “Adamovich”) set forth in the last Office action as well as the rejections of claims 12-13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamatani et al. (US 2010/0219407 A1) (hereafter “Kamatani”) in view of Adamovich et al. (US 2012/0319146 A1) (hereafter “Adamovich”), and further in view of Su et al. (“Highly Efficient Red ElectrophosphorescentDevices Based on Iridium IsoquinolineComplexes: Remarkable External QuantumEfficiency Over a Wide Range of Current”, Advanced Materials (2003) vol. 15, No. 11, pp. 884-888.) (hereafter “Su”) set forth in the last Office action 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamatani et al. (US 2010/0219407 A1) (hereafter “Kamatani”) in view of Adamovich et al. (US 2012/0319146 A1) (hereafter “Adamovich”) and Zhang et al. (US 2020/0099000 A1) (hereafter “Zhang”).
Regarding claims 1-9, 11, 14-20: Kamatani teaches the compound shown below {paragraphs [0008], [0023], [0050], [0084], [0112], and [0200]}.
PNG
media_image1.png
396
436
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The compound of Kamatani shown above has a peak emission wavelength of 601 nm as measured by photoluminescence {paragraph [0203]}.
Kamatani does not teach a specific device comprising the compound of Kamatani shown above.
Kamatani teaches that the compounds of the disclosure of Kamatani are useful as phosphorescent light emitting materials {paragraphs [0087], [0100], [0132], [0134], and [0211]-[0213]}.
Kamatani teaches a light-emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode, and an organic layer located between the first electrode and the second electrode {paragraphs [0113]-[0115], [0118], and [0211]-[0213]}.
The organic layer comprises an emission layer {paragraphs [0118] and [0211]-[0213]}.
The emission layer would comprise the compound of Kamatani as a light emitting dopant {paragraphs [0087], [0100], [0118], [0132], [0134], and [0211]-[0213]}.
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 of Kamatani such that the compound was used as the light-emitting dopant of the emission layer, based on the teaching of Kamatani. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices.
Kamatani does not exemplify that the emission layer comprises an additional iridium metal complex.
Adamovich teaches that including two emitters in a homogenous mixture in the emission layer, the peak emission wavelength of the emission layer can be tuned based on the relative amounts of the two emitters {abstract and paragraphs [0016], [0059], and [0065]}. Adamovich teaches that the differences between the two peak emission wavelengths of the two emitters should be less than 40 nm {abstract and paragraphs [0016] and [0059]}.
Adamovich teaches the compound shown below as an emitter {paragraph [0117], Table 2, and Figure 19}.
PNG
media_image2.png
470
536
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The compound of Adamovich shown above has a peak emission wavelength of 618 nm {Table 2}.
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 device of Kamatani such that the emission layer additionally comprised the compound of Adamovich shown above in a homogenous mixture. The motivation for doing so would have been to shift the peak emission wavelength of the emission layer, based on the teaching of Adamovich.
Kamatani and Adamovich do not teach that the acetylacetonate ligands of the iridium complexes of Kamatani and Adamovich comprise alkyl groups having more than two carbons in place of the methyl groups on the acetylacetonate derivative ligand.
Zhang teaches iridium complexes for use as light emitting materials in organic light emitting devices {abstract and paragraphs [0010]-[0011], [0059]-[0060], and [0093].}.
Zhang teaches that the iridium complexes of the disclosure of Zhang comprise acetylacetonate ligands (La of Zhang) having the structure of Formula 1, shown below {paragraphs [0011], [0017], and [0059]}.
PNG
media_image3.png
480
342
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Where among the two groups R1 to R3 and R4 to R6, at least one group comprises three substituents comprising at least one carbon atom, and additionally, at least one substituent of this group is a substituent comprising at least two carbon atoms {paragraphs [0014]-[0016], [0020]-[0022], and [0062]-[0065]}.
Zhang teaches that such a ligand provides a metal complex with altered sublimation properties and improved quantum efficiency and can be used to produce organic light emitting devices with improved performance {abstract; paragraphs [0010], [0024], and [0146]}.
Zhang exemplifies the ligand shown below {paragraph [0083]—p. 10 and paragraph [0144]—p. 68: ligand La26}.
PNG
media_image4.png
508
626
media_image4.png
Greyscale
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have modified each of Kamatani’s and Adamovich’s compounds shown above, by replacing the acetylacetonate ligand with the acetylacetonate derivative ligand of Zhang described above, based on the teachings of Zhang. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a metal complex with altered sublimation properties and improved quantum efficiency that can be used to produce organic light emitting devices with improved performance, as taught by Zhang.
Kamatani as modified by Adamovich and Zhang teaches the claimed invention above but fails to teach that the emission maximum wavelength of the compound of Kamatani and the emission maximum wavelength of the compound of Adamovich are each independently from about 600 nm to about 650 nm and that an absolute value of the difference between the two values is from 0 nm to 30 nm. It is reasonable to presume that the emission maximum wavelength of the compound of Kamatani and the emission maximum wavelength of the compound of Adamovich bering each independently from about 600 nm to about 650 nm and that an absolute value of the difference between the two values is from 0 nm to 30 nm is inherent to Kamatani as modified by Adamovich. Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials and like processes which would result in the claimed property.
As described above, the compound of Kamatani has a maximum emission wavelength of 592 nm. The value was measured by photoluminescence {paragraph [0208]}.
As described above, the compound of Adamovich has a maximum emission wavelength of 618 nm. While the value was measured by electroluminescence, the peak emission wavelength measure by photoluminescence would be similar to that measured by photoluminescence.
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 Kamatani as modified by Adamovich and Zhang product 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.
Regarding claim 10: Kamatani as modified by Adamovich and Zhang teaches all of the features with respect to claim 18, as outlined above.
Kamatani does not teach a specific device in which in the light emitting dopant material the instant e1 and d1 are not zero.
However, Kamatani teaches that the compound of Kamatani can alternatively have the structure shown below {paragraph [0112]}.
PNG
media_image5.png
418
532
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Given the structural similarity of compound A41 of Kamatani to compound A30 of Kamatani, the emission spectrum of the compound A41 of Kamatani would not differ from that of compound A30 of Kamatani to the degree that the teachings of Adadamovich would not be applicable as described above.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have replaced the compound A41 of Kamatani in place of the compound A30 of Kamatani, based on the teaching of Kamatani. 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 selection of compound A41 of Kamatani would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (the exemplified groups compounds of Kamatani), with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices.
Kamatani does not teach that the acetylacetonate ligand comprises alkyl groups having more than two carbons in place of the methyl groups on the acetylacetonate derivative ligand.
Zhang teaches iridium complexes for use as light emitting materials in organic light emitting devices {abstract and paragraphs [0010]-[0011], [0059]-[0060], and [0093].}.
Zhang teaches that the iridium complexes of the disclosure of Zhang comprise acetylacetonate ligands (La of Zhang) having the structure of Formula 1, shown below {paragraphs [0011], [0017], and [0059]}.
PNG
media_image3.png
480
342
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Where among the two groups R1 to R3 and R4 to R6, at least one group comprises three substituents comprising at least one carbon atom, and additionally, at least one substituent of this group is a substituent comprising at least two carbon atoms {paragraphs [0014]-[0016], [0020]-[0022], and [0062]-[0065]}.
Zhang teaches that such a ligand provides a metal complex with altered sublimation properties and improved quantum efficiency and can be used to produce organic light emitting devices with improved performance {abstract; paragraphs [0010], [0024], and [0146]}.
Zhang exemplifies the ligand shown below {paragraph [0083]—p. 10 and paragraph [0144]—p. 68: ligand La26}.
PNG
media_image4.png
508
626
media_image4.png
Greyscale
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kamatani’s compound shown above, by replacing the acetylacetonate ligand with the acetylacetonate derivative ligand of Zhang described above, based on the teachings of Zhang. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a metal complex with altered sublimation properties and improved quantum efficiency that can be used to produce organic light emitting devices with improved performance, as taught by Zhang.
Regarding claim 20: Kamatani as modified by Adamovich teaches all of the features with respect to claim 18, as outlined above.
An organic light-emitting device is an electronic apparatus.
Claim(s) 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamatani et al. (US 2010/0219407 A1) (hereafter “Kamatani”) in view of Adamovich et al. (US 2012/0319146 A1) (hereafter “Adamovich”) and Zhang et al. (US 2020/0099000 A1) (hereafter “Zhang”) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Su et al. (“Highly Efficient Red ElectrophosphorescentDevices Based on Iridium IsoquinolineComplexes: Remarkable External QuantumEfficiency Over a Wide Range of Current”, Advanced Materials (2003) vol. 15, No. 11, pp. 884-888.) (hereafter “Su”).
Regarding claims 12-13: Kamatani as modified by Adamovich and Zhang teaches all of the features with respect to claim 4, as outlined above.
Kamatani as modified by Adamovich and Zhang does not teach a device in which the additional iridium metal complex comprises the instant A5 as one of NR(1) to NR(28) and the instant A6 as one of the instant CR1 to CR29.
Su teaches phosphorescent iridium complexes for use as light emitting dopant materials in organic electroluminescent devices {p. 885, 1st col., 1st paragraph to p. 886, 1st col., 4th paragraph}. Su exemplifies the compound shown below {Scheme 1}.
PNG
media_image6.png
382
480
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The compound of Su has a maximum emission wavelength of 622 nm as measured by photoluminescence {p. 885, 1st col., 1st paragraph}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the device of Kamatani such that the compound of Su shown above was used as the added iridium complex in place of the compound of Adamovich, based on the teaching of Su. The motivation for doing so would have been to further tune the emissions of the emission layer, based on the teaching of Su and Adamovich. Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices.
Su does not teach that the acetylacetonate ligand comprises alkyl groups having more than two carbons in place of the methyl groups on the acetylacetonate derivative ligand.
Zhang teaches iridium complexes for use as light emitting materials in organic light emitting devices {abstract and paragraphs [0010]-[0011], [0059]-[0060], and [0093].}.
Zhang teaches that the iridium complexes of the disclosure of Zhang comprise acetylacetonate ligands (La of Zhang) having the structure of Formula 1, shown below {paragraphs [0011], [0017], and [0059]}.
PNG
media_image3.png
480
342
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Where among the two groups R1 to R3 and R4 to R6, at least one group comprises three substituents comprising at least one carbon atom, and additionally, at least one substituent of this group is a substituent comprising at least two carbon atoms {paragraphs [0014]-[0016], [0020]-[0022], and [0062]-[0065]}.
Zhang teaches that such a ligand provides a metal complex with altered sublimation properties and improved quantum efficiency and can be used to produce organic light emitting devices with improved performance {abstract; paragraphs [0010], [0024], and [0146]}.
Zhang exemplifies the ligand shown below {paragraph [0083]—p. 10 and paragraph [0144]—p. 68: ligand La26}.
PNG
media_image4.png
508
626
media_image4.png
Greyscale
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Su’s compound shown above, by replacing the acetylacetonate ligand with the acetylacetonate derivative ligand of Zhang described above, based on the teachings of Zhang. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a metal complex with altered sublimation properties and improved quantum efficiency that can be used to produce organic light emitting devices with improved performance, as taught by Zhang.
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 DYLAN CLAY KERSHNER whose telephone number is (303)297-4257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm (Mountain).
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.
/DYLAN C KERSHNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights