DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
All outstanding objections and rejections, except for those maintained below, are withdrawn in light of applicant's amendment filed on 9/10/2026.
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 new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant's amendment filed on 9/10/2026. In particular, original Claim 1 has been amended to recite limitations not previously presented. Thus, the following action is properly made final.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 10, 12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (US 2015/0228914).
Regarding claim 1, Li et al discloses the following organic light emitting device ([0071] - Figure 1):
PNG
media_image1.png
238
524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
where the anode (104) corresponds to the recited first electrode; the cathode (120) corresponds to the recited second electrode and faces the first electrode; layers 106 to 110 correspond to the recited interlayer; and layer 108 is the recited emission layer. The interlayer (layers 106 to 110) is located between the first (104) and second (120) electrodes ([0071] - n.b. the cathode is misidentified as layer 112 instead of 120 in [0071]).
The light emitting layer (108) comprises the following compound ([0073] and Page 60):
PNG
media_image2.png
434
467
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
where R1 to R4 are hydrogen ([0007]).
This compound corresponds to organometallic compound represented by Formula 1:
PNG
media_image3.png
372
594
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
where:
M is Pt;
ring CY2 is a C6 carbocyclic group;
ring CY4 is a C5 heterocyclic group;
ring CY33 is a C6 carbocyclic group;
X1 is N;
X2 is C;
X4 is N;
X31 and X32 are C;
X33 and X34 are C(Z3) and X(Z4), respectively;
L1, L2, and L3 are single bonds;
n1, n2, and n3 are each one (1);
Z3 and Z4 are hydrogen; and
a1, a2, a4 and a32 are each zero (0).
The compound disclosed by the reference does not possess ring CY32 as recited in Formula 1. However, the compound is but one embodiment, and attention is directed to the following formula ([0037]):
PNG
media_image4.png
348
386
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
where the formula ([0045]):
PNG
media_image5.png
88
302
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
corresponds to ([0045]):
PNG
media_image6.png
190
262
media_image6.png
Greyscale
.
Accordingly, the disclosure of reference encompasses an embodiment where ring CY33 in Formula 1 of the claims is present and the ring is a C6 carbocyclic ring where a32 is zero (0).
Furthermore, in the compound disclosed by the reference, CY1 does not correspond to one of Formulas CY1(1) to CY1(18). However, the compound disclosed by the reference is but one embodiment and attention is directed to the following general formula ([0034]):
PNG
media_image7.png
286
286
media_image7.png
Greyscale
,
where L1 can be a heteroaryl and corresponds to the structure ([0007] and [0045])
PNG
media_image8.png
92
98
media_image8.png
Greyscale
.
This heteroaryl is exemplified as a benzimidazole ([0045] and Page 26 ):
PNG
media_image9.png
106
228
media_image9.png
Greyscale
,
which benzotriazole corresponds to Formula CY1(5):
PNG
media_image10.png
128
182
media_image10.png
Greyscale
,
where R14 and R11 are hydrogen; and X1 is C.
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed compound nor can the claimed compound be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed compound and the compound disclosed by the reference, absent a showing of criticality for the presently claimed compound, it is urged that it would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the compound which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Li et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the reference discloses the following organic light emitting device:
PNG
media_image1.png
238
524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
where the first electrode is an anode; the second electrode is a cathode. The interlayer layer comprises a hole transport layer (106), i.e. hole transport region, located between the anode (104) and the light emitting layer (108); and an electron transport layer (110), i.e. an electron transport region, located between the cathode (120) and the light emitting layer (108).
Regarding claim 3, Li et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the light emitting layer comprises the disclosed organometallic compound.
Regarding claim 4, Li et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses that the organometallic compound emits light in the layer of about 400 nm to about 700 nm ([0032]). Given that the reference discloses that the organometallic compound is present in the light emitting layer, it is clear that the light emitting layer emits light in the range of about 400 to about 700 nm, overlapping the recited range of about 430 to about 480 nm.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 5, Li et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses that the light emitting layer comprises a host compound and the disclosed organometallic compound ([0073]). Accordingly, it is clear that the organometallic compound is necessarily a dopant as recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 7, Li et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Given that the reference discloses an organic light emitting device, it is clear that the reference discloses an electronic apparatus as recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 10, Li et al discloses the following organometallic compound (Page 60):
PNG
media_image2.png
434
467
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
where R1 to R4 are hydrogen ([0007]).
This compound corresponds to organometallic compound represented by Formula 1:
PNG
media_image3.png
372
594
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
where:
M is Pt;
ring CY2 is a C6 carbocyclic group;
ring CY4 is a C5 heterocyclic group;
ring CY33 is a C6 carbocyclic group;
X1 is N;
X2 is C;
X4 is N;
X31 and X32 are C;
X33 and X34 are C(Z3) and X(Z4), respectively;
L1, L2, and L3 are single bonds;
n1, n2, and n3 are each one (1);
Z3 and Z4 are hydrogen; and
a1, a2, a4 and a32 are each zero (0).
The compound disclosed by the reference does not possess ring CY32 as recited in Formula 1. However, the compound is but one embodiment, and attention is directed to the following formula ([0037]):
PNG
media_image4.png
348
386
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
where the formula ([0045]):
PNG
media_image5.png
88
302
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
corresponds to ([0045]):
PNG
media_image6.png
190
262
media_image6.png
Greyscale
.
Accordingly, the disclosure of reference encompasses an embodiment where ring CY33 in Formula 1 of the claims is present and the ring is a C6 carbocyclic ring where a32 is zero (0).
Furthermore, in the compound disclosed by the reference, CY1 does not correspond to one of Formulas CY1(1) to CY1(18). However, the compound disclosed by the reference is but one embodiment and attention is directed to the following general formula ([0034]):
PNG
media_image7.png
286
286
media_image7.png
Greyscale
,
where L1 can be a heteroaryl and corresponds to the structure ([0007] and [0045])
PNG
media_image8.png
92
98
media_image8.png
Greyscale
.
This heteroaryl is exemplified as a benzimidazole ([0045] and Page 26 ):
PNG
media_image9.png
106
228
media_image9.png
Greyscale
,
which benzotriazole corresponds to Formula CY1(5):
PNG
media_image10.png
128
182
media_image10.png
Greyscale
,
where R14 and R11 are hydrogen; and X1 is C.
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed compound nor can the claimed compound be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed compound and the compound disclosed by the reference, absent a showing of criticality for the presently claimed compound, it is urged that it would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the compound which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 12, Li et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, ring CY4 is a pyridine group.
Regarding claim 14, Li et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, in the compound disclosed by the reference CY2 is:
PNG
media_image11.png
108
140
media_image11.png
Greyscale
,
corresponding to Formula CY2(1):
PNG
media_image12.png
126
120
media_image12.png
Greyscale
,
where X2 is C.
Regarding claim 15, Li et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, in the compound disclosed by the reference CY4 is:
PNG
media_image13.png
70
102
media_image13.png
Greyscale
,
corresponding to Formula CY4(1):
PNG
media_image14.png
96
92
media_image14.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 16, Li et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, in the compound disclosed by the reference rings CY32 and CY33 are both benzene rings.
Regarding claim 17, Li et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, in the compound disclosed by the reference L1 and L3 are single bonds. L2 is not -O- or -S- as recited in the present claims. However, the compound disclosed by the reference is but one embodiment and attention is directed to the following general formula ([0034]):
PNG
media_image7.png
286
286
media_image7.png
Greyscale
,
where Z2 corresponding to L2, can be O or S ([0034]). Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses an embodiment where L2 is O or S.
Regarding claim 18, Li et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, in Formula (1) of the claims a1, a2, a4, a32, a33 are zero (0). Given that the claims do not require R1, R2, R4, R32, and R3 to be present, the reference discloses a compound encompassed by the present claims.
Regarding claim 19, Li et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, in recited Formula (1-1):
PNG
media_image15.png
392
544
media_image15.png
Greyscale
,
where Y31 to Y38 are C(Z31) to C(Z38), where Z31 to Z38 are hydrogen.
Regarding claim 20, Li et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Y31 to Y38 are C(Z31) to C(Z38), meeting provision (i) of the claims.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (US 2015/0228914) as applied to claims 1-5, 7, 10, 12, and 14-20 above, and in view of Ahn et al (US 2020/0168819).
The discussion with respect to Li et al as set forth in Paragraph 6 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 6, Li et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. While the reference discloses that the light emitting layer, i.e. interlayer, comprises the disclosed organometallic compound, i.e. the recited first compound, and a host compound, i.e. the recited second compound, the reference does not disclose that the second compound is a p-deficient nitrogen containing C1-60 cyclic group as recited in the present claim.
Anh et al discloses an organic light emitting device where the light emitting layer, where the light emitting layer comprises a dopant and a host compound (Abstract, [0071], and [0127]). The host compound disclosed as ([0110] – Compound 1):
PNG
media_image16.png
244
234
media_image16.png
Greyscale
.
This compound includes one (1) p-deficiency nitrogen C3 cyclic group encompassed by the present claims. The reference discloses that because intermolecular attraction is reduced through steric hindrance caused by substituents having a large size and because the heterocyclic compound has a relatively high triplet energy, the heterocyclic compound is suitable as a phosphorescent host ([0111]). An electronic device, such as an organic light emitting device comprising the compound, possesses a low driving voltage, high efficiency, and a long lifespan ([0113]).
Given that both Li et al and Anh et al are drawn to organic light emitting device where the light emitting layer comprises host compound, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the host compound as taught by Anh et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such host compounds in the light emitting layer of the deice disclosed by Li et al with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (US 2015/0228914) as applied to claims 1-5, 7, 10, 12, and 14-20 above, and in view of Shin et al (US 2012/0049192).
The discussion with respect to Li et al as set forth in Paragraph 6 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 8, Li et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. While the reference discloses a display device, the reference does not disclose that the display apparatus comprises a thin film transistor as recited in the present claims ([0066]).
Shin et al discloses a display apparatus comprising a thin film transistor (Abstract). The thin film transistor comprises a source electrode, a drain electrode and an active layer (Abstract). The transistor further comprises an organic light emitting device, where the first electrode of the organic light emitting device is connected to the drain electrode ([0048]). The reference discloses that the flat panel display apparatus comprising the thin film transistor easily provide uniform electrical characteristics and uniform display characteristics
Given that both Li et al and Shin et al are drawn to display devices comprising organic light emitting devices, and given that Li et al does not explicitly prohibit other device elements, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the thin film transistor as taught by Shin et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device disclosed by Li et al to include the thin film transistor disclosed by Shin et al with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (US 2015/0228914) as applied to claims 1-5, 7, 10, 12 , and 14-20 above, and in view of Kim et al (US 2014/0054555).
The discussion with respect to Li et al as set forth in Paragraph 6 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 9, Li et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. While the reference discloses a display device, the reference does not disclose that the display apparatus comprises a color filter as recited in present claims.
Kim ‘555 discloses that a conventional organic light emitting display device includes a substrate, a thin film transistor (TFT) formed on the substrate, and a color filter ([0010]). In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a color filter in the organic light emitting display device disclosed by Kim ‘523, as doing so would amount to nothing more than use of an element for its intended use, in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected results.
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-7, 10-17, and 19-20 of copending Application No. 18/117,650 (published as US PGPub 2024/0023425). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the reasons given below.
Claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/117,650 recites an organic light emitting device comprising first and second electrodes and an interlayer, identical to that recited in instant claim 1. Furthermore, claim 1 of the copending application recites that the interlayer comprises a compound represented by Formula 1, identical to that recited in instant claim 1. The difference between the compound recited in claim 1 of the copending application and claim 1 of the instant application is that claim 1 of the instant application requires that
PNG
media_image17.png
100
116
media_image17.png
Greyscale
corresponds to one of formulas CY1(2) to CY1(18). However, claim 13 of the co-pending application recites that CY1 corresponds to one of CY1(2), CY1(3), etc., identical to CY1(2), CY1(3), etc. recited in instant claim 1.Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one CY1(2), CY1(3), etc. recited in claim 13 of the copending application as ring CY1 in claim 1 of the co-pending application, and thereby obtain the compound recited in claim 1 of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success.
Furthermore, it is noted that:
Claim 2 of the copending application recited subject matter identical to instant claim 2.
Claim 3 of the copending application recited subject matter identical to instant claim 3.
Claim 4 of the copending application recited subject matter identical to instant claim 4.
Claim 5 of the copending application recited subject matter identical to instant claim 5.
Claim 6 of the copending application recited subject matter identical to instant claim 7.
Claim 7 of the copending application recited subject matter identical to instant claim 8.
Claim 10 of copending Application No. 18/117,650 recites a compound represented by Formula 1, identical to that recited in instant claim 10. The difference between the compound recited in claim 10 of the copending application and claim 10 of the instant application is that claim 10 of the instant application requires that
PNG
media_image17.png
100
116
media_image17.png
Greyscale
corresponds to one of formulas CY1(1) to CY1(18). However, claim 13 of the co-pending application recites that CY1 corresponds to one of CY1(1), CY1(2), etc., identical to CY1(1), CY1(2), etc. recited in instant claim 10. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one CY1(1), CY1(2), etc. recited in claim 13 of the copending application as ring CY1 in claim 10 of the co-pending application, and thereby obtain the compound recited in claim 10 of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success.
Furthermore, it is noted that:
Claim 11 of the copending application encompasses the subject matter recited in instant claim 11.
Claim 12 of the copending application encompasses the subject matter recited in instant claim 12.
Claim 14 of the copending application encompasses the subject matter recited in instant claim 14.
Claim 15 of the copending application encompasses the subject matter recited in instant claim 15.
Claim 16 of the copending application encompasses the subject matter recited in instant claim 16.
Claim 17 of the copending application encompasses the subject matter recited in instant claim 17.
Claim 19 of the copending application encompasses the subject matter recited in instant claim 18.
Claim 20 of the copending application encompasses the subject matter recited in instant claim 19.
Claim 20 of the copending application encompasses the subject matter recited in instant claim 20.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In light of the amendments to the claims, the 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) set forth in the previous Office Action is withdrawn.
Applicants argue that Li et al does not disclose the compound recited in the as-amended claims, i.e. that X1 is C. However, as discussed in the rejections above, in the formula:
PNG
media_image4.png
348
386
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
the moiety:
PNG
media_image8.png
92
98
media_image8.png
Greyscale
.
is exemplified as a benzimidazole ring ([0045] and Page 26 ):
PNG
media_image9.png
106
228
media_image9.png
Greyscale
,
which corresponds to Formula CY1(5):
PNG
media_image10.png
128
182
media_image10.png
Greyscale
,
where R14 and R11 are hydrogen; and X1 is C.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER C. KOLLIAS whose telephone number is (571)-270-3869. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00AM – 5:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Boyd can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER C KOLLIAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
