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 3 April 2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 83-84, 86, 89, and 97-99 have been amended.
Claims 1-82, 94-96, 102 are cancelled.
Claims 103-106 are new.
Claims 83-93, 97-101, and 103-106 are pending.
The amendment to claim 84 has overcome the objection to claim 84 set forth in the last Office action. The objection has been withdrawn.
The amendment to claim 86 has overcome the rejection of claim 86 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the last Office action. The rejection has been withdrawn.
The amendment to claim 89 has overcome the rejection of claim 89 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the last Office action. The rejection has been withdrawn.
The cancellation of claims 95-96 has rendered moot the rejections of these claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn.
The amendment to claim 97 has overcome the rejections of claim 97 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn.
The amendments to claims 83 and 99 have overcome the rejections of claims 83, 86-90, 92, 99, and 101 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choi et al. (US 2017/0054095 A1) (hereafter “Choi”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejections of claims 91 and 95-96 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2017/0054095 A1) (hereafter “Choi”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claim 100 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2017/0054095 A1) (hereafter “Choi”), and further in view of Ma (US 2010/0237334 A1) (hereafter “Ma”) set forth in the last Office action; and the rejection of claim 102 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2017/0054095 A1) (hereafter “Choi”), and further in view of Lamansky et al. (US 2002/0182441 A1) (hereafter “Lamansky”) set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn. However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made.
The amendments to claims 83 and 99 has overcome the rejections of claims 83-90, 99, and 101 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2021/0193939 A1) (hereafter “Kim”) set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn.
The amendment to claim 97 has overcome the rejection of claim 97 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okuda et al. (WO 2016088354 A1) (hereafter “Okuda”) set forth in the last Office action. The rejection has been withdrawn.
The amendment to claim 83 has overcome the rejections of claims 83-84, 86-90, and 92-93 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brooks et al. (WO 2015/171627 A1) (hereafter “Brooks”) in view of Choi et al. (US 2017/0054095 A1) (hereafter “Choi”) set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn. However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made.
The amendment to claim 83 has overcome the rejections of claims 83-84, 86-90, and 92 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 33 of U.S. Patent No. 10,263,198 B2 in view of Choi et al. (US 2017/0054095 A1) (hereafter “Choi”) set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn.
The amendment to claim 83 has overcome the rejections of claims 83-84 and 86-90 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,084,838 B2 in view of Choi et al. (US 2017/0054095 A1) (hereafter “Choi”) set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3 April 2026 regarding the rejections of claims 83, 86-90, 92, 99, and 101 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choi et al. (US 2017/0054095 A1) (hereafter “Choi”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejections of claims 91 and 95-96 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2017/0054095 A1) (hereafter “Choi”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claim 100 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2017/0054095 A1) (hereafter “Choi”), and further in view of Ma (US 2010/0237334 A1) (hereafter “Ma”) set forth in the last Office action; and the rejection of claim 102 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2017/0054095 A1) (hereafter “Choi”), and further in view of Lamansky et al. (US 2002/0182441 A1) (hereafter “Lamansky”) set forth in the last Office action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claim amendments have overcome the rejections of record. Applicant additionally argues that the claim amendments have distinguished the current claims from Choi.
For the reasons outlined below, the claims indicated below are obvious over Choi.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 83-90, 99, and 101 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2021/0193939 A1) (hereafter “Kim”) 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.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 97 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okuda et al. (WO 2016088354 A1) (hereafter “Okuda”) 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.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 83-84, 86-90, and 92-93 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brooks et al. (WO 2015/171627 A1) (hereafter “Brooks”) in view of Choi et al. (US 2017/0054095 A1) (hereafter “Choi”) 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.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 83-84, 86-90, and 92 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 33 of U.S. Patent No. 10,263,198 B2 in view of Choi et al. (US 2017/0054095 A1) (hereafter “Choi”) 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.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 83-84 and 86-90 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,084,838 B2 in view of Choi et al. (US 2017/0054095 A1) (hereafter “Choi”) 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 § 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.
Claims 92-93 are 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 92: Claim 92 recites multiple structures (at least the first, fifth, and sixth structures on p. 9; and the second and final structures of p. 15) that do not meet the conditions of the provisos of claim 83, from which claims 92 depends. Therefore, it is unclear if these structures meet the limitations of claim 92.
Regarding claim 93: Claim 93 is rejected due to its dependence from claim 92.
Additionally, the final structure of p. 25 does not meet the conditions of the provisos of claim 83, from which claims 93 depends. Therefore, it is unclear if these structures meet the limitations of claim 93.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 92-93 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 92: Claim 92 recites multiple structures (at least the first, fifth, and sixth structures on p. 9; and the second and final structures of p. 15) that do not meet the conditions of the provisos of claim 83, from which claims 92 depends. Thus, claim fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 93: Claim 93 is rejected due to its dependence from claim 92.
Additionally, the final structure of p. 25 does not meet the conditions of the provisos of claim 83, from which claims 93 depends. Thus, claim fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 83-84, 86-91, 99, 101, and 103-104 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2017/0054095 A1) (hereafter “Choi”).
Regarding claims 83-84, 86-90, 99, and 101: Choi discloses an organic light emitting devices comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode {paragraph [0766]}.
The organic layer comprises a light-emitting layer that comprises a host material and a light emitting dopant {paragraph [0766]}.
The host material is CBP, which comprises carbazolyl groups {paragraphs [0766] and [0761]}.
The light emitting dopant is the compound shown below {(paragraph [0766]: The light emitting dopant is Compound 13.), (p. 24, Compound 13)}.
PNG
media_image1.png
562
640
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Choi does not exemplify a compound similar to the compound of Choi shown above in which the instant Z5 is C when the instant n is 0.
However, Choi teaches that the compounds of Choi have the structure of Fomrula 1 of Choi, shown below {paragraphs [0010] and [0049]}.
PNG
media_image2.png
604
866
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Where X1 to X4 can each be C or N so long as one of X3 and X4 is N. {paragraphs [0068]}.
Therefore, at the time invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compound of Choi shown above such that X2 of Choi is N and X3 of Choi is C while X4 remains N and X1 remains C, based on the teaching of Choi. The substitutions would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). 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.
In the resultant compound, the instant substituent variables can be mapped onto the modified compound of Choi such that: the instant n is 0; the instant m is 1; the instant L2 and L4 are each direct bonds; the instant Z2 is N; the instant Z5 is C; the instant Z4 is C; the instant Z6 is C; the instant RA is R*; and the instant RF is R*.
Regarding claim 91: Choi teaches all of the features with respect to claim 83, as outlined above.
Choi does not teach a specific compound comprising a germyl substituent having the structure of one of the germyl substituents of claim 91.
However, Choi teaches that the germyl substituent of Choi can have the structure shown below {paragraph [0173]} where R21 is a group that is encompassed by the options for the instant R1w and R2w {paragraph [0175]}.
PNG
media_image3.png
162
162
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 Choi by using the germyl substituent described above, based on the teaching of Choi. 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 the germyl substituent shown above would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (the exemplified germyl substituents of Choi), 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 substituent and substituent positions to be used to make compounds for use in an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light emitting devices.
Regarding claims 103-104: Choi teaches all of the features with respect to claim 83, as outlined above.
Choi does not exemplify a compound similar to the compound of Choi shown above in which the linking group that can be equated with the instant L1 is O.
However, Choi teaches that the compounds of Choi have the structure of Fomrula 1 of Choi, shown below {paragraphs [0010] and [0049]}.
PNG
media_image2.png
604
866
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Where Y2 of Choi can be O or N-R. {paragraphs [0083] and [0100]}.
Therefore, at the time invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the compound of Choi shown above such that Y2 of Choi is O in place of NR, based on the teaching of Choi. The substitutions would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). 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.
In the resultant compound, the instant L1 would be O.
Claim(s) 100 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2017/0054095 A1) (hereafter “Choi”) as applied to claim 99 above, and further in view of Ma (US 2010/0237334 A1) (hereafter “Ma”).
Regarding claim 100: Choi teaches all of the features with respect to claim 99, as outlined above.
Choi does not teach a first organic light-emitting device comprising the platinum complex of Choi shown above and a host material comprising triphenylene or dibenzothiophene.
However, as described above, Choi teaches that the host material can be CBP.
Ma teaches host materials for phosphorescent dopants for a light-emitting layer of an organic light-emitting device {(p. 1, ¶ [0014]; The triphenylene-containing benzofused thiophenes are useful as host compounds in organic light emitting devices.), (paragraph [0101] and Table 1: The organic light-emitting devices comprise phosphorescent dopants in the light-emitting layer.)}.
The host material comprises a triphenylene containing benzo-fused thiophene, having the structure shown below {(p. 2, paragraph [0015]; The triphenylene-containing benzofused thiophenes include compounds having the structure of Formula (III).), (p. 9, ¶ [0045]; Compounds having the structure of Formula III are exemplified by the compounds on pp. 9-11.), (p. 9, Compound 2’), (paragraph [0053]: Compound 2S has the same structure as Compound 2’.)}.
[AltContent: textbox (Ma’s Compound 2S)]
PNG
media_image4.png
200
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Ma sought to provide host compounds with improved film forming properties that when used in organic electroluminescent devices provided devices with improved device stability and efficiency {p. 4, paragraphs [0033] and [0037]}.
Ma teaches that a device using Ma’s Compound 2S as a host material for a phosphorescent dopant has a longer lifetime than a device using CBP as a host material for a phosphorescent dopant {(paragraph [0101] and Table 1: Device Comparative 1 and Device Comparative 2 have similar structures as Device 9 and Device 5, respectively, the difference being the comparative devices comprise CBP as a host material while Devices 9 and 5 comprise Ma’s Compound 2S as a host material.), (Table 2: Devices 9 and 5 have longer lifetimes (LT80%) than Comparative 1 and Comparative 2, respectively.)}.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the organic EL device taught by Choi by using Ma’s Compound 2S as the host material, based on the teachings of Ma. The motivation for doing so would have been to use a host compound with improved film forming properties that when used in organic electroluminescent devices provided devices with improved device lifetime, as taught by Ma. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would know to use the host materials as they were intended, which in this case means finding the best material to create an efficient light-emitting device for the given material set based on the teaching of Ma.
Claim 105 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2017/0054095 A1) (hereafter “Choi”) as applied to claim 83 above, and further in view of Lamansky et al. (US 2002/0182441 A1) (hereafter “Lamansky”).
Regarding claim 105: Choi teaches all of the features with respect to claims 83 and 99, as outlined above.
Claim 105 differs from claim 99 in that the organic light-emitting device is comprised in a consumer product. Claim 99 contains all of the features of claim 83.
Choi does not teach a consumer product comprising the organic light-emitting device of Choi described above.
Lamansky teaches the use of organic electroluminescent devices in display devices {paragraph [0139]}. Lamansky teaches that flat panel displays utilizing organic light emitting devices (which are organic electroluminescent devices) would have bright colors, wide viewing angle, low power requirements, broad temperature ranges, and thin form factor {paragraph [0010]}.
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 Choi to be part of a display device, based on the teachings of Lamansky. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a display device with bright colors, wide viewing angle, low power requirements, broad temperature ranges, and thin form factor, as taught by Lamansky.
Claim(s) 83-92, 97, 99, 101, and 103-104 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Min et al. (US 2020/0280003 A1) (hereafter “Min”).
Regarding claims 83-90, 97, 99, 101, and 103-104: Min discloses an organic light emitting devices comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode {paragraphs [0379]-[0383]}.
The organic layer comprises a light-emitting layer that comprises a host material and a light emitting dopant {paragraphs [0379]-[0383]}.
The host material is the material shown below, which comprises carbazolyl groups {(paragraphs [0379]-[0383]: The host is compound H52.), (paragraph [0263]: The structure of compound H52)}.
PNG
media_image5.png
336
634
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The light emitting dopant is the compound shown below {(paragraphs [0379]-[0383]: The light emitting dopant is compound 5.), (p. 99: The structure of compound 5)}.
PNG
media_image6.png
524
652
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Min does not exemplify a compound similar to the compound of Min shown above comprising a germanyl substituent.
However, Min teaches that the compounds of Min can comprise germanyl substituents {(paragraphs [0007] and [0048]: The compounds of Min have the structure of Formula I of Min.), (paragraphs [0017] and [0067]: The compounds of Min can be substituted with a germanyl substituents.)}. The germanyl substituents can be trialkyl germanyl groups where the alkyl groups can be methyl {paragraphs [0017], [0034], [0067], and [0073]-[0074]}.
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 Min shown above by placing a trimethyl germanyl substituent on the compound, based on the teaching of Min. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The selection of a trimethyl germanyl substituent would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (the described substituents of Min), 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 substituent and substituent positions to be used to make compounds for use in an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light emitting devices.
Regarding claims 92-93: Min teaches all of the features with respect to claim 83, as outlined above.
Min does not exemplify a specific position for the germanyl substituent.
However, there are only a finite number of possible place for the substituent, including the circled position shown below.
PNG
media_image7.png
279
355
media_image7.png
Greyscale
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to have placed the germanyl substituent at the circled position shown above, based on the teaching of Min. The selection would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (the possible positions on the compound of Min), 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 substituent and substituent positions to be used to make compounds for use in an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light emitting devices.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 98 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As outlined above, Choi et al. (US 2017/0054095 A1) (hereafter “Choi”) is the closest prior art. However, neither Choi nor any of the other cited prior art individually or in combination teach the substituent patterns of the compounds of the current claim 98. While all of the substituents of the compounds are known in isolation, none of the cited prior art nor the broader prior art provide teachings that would make obvious modifying one of the compounds of Choi (or one of the other cited prior art references) to have the structure of one of the compounds of the current claims 94 or 98.
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