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
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 10/04/2022, 10/19/2022, and 10/19/2022 were filed after the mailing date of the instant application on 10/04/2022. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Some of the letters, numbers, and/or bonds in the chemical structure given in the proviso of paragraph [0052] as well as paragraph [0107] are illegible. Please correct these structures so all letters, numbers, and/or bonds are clearly visible. See the examples below.
PNG
media_image1.png
172
202
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
178
480
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Please note that these examples are non-limiting and there may be other structures that require correction. Please check all formulae to make sure they are not unclear. Applicant may wish to make these structures clearer by increasing font size, making the font bold, and/or making the lines thicker.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 17 and 19-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Some of the letters, numbers, and/or bonds in the chemical structure given in proviso 3 of claims 1, 17, and 20, as well as some of the hosts of claim 19 are illegible. Please correct these structures so all letters, numbers, and/or bonds are clearly visible. See the examples below.
PNG
media_image1.png
172
202
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
178
480
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Please note that these examples are non-limiting and there may be other structures that require correction. Please check all formulae to make sure they are not unclear. Applicant may wish to make these structures clearer by increasing font size, making the font bold, and/or making the lines thicker.
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.
Claims 1-20 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.
With respect to independent claims 1, 17, and 20, provisos (1) and (2) are unclear because they contain a limitation drawn to LB after an “or” statement.
For example, proviso (1) could be interpreted as:
at least one of RC or RD substituent is silyl
OR
at least one pair of RD are joined or fused to form a ring when LB is present.
However, proviso (1) could also be interpreted as
when LB is present then,
at least one of RC or RD substituent is silyl
OR
at least one pair of RD are joined or fused to form a ring.
This same logic applies to proviso (2). It is unclear whether the limitation for LB applies to just the limitation after the word “or”, or if it applies to both limitations.
In continuing examination, this will be interpreted as the limitation for LB applying to either both limitations, or just the second limitation of provisos (1) and (2).
With respect to claim 14, the claim contains several embodiments of ligand LB which contain an intermediary linking group K1’ that is not a part of formula LB as set forth in the independent claim. As K1’ can be selected as something other than a direct bond, the scope of K1’ is unclear.
In continuing prosecution, K1’ will only be considered as a direct bond when used to represent LB.
With respect to claim 19, the claim contains at least one embodiment of a host material which does not comprise one of the chemical moieties required by parent claim 18.
PNG
media_image3.png
128
312
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In continuing examination, claim 19 will be interpreted as dependent from claim 17.
Claims 2-13, 15-16 and 18 are rejected by virtue of dependency.
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 14 and 19 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.
With respect to claim 14, the claim contains several embodiments of ligand LB which contain an intermediary linking group, K1’, that is not a part of formula LB as set forth in the independent claim. As K1’ can be selected as something other than a direct bond, the scope of K1’ represents a compound broader in scope than the parent claim.
With respect to claim 19, the claim contains at least one embodiment of a host material which does not comprise one of the chemical moieties required by parent claim 18.
PNG
media_image3.png
128
312
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Please note that this example is non-limiting and there may be other structures that require correction. Please check all formulae for compliance.
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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (KR 2013/0110934 A, using the provided translation for references).
With respect to claim 1, Park discloses Compound 151 (page 24 of the untranslated document), which has been recreated here for the sake of clarity.
PNG
media_image4.png
428
486
media_image4.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of provisos (1) and (2) of the instant claim when ligand LA has a structure of Formula I, ligand LB has a structure of LB, x is 1, y is 2, and z is 0 so that LC is not present.
In ligand LA, ring A is a 6-membered heterocyclic (pyridine) ring, ring B is a fused-ring system of two 6-membered carbocyclic rings (naphthalene), Z1, Z3, and Z4 are carbon, Z2 is nitrogen, RA is represented by Formula III, RB is a silyl group, and K is a direct bond.
In ligand LB, ring C is a fused-ring system comprising two 6-membered rings (isoquinoline), ring D is a 6-membered carbocyclic (benzene) ring, Z5, Z7, and Z8 are carbon and Z6 is nitrogen, RC represents no substitution and RD is a silyl group.
In Formula III, X1-X5 are carbon atoms, two RE are joined to form a fused ring, L is a direct bond, Q is a silicon atom, and R1-R3 are alkyl (methyl) groups.
With respect to claim 2, Park teaches the compound of claim 1, and R1-R3 are alkyl (methyl) groups, RA is represented by Formula III, RB is a silyl group, RC represents no substitution and RD is a silyl group, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 3, Park teaches the compound of claim 1, and Z1, Z3, and Z4 are carbon, Z2 is nitrogen, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 4, Park teaches the compound of claim 1, and ring A is pyridine, ring B is naphthalene, ring C is isoquinoline, and ring D is benzene, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 5, Park teaches the compound of claim 1, and RA is represented by Formula III, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 6, Park teaches the compound of claim 1, and L is a direct bond, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 7, Park teaches the compound of claim 1, and X1-X5 are carbon atoms, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 8, Park teaches the compound of claim 1, and two RE are joined to form a fused ring to ring E, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 9, Park teaches the compound of claim 1, and R1-R3 are alkyl (methyl) groups, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 10, Park teaches the compound of claim 1, and the ligand LA is selected as the first embodiment of the claim when two RBB are joined to form a fused ring.
With respect to claim 11, Park teaches the compound of claim 1, as discussed above.
Park also teaches Compound 150 (page 24 of the untranslated document), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image5.png
374
496
media_image5.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of provisos (1) and (2) of the parent claim when ligand LA has a structure of Formula I, ligand LB has a structure of LB, x is 1, y is 2, and z is 0 so that LC is not present.
In ligand LA, ring A is a 6-membered heterocyclic (pyridine) ring, ring B is a 6-membered carbocyclic ring (benzene), Z1, Z3, and Z4 are carbon, Z2 is nitrogen, RA is represented by Formula III, RB is a silyl group, and K is a direct bond.
In ligand LB, ring C is a fused-ring system comprising two 6-membered rings (isoquinoline), ring D is a 6-membered carbocyclic (benzene) ring, Z5, Z7, and Z8 are carbon and Z6 is nitrogen, RC represents no substitution and RD is a silyl group.
In Formula III, X1-X5 are carbon atoms, RE represents no substitution, L is a direct bond, Q is a silicon atom, and R1-R3 are alkyl (methyl) groups.
This compound also meets the requirements of the first embodiment of the claim.
With respect to claim 12, Park teaches the compound of claim 1, as discussed above.
Park also teaches Compound 150 (page 24 of the untranslated document), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image5.png
374
496
media_image5.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of provisos (1) and (2) of the parent claim when ligand LA has a structure of Formula I, ligand LB has a structure of LB, x is 1, y is 2, and z is 0 so that LC is not present.
In ligand LA, ring A is a 6-membered heterocyclic (pyridine) ring, ring B is a 6-membered carbocyclic ring (benzene), Z1, Z3, and Z4 are carbon, Z2 is nitrogen, RA is represented by Formula III, RB is a silyl group, and K is a direct bond.
In ligand LB, ring C is a fused-ring system comprising two 6-membered rings (isoquinoline), ring D is a 6-membered carbocyclic (benzene) ring, Z5, Z7, and Z8 are carbon and Z6 is nitrogen, RC represents no substitution and RD is a silyl group.
In Formula III, X1-X5 are carbon atoms, RE represents no substitution, L is a direct bond, Q is a silicon atom, and R1-R3 are alkyl (methyl) groups.
This compound also meets the requirements of instant LA2(L1)(Q1)(R2)(R1)(R1)(R24)(R1)(R1) wherein Lm is a direct bond, Qn is a silicon atom, R1 is a methyl group, RA1, RB1, RE1, and RE2 are hydrogen atoms and RB2 is a trimethylsilyl group.
With respect to claim 13, Park teaches the compound of claim 1, and the compound has the formula Ir(LA)(LB)2, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 14, Park teaches the compound of claim 1, and LB is represented by the seventh embodiment of the claim, which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image6.png
232
248
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 15, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (KR 2013/0110934 A, using the provided translation for references) as applied above.
With respect to claim 15, Park teaches the compound of claim 1, which has the formula Ir(LA)(LB)2 as discussed above, however, the compound does not possess any of the ancillary ligands of instant formula LB.
Park also teaches that ancillary ligand, L, may be selected as any of the divalent ligands represented by chemical formula 3 (paragraph 0046-0048). This includes the ligand pictured below.
PNG
media_image7.png
244
140
media_image7.png
Greyscale
This ligand meets the requirements of instant Formula LB1.
Park includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Park being a lack of the aforementioned ligand combination being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known ligand from each of the finite lists of possible ligands to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of an organometallic compound having narrow full width half maximum of fluorescence spectrum and an organic electroluminescent device using the same having excellent thermal characteristics, luminous efficiency, and color purity (paragraph 0001), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 17, Park discloses an organic light emitting device comprising an anode (ITO), a cathode (Al), and an organic layer between the electrode comprising a compound of chemical formula 1 (paragraph 0146), such as Compound 151 (page 24 of the untranslated document), which has been recreated here for the sake of clarity.
PNG
media_image4.png
428
486
media_image4.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of provisos (1) and (2) of the instant claim when ligand LA has a structure of Formula I, ligand LB has a structure of LB, x is 1, y is 2, and z is 0 so that LC is not present.
In ligand LA, ring A is a 6-membered heterocyclic (pyridine) ring, ring B is a fused-ring system of two 6-membered carbocyclic rings (naphthalene), Z1, Z3, and Z4 are carbon, Z2 is nitrogen, RA is represented by Formula III, RB is a silyl group, and K is a direct bond.
In ligand LB, ring C is a fused-ring system comprising two 6-membered rings (isoquinoline), ring D is a 6-membered carbocyclic (benzene) ring, Z5, Z7, and Z8 are carbon and Z6 is nitrogen, RC represents no substitution and RD is a silyl group.
In Formula III, X1-X5 are carbon atoms, two RE are joined to form a fused ring, L is a direct bond, Q is a silicon atom, and R1-R3 are alkyl (methyl) groups.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Compound 151 in an organic light emitting device with the claimed structure, as taught by Park.
With respect to claim 20, Park discloses a consumer device (a display device, paragraph 0153) comprising an organic light emitting device, comprising an anode (ITO), a cathode (Al), and an organic layer between the electrode comprising a compound of chemical formula 1 (paragraph 0146), such as Compound 151 (page 24 of the untranslated document), which has been recreated here for the sake of clarity.
PNG
media_image4.png
428
486
media_image4.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of provisos (1) and (2) of the instant claim when ligand LA has a structure of Formula I, ligand LB has a structure of LB, x is 1, y is 2, and z is 0 so that LC is not present.
In ligand LA, ring A is a 6-membered heterocyclic (pyridine) ring, ring B is a fused-ring system of two 6-membered carbocyclic rings (naphthalene), Z1, Z3, and Z4 are carbon, Z2 is nitrogen, RA is represented by Formula III, RB is a silyl group, and K is a direct bond.
In ligand LB, ring C is a fused-ring system comprising two 6-membered rings (isoquinoline), ring D is a 6-membered carbocyclic (benzene) ring, Z5, Z7, and Z8 are carbon and Z6 is nitrogen, RC represents no substitution and RD is a silyl group.
In Formula III, X1-X5 are carbon atoms, two RE are joined to form a fused ring, L is a direct bond, Q is a silicon atom, and R1-R3 are alkyl (methyl) groups.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Compound 151 in a consumer device, such as a display device, comprising an organic light emitting device with the claimed structure, as taught by Park.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (KR 2013/0110934 A, using the provided translation for references) as applied above, and further in view of Kim et al. (KR 2012/0032054 A, using the provided translation for references).
With respect to claim 16, Park teaches the compound of claim 1, as discussed above.
Park also teaches Compound 106 (page 24 of the untranslated document), which is pictured below for the sake of clarity.
PNG
media_image8.png
436
400
media_image8.png
Greyscale
This compound is derived from Park Formula 2-1, which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image9.png
332
198
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Park also teaches that p is 4 (paragraph 0039) and R5 is a hydrogen atom (paragraph 0040) and L is a phenylpyridine ligand (page 18), which is pictured below for clarity.
PNG
media_image10.png
302
152
media_image10.png
Greyscale
However, Park fails to define R21 and R22, and thus, cannot be used to arrive at any of the instantly claimed compounds.
In analogous art, Kim teaches an organometallic compound for use in an electroluminescent device (paragraph 0001).
Kim teaches a compound of Chemical formula I, which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image11.png
432
426
media_image11.png
Greyscale
In this formula, L1 is represented by the phenylpyridine ligand below (page 10 of the untranslated document).
PNG
media_image12.png
210
176
media_image12.png
Greyscale
The formula of Kim overlaps with the work of Park when R206 is a tri(C1-C30)alkylsilyl group (page 5 of the translation).
Kim also teaches that R3 is trialkylsilyl (TMS, see for example compounds 5 and 17 on pages 12 and 13 respectively), R is substituted C1 alkyl (page 4), and examples of substituents include deuterium (page 8), and R7 is C6 aryl (page 4).
Such selections produce the compound below.
PNG
media_image13.png
250
240
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Kim teaches that compounds of the invention realize an organic electroluminescent device with excellent light-emitting efficiency and dramatically improved lifespan.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the substituents of Kim to use as substituents on the compound of Park with a reasonable expectation of realizing an organic electroluminescent device with excellent light-emitting efficiency and dramatically improved lifespan, as taught by Kim.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (KR 2013/0110934 A, using the provided translation for references) as applied above, and further in view of Metz et al. (US 2016/0072081 A1).
With respect to claims 18 and 19, Metz teaches a matrix material for use in an electroluminescent device. A preferred embodiment of this matrix material is given on page 17 which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image14.png
119
225
media_image14.png
Greyscale
In this formula, T is a sulfur atom (paragraph 0084).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to use the matrix material of Metz as Metz teaches that these compounds are suitable matrix materials for use as a host for an emitter compound (paragraph 0090).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee et al. (US 2016/0141526 A1) – teaches relevant compounds
Kim et al. (US 2015/0090974 A1) – teaches relevant compounds.
Kwong et al. (US 2014/0284585 A1) – teaches relevant compounds.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL SIMBANA whose telephone number is (571)272-2657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 A.M. - 4:30 P.M..
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.
/RACHEL SIMBANA/Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights