DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is responsive to the amendment received April 29, 2026. Claims 1, 10, and 19 were amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
The rejection of claims 1-7 and 10-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2020/0140471 A1) is withdrawn due to the April 29, 2026 claim amendment.
The rejection of claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2020/0140471 A1) view of Jeong et al. (US 2017/0098686 A1) is withdrawn due to the April 29, 2026 claim amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-7 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2020/0140471 A1) in view of Brocke et al. (US 2012/0319052 A1).
Regarding instant Formula 1 compounds of independent claims 1 and 10, Chen et al. discloses organic electroluminescent materials for light emitting devices according to Formula I (see abstract):
PNG
media_image1.png
184
314
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
More specifically, a Formula I may be the following formula in par. 75:
PNG
media_image2.png
156
230
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
Variables/groups of the formula are described in par. 64-75.
Formula above (of par. 75) may have RA selected as alkyl (par. 64) such as tert-butyl (see par. 43 and corresponding group within compounds shown on page 87) and L1 of the above formula selected as O (see par. 64), and R may be selected as heteroaryl or aryl (par. 64). More specifically “heteroaryl” is defined to include hetero-polycyclic aromatic ring systems with up to thirty carbon atoms and may include heteroatoms such as O or N among others (see par. 51). While a group such as acridine is a specifically listed heteroaryl group (in par. 51), but it is not seen where the following heteroaryl group is specifically listed although the group is within the description of a “heteoaryl” group with up to thirty carbon atoms and a nitrogen heteoatom:
PNG
media_image3.png
124
138
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
In analogous art, Brocke et al. teaches the immediately above heteroaryl group as a heterocyclic group in a material for an electroluminescent device (see page 32, #30). The Brocke et al. compounds similarly use acridine groups or the above heteroaryl group (see par. 5, 64). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a nitrogen-containing heterocyclic group specifically shown by Brocke et al. as similarly useful to acridine as a group R on a compound according to Chen et al., because Chen et al. teaches a heteroaryl group having N as a heteroatom and up to thirty carbon atoms is a suitable R substituent group for compounds according Chen et al. One would expect to achieve a functional compound within the disclosure of Chen et al. and having a heteroaryl group selected from the teaching by Brock et al. with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
With respect to claim 19, when the Chen formula above (of par. 75) has RA group selected as alkyl (par. 64) such as tert-butyl (see par. 43 and corresponding group within compounds shown on page 87), L1 of the above formula selected as O (see par. 64), and R may be selected as heteroaryl (par. 64) where the heteroaryl is the above described polycyclic heteroaryl group taught by Brocke et al., such a defined compound is the same as instant BD-16:
PNG
media_image4.png
224
166
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
Further regarding the device structure of claim 1, the compounds of Chen Formula I are in a layer of a device between electrodes (see par. 80). Regarding claim 2, a device may further include a hole injecting/hole transport layer (see page 103, par. 106 through par. 113, page 121) and include an electron transport layer (see par. 127-130). Regarding claims 3 and 4, compounds of Formula I are used in a light emitting layer (see par. 94). Regarding claim 4, the emissive region further comprises a host material (see par. 101). With respect to claim 5, a host material may include Si (see par. 101, right column page 101 third compound). With respect to claim 6, a compound of an electron transport region may include a silyl group (see par. 124-128, especially “silyl” within par. 128). Regarding claim 7, as mentioned above Formula I may in an emissive layer together with a host that may be a nitrogen-containing polyaromatic compound (see par. 119-121) and additional material may also include carbazole-containing compounds per instant Formula 3 9see par. 121).
Regarding claims 11-18, a Chen et al. Formula I in view of Brocke et al. the same as at least instant compound BD-16 of claim 19 is described above and contains groups as specified within claims 11-18. Also, variables/groups of Chen et al. Formula I are further described in par. 64-75. With respect to claim 20, compounds of Formula I the same as compounds within claimed Formula 1 (such as a compound the same as instant BD-16) would be expected to have same properties such as emission color, absent evidence otherwise. MPEP 2112.01 sets forth “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).”
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2020/0140471 A1) in view of Brocke et al. (US 2012/0319052 A1), and in further view of Jeong et al. (US 2017/0098686 A1).
Chen et al. and Brocke et al. are relied upon as set forth above.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Chen et al. teaches a light emitting device, but does not appear specifically to teach a display comprising a transistor with a source and drain electrode and further including a color filter. In analogous art, Jeong et al. teaches providing a source region and a drain region as part of a thin film transistor (see par. 61) and color filters for pixels (see par. 75) as part of an OLED display. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a thin film transistor including known layers of a thin film transistor connected to an organic light emitting element as taught by Jeong et al. and a color filter as taught by Jeong et al. to a device as taught by Chen et al. in view of Brocke et al. to form a display device, because Jeong et al. teaches using a color filter and using a thin film transistor with a device is beneficial in forming an operational light emitting display. One would expect to achieve an operational device within the disclosures of Chen et al. in view of Brocke et al. and in further view of Jeong et al. with a predictable result and reasonable expectation of success. Applicant claims a combination that only unites old elements with no change in the respective functions of those old elements, and the combination of those elements yields predictable results; absent evidence that the modifications necessary to effect the combination of elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d at 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on an additional reference.
Heteroaryl substituent groups upon the claimed metal complex are groups known in the art and no clear showing of unexpected results for the breadth of the claimed bridging heteroaryl substituent groups over heteroaryl substituent groups on complexes taught by primary reference Chen et al. has been demonstrated. Applicant claims a combination that only unites old elements with no change in the respective functions of those old elements, and the combination of those elements yields predictable results; absent evidence that the modifications necessary to effect the combination of elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d at 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396).
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 Dawn Garrett whose telephone number is (571)272-1523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday (Eastern Time).
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.
/DAWN L GARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights