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 .
The office acknowledges the receipt of applicants’ response 01/29/2026.
Elected Species
PNG
media_image1.png
76
798
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
882
836
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A search of the prior art did not show the elected species. As no claims where specifically drawn to applicants’ elected species in independent form, no claims have been indicated as allowable. Claims written in independent form which require all the limitations of the elected species along with any dependent claims which require all the limitations of the elected species would be allowable. Under MPEP 803.02, the search was expanded to find an examinable species.
Examinable Species
The examinable species is represented by Li-pg-51AB:
PNG
media_image3.png
264
406
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Li-pg-51A reads on claims 1-16, 18-19. Claims 17 and 20 are withdrawn as not reading on the examinable species.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7, 10-16, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 2018/0226593 A1).
Regarding Claims 1-2, 10-13, 19, Li teaches an OLED including substrate 102, anode 104, hole-transporting material(s) (HTL) 106, light processing material 108, electron-transporting material(s) (ETL) 110, and a metal cathode layer 112. Light processing material 108 may be an emissive material (EML) including an emitter and a host (paragraph 154). The light processing material can be represented by Li-pg-51 (page 51)
PNG
media_image4.png
278
328
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Li-pg-51 shows Z1as B-R differs from applicants’ Formula 1 wherein Z1 = Se or Te. Li-pg-51 is derived from generic Formula VI (page 2):
PNG
media_image5.png
211
384
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Z2 in the above compound corresponds to applicants’ Z1. Li teaches that Z2 can be represented as follows
PNG
media_image6.png
106
568
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Z2 is represented by a finite set of options which are viewed as functionally equivalent substituents viewed as readily exchangeable whereby upon selections give rise to obvious variant of generic Formula VI. One such variant is achieved by merely exchanging the B-R1 in Li-pg-51 with a Se atom as shown below:
PNG
media_image7.png
256
315
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Li-pg-51A
L1 teaches L3 can be aryl or heteroaryl :
PNG
media_image8.png
922
430
media_image8.png
Greyscale
L3 is represented by a finite set of options which are viewed as functionally equivalent substituents viewed as readily exchangeable whereby upon selections give rise to obvious variant of generic Formula VI.
A further modification of Li-pg-51A is achieved by exchanging L3 for a functionally equivalent L3 as a pyridine shown below:
PNG
media_image3.png
264
406
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Li-pg-51AB reads on applicants’ Formula 1 and 1-12 wherein CY1 = benzimidazole group; CY4 = pyridine; CY3 = pyridine; CY5 = phenyl; CY2 = phenyl; A1-A4 = single bond; R2 and R4 = t-butyl groups; M = Pt; R = Ra in generic Formula VI include a host of options including alkyl and aryl.; T2 = O; Z2 (corresponding to applicants’ Z1) = Se; T1 and T3 = single bond.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to have made a variety of derivatives of generic Formula VI by selecting various functional equivalent substituents for Z2 and L3 which would have included the above variant with Z2 as Se and L3 as pyridine which reads on the instant limitations, absent unexpected results (per claims 1-2, 10-13, 19).
5-membered ring group is imidazole; 6-memebered ring group is phenyl (per claim 12).
Regarding Claim 7, Li teaches that the compounds (Li-pg-51AB) are useful in a variety of applications such as light emitting materials in organic light emitting diodes (OLEDs), luminescent devices and displays, and other light emitting devices (paragraph 78) (per claim 7).
Regarding Claims 14-16, 18, Li-pg-51AB shows applicants’ CY3-1 with Y3 as C; CY3 as pyridine; Y32 = N; remaining Y(s) = C; Z1 as Se; CY5 as phenyl; R3 as t-butyl ; R5 as H (per claim 14)
Li-pg-51AB shows applicants’ CY1 as CY1-15 (per claim 15)
Li-pg-51AB shows Y1-Y3 as C and Y4 as N (per claim 16)
Li-pg-51AB shows on R4 as alkyl (per claim 18).
Claim 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 2018/0226593 A1) as evidenced by Hong (Adv. Mater. 2021,2005630)
Regarding Claim 6, Li teaches the OLED containing Li-pg-51AB were studied to address problem with stable emit blue light emission (paragraph 5). Li teaches Platinum complex but fails to mention the CIE value.
Hong teaches cites that blue phosphorescent OLED show CIE = 0.16, 0.29 (page 7 of 24). The office notes said value is within applicant range. The values taught by Hong are from Figure 7 which includes a Pt complex PtON7 with similar structural features as Li-pg-51A.
As Hong teaches that blue phosphorescent OLED showing CIE values in the claimed range which include an analogous Pt complex, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of invention to have considered the OLED containing the Pt- complex of Li in a similar CIE range meeting the instant limitations, absent unexpected results (per claim 6).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 2018/0226593 A1) in view of Seki (US 2013/0105785).
Regarding Claims 8-9, Li teaches the invention of claim 1 but fails to mention the limitations of claim 8.
Seki teaches an image display apparatus including an organic light-emitting device and a thin-film transistor (TFT) device wherein the anode or a cathode of the organic light-emitting device is connected to a drain electrode or a source electrode of the TFT device. The thin-film transistor device serves as a device configured to apply an electrical current to the organic light-emitting device (paragraph 52). The organic light-emitting device also contains a color filter (paragraph 50).
As both Li and Seki teaches organic light-emitting devices and Seki teaches an organic light-emitting device configured in an electronic apparatus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to have used the organic light-emitting device of Li in known application areas which would have included in an electronic apparatus as taught by Seki which reads on the instant limitations, absent unexpected results (per clam 8-9).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 2018/0226593 A1) in view of Tamaru (US 2009/0236974).
Regarding Claim 5, Li teaches that the Pt complex can be used as a dopant (paragraph 156) but fails to mention the weight amount.
Tamaru teaches the content in the light emission layer of the host compound and the phosphorescent dopant is from 1 to 99% by weight, respectively, based on the total weight of all the compounds contained in the light emission layer. The content in the light emission layer of the phosphorescent dopant is preferably lower than that of the host compound, and more preferably 1 to 10% by weight of that of the host compound (paragraph 109).
The office regards the above as a generic teaching showing the general weight ratio of host to dopant in an OLEDs.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of invention to have adjusted the weight ratio with the dopant in lower amount than the host since Tamaru teaches the content in the light emission layer of the phosphorescent dopant is preferably lower than that of the host compound, which would have included organometallic compound weight % which is in applicants range absent unexpected results (per claim 5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant recites:
PNG
media_image9.png
240
662
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Per MPEP 2163(II)(A)(3)(a)(ii), the written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by (A) actual reduction to practice, (B) reduction to drawings, or (C) by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the applicant was in possession of the claimed genus. A "representative number of species" means that the species which are adequately described are representative of the entire genus. Thus, when there is substantial variation within the genus, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus.
Applicant has only provide a fluorescent compound genus and a thermally activated delayed fluorescent compound genus without a representative number of species which are adequately described are representative of the entire genus. The only limited factor is the relationship to equation 1. Applicant fails define a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus. The scope of said compounds in the specification fails offer suitable support for the unlimited scope of claim 4.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter as applicant claims the device of claim 3.
A search of the prior art did not show the combination of applicants’ Formula 1 and Any of Formulas 1A, 301-1 or 301-2 taught or suggested.
Claim 3 allowed.
Response to Amendment
The office has modified the previous rejections to address the treatment of CY3 when Z1 = Se. Additionally, claim 4 previously objected is now rejected under 112 1st paragraph. 2nd non-final rejection is herewith presented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY D CLARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7087. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-4PM M-F.
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 Chriss 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.
/GREGORY D CLARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights