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 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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on January 17, 2022.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on November 22, 2022.
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references provided in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on November 22, 2022 and December 2, 2025 have been considered. Signed copies of the corresponding 1449 forms have been included with this office action.
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1 – 10 and 14 – 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,302,744. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because compounds of Formula 1 in the instant application overlap in scope with compounds of Formula 1 in claim 1 of the ‘744 patent as evidenced by compound BD124 in claim 20 of the ‘744 patent.
Claims 1 – 10 and 14 – 19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 20 of copending Application No. 18/107,609 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because compounds of Formula 1 in the instant application overlap in scope with compounds of Formula 1 in claim 1 of the ‘609 application as evidenced by compound 38 in claim 20 of the ‘609 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 – 10 and 14 – 19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 20 of copending Application No. 18/045,766 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because compounds of Formula 1 in the instant application overlap in scope with compounds of Formula 1 in claim 1 of the ‘766 application as evidenced by compound 74 in claim 20 of the ‘766 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 – 10 and 14 – 19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 20 of copending Application No. 18/328,151 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because compounds of Formula 1 in the instant application overlap in scope with compounds of Formula 1 in claim 1 of the ‘151 application as evidenced by compound 55 in claim 20 of the ‘151 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 14, 15, and 17 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shin (US20200373504A1).
As per claims 14, 15, and 17 – 19, Shin teaches:
An organometallic compound represented by Formula 1
PNG
media_image1.png
324
418
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Shin teaches compounds of Formula 1
PNG
media_image2.png
174
446
media_image2.png
Greyscale
([0014]). A particular compound within Formula 1 taught by Shin is compound 24
PNG
media_image3.png
326
356
media_image3.png
Greyscale
. This compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein M is Pt; ring C1 is a substituted heterocycle of 7 ring-forming carbon atoms; C2 is an unsubstituted hydrocarbon ring of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms; C3 is a substituted heterocycle of 7 ring-forming carbon atoms; L1 and L3 are direct bonds; L2 is *-O-*; R1 is an unsubstituted alkyl group having 1 carbon atoms; R2 is hydrogen; n1 to n3 are all 1; n4 is 2. This compound reads on Formula 2 in claim 15 and Formula 4 in claim 17 wherein X1 to X4 and A1 to A3 are independently CR3 and for A1 to A3, R3 is a hydrogen atom and for X1 to X4 are substituted alkenyl groups that combine with an adjacent group to form a ring. The compound is represented by Formula 5-1 in claim 18 and Formula 6-2 in claim 19 wherein Z3 and Z6 are each N and the remaining Z groups are C, wherein Z6 is NR6 wherein is an unsubstituted alkyl group having 1 carbon atoms; and Z4 and Z5 are NR6 wherein the R6 groups are unsubstituted alkenyl groups that are combined to form a ring.)
Claims 14 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ye (CN114644660A).
As per claims 14 – 19, Ye teaches:
An organometallic compound represented by Formula 1
PNG
media_image1.png
324
418
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Ye teaches compounds of Formula (I)
PNG
media_image4.png
206
260
media_image4.png
Greyscale
([0011 – 0013]). A particular compound taught by Ye is compound 69
PNG
media_image5.png
146
138
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, which reads on the claimed Formula wherein M is Pt; C1 is an unsubstituted hydrocarbon ring of 6 carbon atoms; ring C2 is a unsubstituted heterocycle of 12 ring-forming carbon atoms; ring C3 is an unsubstituted heterocycle of 24 ring-forming carbon atoms; L1 is a direct linkage, L2 is *-S-*, L3 is *-N(R18)-*; R1 is a substituted aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms; R2 is hydrogen; R18 is a substituted aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms combined with an adjacent group to form a ring; n1 to n3 are each independently an integer of 1; n4 is an integer of 2. The compound reads on Formula 2 in claim 15, Formula 4 in claim 17, and Formula 5-1 in claim 18 wherein X1 to X4 are CR3 and A1 to A3 are CR3, the R3 for A3 is combined with an adjacent group to form a ring and the remaining R3 groups are hydrogen. The compound reads on Formula 3 in claim 16 wherein A4 to A7 are each independently CR4 wherein R4 is a hydrogen atom. The compound reads on Formula 6-1 in claim 19 wherein Z1 is N and R5 is an unsubstituted aryl group.)
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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 1 – 4, and 6 – 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin (US20200373504A1) as applied to claims 14, 15, and 17 – 19 above.
As per claims 1, 4, and 6 – 8, the teachings of Shin with regards to Compound 24 are incorporated below. While Shin teaches compounds of Formula 1, Shin does not specifically teach the use of compound 24 in a device. Shin does teach:
A light emitting device, comprising a first electrode, a second electrode oppositely disposed to the first electrode; and an emission layer between the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein the emission layer comprises the organometallic compound (Abstract: “An organic electroluminescence device may include a first electrode, a second electrode opposite to the first electrode, and organic layers disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode.” & [0013]: “In an embodiment, the organic layers may include a hole transport region, a light emitting layer, and an electron transport region, and the organometallic complex is included in the light emitting layer.”)
Shin teaches an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer and the compound is in the organic layer as discussed above. It would have been obvious to use the compound in the organic layer with the device structure of Shin as Shin demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As per claim 2, Shin teaches:
Wherein the emission layer is configured to emit phosphorescence ([0095]: “The organometallic complex according to an embodiment of the inventive concept may be a phosphorescent dopant.”)
As per claim 3, Shin teaches:
Wherein the emission layer comprises a host and a dopant, the dopant comprises the organometallic compound ([0094]: “In the organic electroluminescence device 10 shown in FIGS. 1 to 3, the light emitting layer EML may include a host material and a dopant material. In an embodiment, the light emitting layer EML may include the organometallic complex represented by the chemical formula 1 as the dopant material of the light emitting layer EML.”)
Claims 1 – 11 and 14 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US20200411775A1).
As per claims 1, Chen teaches:
An organometallic compound represented by Formula 1
PNG
media_image1.png
324
418
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Chen teaches compounds of Formula I
PNG
media_image6.png
184
328
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(Abstract). A particular compound taught by Chen is
PNG
media_image7.png
190
212
media_image7.png
Greyscale
, which does not contain the nitrogen atom in the bottom left ring as claimed. However, in Formula I, Chen defines X11 to X13 as being selected from C or N ([0055]) and Chen teaches an embodiment in which X11 is N and the remaining X11 to X13 are C. When X11 in the above compound is modified to be a nitrogen atom, the compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein M is Pt; C1 is an unsubstituted hydrocarbon ring of 6 carbon atoms; ring C2 is a unsubstituted heterocycle of 12 ring-forming carbon atoms; ring C3 is a substituted heterocycle of 5 ring-forming carbon atoms; L1 is a direct linkage, L2 is *-O-*, L3 is *-N(R18)-*; R1 is a substituted aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms; R2 is hydrogen; R18 is a substituted aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms combined with an adjacent group to form a ring; n1 to n3 are each independently an integer of 1; n4 is an integer of 2. The compound reads on Formula 2 in claims 4 and 15, Formula 4 in claims 6 and 17, and Formula 5-1 in claims 7 and 18 wherein X1 to X4 are CR3 and A1 to A3 are CR3, the R3 for A3 is combined with an adjacent group to form a ring and the remaining R3 groups are hydrogen. The compound reads on Formula 3 in claims 5 and 16 wherein A4 to A7 are each independently CR4 wherein R4 is a hydrogen atom. The compound reads on Formula 6-1 in claims 8 and 19 and Formula 7-1 in claim 9, wherein Z1 is N and R5 is an unsubstituted alkyl group having 4 carbon atoms. Since claim 10 defines Formula 6-2 but does not require that the compound is represented by Formula 6-2, Chen renders claim 10 obvious.)
A light emitting device, comprising a first electrode, a second electrode oppositely disposed to the first electrode; and an emission layer between the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein the emission layer comprises the organometallic compound ([0077]: “In some embodiments, the OLED comprises an anode, a cathode, and a first organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode.” & [0078]: “In some embodiments, the organic layer may be an emissive layer and the compound as described herein may be an emissive dopant or a non-emissive dopant.”)
Chen includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Chen being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. 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 substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of highly efficient deep blue phosphorescent OLEDs ([0144]), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
As per claim 2, Chen teaches:
Wherein the emission layer is configured to emit phosphorescence ([0107]: “In some embodiments, the compound can bean emissive dopant. In some embodiments, the compound can produce emissions via phosphorescence.”)
As per claim 3, Chen teaches:
Wherein the emission layer comprises a host and a dopant, and the dopant comprises the organometallic compound ([0086]: “In some embodiments of the emissive region, the compound can be an emissive dopant or a non-emissive dopant. In some embodiments, the emissive region further comprises a host.”)
As per claims 11 and 20, the only difference between the modified compound above and claimed compound 3
PNG
media_image8.png
188
204
media_image8.png
Greyscale
is the deuterium atoms. However, Chen teaches that the substituents off of the benzimidazole group can be selected from R5
PNG
media_image9.png
154
294
media_image9.png
Greyscale
, as in the compound shown above and can also be selected from the undeuterated R2
PNG
media_image10.png
130
280
media_image10.png
Greyscale
([0072]), which is the same as in claimed compound 3. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the deuterated substituent of modified compound above with the undeuterated substituent and arrive at claimed compound 3.
Chen includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Chen being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. 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 substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of highly efficient deep blue phosphorescent OLEDs ([0144]), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US20200411775A1) as applied to claims 1 – 11 and 14 – 20 above, and further in view of Yun (Yun et al. "Triplet Exciton Upconverting Blue Exciplex Host for Deep Blue Phosphors." Chemistry- A European Journal. 2021 (27): 12642 -12648).
As per claim 12, Chen does not limit the host material ([0113]). Chen does not teach:
The host comprises a first host and a second host, wherein the first host is represented by Formula HT-1
PNG
media_image11.png
258
388
media_image11.png
Greyscale
The second host is represented by Formula ET-1
PNG
media_image12.png
246
368
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Yun teaches a novel host materials that can be used with blue phosphorescent OLEDs ([Abstract]). This is similar to the structure and composition of Chen. Yun teaches that the host material is mSiTrzCzCN
PNG
media_image13.png
216
210
media_image13.png
Greyscale
(Scheme 1) and that the material forms an exciplex with mCBP hosts to form high efficiency and improved lifetime as compared with a single host system (Page 12642, Right Column, Paragraph 2). mCBP reads on compounds of Formula HT-1 wherein Lg is an arylene group of 12 ring forming carbon atoms, Ar1 is an unsubstituted heteroaryl group of 12 ring-forming carbon atoms; and R61 and R62 are hydrogen. mSiTrzCzCN reads on Formula ET-2 wherein Ln is a direct linkage; Ar2 is a substituted heteroaryl group of 3 ring-forming carbon atoms; R63 and R64 are both hydrogen. It is the same as compound E3
PNG
media_image14.png
132
176
media_image14.png
Greyscale
in claim 13.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the host materials of Yun in the device of Chen because Chen does not limit the host materials used and Yun teaches that that combination of host materials extends the lifespan and improves efficiency of devices using the host materials with deep blue phosphorescent dopants (Page 12642, Right Column, Paragraph 2).
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US20220173338A1 could be used in a rejection against the claims as currently presented. However, the ‘338 reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA N CHANDHOK whose telephone number is (571)272-5780. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 6:30 - 3:30.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. 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.
/JENNA N CHANDHOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789