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 .
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 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 1-6, 9-18, and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al (US 2013/0181190) (Ma).
In reference to claims 1-6, 9-16, and 21, Ma teaches iridium complexes comprising a phenyl pyridine ligand and a dibenzofuran linked to an imidazole or benzimidazole fragment as useful materials for OLED devices (Ma abstract) such as a material of formula V as shown below,
PNG
media_image1.png
238
352
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
146
170
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
250
388
media_image3.png
Greyscale
for example, wherein in the formula V, X is O, R1 is hydrogen, R2 is a halogen, such as fluorine, R3 is hydrogen, and R4 is a group as shown above, wherein C is a 6 membered ring, R’1 and R’2 are each isopropyl, and R’3 is biphenyl or a compound 6-X wherein R’3 is biphenyl instead of phenyl and R2 is halogen instead of hydrogen (Ma [0053] to [0058]).
Ma discloses the compound of formula V that encompasses the presently claimed compound, including wherein in the formula V, X is O, R1 is hydrogen, R2 is a halogen, such as fluorine, R3 is hydrogen, and R4 is a group as shown above, wherein C is a 6 membered ring, R’1 and R’2 are each isopropyl, and R’3 is biphenyl or a compound 6-X wherein R’3 is biphenyl instead of phenyl and R2 is halogen instead of hydrogen. Each of the disclosed substituents from the substituent groups of Ma are considered functionally equivalent and their selection would lead to obvious variants of the compound of formula V.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, in the absence of unexpected results, to have selected these substituents among those disclosed for the compound of formula V to provide the compound described above, which is both disclosed by Ma and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
For Claim 1: Reads on wherein m is 1, n is 2, A is benzimidazole, Y is O, X1 to X8 are each C substituted with hydrogen or bonded to A, RA is a substituted phenyl, D is pyridine, X is C, X9 to X12 are each C bonded to a hydrogen or to a halogen electron withdrawing group.
For Claim 2: Reads on hydrogen, fluorine or a combination of aryl and alkyl.
For Claim 3: Reads on F.
For Claim 4: Reads on RE is fluorine.
For Claim 5: Reads on D is pyridine.
For Claim 6: Reads on wherein A is benzimidazole.
For Claim 9: Reads on
PNG
media_image4.png
232
174
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
For Claim 10: Reads on
PNG
media_image5.png
200
170
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
For Claim 11: Reads on e.g. formula LA3.
For Claim 12: Reads on
PNG
media_image6.png
188
90
media_image6.png
Greyscale
.
For Claim 13: Reads on
PNG
media_image7.png
146
92
media_image7.png
Greyscale
.
For Claim 14: Reads on
PNG
media_image8.png
172
98
media_image8.png
Greyscale
wherein RI, RH, RG, are each R1 and EA is E1.
For Claim 15: Reads on LB21.
For Claim 16: Reads on
PNG
media_image9.png
162
306
media_image9.png
Greyscale
.
For Claim 21: Reads on RE bonded to X11 is an electron withdrawing group.
In reference to claims 17-18 and 20, Ma teaches the material as described above for claim 1 and further teaches that it is used as an emitting material in an organic light emitting device such as a lighting panel with an anode, cathode and organic layer between them for use in combination with a host such as the compound below (Ma [0026]; [0060] to [0064]) and further teaches that these materials result in devices with improved efficiency and lifetime (Ma [0048]).
PNG
media_image10.png
206
400
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Given that Ma discloses the device configuration that encompasses the presently claimed device, including the claimed configurations, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, to use the device configuration, which is both disclosed by Ma and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
In reference to claim 22, Ma teaches iridium complexes comprising a phenyl pyridine ligand and a dibenzofuran linked to an imidazole or benzimidazole fragment as useful materials for OLED devices (Ma abstract) such as a material of formula V as shown below,
PNG
media_image1.png
238
352
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
146
170
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
250
388
media_image3.png
Greyscale
for example, wherein in the formula V, X is O, R1 is hydrogen, R2 is a halogen, such as fluorine, R3 is phenyl, and R4 is a group as shown above, wherein C is a 6 membered ring, R’1 and R’2 are each isopropyl, and R’3 is biphenyl or a compound 6-X wherein R’3 is biphenyl instead of phenyl and R2 is halogen instead of hydrogen (Ma [0053] to [0058]).
Ma discloses the compound of formula V that encompasses the presently claimed compound, including wherein in the formula V, X is O, R1 is hydrogen, R2 is a halogen, such as fluorine, R3 is phenyl, and R4 is a group as shown above, wherein C is a 6 membered ring, R’1 and R’2 are each isopropyl, and R’3 is biphenyl or a compound 6-X wherein R’3 is biphenyl instead of phenyl and R2 is halogen instead of hydrogen. Each of the disclosed substituents from the substituent groups of Ma are considered functionally equivalent and their selection would lead to obvious variants of the compound of formula V.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, in the absence of unexpected results, to have selected these substituents among those disclosed for the compound of formula V to provide the compound described above, which is both disclosed by Ma and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
In reference to claim 23, Ma teaches iridium complexes comprising a phenyl pyridine ligand and a dibenzofuran linked to an imidazole or benzimidazole fragment as useful materials for OLED devices (Ma abstract) such as a material of formula V as shown below,
PNG
media_image1.png
238
352
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
146
170
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
250
388
media_image3.png
Greyscale
for example, wherein in the formula V, X is O, R1 is hydrogen, R2 is a halogen, such as fluorine, adjacent R3 are optionally linked, and R4 is a group as shown above, wherein C is a 6 membered ring, R’1 and R’2 are each isopropyl, and R’3 is biphenyl or a compound 6-X wherein R’3 is biphenyl instead of phenyl and R2 is halogen instead of hydrogen (Ma [0053] to [0058]).
Ma discloses the compound of formula V that encompasses the presently claimed compound, including wherein in the formula V, X is O, R1 is hydrogen, R2 is a halogen, such as fluorine, adjacent R3 are optionally linked, and R4 is a group as shown above, wherein C is a 6 membered ring, R’1 and R’2 are each isopropyl, and R’3 is biphenyl or a compound 6-X wherein R’3 is biphenyl instead of phenyl and R2 is halogen instead of hydrogen. Each of the disclosed substituents from the substituent groups of Ma are considered functionally equivalent and their selection would lead to obvious variants of the compound of formula V.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, in the absence of unexpected results, to have selected these substituents among those disclosed for the compound of formula V to provide the compound described above, which is both disclosed by Ma and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Initially, Applicant argues that Ma does not include examples wherein RD or RE comprise electron withdrawing groups. However, this does not negate a finding of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 since a preferred embodiment such as an example is not controlling. Rather, all disclosures “including unpreferred embodiments” must be considered. In re Lamberti 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976) citing In re Mills USPQ 196 (CCPA 1972).
Next Applicant argues that the instantly claimed substituents give rise to unexpected results as evidenced by data showing differences in EL transient time as well as in efficiency, voltage and spectral width supported by data in the specification as filed. This argument has been fully considered but not found convincing for the following reasons.
For a finding of unexpected results, the results presented need to be of both statistical and practical significance and be commensurate in scope with the subject matter claimed (See MPEP 716.02).
First, while the inventive examples allegedly show improvements in efficiency, EL transient time, voltage and spectral width, the specification has provided no information that would allow the analysis of the statistical significance of the results. That is, there is no indication if more than one device was prepared and analyzed for each comparative and exemplary device and there is no information on the reproducibility or precision of the measured parameters presented in the data tables.
Second, the practical significance of the results is unclear. For example, the EL transient times for both inventive and comparative devices seem to be sufficiently short for the applications typically employed by visible light organic EL devices, such as lighting or displays. The human eye generally sees lighting as steady when light is emitted in much larger pulses (~17 ms for 60 Hz) than any of those demonstrated. Similarly, displays typically operate between 30 Hz and 220 Hz to demonstrate sufficiently smooth images in motion and further decreases in this on/off timing has no observable effect by the human eye, these frequencies requiring on/off rates of 4500 microseconds. That is, Applicant has not explained or demonstrated that this improvement is of any practical significance.
Third, the showing of the results of a few examples is not commensurate in scope with the very large number of compounds encompassed by the instant claims. For example, only one compound was evaluated for efficiency, voltage and line width while the instant claims are drawn to an essentially infinite genus of materials and devices (many substituents can be long lists and “combinations thereof” allowing for an essentially infinite number of materials within the genus). These examples are not intended to be interpreted as the only points in which the data in not commensurate in scope with the claims but merely to illustrate how the breadth of the claimed compounds is much larger than that set forth in the examples, these variables resulting in claiming thousands of more compounds and even more devices. As applicant is attesting that the claimed compounds have properties that would not be expected based on the genus as a whole, for example compounds taught by the prior art, support for the unexpected results must be provided that covers the scope of what is claimed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Sean M DeGuire whose telephone number is (571)270-1027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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 A. 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.
/Sean M DeGuire/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights