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 Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities. The structures are too blurry for publication. Appropriate correction is required. Applicant has copied the structures back in again but they are still completely eligible. See the example below wherein most atom labels are not legible, nor are the indices that indicate how many ligands are present in the brackets. This problem is also apparent in the compounds in the specification.
PNG
media_image1.png
320
416
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 and 4-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao et al (CN 112979715) (Cao).
In reference to claims 1 and 4-15, Cao teaches an organic electroluminescent device for a display comprising anode, cathode, hole transport layer, and one or more layers stacked wherein one of the light emitting layers comprises a host and an organometallic compound below that emits light in a green to red region (Cao [0093] to [0099] [0009] [0100] [0005])
PNG
media_image2.png
44
204
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
308
356
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
138
194
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
186
328
media_image5.png
Greyscale
for example wherein M is iridium, X is 1 to 3, y is 0, z is 0, 1 or 2, LA is a group of formula (I), R9 and R10 are fused to form a ring, R7 and R8 are each hydrogen, Z2 is CR3R4, R3 and R4 are each methyl, two of W are fused to form (1), X2 is O, each of Z is CH, Lc is a group of formula (III) wherein R17 and R15 is methyl and R16 is hydrogen (Cao [0011] to [0025]; [0074]).
Cao discloses the metal complex that encompasses the presently claimed metal complex, including wherein M is iridium, X is 1 to 3, y is 0, z is 0, 1 or 2,, LA is a group of formula (I), R9 and R10 are fused to form a ring, R7 and R8 are each hydrogen, Z2 is CR3R4, R3 and R4 are each methyl, two of W are fused to form (1), X2 is O, each of Z is CH, Lc is a group of formula (III) wherein R17 and R15 is methyl and R16 is hydrogen. Each of the disclosed substituents from the substituent groups of Cao are considered functionally equivalent and their selection would lead to obvious variants of the metal complex.
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 metal complex to provide the compound described above, which is both disclosed by Cao and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
For Claim 1: Reads on a complex of chemical formula 2 wherein X7 and X8 are each C bonded to R, X3 to X6 and X9 to X12 are each CH, M is Ir, m is 2, n is 1, Z1 and Z2 form a bidentate acac ligand, Y is O, R1 to R4 are hydrogen.
For Claim 4: Reads on Iridium
For Claim 5: Reads on 1 and 2.
For Claim 6: Reads on 2 and 1.
For Claim 7: Reads on 3 and 0.
For Claim 8: Reads on compound 1.
For Claim 9 Reads on a device with two electrodes and an organic layer comprising an EML comprising the metal as a dopant.
For Claim 10: Reads on red.
For Claim 11: Reads on a host.
For Claim 12: Reads on any of the additional layers.
For Claim 13-14: Additional layers read on additional light emitting layer stacks.
For Claim 15: Reads on a display device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that as amended, the instant claim 1 is directed toa highly specific and narrowly limited ligand structure and that the performance of a device can be improved by using a dopant having these structural features. This argument has been fully considered but not found convincing. The instant claim 1 is far from ‘highly specific’ or ‘narrowly limited’. While it might be argued that it is slightly narrower than the genus described by the prior art, it is inarguably a genus so broad as to comprise an unfathomable number of members. For example, each of the many “R” groups of each of the ligand formulae claimed include such broad groups as C1 to C20 alkyl groups that can be further substituted. The number of unsubstituted alkyl groups having 1 to 20 carbon atoms is over 300,000. The resultant number of possible alkyl groups assuming 10 R groups present is over 1057. If one were to account also for the other possible R groups (e.g. heteroalkyl, arylalkyl, etc.) the number of claimed combinations increases exponentially to an essentially infinite number of materials. Further, Applicant allows substitution at every possible position of most of these groups. These substituents have no limits in the claims and therefore the number of claimed materials is actually essentially infinite. An infinite number of materials is not “highly specific” or “narrowly limited”.
Applicant further argues that Cao does not exemplify any specific materials that include both a four fused ring structure and an additional ring fused to the pyridine portion. 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).
Applicant further argues that the specification demonstrate that the claimed compounds give rise to devices with improved performance relative to comparative examples. For a finding of unexpected results, the results presented need to be of both statistical and practical significance, in comparison to the closest prior art and be commensurate in scope with the subject matter claimed (See MPEP 716.02). The comparative examples shown are not compounds of Cao nor are they really similar to the materials of Cao. The experimental results have not been demonstrated to be statistically significant. The results shown are not commensurate in scope with the immense genus of materials instantly claimed.
Applicant further argues that the ordinarily skilled artisan would not have selected a carbon atom instead of a silicon atom or selected from among other taught alternatives as set forth in the rejection without relying on impermissible hindsight. This argument is not convincing. Making any material of Applicant’s claims requires the exact same kinds of selections at dozens of positions. The alternatives taught through Markush groups are considered functional equivalents in the absence of unexpected results.
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