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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicants arguments and amendments, filed on 7/17/26, have been fully considered but they do not confer patentability on all of the instantly filed claims. Applicants have amended independent claim 1 to require that two of R107 to R111 are an alkyl group having 1 to 6 carbon atoms. Dependent claim 2 has also been amended such that ligand L is represented by General Formula (L1-2). Claim 8 has been amended to be an independent claim as it was previously indicated as containing allowable subject matter. Dependent claims 13 and 15 have also been amended to recite that some or all of the hydrogen atoms in the C1-C6 alkyl groups in any one of R201 to R208 is substituted by deuterium. Claims 13 and 15 are subject to a 112(b) rejection as described below. The amendments to independent claim 1 have overcome the prior art rejections to Xia et al. (US 2014/0231755) and Wang et al. (CN-115490676). Each of the complexes taught in these two references do not include two alkyl groups in the ring containing variables R107 to R111. However, further search has led to a new prior art rejection, as described below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to. Specifically, there appears to be a chemical bond missing between R109 and the benzene ring in general formula (G0) and between R208 and the pyridine ring in general formula (L0).
Claim 3 is objected to. Specifically, there appears to be a chemical bond missing between R208 and the pyridine ring in general formula (L0).
Claim 8 is objected to. Specifically, there appears to be a chemical bond missing between R109 and the benzene ring in general formula (G0) and between R208 and the pyridine ring in general formula (L0).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of section 35 U.S. 103 can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 5, 7, and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (KR-20150137400) in view of Bae et al. (Adv. Optical Mater. 2021, 9, 2100630). Copies of the original and a machine translation of Jung et al. are included with this Office action.
Claims 1 and 5: Jung et al. teaches organic electronic elements and compounds for the same. The compounds taught by Jung et al. include phosphorescent iridium complexes having the structure of general formula (1) as taught on page 17 where ligand A is selected from formulae 1-1 or 1-2 whose structures are also taught on page 17. Explicitly taught compounds include compounds 2-5, 2-10, 2-15, 2-20, and 2-25 whose structures are shown on page 22. As one example, compound 2-5, which has the structure
PNG
media_image1.png
90
138
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, has variable n equal to 1, variables R101 through R107, R109, and R111 equal to hydrogen atoms, variables R108 and R110 equal to methyl groups, and variable L equal to General Formula (L0) of claim 1 structural formula (L1-1) of 5 with all variables R201 through R208 equal to hydrogen atoms.
Iridium complexes 2-5, 2-10, 2-15, 2-20, and 2-25 satisfy all of the limitations of General Formula G0 with the exception that instead of a CD3 group bonded to the central pyridine ring, the complexes have a CH3 group bonded thereto. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have prepared iridium complexes where all of the benzylic hydrogen atoms in the methyl groups are replaced with deuterium given the teachings of Bae et al. Jung et al. and Bae et al. are combinable as they are both from the same field of organic electroluminescent devices. Bae et al. teaches that replacing benzylic C-H bonds with C-D bonds increases the operational lifetime in some iridium dopants in phosphorescent organic light-emitting diodes. One example includes replacing the methyl groups in iridium complex Ir3 with deuterated methyl groups (complex Ir3D). Replacement with deuterium does not affect the emission properties and HOMO/LUMO energy levels but shows a near doubling of device efficiency (Figure 4 and Table 3). Bae et al. attributes the increased stability due to the kinetic isotope effect (KIE) where the activation barrier for bond dissociation is raised in C-D bonds compared to C-H bonds. Given the teachings of Bae et al., one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have replaced the three -CH3 groups in complexes 2-5, 2-10, 2-15, 2-20, and 2-25 as taught by Jung et al. with -CD3 groups, the motivation to do so being rooted in the teachings of Bae et al.
Claim 7: Jung et al. teaches organic electroluminescent devices comprising an anode, a hole transport region, an emission layer, an electron transport region, and a cathode. The device examples include those where the emission layer is one of complexes 2-5, 2-10, 2-15, 2-20, and 2-25 (Table 5). Given that the preparation of deuterated analogues of these complexes are obvious as described above, the preparation of devices according to Jung et al. which employ such deuterated analogues are also obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, thereby satisfying claim 7.
Claims 9-12: While Jung et al. does not explicitly disclose a display device comprising each of the specific hardware components recited in claim 10 (e.g. a sensor, operation button, speaker, and microphone), Jung et al. explicitly teaches that the disclosed light-emitting devices may be incorporated into a wide variety of consumer products, including cell phones (page 7 of the translation). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that a cell phone as taught by Jung et al., inherently or conventionally includes standard interface components such as an operation button, a speaker, and a microphone. Therefore, it would have been a matter of routine design choice to incorporate the light-emitting apparatus of Jung et al., into such a consumer device, thereby satisfying the limitations of claim 10. Furthermore, the incorporation of such an apparatus into a consumer device would necessarily require the use of a transistor, a substrate, and a housing, as these are fundamental structural elements of the electronic devices (e.g., cell phones) described in Jung et al. Accordingly, the combination of the light-emitting device with the known hardware environment of Jung et al. renders the subject matter of claims 9, 11, and 12 obvious.
Claim 13: Claim 13 serves to further limit the optional embodiment where one of R201 through R208 is an alkyl group. The complexes taught by Jung et al. described above do not apply to claim 13.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 8 and 15-19 are allowed.
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground 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 ROBERT S LOEWE whose telephone number is (571)270-3298. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8 AM to 5 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-1302. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Robert S Loewe/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights