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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species (A) and formula A(1) in the reply filed on 08/16/2024 was previously acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
The applicant's amendment of 06/27/2025 is entered.
Claims 1, 7-8, 10-12, and 14 are amended and claims 3-6 and 9 are cancelled due to the applicant's amendment.
Claims 1 and 7-8, 10-12, 14, and 16-19 are pending.
The rejection of claims 3-6 and 9 is moot because the claims are cancelled due to the applicant's amendment.
The rejection of claims 1, 7-8, 10-12, 14, and 16-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosuge et al. US-20150295188-A1 in view of Zhang et al. US-20200099000-A1 and Lin et al. US-20170155065-A1 as set forth in the previous Office Action is overcome due to the applicant's amendment. The rejection is withdrawn.
However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made in view of the teaches of newly cited Choi et al. US-20200111977-A1.
Response to Arguments
Insofar as the arguments apply to the new grounds of rejection outlined below, the applicants’ arguments on pages 17-21 of the reply dated 06/27/2025 with respect to the rejections of record have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument – The applicant argues on page 19 of the reply that the claims have been amended to recite wherein at least one of R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R7, and R8 is a -CHF2 group or a -CH2F group and the cited prior art of the previous Office action does not teach this limitation.
Examiner's response – A compound as claimed wherein at least one of R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R7, and R8 is a -CHF2 group or a -CH2F group was not previously required by the claims and is met in the new grounds of rejection below in view of the teaches of newly cited Choi et al. US-20200111977-A1.
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, 7-8, 10-12, 14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. US-20200111977-A1 (hereinafter "Choi").
It is noted that is cited on the IDS of 06/18/2024.
The applied reference has a common applicant 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.
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.
Regarding claims 1, 7-8, 10-12, and 16-19, Choi teaches an organic light-emitting device including an organic layer disposed between a first electrode, a second electrode, wherein the organic layer includes an emission layer, and the emission layer comprises an organometallic compound as a dopant (¶ [0017]-[0022]), wherein the organometallic compound is represented by Formula 1I (¶ [0690]), and wherein the organic layer further includes a hole transport region between the first electrode and the emission layer and an electron transport region between the emission layer and the second electrode, wherein the hole transport region includes a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, and/or an electron blocking layer, and wherein the electron transport region includes a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, and/or an electron injection layer (¶ [0750]). Choi teaches examples of the organometallic compound is represented by Formula 1I including Ir-23, Ir-24
PNG
media_image1.png
351
443
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, and Ir-25 (page 158). Choi teaches the device having high luminescent efficiency (¶ [0073]).
Choi does not specifically disclose an iridium complex that meets the claimed Formula 1. For example, the compound Ir-24 shown above differs from the claimed compound in that the position R4 in Choi's Formula 1I and corresponding to the claimed R4 is -CF3 and the remaining of the positions corresponding to R1, R2, R3, R5, R7,and R8 are hydrogen, instead of one of the positions corresponding to R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R7,and R8 being -CH2F or -CHF2.
However, Choi teaches wherein at least one of R1 to R8 is -F, -CF3, -CF2H, or -CFH2, among others (¶ [0719]).
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Choi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the -CF3 group in the position corresponding to the position R4 in Choi's Formula 1I and corresponding to the claimed R4 with a group -CH2F or -CHF2, because Choi teaches the variable may suitably be selected as such. The substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful in the light emitting layer of the device of Choi and possess the beneficial property of high luminescent efficiency, as taught by Choi. See MPEP § 2143.I.(B).
The modified compound of Choi is a compound of the claimed Formula 1 wherein R4 is a -CHF2 group or a -CH2F group.
Although claim 19 is drawn to a diagnostic composition, the only positive limitation of the claimed composition is at least one organometallic compound of claim 1. Claim 19 does not add any further structural limitations to the device and/or organometallic compound. Choi teaches the compound of claim 1 as discussed above and does not include any components that would make it unfit for use as a diagnostic composition.
The organic light emitting device comprising modified compound of Choi meets claims 1, 7-8, 10-12, and 16-19.
Regarding claim 14, Choi teaches the device comprising the modified compound as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Choi does not specifically disclose an iridium complex that meets the claimed Formula 1 wherein A1 to A3 are linked to each other to form a C5 to C30 carbocyclic group. However, Choi teaches two or more of A1 to A3 in Formula 1I may be linked to form a C5 to C30 carbocyclic group (¶ [0741]).
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Choi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute link two or more of A1 to A3 in Choi's Formula 1I to form a C5 to C30 carbocyclic group, because Choi teaches the variable may suitably be selected as such. The substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful in the light emitting layer of the device of Choi and possess the beneficial property of high luminescent efficiency, as taught by Choi. See MPEP § 2143.I.(B).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kishino et al. US-20150303386-A1 and Kamatani et al. US-20150333279-A1 also teach metal complex Ir-504
PNG
media_image2.png
297
261
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 24 and page 32, respectively); and
Kosuge et al. US-20150295188-A1, cited on the IDS of 06/18/2024, Kishino et al. US-20150303386-A1, and Kamatani et al. US-20150333279-A1 teach metal complex Ir-209
PNG
media_image3.png
327
338
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and Ir-211
PNG
media_image4.png
325
288
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(page 16, page 14, and pages 21-22, respectively).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elizabeth M. Dahlburg whose telephone number is 571-272-6424. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET, and alternate Fridays.
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 Boyd 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 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.
/ELIZABETH M. DAHLBURG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786