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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR 10-2022-0084559, filed on 07/08/2022.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The exemplified structures in the instant specification are low resolution, making them difficult to interpret. (see at least [0086]). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Chemical Formula I appears to be missing a bond between X2 and X3. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: The exemplified structures in claim 4 are low resolution, making them difficult to interpret. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1–8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Layek et al. (US 2021/0167302 A1, hereinafter “Layek”) in view of Koenen et al. (US 2017/0250353 A1, provided in Applicant’s IDS filed on 01/16/2025, hereinafter “Koenen”).
Regarding Claims 1–8, Layek teaches Compounds which exhibit electroluminescence and thereby improve performance of OLED devices [0006], exemplified by Compound 1 [pg. 83]. Compound 1 nearly reads on Applicant’s Chemical Formula I however it is missing the cyclohexyl ring which is condensed on the end of the complex (shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
274
332
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
279
379
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Compound 1 is represented by Layek’s Formula 1-7, shown below [0073]. RB represents up to the maximum number of allowed substitutions to its associated ring and each RB may be selected from a preferred general substituents group [0073]. Layek further teaches an alkyl group is one of the most preferred general substituents [0050]. Additionally, Layek teaches two substituents can be joined or fused together to form a ring [0012]. Therefore, Layek’s general formula allows two RB substituents to be alkyl groups which are fused together to form a cyclohexyl group.
PNG
media_image3.png
260
273
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
279
379
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Koenen teaches metal complexes which contain a condensed-on aliphatic ring exhibit higher photo- and electroluminescence quantum efficiencies, better solubility, and a narrower emission band and thus a purer emission color compared to metal complexes which do not contain a condensed-on aliphatic ring [0005]. Specifically, Koenen teaches Formula (2) wherein Cy may be represented by Formula (5), shown below [0006]. Koenen further teaches a particularly suitable group of Formula (5) is Group (5-1) (shown below) [0054].
PNG
media_image4.png
278
170
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
143
117
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
174
149
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Compound 1 with a condensed-on aliphatic ring having the structure of Koenen’s Group (5-1), because Layek teaches RB may be selected as alkyl and adjacent substituents may be fused together to form a ring. One would be motivated to make this modification based on the higher photo- and electroluminescence quantum efficiencies, better solubility, and the narrower emission band benefits, as taught by Koenen.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select Koenen’s Group (5-1) to represent Koenen’s Formula (5) because it would have been choosing from the particularly suitable groups taught by Koenen, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the dopant in the emissive layer of the organic light-emitting device of Layek and possessing the benefits taught by Koenen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Koenen’s Formula (5) having the benefits taught by Koenen in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to condense the aliphatic ring on the meta- and para-positions with respect to the C-O bond, because it would have been choosing specific locations on Compound 1 in which to condense the aliphatic ring, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the dopant in the emissive layer of the organic light-emitting device of Layek and possessing the benefits taught by Koenen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Layek’s Formula 1-7 having the benefits taught by Koenen in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Per Claim 1, the modified version of Compound 1, as described above, (hereinafter “Modified 1”) reads on Applicant’s Chemical Formula I (shown below),
PNG
media_image7.png
400
421
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
397
454
media_image8.png
Greyscale
wherein:
M is iridium (Ir),
Y is O,
R1, R2, R7, and R8 are each a C1 alkyl group (methyl),
R3 to R6 are each hydrogen,
A is an isoquinoline,
X1 is represented by CR11 wherein R11 is hydrogen,
X2 is represented by CR11 wherein R11 is a C4 alkyl group (tert-butyl),
X3 and X4 are each represented by CR11 wherein R11 are each an alkenyl group which are fused to form a 6-membered carbon ring (benzene),
PNG
media_image9.png
72
69
media_image9.png
Greyscale
is a bidentate ligand,
m is 2 while n is 1.
Per Claim 2, Modified 1 is represented by Chemical Formula II-1 (shown below),
PNG
media_image10.png
369
497
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
397
454
media_image8.png
Greyscale
wherein:
Z3 and Z-5 are each represented by a C3 alkyl group (propyl) substituted by a C2 alkyl group (ethyl),
Z4 is hydrogen,
Z7 and Z8 are each oxygen (O).
Per Claim 3, M is iridium (Ir) in Modified 1.
Per Claim 4, Modified 1 is identical to Applicant’s Compound 68 (shown below).
PNG
media_image11.png
325
373
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
397
454
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Per Claim 5, Layek teaches compounds containing a ligand LA- of Formula I emit red light [0222]. Given that Modified 1 is a compound containing a ligand LA of Formula I, Modified 1 is expected to emit red light.
Per Claims 6, 7, and 8, Layek teaches an organic light-emitting device comprising an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer, an emissive layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode [0219] – [0220]. The emissive layer of Device 1 comprises a compound containing a ligand LA of Layek’s Formula 1 [0222]. Additionally, Layek teaches compounds comprising ligand LA of Layek’s Formula 1 exhibit electroluminescence and thereby improve the performance of OLED devices [0006].
However, Layek does not disclose a device comprising Modified 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the Modified 1 in a device having the structure above, wherein Modified 1 is used in the emissive layer, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Layek according to known methods to yield predictable results of an organic light emitting device with improved performance, as taught by Layek. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
The resulting device reads on Applicant’s limitation since it comprises an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer, an emissive layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode wherein the emissive layer comprises Modified 1 which is a red emitter.
Claims 9–11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Layek in view of Koenen as applied to claim 1–8 above, and further in view of Liao et al. (US 2003/0170491 A1, hereinafter “Liao”).
Regarding Claims 9 and 10, Layek teaches the phosphorescent emissive molecule of present disclosure may be used in an OLED which may have a stack structure [0005].
However, Layek does not exemplify an OLED with a stack structure wherein the emissive layers comprises Modified 1.
Liao teaches the stacked OLED of Fig. 2 (shown below) comprising an anode (210), a cathode (240), N organic EL units (220) where N is greater than 1 [0049]. Liao further teaches the number of organic EL units is such that the luminescence efficiency is improved or maximized [0051]. Additionally, Liao teaches a stacked OLED device has an improved luminance efficiency, increased brightness, increased lifetime, and decreased driving voltage in comparison to a non-stacked OLED device [0027] – [0030].
PNG
media_image12.png
400
596
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the organic light-emitting device comprising Modified 1, taught by Layek, as an EL unit in the stacked OLED taught by Liao, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Layek and Liao according to known methods to yield predictable results of a stacked OLED device with improved luminance efficiency, increased brightness, increased lifetime, and decreased driving voltage, as taught by Liao. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use three organic EL units, because it would have been choosing the number of EL units in a stacked OLED, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the EL unit of the stacked OLED device of Liao and possessing the benefits taught by Liao. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising three EL units having the benefits taught by Liao in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
The resulting stacked OLED comprises an anode, a cathode, and three EL units which comprise Modified 1 as a red emitter in the emissive layer.
Regarding Claim 11, Layek does not exemplify an organic light-emitting device which is connected to a driving element.
Liao teaches the full-color matrix display of Fig. 9 (shown below) which uses white light emission from an array of stacked organic electroluminescent devices. It comprises a transparent support (601), and the wiring, capacitors, and transistors necessary to drive the individual stacked OLED devices in the array (602 and 603) [0075]. Liao further teaches a stacked OLED device has an improved luminance efficiency, increased brightness, increased lifetime, and decreased driving voltage in comparison to a non-stacked OLED device [0027] – [0030].
PNG
media_image13.png
401
608
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the organic light-emitting device comprising Modified 1, taught by Layek, in the stacked OLED of a full-color matrix display taught by Liao, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Layek and Liao according to known methods to yield predictable results of a full-color matrix display comprising a stacked OLED device with improved luminance efficiency, increased brightness, increased lifetime, and decreased driving voltage, as taught by Liao. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
The resulting full-color matrix display comprises a transparent support (substrate), transistors (driving element), and an organic light-emitting device comprising Modified 1 connected to the transistors.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim et al. (US 2020/0266365 A1, hereinafter “Kim”) teaches compounds which nearly read on Applicant’s Chemical Formula I wherein Y is C=O, such as Compound D-4 (shown below) [0040]. However, the compounds taught by Kim do not comprise an aliphatic ring structure condensed onto the end of the metal complex. A similar modification as taught by Koenen may be done to read on Applicant’s Chemical Formula I.
PNG
media_image14.png
248
289
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES RICHARD FORTWENGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-5433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am - 5 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (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.
/J.R.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/BRAELYN R WATSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights