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
Claims 2-4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claims 2-4 it is suggested that "a" before "dashed line" be replaced with "the" for ease of reading;
in claim 2 it is suggested that "a" before "ring A1" be deleted for ease of reading; and
in claim 3 it is suggested that "a" before "ring A1" and "ring A2" be deleted for ease of reading.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites "wherein the pyridine ring comprises an alkyl group comprising 1 to 6 carbon atoms and being substituted with deuterium." The claim is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by this limitation. Does this mean that the pyridine ring is substituted with an alkyl group? Is the alkyl group required to be substituted with deuterium or is the pyridine ring?
For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted such that the pyridine ring is substituted with an alkyl group comprising 1 to 6 carbon atoms, wherein the alkyl group is substituted with deuterium.
Claims 5-11 are rejected as being dependent on indefinite claim 1.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites "wherein the ligand is coordinated to the central metal with any atom of the ring A1 and nitrogen of the pyridine ring." The claim is indefinite because it is unclear what "the ligand" refers to. The claim previously recites " an organometallic complex comprises a central metal and ligands" and "at least one of the ligands comprises a skeleton formed by a ring A1 and a pyridine ring bonded to each other" but it is not clear if this is "the ligand" or is one of the other of ligands.
For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted to read wherein the at least one ligand is coordinated to the central metal with any atom of the ring A1 and nitrogen of the pyridine ring.
Claims 5-11 are rejected as being dependent on indefinite claim 1.
Regarding claims 2-4, the claim recites "wherein at least one of R1 to R4 represented an alkyl group comprising 1 to 6 carbon atoms and being substituted with deuterium." The claim is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by this limitation. Does this mean that the alkyl group is required to be substituted with deuterium or one of R1 to R4 the deuterium atom?
For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted such that the pyridine ring is substituted with an alkyl group comprising 1 to 6 carbon atoms, wherein the alkyl group is substituted with deuterium.
Claims 12-15 are rejected as being dependent on indefinite claim 2.
Claims 4 and 16-19 are rejected as being dependent on indefinite claim 3.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue et al. US-20140291645-A1 (hereinafter "Inoue") in view of Xia et al. US-20100270916-A1 (hereinafter "Xia").
It is noted that US-20100270916-A1 is related to U-8557400-B2 which is cited on the IDS of 10/04/2023.
Regarding claims 1-19, Inoue teaches a light-emitting element that includes a light-emitting layer between a pair of electrodes, wherein the light-emitting layer contains at least a light-emitting substance and a compound with a benzofuropyrimidine skeleton (¶ [0044]), wherein the compound with a benzofuropyrimidine skeleton is a host (¶ [0040]). Inoue teaches wherein the light-emitting element is fabricated using a substrate (¶ [0197]), and used in a portable game machine comprising a sensor and a housing (¶ [0238]). Inoue teaches examples of the compound with a benzofuropyrimidine skeleton in paragraph [0121] including compound (112) (page 12), compound (114)
PNG
media_image1.png
218
438
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 12), compound (204)
PNG
media_image2.png
228
309
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 13), and compound (205) (page 13), which each comprise an electron-transport skeleton (the benzofuropyrimidine group of the claimed Structural Formula B-10), a first substituent (the fluorenyl group or the biphenyl group), and a second substituent having hole-transport property (the dibenzofuran or dibenzothiophene group), and meet the claimed formula (G10).
Inoue does not specifically exemplify a device wherein the light-emitting substance is an organometallic complex comprising a central metal and ligands, wherein at least one of the ligands comprises a skeleton formed by a ring A1 and a pyridine ring bonded to each other, wherein the ring A1 represents an aromatic ring or a heteroaromatic ring, wherein the pyridine ring comprises an alkyl group comprising 1 to 6 carbon atoms and the alkyl group is substituted with deuterium, and wherein the ligand is coordinated to the central metal with any atom of the ring A1 and nitrogen of the pyridine ring, or wherein at least one of the ligands comprises a structure represented by General Formula (L1), or wherein the organometallic complex is represented by the claimed General Formula (G1). However, Inoue teaches that there is no particular limitation on a material that can be used as the light-emitting substance in the light-emitting layer (¶ [0154]) and teaches examples of suitable light-emitting substances include an organometallic iridium complex (¶ [0154]).
Xia teaches an organometallic iridium complex comprising methyl-d3 substituted ligands for use organic light emitting devices (¶ [0003]) as an emitting dopant (¶ [0038]). Xia teaches examples of the methyl-deuterium substituted iridium complex in paragraphs [0079]-[0080] including Compounds 10-14 (page 11), Compounds 27-36 (pages 13-14), and Compounds 43-52 (page 15-16). Xia teaches the methyl-deuterium substituted iridium complex is an excellent emitting dopant and provides devices with improved color, efficiency and lifetime (¶ [0137]).
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 have modified the device of Inoue by forming the light-emitting substance out of the methyl-deuterium substituted iridium complex, as taught by Xia. One would have been motivated to do so because Inoue teaches that examples of suitable light-emitting substances include an organometallic iridium complex and Xia teaches a methyl-deuterium substituted iridium complex for use in an organic light emitting device as an emitting dopant. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Additionally, Xia teaches the methyl-deuterium substituted iridium complex is an excellent emitting dopant and provides devices with improved color, efficiency and lifetime and therefore forming the light-emitting substance in the device of Inoue out of the methyl-deuterium substituted iridium complex of Xia would yield the benefit of improved color, efficiency and lifetime, as described above.
The modified device of Inoue in view of Xia comprises in the light-emitting layer the methyl-deuterium substituted iridium complex of Xia as a light-emitting substance and the compound with a benzofuropyrimidine skeleton is a host.
Inoue in view of Xia appears silent with respect to the property of wherein a lowest triplet excited state of the first organic compound is locally distributed in the first substituent.
The instant specification recites that a portion of the first substituent which is formed by Ar1 and Ar2 preferably has a straight line structure were Ar1 is preferably a para-substituted benzene ring (¶ [0139]) and Ar1 and Ar2 may be condensed (¶ [0140]) and this makes the conjugation systems in the first substituent be easily connected to each other and the lowest triplet excited state be locally distributed in the first substituent (¶ [0139]-[0140]). Since Inoue in view of Xia teaches the device comprising the compound with a benzofuropyrimidine skeleton of Inoue as discussed above which comprise Ar1 as para-substituted benzene ring or Ar1 and Ar2 as condensed, as discussed above, the same structure as disclosed by the applicant, the property described above is considered to be inherent and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim, absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP § 2112.
Inoue in view of Xia appears silent with respect to the property of wherein a lowest triplet excitation energy of the first organic compound is higher than a lowest triplet excitation energy of the organometallic complex, and wherein a difference between the lowest triplet excitation energy of the first organic compound and the lowest triplet excitation energy of the organometallic complex is greater than 0 eV and less than or equal to 0.40 eV.
Since Inoue in view of Xia teaches the light-emitting layer comprising the methyl-deuterium substituted iridium complex of Xia as a light-emitting substance and the compound with a benzofuropyrimidine skeleton is a host, as discussed above, the same structure as disclosed by the applicant, the properties described above are considered to be inherent and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim, absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP § 2112.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Okuyama et al. US-20210028371-A1 recites compound BfmPPyA
PNG
media_image3.png
291
168
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 25).
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 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.
/ELIZABETH M. DAHLBURG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights