DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 8-9, 15-16, 18, 22-23, 25 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2021/0098717 A1 to Ji et al.
The patent document discloses an OLED wherein the EML comprises a host material and an organometallic emitter typified by
PNG
media_image1.png
332
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(p. 113). This compound is representative of the claimed compound wherein X5 = CH, Y = S, one of R2 = fluoroalkyl, one of R4 = alkyl, m = 2 and n = 1. Claim 1 is therefore anticipated. See MPEP § 2131.02(II). So are claims 2, 4, 8-9, 15-16, 18, 22-23, 25 and 29.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-9, 15-18, 20, 22-23, 25 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2022/0402954 A1 to Shih et al.
The patent document discloses an OLED wherein the EML comprises a host material and an organometallic emitter having the following ligand LA
PNG
media_image2.png
190
146
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where ring B is
PNG
media_image3.png
194
128
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
Some examples of LA are
PNG
media_image4.png
220
262
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image5.png
242
262
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image6.png
220
260
media_image6.png
Greyscale
, and
PNG
media_image7.png
216
266
media_image7.png
Greyscale
,
wherein an example of G is
PNG
media_image8.png
220
138
media_image8.png
Greyscale
(pp. 21, 41, 58). The organometallic compound may be Ir(LA)p(LB)q(LC)r where LB and LC may be
PNG
media_image9.png
158
152
media_image9.png
Greyscale
(p. 61). A particular example of the organometallic compound is the following on page 128:
PNG
media_image10.png
420
540
media_image10.png
Greyscale
which renders claim 1 unpatentable. Claims 2-4, 6, 8-9, 15-18, 20, 22-23, 25 and 29 are also anticipated (see pages 142+).
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.
Claims 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0098717 A1 to Ji et al.
Ji et al. discloses a tandem OLED comprising a CGL between each pair of light-emitting units ([0248] on page 179), wherein the OLED comprises RGB pixels ([0214] on page 129). Thus, while Ji et al. fails to provide an example of said tandem OLED, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to make and use such device without expecting any difficulty or an unfavorable outcome. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Claims 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0402954 A1 to Shih et al. for the same reasons (see paragraphs [0222] & [0256]).
Claims 5, 7, 10-12, 19, 21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0402954 A1 to Shih et al.
Regarding claim 11, the compound of claim 1 is disclosed by Shih et al. as explained above. The prior art compound has a scope that includes the compounds of claim 11. While Shih et al. does not explicitly list these compounds, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the listed components to arrive at the claimed compounds without any difficulty or expectation of criticality. Take the first compound in claim 11 for instance, Shih et al. teaches Ir(LA)2(LB) on page 61 where LB can be
PNG
media_image11.png
154
262
media_image11.png
Greyscale
(p. 123), and LA can be
PNG
media_image4.png
220
262
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
as mentioned above, wherein RI and RH can be H (p. 55) and ring G can be
PNG
media_image12.png
220
168
media_image12.png
Greyscale
(p. 59). Therefore, the first compound in claim 11 can be obtained simply by combining the ligands that are explicitly disclosed by Shih et al. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Claim 12 is unpatentable for the same reasons as Shih et al. does teach the ligand LA in the form of
PNG
media_image13.png
198
138
media_image13.png
Greyscale
(p. 5). In fact, the ligand LA can be
PNG
media_image14.png
196
146
media_image14.png
Greyscale
or
PNG
media_image13.png
198
138
media_image13.png
Greyscale
wherein R can be
PNG
media_image15.png
130
184
media_image15.png
Greyscale
or
PNG
media_image16.png
82
172
media_image16.png
Greyscale
(p. 14) wherein Y can be O or S and Q can be C or N (p. 15). Thus, the claimed compound wherein at least one of X1-X4 is N represents an obvious variant of the prior art compound. Consequently, claims 5, 7, 10, 19, 21 and 24 are unpatentable for being obvious.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-14 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The compounds of claims 13-14 are not disclosed by Shih et al., which represents the closest prior art of record. While the scope of the prior art compound is so broad that it encompasses the claimed compounds, there is no guidance or motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify it to arrive at the claimed compounds.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VU ANH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5454. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 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, ROBERT JONES can be reached at (571) 270-7733. 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.
/VU A NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights