DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The office acknowledges the receipt of applicant response to the restriction dated 07/30/2026.
Elected Species
PNG
media_image1.png
276
994
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A search of the prior art did not show the elected species. As no claims where specifically drawn to applicants’ elected species in independent form, no claims have been indicated as allowable. Claims written in independent form which require all the limitations of the elected species along with any dependent claims which require all the limitations of the elected species would be allowable. Under MPEP 803.02, the search was expanded to find an examinable species.
Examinable Species
The examinable species is represented by I-1 (page 6):
PNG
media_image2.png
258
496
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein two Rq1are fused resulting in La357 (page 18):
PNG
media_image3.png
370
266
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The examinable species reads on claims 1-7, 9, 11-14, 17-20. Claims 8, 10, 15-16 are being withdrawn from further consideration as not reading on the examinable species.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9, 11-14, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran ( KR 10-2022-0014866).
Regarding Claims 1-7, 9, 11-14, 17-18, Tran teaches a generic iridium complex I-1 (page 6):
PNG
media_image2.png
258
496
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a specific example of LA is represented by La357 (page 18) formed when two Rq1 are fused:
PNG
media_image3.png
370
266
media_image3.png
Greyscale
La357 reads on applicants’ LA wherein X1-X8 = C; X7 = CN; 1st R1 = Rx1 = CN-phenyl;2nd R1 = phenyl; R2 = H; Z2 = C;R3 = CN; Z1 = N; Ring A = pyridine.
As Tran teach generic I-1 and a finite set of specific ligands, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of invention to have selected from the exemplified ligands which would have included La 357 which reads on the instant limitations, absent unexpected results (per claims 1-7 ).
LA =
PNG
media_image4.png
218
180
media_image4.png
Greyscale
1st RAA = Rx1 = CN-phenyl;2nd RAA = phenyl (per claim 9).
LA = M(LA)p(LB)q(LC)r, p = 2, q=1, r=0 (per claim 11).
LA= Ir(LA)2(LB) (per claim 12)
LB =
PNG
media_image5.png
244
120
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Y1-Y8 = C; Ra and Rb = H; K1’ = dirt bond (per claim 13).
The Ir complex reads on Ir (LA)2(Lb1) (per claim 14).
Regarding Claims 17-18 and 20, Tran teaches a device (100) comprises a substrate (101), an anode (110), a hole injection layer (120), and a hole transport layer.(130), electron blocking layer (140), light-emitting layer (150), hole blocking layer (160), electron transport layer (170), electron injection layer (180) and cathode (190) (machine trans. paragraph 37). The iridium complex (I-1 which incorporated La 357) is doped into the host of the light emitting layer (machine trans. 185) (per claim 17).
At least one of the host materials is a phenyl group, a pyridine group, a pyrimidine group, a triazine group, a carbazole group, or an aza group. Carbazole group, indolocarbazole group, dibenzothiophen group, azadibenzothiophen group, dibenzofuran group, azadibenzofuran group, dibenzoselenophene group, triphenylene group, azatriphenenylene group, fluorene group, silaflorene group, naphthalene group, quinoline group, isoquinoline group, quinazoline group (machine trans. pages 83-84) (per claim 18).
The OLED can be used in a display device or a lighting device (machine trans paragraph 158) (per claim 20).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran ( KR 10-2022-0014866) in view of BOUDREAULT (US 20200227659 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, Tran teaches a host material based on a carbazole but fails to teach applicants’ host.
BOUDREAULT teaches an OLED comprising a first organic layer that contains a compound as disclosed in the above compounds section of the present disclosure. In some embodiments, the OLED comprises: an anode; a cathode; and an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode, wherein the organic layer comprises a compound comprising a ligand (paragraph 110).
The organic layer may also have a host comprising at least one chemical group selected from the group consisting of triphenylene, carbazole, dibenzothiophene, dibenzofuran, dibenzoselenophene, azatriphenylene, azacarbazole, aza-dibenzothiophene, aza-dibenzofuran, and aza-dibenzoselenophene. A specific example can be represented by (paragraph 120). A specific example can be represented by (paragraph 120):
PNG
media_image6.png
220
348
media_image6.png
Greyscale
.
Both Tran and BOUDREAULT teach host materials that are carbazole based and BOUDREAULT give an example of a specific carbazole based material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of invention to have selected from known carbazole based host which would have included the above carbazole dibenzothiophene material which reads on the instant limitations, absent unexpected results (per claims 19).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY D CLARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7087. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-4PM M-F.
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 Chriss 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GREGORY D CLARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights