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 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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on April 11, 2022.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on April 11, 2023.
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references provided in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on July 14, 2023 and April 2, 2025 have been considered. Signed copies of the corresponding 1449 forms have been included with this office action.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji (US20180375035A1) in view of Hwang (US20200181184A1).
As per claims 1 – 6, 8 – 14, Ji teaches:
An organometallic compound represented by Formula 1
PNG
media_image1.png
68
170
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, wherein L1 is a ligand represented by Formula 1A
PNG
media_image2.png
328
272
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and L2 is a ligand represented by Formula 1B
PNG
media_image3.png
380
336
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Ji teaches organometallic ligands containing a ligand of Formula I
PNG
media_image4.png
240
278
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(Abstract). A particular ligand within the scope of Formula I is
PNG
media_image5.png
214
190
media_image5.png
Greyscale
([0094]). Li teaches the organometallic complexes may contain additional ligands of the Formula
PNG
media_image6.png
176
96
media_image6.png
Greyscale
([0109]), wherein Ra and Rb can be selected from silyl groups ([0107]). A specific compound taught by Li is
PNG
media_image7.png
270
302
media_image7.png
Greyscale
, which does not contain the claimed silyl group. However, Ji teaches silyl groups are allowed on the ppy ligand ([0107]). Furthermore, Hwang teaches ligands of Formula 2B
PNG
media_image8.png
198
310
media_image8.png
Greyscale
. Hwang teaches that the silyl group in the fifth position of the pyridine ring provides excellent heat resistance and decomposition resistance characteristics to the compound, resulting in devices with high stability and long lifespan ([0184]). 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 replace the substituted alkyl group in the compound of Ji above with a silyl group and arrive at a compound of the claimed invention. When modified in this way, the modified compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein M1 is Ir; n1 is 2; n2 is 1; X1 and X3 are N; X2 and X4 are carbon; CY1 is a C5 heterocyclic group, namely a pyridine group as required by claim 4, and a group represented by Formula 1-9 in claim 6
PNG
media_image9.png
168
114
media_image9.png
Greyscale
; CY2 is a C6 carbocyclic group, namely a benzene group as required by claim 4; CY3 is a 6-membered heterocyclic group, namely a pyridine group as required by claim 5, represented by Formula 3-1 in claim 8
PNG
media_image10.png
140
126
media_image10.png
Greyscale
; Z1 is Si(Q1)(Q2)(Q3), wherein Q1 – Q3 are methyl groups; and a1 is 1; a2 is 0 so that Z2 does not exist; Y1 and Y2 are both O; X11 to X18 are C(R), wherein R are hydrogen; R3 is a substituted alkyl group and b3 is an integer of 2. The compound is represented by Formula 5-2 in claim 13. This compound is the same as compound 26 in claim 14
PNG
media_image11.png
178
164
media_image11.png
Greyscale
.)
Ji includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Ji being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of improved color saturation ([0167]), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E). It additionally would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the specific compound of Ji with a silyl group motivated by the desire to predictably provide excellent heat resistance and decomposition resistance characteristics to the compound, resulting in devices with high stability and long lifespan as taught by Hwang ([0184]).
As per claim 7, Ji also teaches that Rb can be selected from silyl groups ([0107]). 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 substitute the phenyl ring of the ppy ligand and arrive at a compound, such as that of Formula 2-17
PNG
media_image12.png
168
110
media_image12.png
Greyscale
.
Ji includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Ji being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of improved color saturation ([0167]), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
As per claims 15, 16, and 19 Ji teaches:
An organic light-emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode, and an organic layer located between the first and second electrode, wherein the organic layer comprises an emission layer, wherein the first electrode is an anode, the second electrode is a cathode, the organic layer further comprises a hole transport region located between the first electrode and the emission layer, and an electron transport region located between the emission layer and the second electrode, wherein the hole transport region comprises a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer, a buffer layer or a combination therefore, and the electron transport region comprises a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, or a combination thereof ([0035]: “Device 100 may include a substrate 110, an anode 115, a hole injection layer 120, a hole transport layer 125, an electron blocking layer 130, an emissive layer 135, a hole blocking layer 140, an electron transport layer 145, an electron injection layer 150, a protective layer 155, a cathode 160, and a barrier layer 170.”)
Wherein the emission layer comprises the organometallic compound ([0117]: “According to another aspect, an emissive region in an OLED is disclosed. The emissive region comprises a compound comprising a first ligand LA of Formula I as defined herein.”)
As per claim 17, Ji teaches:
Wherein the emission layer further comprises a host ([0119]: “In some embodiments, the emissive region further comprises a host.”)
Wherein an amount of host in the emission layer is greater than an amount of the organometallic compound in the emission layer (As generally understood, host materials are the matrix of the layer, and are present in an amount greater than the amount of any guest dopant materials.)
As per claim 18, Ji teaches:
Wherein the emission layer emits a green light having a maximum emission wavelength in a range of about 490 nm to about 550 nm (In [0167] Ji teaches that the specific compound above emits green phosphorescence at 540 nm. It is the Examiner’s position that the small modification above would still result in a compound that emits in the claimed range.)
As per claim 20, Ji teaches:
An electronic apparatus comprising the organic light-emitting device ([0028]: “A consumer product comprising the OLED is also disclosed.”)
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US20240122056A1 and CN114437138A both teach ligands that could be used in a rejection against the claims as currently presented.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA N CHANDHOK whose telephone number is (571)272-5780. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 6:30 - 3:30.
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 on 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.
/JENNA N CHANDHOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights