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.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on May 19, 2023.
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references provided in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on May 19, 2023 have been considered. Signed copies of the corresponding 1449 forms have been included with this office action.
Claim Objection
Claims 18 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18 recites that “the organic layer further comprises a host, wherein host.” It is believed that the intended wording is “the organic layer further comprises a host, wherein the host.”
Claim 19 recites “The OLED of claim 17, the organic layer further comprises a host.” It is believed that the intended wording is “The OLED of claim 17, wherein the organic layer further comprises a host.”)
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.
Claim 8 is 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.
Claim 8 contains the following figures
PNG
media_image1.png
174
304
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
192
352
media_image2.png
Greyscale
. The variable attachment to the L group makes it impossible to determine whether the X atom is a linear bridging atom or if the two ring groups are intended to be connected. This renders the claim indefinite.
For examination purposes, the compounds are interpreted to encompass either interpretation.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 13 recites that “LA can be selected from LAi-m and LAi’-m’” and then proceeds to define i, i’, m, and m’. However, because the language of the claim is that the ligand can be selected from, it does not appear that it is required to be selected from the defined group and that the scope of the claim includes ligands outside of those specifically described and defined, including ligands outside the scope of claim 10, upon which claim 13 is dependent. Therefore, claim 13 appears to fail to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 15 is dependent on claim 1, which requires a group of Formula II, which contains a saturated carbocycle. However, at least compound
PNG
media_image3.png
172
280
media_image3.png
Greyscale
does not contain a group represented by Formula II and appears to fail to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 – 14 and 16 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US20220393115A1) in view of Kamatani (US20030189216A1).
As per claims 1 – 7, and 8 – 14, Kim teaches:
A compound comprising a first ligand LA of Formula I
PNG
media_image4.png
210
156
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, wherein at least one of RA or RB is a substituent having a structure according to Formula II
PNG
media_image5.png
134
268
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(Li teaches compounds with ligand La
PNG
media_image6.png
144
260
media_image6.png
Greyscale
wherein A has a structure represented by
PNG
media_image7.png
74
250
media_image7.png
Greyscale
([0012 – 0018]). A specific compound taught by Li is compound 1493
PNG
media_image8.png
230
312
media_image8.png
Greyscale
([0298]). This compound differs from the claimed formula in that none of the substituents corresponding to the claimed R and R’ are a fully or partially fluorinated alkyl group. However, the definition for Ra1 and Ra2 includes substituents of fluorine or alkyl or combinations thereof. Furthermore, Kamatani teaches that when fluorine atoms are incorporated into a molecule in the light-emitting layer, the sublimation temperature of the compound lowers and sublimation becomes easier, shortening the vapor deposition time ([0045 – 0046]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify compound 1493 to replace the hydrogen atoms in the methyl groups with fluorine atoms. When modified in this way, the modified compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein the RB substituent contains the structure according to Formula II; moiety A is a 6-membered heterocyclic ring, namely a pyridine ring as required by claim 3; moiety B is a fused-ring system comprising three rings, each of which are a 5-membered heterocyclic ring and a 6-membered carbocyclic ring, namely a dibenzofuran group as required by claim 3; Z1 is a nitrogen atom and the remaining X1, X2, Z2, X3 and Z4 are C; K is a direct bond; L is a direct bond; n is 2; RB and RC represent no substitution; two R and R’ groups represent a fully fluorinated alkyl group and the remaining R groups are hydrogen. The ligand is represented by
PNG
media_image9.png
194
330
media_image9.png
Greyscale
in claim 7. This compound is ligand LA401’-101 in claim 9. The compound is of the Formula Ir(LA)(LB)2 as required by claims 10 and 11, wherein LB is represented by
PNG
media_image10.png
182
106
media_image10.png
Greyscale
in claim 12, wherein Ra is an alkyl group and Rb represents 0 substitutions. As claim 13 requires that LA can be selected from LAi-m and LAi’-m’ but does not require it to be selected from LAi-m and LAi’-m’, the modified compound of Li is interpreted as reading on the claim. The compound reads on
PNG
media_image11.png
210
250
media_image11.png
Greyscale
in claim 14.)
Li includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Li 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 organic electroluminescent devices exhibiting higher efficiency and improved performance ([Abstract]), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E). It further would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to specifically select a fluorine substituent, motivated by the desire to predictably reduce the sublimation temperature of the compound and to shorten the vapor deposition time as taught by Kamatani ([0045 – 0046]).
As per claim 8, Li teaches that the ligand can be of the Formula
PNG
media_image12.png
196
174
media_image12.png
Greyscale
([0116]), wherein the carbon and nitrogen atoms coordinated to the Iridium core are swapped. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modified the previously modified compound of Li to swap the carbon and nitrogen atoms coordinating to Iridium. When further modified in this way, the further modified compound reads on the claims wherein the ligand is represented by
PNG
media_image13.png
230
294
media_image13.png
Greyscale
in claim 8.
Li includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Li 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 organic electroluminescent devices exhibiting higher efficiency and improved performance ([Abstract]), 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 claim 16, Li teaches that the ligands can be joined to form a tetradentate ligand ([0133]) and that the metal may be selected from materials such as Pt and Pd ([0132]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to link two ligands of the modified compound of Li and arrive at the claimed Formula.
Li includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Li 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 organic electroluminescent devices exhibiting higher efficiency and improved performance ([Abstract]), 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 claim 17, the prior art combination teaches the modified compound above. Li further teaches:
An organic light emitting device comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode, wherein the organic layer comprises the compound ([0027 – 0030]: “According to another embodiment of the present disclosure, further disclosed is an electroluminescent device. The electroluminescent device comprises an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode, wherein the organic layer comprises the metal complex.”
As per claims 18 and 19, Li teaches:
Wherein the organic layer further comprises a host (Li teaches that the light emitting layer further comprises a host compound and that the host compound can be selected from
PNG
media_image14.png
146
216
media_image14.png
Greyscale
(Claims 24 and 25), which contains the indolocarbazole group required by claim 18 and reads on Formula
PNG
media_image15.png
168
202
media_image15.png
Greyscale
of claim 19.)
As per claim 20, Li teaches the OLED above. Li further teaches:
A consumer product comprising the OLED ([0040]: “Devices fabricated in accordance with embodiments of the present disclosure can be incorporated into a wide variety of consumer products.”)
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
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