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 24, 2023.
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references provided in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on May 24, 2023, and December 28, 2023 have been considered. Signed copies of the corresponding 1449 forms have been included with this office action.
Claim Objection
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18 recites that “the organic layer further comprises a host, wherein host.” It is believe that the intended wording is “the organic layer further comprises a host, wherein the host.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Consistent with the compounds provided in the subsequent claims (especially as it relates to RB and RC), claim 1 is interpreted such that the R group substituents can be joined to form further fused rings, despite no explicit definition in the claims allowing for such. Examiner recommends clarifying the scope of the claimed variables in subsequent claim amendments.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1 – 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 18, 20 and 21 of copending Application No. 17/959321 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because compounds of Formula I in claim 1 of the instant application overlap in scope with organometallic compounds of claim 1 in the ‘321 application as evidenced by
PNG
media_image1.png
224
368
media_image1.png
Greyscale
in claim 15 of the ‘321 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 19 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 19 recites that the host is selected from the group consisting of the HOST Group defined herein. However, claim 19, which is dependent on claim 17, does not recite any particular host materials. The specification refers to “HOST Group 2” in [0136] of the specification as filed and “HOST” in [0134] of the specification as filed. It is unclear if either of these structures are what is being referred to by the claim, or some other host material.
For examination purposes, the claim is interpreted as reading on any host material.
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 10, 14 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.
Claims 10 and 15 are dependent on claim 1, which requires that the organometallic compound comprises a structure of
PNG
media_image2.png
92
202
media_image2.png
Greyscale
. However, several of the compounds in claim 15, including at least
PNG
media_image3.png
286
620
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, do not appear to contain the requisite ring C, nor does ring C appear to be defined in claim 1 as to be an optional requirement. Similarly, the structures of LAA and LAB in claim 10 define structures such as LAA1-(R1)(R1)(R1)(R1)(G1)(W’1) and LAB1-(R1)(R1)(R1)(R1)(G1)(W’1), wherein R1 is a hydrogen atom, resulting in structures in which the linking atom corresponding to Z is not connected to any cyclic group as required by claim 1.
Claim 14 is rejected as being dependent on claim 10.
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 § 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 9, and 11 – 13, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dyatkin (US20230147066A1).
As per claims 1 – 9, and 11 – 13, Dyatkin teaches:
A compound comprising a first ligand LA of Formula I
PNG
media_image4.png
224
154
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, wherein two adjacent RA are joined together to form a structure of Formula II fused to ring A, wherein Formula II has a structure of
PNG
media_image5.png
92
204
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(Dyatkin teaches compounds of Formula I
PNG
media_image6.png
134
168
media_image6.png
Greyscale
([0007]). A specific compound taught by Dyatkin is
PNG
media_image1.png
224
368
media_image1.png
Greyscale
on Page 399. This compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein each of X1 to X4 is independently C; K is selected from a direct bond: two adjacent RA are joined together to form a structure of Formula II fused to ring A, namely X3 and X4, wherein Y1 is S; Y2 is CR” wherein R” is alkyl; Z is a SiRZRZ’ wherein RZ and RZ’ are alkyl groups; rings B and C are a 6-membered heterocyclic ring, namely a benzene ring as required by claims 3 and 7; two RB groups are alkyl groups that are joined to form a fused ring, consistent with the claim interpretation placed above and one RB is an alkyl group; RC is a combination of a silyl and alkyl group. Ligand LA is represented by
PNG
media_image7.png
174
208
media_image7.png
Greyscale
in claim 8 and
PNG
media_image8.png
176
218
media_image8.png
Greyscale
in claim 9. This compound has a Formula of M(LA)2(LB)1 as required by claims 11 and 12, wherein LB is selected from
PNG
media_image9.png
108
114
media_image9.png
Greyscale
in claim 13.)
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
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 17 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dyatkin (US20230147066A1) as applied to claims 1 – 9, and 11 – 13 above.
As per claims 17 – 20, Dyatkin teaches the compound above. Dyatkin does not specifically teach the use of the exact compound in a device. However, Dyatkin 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 organometallic compound ([0201]: “In some embodiments, the OLED comprises: an anode; a cathode; and an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode, where the organic layer comprises a compound having a formula of M(LA)p(LB)q(LC)r as described herein.”)
Wherein the organic layer further comprises a host, wherein the host comprises at least one chemical moiety selected from the group consisting of triphenylene… ([0203]: “In some embodiments, the organic layer may further comprise a host, wherein the host comprises a triphenylene…” Due the indefiniteness issues raised above, a host comprising a triphenylene group is interpreted as reading on claim 19.)
A consumer product comprising the organic light-emitting device ([0023]: “In yet another aspect, the present disclosure provides a consumer product comprising an OLED with an organic layer comprising a compound of formula M(LA)p(LB)q(LC)r as described herein.”)
Dyatkin teaches an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer and the compound is in the organic layer as discussed above. It would have been obvious to use the compound in the organic layer with the device structure of Dyatkin as Dyatkin demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 9, 11 – 13, and 16 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US20190112324A1).
As per claims 1 – 8, and 11 – 13, Kim teaches:
A compound comprising a first ligand LA of Formula I
PNG
media_image4.png
224
154
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, wherein two adjacent RA are joined together to form a structure of Formula II fused to ring A, wherein Formula II has a structure of
PNG
media_image5.png
92
204
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(Kim teaches compounds of Formula 2(3)
PNG
media_image10.png
174
310
media_image10.png
Greyscale
([0121]). A specific compound taught by Kim is compound 19
PNG
media_image11.png
182
316
media_image11.png
Greyscale
, wherein X12 in Formula 2(3) of Kim is CR12. However, in the definitions for R12, Kim also teaches that the substituent can be selected from
PNG
media_image12.png
66
300
media_image12.png
Greyscale
([0096]). When compound 19 is modified to include the 10-155 group in place of the methyl group, the resulting modified compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein X1 to X4 are all C; K is a direct bond; two adjacent RA are joined together to form a structure of Formula II fused to ring A, namely X2 and X3, wherein Y1 is S; Y2 is N; Z is a CRZRZ’ wherein RZ and RZ’ are hydrogen; rings B and C are a 6-membered heterocyclic ring, namely a benzene ring as required by claims 3 and 7; RB and RC are hydrogen atoms. Ligand LA is represented by
PNG
media_image13.png
274
128
media_image13.png
Greyscale
in claim 8. This compound has a Formula of M(LA)3 as required by claims 11 and 12. As claim 11 does not require an LB or LC, Kim meets the limitations of claim 13.)
Kim includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Kim 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 low driving voltage, high emission efficiency, long lifespan, low roll-off ratio and excellent color purity ([0163]), 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 9, Kim teaches that in addition to Formula 2(3), the ligand can be represented by Formula 2(5)
PNG
media_image14.png
152
304
media_image14.png
Greyscale
. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventio to further modify the compound of Kim above to adjust the bonding of the ligand. When further modified in this way, the compound reads on
PNG
media_image15.png
164
218
media_image15.png
Greyscale
in claim 9.
Kim includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Kim 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 low driving voltage, high emission efficiency, long lifespan, low roll-off ratio and excellent color purity ([0163]), 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, Kim teaches that the organometallic compound may be Pt ([0055]) and that the organometallic compound may be part of a tetradentate ligand ([0012]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a ligand of Kim, such as that shown above, as part of a tetradentate ligand with a Pt metal core and arrive at a compound of claimed Formula III.
Kim includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Kim 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 low driving voltage, high emission efficiency, long lifespan, low roll-off ratio and excellent color purity ([0163]), 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 17 – 20, Kim 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 organometallic compound ([0034 – 0038]: “Another aspect provides an organic light-emitting device including: a first electrode; a second electrode; and an organic layer disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein the organic layer includes an emission layer and at least one organometallic compound.”)
Wherein the organic layer further comprises a host, wherein the host comprises at least one chemical moiety selected from the group consisting of triphenylene, carbazole ([0205 – 0206]: “The emission layer may include a host and a dopant, and the dopant may include the organometallic compound represented by Formula 1. The host may include at least one selected from TPBi, TBADN, ADN (also referred to as “DNA”), CBP…” Due the indefiniteness issues raised above, a host comprising a carbazole group is interpreted as reading on claim 19.)
A consumer product comprising the organic light-emitting device (As an OLED is a consumer product, Kim meets the claimed limitations.)
Kim teaches an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer and the compound is in the organic layer as discussed above. It would have been obvious to use the compound in the organic layer with the device structure of Kim as Kim demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US20230122778A1, US20230117045A1, US20230276691A1, US20220298190A1, US20220165967A1, US20230124696A1, and US20230165134A1 all teach organometallic compounds that could be used in a rejection against the claims as currently amended. The above applications also appear to have a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
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