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 June 6, 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 6, 2023 have been considered. Signed copies of the corresponding 1449 forms have been included with this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 13 is 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-W” and then proceeds to define i, m and W. 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 12, upon which claim 13 is dependent. Therefore, claim 13 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 – 13 and 15 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (EP3909964A2).
As per claims 1 – 4 and 7 – 13, Choi teaches:
A compound Ir(LA)2(LC) having a structure of Formula 1
PNG
media_image1.png
182
230
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Choi teaches compounds of Formula 1
PNG
media_image2.png
324
432
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(0006]), wherein CY1 may be selected from compounds of
PNG
media_image3.png
126
174
media_image3.png
Greyscale
([0007]). A specific compound taught by Choi is compound 9
PNG
media_image4.png
90
146
media_image4.png
Greyscale
([0084]). While compound 9 contains a sulfur atom in the claimed Y position, Choi teaches that the atoms in X17 of formula 1 may include C(R18)(R19) or Si(R18)(R19). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the sulfur atom of compound 9 with a carbon or silicon atom and arrive at the claimed compound. When modified in this way, the modified compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein X1 – X4 are C; moiety B is a fused ring system comprising two rings wherein each ring is a 6-membered carbocyclic ring, namely a naphthalene group as required by claim 4; Z is carbon; RA represented di-substitution of Formula II wherein Y is selected from CRR’ or SiRR’, R and R’ are methyl groups; R* is hydrogen; RC is an aryl group; RB represents one alkyl substitution; R1 and R3 are alkyl and R2 is hydrogen. The ligand is selected from
PNG
media_image5.png
202
156
media_image5.png
Greyscale
in claim 10 and
PNG
media_image6.png
156
126
media_image6.png
Greyscale
in claim 11. The ligand is LAi-1-W in claim 12 wherein i is 580, and W is 1 or 3 and LC is selected from LCj-I in claim 13 wherein j is 50.
Choi includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Choi being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicity 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 compounds emitting light relatively small FWHM and high luminescence efficiency ([0085]), 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 5 and 6, Choi teaches that the ring system represented by CY1 may contain structural isomers such as CY1-6
PNG
media_image7.png
160
144
media_image7.png
Greyscale
and CY1-8
PNG
media_image8.png
156
124
media_image8.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 invention to shift the bonding carbons of the pyridine ring to the group of Formula II to the carbon atoms claimed.
Choi includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Choi being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicity 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 compounds emitting light relatively small FWHM and high luminescence efficiency ([0085]), 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 15, Choi 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 ([0008]: “According to another aspect, provided is an organic light-emitting device including a first electrode, a second electrode, and an organic layer including an emission layer located between the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein the organic layer includes at least one organometallic compound represented by Formula 1.”)
As per claims 16 and 17, Choi teaches:
Wherein the organic layer further comprises a host, wherein the host comprises at least one chemical moiety selected from….. ([0134 – 0135]: “The emission layer may include a host and a dopant, and the dopant may include the organometallic compound represented by Formula 1. The host material may include…
PNG
media_image9.png
94
130
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
94
146
media_image10.png
Greyscale
.” CBP contains the carbazole group as required by claim 16 and ADN is a compound represented by
PNG
media_image11.png
162
138
media_image11.png
Greyscale
in claim 17.)
As per claims 18 and 19, Choi teaches:
A consumer product comprising the light emitting device, wherein the consumer product is one of a flat panel display… ([0156]: “According to another aspect, the organic light-emitting device may be included in an electronic apparatus. Thus, an electronic apparatus including the organic light-emitting device is provided. The electronic apparatus may include, for example, a display, an illumination, a sensor, and the like.”)
As per claim 20, Choi teaches:
A formulation comprising the compound (The combination of the compound and the host material is interpreted as the claimed formulation.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is 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: Choi (EP3909964A2), cited above, is considered relevant to the claimed invention. While Choi teaches compounds that read on the general formula of claim 1, Choi does not teach, suggest or motivate a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the compounds of Choi and arrive at any of the specifically claimed compounds.
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