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 13, 2023.
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references provided in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on June 13, 2023 and July 21, 2025 have been considered. Signed copies of the corresponding 1449 forms have been included with this office action.
Claim Objection
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The structure represented by R50 in claim 11 is small and difficult to discern.
Claim 11 has a paragraph number before the claim number.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 15 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 15 recites that “LA can be selected from LAi” and then proceeds to define i. 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 the scope of the claim includes ligands outside of those specifically described and defined, including ligands outside the scope of claim 13, upon which claim 15 is dependent. Therefore, claim 15 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 § 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 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee (US20220298191A1).
As per claims 1 – 15, Lee teaches:
A compound of Formula Ir(LA)x(LB)y(LC)z wherein ligand LA has a structure of Formula I
PNG
media_image1.png
190
210
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Lee teaches compounds represented by M(L1)n1(L2)n2 where L1 is represented by Formula 2-1
PNG
media_image2.png
180
300
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and L2 is represented by Formula 2-2
PNG
media_image3.png
144
302
media_image3.png
Greyscale
([0007]). A specific compound taught by Lee is compound 1-8 in Table 12, wherein L2 is represented by
PNG
media_image4.png
182
308
media_image4.png
Greyscale
([0162]) and L1 is represented by B344
PNG
media_image5.png
204
316
media_image5.png
Greyscale
([0161]). Compound 1-8 reads on the claimed Formula wherein x is 1; y is 2; z is 0 so that LC does not exist; LA is represented by Formula I wherein ring B is a 6 membered heterocyclic ring, X1 to X10 are all C; RB represents two substituents, namely an alkyl and a aryloxy that are fused to form a ring; RC represents two substituents joined to form a fused ring, namely an alkyl and an aryloxy and two other alkyl substituents; RA represents no substitutions; LB is a bidentate ligand which forms a 5-membered chelate ring with Ir. The ligand LA is represented by Formula II
PNG
media_image6.png
214
262
media_image6.png
Greyscale
in claim 5 wherein ring D is a 6-membered aromatic ring, namely benzene as required by claim 8; Y is O; RC’ is two alkyl group; RD represents no substitutions. The compound is represented by
PNG
media_image7.png
208
218
media_image7.png
Greyscale
in claim 9 wherein YA and YB are O; X11 to X26 is C; RCC represents two alkyl substitutions; RBB represents one aryl substituent; RAA and RDD both represent no substitions. This ligand is represented by
PNG
media_image8.png
126
178
media_image8.png
Greyscale
in claim 10. This ligand is selected from LA1(R6)(R1)(R1)(R34) in claim 11. The ligand is represented by LA29 is claim 12
PNG
media_image9.png
180
176
media_image9.png
Greyscale
. LB is selected from
PNG
media_image10.png
190
110
media_image10.png
Greyscale
in claim 14 wherein K1’ is a direct bond; Y1 to Y8 are C; Ra represents a silyl substituent and Rb represents a hydrogen substituent. The compound is represented by Ir(LA29)(LB271)2
PNG
media_image11.png
142
68
media_image11.png
Greyscale
in claim 15.)
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 16 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US20220298191A1) as applied to claims 1 – 15 above.
As per claim 16, the only difference between the above compound 1-8 of Lee and claimed compound
PNG
media_image12.png
132
186
media_image12.png
Greyscale
are the fluorine substituents on the phenyl ring off of the dibenzofuran group. However, Lee teaches compounds such as ligand B344
PNG
media_image13.png
270
332
media_image13.png
Greyscale
, where the phenyl ring contains fluorine substituents. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to similarly substitute the phenyl ring off the dibenzofuran group of compound 1-8 of Lee with fluorine atoms and arrive at the claimed compound.
Lee includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Lee 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 excellent luminescent efficiency and long lifespan ([0166]), 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, Lee does not specifically teach a device with 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 ([0039]: “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.”)
Lee teaches an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer and that 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 Lee as Lee demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As per claim 18, Lee teaches:
Wherein the organic layer further comprises a host ([0209]: “The emission layer may include a host and a dopant, and the dopant may include the organometallic compound represented by Formula 1 as described herein.”)
Wherein the host comprises at least one chemical moiety selected from the group consisting of… carbazole… (Lee teaches that the host compound can be selected from CBP
PNG
media_image14.png
156
284
media_image14.png
Greyscale
([0210]), which includes the claimed carbazole groups.)
As per claim 19, Lee teaches:
Wherein the organic layer further comprises a host ([0209]: “The emission layer may include a host and a dopant, and the dopant may include the organometallic compound represented by Formula 1 as described herein.”)
Wherein the host is selected from the Host group 1
PNG
media_image15.png
162
120
media_image15.png
Greyscale
(Lee teaches that the host compound can be selected from
PNG
media_image16.png
170
280
media_image16.png
Greyscale
([0210]).
As per claim 20, Lee teaches:
A consumer product comprising an organic light-emitting device ([0230]: “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.”)
The 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 ([0039]: “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.”)
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US20220235081A1, CN108774266A and US20110204333A1 all teach organometallic compounds 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