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 July 25, 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 July 24, 2023.
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references provided in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on July 24, 2023 have been considered. A signed copy of the corresponding 1449 form has been included with this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 8 defines a compound not by a specific structure, as in Claim 1, but by three components, namely (i) a first metal, (ii) a tetradentate ligand comprising only three rings directly bonded to the metal, and (iii) a nitrogen atom of the second ring bonded directly to the carbon of the third ring. Claim 8 then further defines the compounds by either its dipole moment being 3 Debye or less or having a horizontal orientation ratio of 90% or more. However, Applicant has only provided two specific Examples of Compounds,
PNG
media_image1.png
134
172
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
140
176
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, both of which are much more specific than the compounds described in claim 1. The compounds require particular ring groups, a particular metal, and a particular ring definition (i.e. the second ring bonded directly to both the first and second rings). Furthermore, the compounds require an acridine group, which is not required by the claim at all. A compound with a polycyclic third ring group, wherein the third ring group is bonded to the metallic core at two locations would also appear to read on the structure described in claim 8 but it is not clear that Applicant has clearly envisioned any such structure that would meet the property limitations. Finally, Examiner notes that there does not appear to be a measurement in the specification of the dipole moment value or the horizontal orientation of the inventive compounds. Due to the structural similarities between the two compounds, it is reasonable to assume that their individual dipole moment values and horizontal orientation ratios are equally similar, and therefore would not appear to show possession of compounds supporting the full range of values claimed, i.e. a dipole moment between 0 and 3 Debye and a horizontal orientation ratio between 90% - 100%. Therefore, the specification does not appear to provide “a representative number of species” sufficient to show that the applicant was in possession of the claimed genus as required by the MPEP (See 2163-II-A-3-a-ii).
Claims 9 – 10 are rejected as being dependent on claim 8.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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, 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang (CN115448932A, using the provided machine translation).
As per claims 1, 4, and 6, Wang teaches:
An organometallic compound represented by Formula 1
PNG
media_image3.png
332
430
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Wang teaches compounds of Formula XIX
PNG
media_image4.png
142
142
media_image4.png
Greyscale
. A particular compound taught by Wang is compound 340
PNG
media_image5.png
162
136
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, which reads on the claimed Formula wherein M is Pt; X1 and X3 are each N and X2 and Y21 are both C; X4 and X41 are both O; Y22 is N; ring CY1 is a C16 heterocyclic group, ring CY21 is a C6 carbocyclic group; ring CY3 is a C9 heterocyclic group; ring CY22 is a C8 heterocyclic group; a1 to a3 are an integer of 3 and the corresponding a1 to a3 groups are hydrogen. The moiety represented by CY21 and CY22 is represented by CY2(4)
PNG
media_image6.png
218
202
media_image6.png
Greyscale
in claim 6.)
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Claims 1, 4, 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park (WO2024158229A1, using the provided machine translation).
As per claims 1, 4, 5 and 7, Park teaches:
An organometallic compound represented by Formula 1
PNG
media_image3.png
332
430
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Park teaches compounds of Formula (1)
PNG
media_image7.png
204
298
media_image7.png
Greyscale
([9]). A particular compound taught by Park is
PNG
media_image8.png
202
162
media_image8.png
Greyscale
([275]), which reads on the claimed Formula wherein M is Pt; X1 and X3 are each N and X2 and Y21 are both C; X4 and X41 are both O; Y22 is N; ring CY1 and CY3 are both a C5 heterocyclic group, ring CY21 is a C6 carbocyclic group; ring CY22 is a C23 heterocyclic group; a2 is an integer of 1 and the corresponding a2 group is a C3 heterocyclic group substituted with two R10a groups, wherein one R10a is a C6 carbocyclic group and the other R10a is a C5 heterocyclic group. The moiety represented by CY1 is represented by CY1(1)
PNG
media_image9.png
128
80
media_image9.png
Greyscale
in claim 5 and the moiety represented by CY3 is represented by CY3(1) in claim 7
PNG
media_image10.png
166
124
media_image10.png
Greyscale
.)
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / § 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 2, 3, 8 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Wang (CN115448932A, using the provided machine translation) as applied to claims 1, 4 and 6 above.
As per claims 2, 3, and 8 – 10, Wang teaches compound 340 shown above.
Wang is silent with respect to the dipole moment of the organometallic compound and the horizontal orientation ratio of the claimed compound. However, since the compound of Wang above reads on claimed Formula 1 and contains the same structural components as required by the claims 8 - 10, the claimed properties are considered to be inherent (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP 2112. Alternatively, if the material of Wang does not have the property as claimed in the instant application, then it must be due to a limitation that is not currently claimed. If there is any difference between the above composition and the composition of the instant claims the difference would have been minor and obvious. Since PTO cannot conduct experiments the proof of burden is shifted to the applicants to establish an unobviousness difference, see In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977).
Claims 2, 3, and 8 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Park (WO2024158229A1, using the provided machine translation) as applied to claims 1, 4, 5 and 7 above.
As per claims 2, 3, and 8 – 10, Park teaches the compound shown above.
Park is silent with respect to the dipole moment of the organometallic compound and the horizontal orientation ratio of the claimed compound. However, since the compound of Park above reads on claimed Formula 1 and contains the same structural components as required by the claims 8 - 10, the claimed properties are considered to be inherent (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP 2112. Alternatively, if the material of Park does not have the property as claimed in the instant application, then it must be due to a limitation that is not currently claimed. If there is any difference between the above composition and the composition of the instant claims the difference would have been minor and obvious. Since PTO cannot conduct experiments the proof of burden is shifted to the applicants to establish an unobviousness difference, see In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977).
Claims 8 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Li (US20230068638A1).
As per claims 8 – 10, Li teaches tetradentate Pt-based compounds of Formula (I)
PNG
media_image11.png
186
278
media_image11.png
Greyscale
(Abstract). This compound contains the claimed platinum metal, tetradentate ligand, and three and only three rings directly bonded to the first metal. All of the rings are C1 – C60 heterocyclic groups, and the second ring group comprises a Nitrogen atom bonded to a Carbon atom of the third ring group. The compound also contains two or more cyclic groups condensed with each other in the second ring and a 6-membered ring formed between the metal, the second ring, and the third ring, as claimed.
Li is silent with respect to the dipole moment of the organometallic compound and the horizontal orientation ratio of the claimed compound. However, since the compound of Li above contains the same structural components as required by the claim, the claimed properties are considered to be inherent (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP 2112. Alternatively, if the material of Li does not have the property as claimed in the instant application, then it must be due to a limitation that is not currently claimed. If there is any difference between the above composition and the composition of the instant claims the difference would have been minor and obvious. Since PTO cannot conduct experiments the proof of burden is shifted to the applicants to establish an unobviousness difference, see In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 11 – 16, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN115448932A, using the provided machine translation) as applied to claims 1 – 4, 6 and 8 – 10 above.
As per claims 11 – 15, Wang teaches:
A light-emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode facing the first electrode, and an interlayer between the first electrode an the second electrode, wherein the interlayer comprises an emission layer and the emission layer comprises the organometallic compound and a host ([0015]: “Another aspect of the present invention provides an organic optoelectronic device, which includes a first electrode, a second electrode, and an organic layer as described in the present invention, wherein the organic layer is a light-emitting layer.” & [0102]: “In the organic optoelectronic device provided by this invention, the compound provided by this invention can be applied to the light-emitting layer of the device.” In the Example devices prepared as described in [0405 - 0411], the inventive compounds are used with a host material
PNG
media_image12.png
70
68
media_image12.png
Greyscale
, which is interpreted as the claimed host material.)
Wherein a weight of the organometallic compound is 5 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the emission layer (In the Example devices prepared as described in [0405 - 0411], the inventive compounds are provided in am emission layer in a weight of 6%. Examiner notes that while 6% is slightly higher than the claimed 5%, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05.)
As per claims 12, 14 and 15, Wang is silent with respect to the properties of absolute value of a difference between a HOMO energy level of the organometallic compound and a HOMO energy level of the host, light emission color, wavelength and full width at half maximum. However, since the compound of Wang above reads on claimed Formula 1, and the host material is mCP, which is taught as a host material in [0257] of the instant application as published, the claimed properties are considered to be inherent (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP 2112.
As per claim 16, Wang teaches:
An electronic apparatus comprising the light-emitting device ([0016]: “Another aspect of the present invention provides a display or lighting device, including organic optoelectronic devices as described above.”)
As per claims 19 and 20, Wang teaches:
A consumer product comprising the light-emitting device, wherein the consumer product is at least one of a display ([0016]: “Another aspect of the present invention provides a display or lighting device, including organic optoelectronic devices as described above.”)
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN115448932A, using the provided machine translation) as applied to claims 1 – 4, 6 and 8 – 16, 19 and 20 above, and further in view of Jeong (US20170162796A1)
As per claim 17, Wang teaches:
Further comprising a thin-film transistor ([0105]: “The organic optoelectronic devices provided by this invention include organic photovoltaic devices, organic light-emitting devices, organic solar cells, electronic paper, organic photoreceptors, organic thin-film transistors, etc.”)
Wang does not specifically teach:
wherein the thin-film transistor comprises a source electrode and a drain electrode, and the first electrode of the light-emitting device is electrically connected to the source electrode or the drain electrode of the thin-film transistor
Jeong teaches OLED devices (Abstract). Jeong further teaches the OLEDs may be part of an electronic apparatus comprising a thin-film transistor ([0199]). Jeong teaches the thin film transistor includes a gate electrode, a source electrode, an activation layer and a drain electrode ([0203]). Jeong teaches that the first electrode of the OLED is connected to the drain electrode ([0205]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the OLED of Wang in a thin film transistor device with the structure claimed because Jeong teaches this application and device structure was known as predictably suitable for OLED devices prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN115448932A, using the provided machine translation) and Jeong (US20170162796A1) as applied to claims 1 – 4, 6 and 8 – 17, 19 and 20 above, and further in view of Jang (US20150188083A1)
As per claim 18, Wang does not teach:
Further comprising a color filter, a color conversion layer, a touch screen layer, a polarizing layer, or any combination thereof
Jang teaches an organic light emitting display device comprising an organic light emitting diode (Abstract). Jang teaches that these devices include sub-pixels that can comprise a conversion layer to convert white light into red, green and blue light ([0009]). Jang also teaches that the structure can comprise color filters in the respective pixel regions of the substrate (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the claimed color filter or color conversion layer on the OLED of Wang because Jang demonstrates that this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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