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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the chemical structural formulae on at least pages 17, 19, 31, 53-54, and 69 are of poor resolution.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 15-16, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
it is suggested that in the preamble of claim 1 the comma between "device" and "comprising" be deleted for ease of reading;
in claim 15, it is suggested that "R63 and R64 are each defined as for R61 in claim 10" in the last line of the claim be changed to "R63 and R64 are each defined the same as61 in claim 10" for ease of reading;
claim 16 the chemical structural formulae are of poor resolution;
in claim 16, it is suggested that "R15 to R19, R19a, and R19b are each defined as for R11 in claim 10" in the last line of the claim be changed to "R15 to R19, R19a, and R19b are each defined the same as11 in claim 10" for ease of reading; and
in claim 18, it is suggested that "R21 to R23 are each defined as for R2 in claim 10" in the last line of the claim be changed to "R21 to R23 are each defined the same as2 in claim 10" for ease of reading.
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 6 be found allowable, claim 8 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 10, the claims recite "ring CY2 is… b) an imidazole group in which one or more 6-membered rings are condensed together." The claim is indefinite because it is unclear how the one or more 6-membered rings that are condensed together are related to the imidazole group. That is, is ring CY2 an imidazole group which is further condensed with one or more 6-membered rings or is CY2 an imidazole group that is substituted with one or more 6-membered rings that are condensed with each other?
For purposes of examination the claim will be interpreted as either ring CY2 is an imidazole group which is further condensed with one or more 6-membered rings or ring CY2 is an imidazole group that is substituted with one or more 6-membered rings that are condensed with each other.
Claims 2-9 are rejected as being dependent on indefinite claim 1.
Claims 11-20 are rejected as being dependent on indefinite claim 10.
Regarding claims 5 and 19, the claims recite "wherein the organometallic compound represented by Formula 1 has a 3MLCT value of 16% or more." While the speciation recites that "[t]he ratio (%) of a triplet metal-to-ligand charge transfer (3MLCT) was calculated by using a density functional theory (DFT) method of Gaussian program structurally optimized at a level of B3LYP/6-311G (d, p)", no further description is provided. The claim is indefinite because it is unclear what the ratio in the claim represented. Does it quantify the fractional charge transfer ratio from the metal center to the organic ligand in the ³MLCT state? What is in the numerator and denominator of this ratio calculation?
For purposes of examination, the claimed will be interpreted as requiring 16% or more fractional charge transfer ratio from the metal center to the organic ligand in the ³MLCT state.
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 1-3, 6-15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. US-20240206321-A1 (hereinafter "Kim").
The applied reference has a common applicant and inventor 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.
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.
Regarding claims 1-3, 6-15, and 18, Kim discloses a light-emitting device comprising an interlayer arranged between a first electrode and a second electrode and including an emission layer, wherein the emission layer comprising an organometallic compound represented by Formula 1 (¶ [0039] and ¶ [0103]). Kim teaches wherein the interlayer further includes a hole transport region between the first electrode and the emission layer and an electron transport region between the emission layer and the second electrode, wherein the hole transport region may include a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an emission auxiliary layer, an electron blocking layer, or any combination thereof, and wherein the electron transport region may include a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, an electron control layer, or any combination thereof (¶ [0099]-[0101]). Kim discloses an electronic apparatus including the light-emitting device further including a color filter, a color conversion layer, a touch screen layer, a polarizing layer, or any combination thereof (¶ [0005], ¶ [0116]) and the electronic apparatus may be applied to one or more suitable displays, light sources, lighting, personal computers (¶ [0320]). Kim discloses examples of the compound of Kim's Formula 1 in paragraph [0088], for example, compound 2
PNG
media_image1.png
459
456
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 6), which read on the claimed Formula 1.
Therefore, the device comprising the compound of Kim meets claims 1-3, 6-15, and 18.
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. 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 5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. US-20240206321-A1 (hereinafter "Kim") as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5 and 19, Kim discloses the device as discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 10.
Kim does not specifically teach wherein Kim's organometallic compound has a ³MLCT value of 16% or more. However, Kim teaches the 3MLCT value of the organometallic compound represented by Formula 1 may be equal to or greater than 11% (¶ [0093]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 16% or more. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claims 1-3, 6-11, 13-15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. US-20160240800-A1 (hereinafter "Ma") in view of Pan et al. US-20140045810-A1 (hereinafter "Pan").
It is noted that US-20160240800-A1 is related to US-10144867-B2 cited on the IDS of 07/26/2023.
Regarding claims 1-3, 6-11, 13-15, and 18, Ma teaches an OLED comprising an organic layer disposed between an anode and a cathode, wherein the organic layer is an emissive layer and the emissive layer comprises a compound having a Pt tetradentate structure of a Formula 1 or Formula 2 (¶ [0027] and ¶ [0089]). Ma teaches the device comprising a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, and an electron blocking layer, between the anode and the emissive layer, and a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, and an electron injection layer between the emissive layer and the cathode (¶ [0035] and ¶ [0037]). Ma teaches wherein the organic light emitting device is incorporated into a device selected from a consumer product, an electronic component module, and/or a lighting panel (¶ [0027], ¶ [0042], ¶ [0089]). Ma teaches examples of the compound having a Pt tetradentate structure in paragraph [0086], including for example
PNG
media_image2.png
300
385
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 12) and
PNG
media_image3.png
258
399
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 21).
Ma does not exemplify a compound that meets the claimed Formula 1. For example, the compounds shown above (1) do not comprise a group corresponding to the claimed –(X6)b6– connecting the phenyl and pyridine rings.
However, Ma teaches wherein L3, which corresponds to the claimed –(X6)b6–, may be a direct bond, BR, NR, PR, O, S, Se, C═O, S═O, SO.sub.2, SiRR′, GeRR′, alkyl, cycloalkyl, and combinations thereof (¶ [0020]).
Pan teaches a compound comprising a moiety of formula (2)
PNG
media_image4.png
272
214
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(¶ [0007]), which comprises a bridge Y, for use in an emitting layer between an anode and a cathode in an organic electronic device (¶ [0086], ¶ [0089]). Pan teaches bridge Y is a substituted or unsubstituted diatomic bridge containing, as bridge atoms, two atoms selected, identically or differently on each occurrence, from the group consisting of C, N, O, S, Si or P (¶ [0011]), and teaches exemplary compounds wherein Y is –CMe2-CMe2–
PNG
media_image5.png
121
72
media_image5.png
Greyscale
in paragraph [0077]. Pan teaches that the metal chelate complexes, which contains a bridged ligand which contains a nitrogen atom in the para-position to the carbon atom bonded to the metal, exhibits improved properties with respect to efficiency, operating voltage, lifetime and/or colour coordinates (¶ [0005]-[0006]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the bridge Y of Pan into the compound of Ma, based on the teaching of Pan. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain improved properties with respect to efficiency, operating voltage, lifetime and/or colour coordinates, as taught by Pan.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specifically select as the bridge Y –CMe2-CMe2–
PNG
media_image5.png
121
72
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, because it would have been choosing from the specifically exemplified bridge Y groups, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a bridge group Y useful in the compound of Ma in view of Pan and possessing the benefits taught by Ma and Pan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Ma comprising the bridge Y of Pan having the beneficial properties taught by Ma and Pan in order to pursue the known options within their technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143.I.(E).
The modified compound of Ma in view of Pan meets the claimed Formula 1.
Thus, the device comprising the modified compound of Ma meets claims 1-3, 6-11, 13-15, and 18.
Claims 4-5, 12, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. US-20160240800-A1 (hereinafter "Ma") in view of Pan et al. US-20140045810-A1 (hereinafter "Pan") as applied to claims 1 and 10 and further in view of Fleetham et al. US-20230422601-A1 (hereinafter "Fleetham").
Regarding claim 5 and 19, Ma in view of Pan teaches the device as discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 10.
Ma in view of Pan does not specifically exemplify a compound as recited in claim 20. For examples, the second modified compound of Ma in view of Pan (1) shows L2 as an alkyl group instead of a direct bond and (2) does not comprise a dibenzofuran group at the ring attached to the imidazole and the metal.
Regarding (1), Ma teaches that L2 may be a direct bond or an alkyl group (¶ [0020], and teaches exemplary compounds wherein L2 is a direct bond in paragraph [0086].
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Ma, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the alkyl group at the position corresponding to L2 with a direct bond, because Ma teaches the variable may suitably be selected as such and teaches exemplary compounds wherein the variable is selected as such. The substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful in the emissive layer of the device of Ma and possess the properties taught by Ma. See MPEP § 2143.I.(B).
Regarding (2), Ma teaches that the ring attached to the imidazole and the metal may be substituted with aryloxy (¶ [0023]) and that the substituents may join to form a ring (¶ [0023]-[0024]).
Fleetham teaches platinum complexes that include a tetradentate ligand incorporating phenyl substituted dibenzofuran (¶ [0006]). Fleetham teaches the use of phenyl substituted dibenzofuran improve the stability of the platinum complexes as an emitter in OLEDs and narrow the emission lineshape of the OLEDs (¶ [0006]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the ring attached to the imidazole such that it forms a dibenzofuran ring, based on the teaching of Fleetham. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain improved stability as an emitter and narrow the emission lineshape, as taught by Fleetham.
The further modified compound corresponds to the claimed compound P-18
PNG
media_image6.png
176
239
media_image6.png
Greyscale
.
Ma in view of Pan and Fleetham appears silent with respect to the properties of (1) wherein the compound has a maximum emission wavelength of 550 nm to 600 nm and (2) a ³MLCT value of 16% or more.
The instant specification recites that P18 has a maximum emission wavelength of 593 nm and a 3MCLT of 19.3% (Table 2, page 104). Since Ma in view of Pan and Fleetham teaches the modified compound, the same structure as disclosed by the Applicant, the properties recites above are each 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Wang et al. CN-113793910-A teaches organometallic complexes with linking groups with multiple atoms such as 556 (page 20); and Tsai et al. US-20220127291-A1 teaches organometallic complexes of a Formula 1 with two atom linking groups (¶ [0007]).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elizabeth M. Dahlburg whose telephone number is 571-272-6424. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET, and alternate Fridays.
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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. 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.
/ELIZABETH M. DAHLBURG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights