DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicants response filed on 10/30/2025 to the Requirement for Restriction mailed on 10/21/2025 is acknowledged. However, the restriction requirement is withdrawn and all pending claims will be examined.
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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites that in Formula 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
410
556
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
where X1 is a carbon atom in a carbene moiety and ring CY1 is a C5-C30 carbocyclic or a C1-C30 heterocyclic group. This combination of limitations renders the scope of the claim indefinite given that it is unclear how a carbocyclic group, e.g. benzene, cyclopentadiene, cyclohexyl, etc., can result in an X1 that is a carbene moiety, i.e. a carbene moiety contains a neutral carbon with a valence of two (2) and two (2) unshared electrons and it is unclear how a C5-C30 carbocyclic group can be a carbene moiety.
Claim 11 recites that in Formula 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
410
556
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
where X1 is a carbon atom in a carbene moiety and ring CY1 is a C5-C30 carbocyclic or a C1-C30 heterocyclic group. This combination of limitations renders the scope of the claim indefinite given that it is unclear how a carbocyclic group, e.g. benzene, cyclopentadiene, cyclohexyl, etc., can result in an X1 that is a carbene moiety, i.e. a carbene moiety contains a neutral carbon with a valence of two (2) and two (2) unshared electrons and it is unclear how a C5-C30 carbocyclic group can be a carbene moiety.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “wherein rings CY1, CY2, CY31, CY32, CY32, CY51, and CY52 are each independently: a benzene group, a naphthalene group, an anthracene group…”. The claim therefore, encompasses embodiments where ring CY1 can be a benzene group, a naphthalene group, an anthracene group, etc., thereby rendering the scope of the claim indefinite for the following reasons. Claim 14, depends from clam 11, and claim 11 recites that in Formula 1, X1 is a carbon atom in a carbene moiety. However, when CY1 in claim 14 is a benzene group, a naphthalene group, an anthracene group, etc. it is not possible for X1 in Formula 1 to be a carbon in a carbene moiety, i.e. a carbene moiety necessarily requires a neutral carbon with a valence of two (2) and two (2) unshared electrons. However, rings such as benzene, naphthalene, anthracene recited in claim 14, do not, and cannot, satisfy this requirement. Accordingly, it is unclear how CY1 can be a benzene group, a naphthalene group, an anthracene group, etc. as recited in claim 14, and still satisfy the requirements in claim 11 that X1 is a carbon atom in a carbene moiety.
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.
Claims 11-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Kim et al (US 2020/0203635).
Regarding claim 11, Kim et al discloses the following organometallic compound (Page 62 – Compound X3):
PNG
media_image2.png
433
628
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the organometallic compound represented by Formula 1 of the claims:
PNG
media_image1.png
410
556
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
where:
M is Pt;
X1 is a carbon atom in a carbene moiety;
X2, X3, X51, and X52 are C;
X4 is N;
ring CY1 is a C7 heterocyclic group.
rings CY2, CY5, CY31, and CY32 are C6 carbocyclic groups;
ring CY4 is a C5 heterocyclic group;
L1 and L3 are single bonds;
L2 is -O-;
n1 to n3 are one (1);
R1 is a C1 alkyl;
R2 is a C4 alkyl;R4, R5, R31 and R32 are hydrogen;
a1 and a2 are one (1);
a4 and a32 are three (3);
a5 is four (4); and
a31 is two (2).
Regarding claim 12, Kim et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, X2 and X3 are C; and X4 is N.
Regarding claim 13, Kim et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, in the compound disclosed by the reference:
PNG
media_image2.png
433
628
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the bond between X1 and M (Pt) and the bond between X4 and M (Pt) are coordinate bonds; and the bond between X2 and M (Pt) and the bond between X3 and M (Pt) are covalent bonds
Regarding claim 14, Kim et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, in the compound disclosed by the reference:
PNG
media_image2.png
433
628
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
ring CY1 is a benzimidazole ring; rings CY2, CY5, CY31, and CY32 are benzene rings; and CY4 is a pyridine ring.
Regarding claim 15, Kim et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, L1 and L2 are each single bonds; L2 is -O-; and n2 is one (1).
Regarding claim 16, Kim et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, R1 is a C1 alkyl; R2 is a C4 alkyl; and R4, R5, R31 and R32 are hydrogen.
Regarding claim 18, Kim et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, in the compound disclosed by the reference:
PNG
media_image2.png
433
628
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
ring CY1 corresponds to Formula CY1-5:
PNG
media_image3.png
156
186
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
where R11 is a C1 alkyl; and R14 to R17 are hydrogen.
Regarding claim 19, Kim et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Given that the claims do not require that R11 and R14 are bonded to each other, the reference discloses a compound encompassed by the present claims.
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 of this title, 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:
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 1-6 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (US 2018/0305385).
Regarding claim 1, Chen et al discloses the following organic light emitting device:
PNG
media_image4.png
501
514
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
where the anode (115) corresponds to the recited first electrode; the cathode (160) corresponds to the recited second electrode and faces the anode (115); layers 150-120 correspond to the recited interlayer; and layer 135 corresponds to the recited light emitting layer ([0023]).
The light emitting layer comprises the following compound ([0002] and [0053]):
PNG
media_image5.png
439
474
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
where
M is Pt or Pd ([0015]);
X1 is NR, where R is hydrogen ([0045]);
X2 to X10 are C ([0053]);
m is zero (0) ([0045]);
n is one (1) ([0045]);
L1 is a direct bond ([0045]);
L3 is -O- ([0045]);
R1, R2, R3, and R4 are hydrogen ([0045]);
R5 can be an aryl group or a heteroaryl group ([0045]) such as benzene or a carbazole, respectively ([0039]-[0040]).
Furthermore, the reference discloses that any two (2) substituents is the above formula can optionally join or fuse into a ring ([0045]). Accordingly, R5 can be a benzene or carbazole ring and join with R1 to fuse into a ring., i.e.
PNG
media_image6.png
447
550
media_image6.png
Greyscale
.
In the formula disclosed by the reference, Ar1-L1-Ar2 can be ([0052] and Page 7):
PNG
media_image7.png
206
180
media_image7.png
Greyscale
,
and is exemplified as ([0054] and Page 13 – LA28):
PNG
media_image8.png
284
217
media_image8.png
Greyscale
.
Accordingly, the reference discloses a compound encompassed by Formula 1 of the claims:
PNG
media_image1.png
410
556
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
where:
M is Pt or Pd;
X1 is a carbon atom in a carbene moiety;
X2, X3, X51, and X52 are C;
X4 is N;
ring CY1 is a C7 heterocyclic group;
rings CY2, CY31 and CY32 are C6 carbocyclic groups;
ring CY5 is a C6 carbocyclic group, i.e. benzene, or a C12 heterocyclic group, i.e. carbazole;
ring CY4 is a C3 heterocyclic group;
L1 and L3 are single bonds;
L2 is -O-;
n1 to n3 are one (1);
R1 is a C6 carbocyclic group;R2, R4, R5, R31 and R32 are hydrogen;
a1 is one (1);
a2 and a4 are three (3);
a5 is four (4) or 11;
a31 is two (2); and
a32 is three (3).
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed compound nor can the claimed compound be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed compound and the compound disclosed by the reference, absent a showing of criticality for the presently claimed compound, it is urged that it would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the compound which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Chen et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses that the compound is an emissive dopant in the light emitting layer ([0060]) and the light emitting layer further comprises a host compound ([0061]).
Regarding claim 3, Chen et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses that the light emitting layer comprises a host compound such as ([0061])-[0062]):
PNG
media_image9.png
228
396
media_image9.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the recited third compound represented by Formula 3:
PNG
media_image10.png
130
186
media_image10.png
Greyscale
,
where rings CY71 and CY72 are p-rich C6 cyclic groups; X71 is a single bond; and “*” indicates a binding site to an atom as recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 4, Chen et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Given that the reference does not require the second or fourth compounds, the reference discloses a light emitting device encompassed by the present claims.
Regarding claim 5, Chen et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the reference discloses that the emission layer comprises the disclosed organometallic compound and the second compound.
The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference. However, the reference teaches an organic light emitting device where the light emitting layer comprises the recited organometallic and second compounds. The original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed components. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the emission layer emit blue light, would naturally arise and be achieved by a light emitting layer comprising the claimed compounds. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position; and (2) it would be the Office's position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients.
Regarding claim 6, Chen et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses a display apparatus, i.e. an electronic apparatus, such as a flat screen display comprising the disclosed organic light emitting device ([0040]).
Regarding claim 9, Chen et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses a display apparatus, i.e. an electronic apparatus, such as a flat screen display comprising the disclosed organic light emitting device ([0040]).
Regarding claim 10, Chen et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the reference discloses a flat screen display, i.e. a flat panel display.
Regarding claim 11, Chen et al discloses the following organometallic compound ([0053]):
PNG
media_image5.png
439
474
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
where
M is Pt or Pd ([0015]);
X1 is NR, where R is hydrogen ([0045]);
X2 to X10 are C ([0053]);
m is zero (0) ([0045]);
n is one (1) ([0045]);
L1 is a direct bond ([0045]);
L3 is -O- ([0045]);
R1, R2, R3, and R4 are hydrogen ([0045]);
R5 can be an aryl group or a heteroaryl group ([0045]) such as benzene or a carbazole, respectively ([0039]-[0040]).
Furthermore, the reference discloses that any two (2) substituents is the above formula can optionally join or fuse into a ring ([0045]). Accordingly, R5 can be a benzene or carbazole ring and join with R1 to fuse into a ring., i.e.
PNG
media_image6.png
447
550
media_image6.png
Greyscale
.
In the formula disclosed by the reference, Ar1-L1-Ar2 can be ([0052] and Page 7):
PNG
media_image7.png
206
180
media_image7.png
Greyscale
,
and is exemplified as ([0054] and Page 13 – LA28):
PNG
media_image8.png
284
217
media_image8.png
Greyscale
.
Accordingly, the reference discloses a compound encompassed by Formula 1 of the claims:
PNG
media_image1.png
410
556
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
where:
M is Pt or Pd;
X1 is a carbon atom in a carbene moiety;
X2, X3, X51, and X52 are C;
X4 is N;
ring CY1 is a C7 heterocyclic group;
rings CY2, CY31 and CY32 are C6 carbocyclic groups;
ring CY5 is a C6 carbocyclic group, i.e. benzene, or a C12 heterocyclic group, i.e. carbazole;
ring CY4 is a C3 heterocyclic group;
L1 and L3 are single bonds;
L2 is -O-;
n1 to n3 are one (1);
R1 is a C6 carbocyclic group;R2, R4, R5, R31 and R32 are hydrogen;
a1 is one (1);
a2 and a4 are three (3);
a5 is four (4) or 11;
a31 is two (2); and
a32 is three (3).
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed compound nor can the claimed compound be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed compound and the compound disclosed by the reference, absent a showing of criticality for the presently claimed compound, it is urged that it would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the compound which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 12, Chen et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the reference discloses that X2 and X3 are C; and X4 is N.
Regarding claim 13, Chen et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, in the compound disclosed by the reference, the bond between X1 and M and the bond between X4 and M are coordinate bonds; and the bonds between X2 and M and the bond between X3 and M are covalent bonds.
Regarding claim 14, Chen et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, from the discussion above, ring CY1 is a benzimidazole group; ring CY2 is an imidazole group; and rings CY2, CY31 and CY32 are benzene groups.
Regarding claim 15, Chen et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, L1 and L2 are each single bonds; L2 is -O-; and n2 is one (1).
Regarding claim 16, Chen et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above R1 is a phenyl group; and R2, R4, R5, R31 and R32 are hydrogen;
Regarding claim 17, Chen et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the reference discloses a compound encompassed by Formula 1-1 and 1-2:
PNG
media_image11.png
422
538
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
346
590
media_image12.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 18, Chen et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, ring CY1 corresponds to Formula CY1-5:
PNG
media_image3.png
156
186
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
Regarding claim 19, Chen et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Given that the claims do not require that R11 and R14 are bonded to each other, the reference discloses a compound encompassed by the present claims.
Regarding claim 20, Chen et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the moiety:
PNG
media_image13.png
174
214
media_image13.png
Greyscale
,
corresponds to Formula CY3-1:
PNG
media_image14.png
164
244
media_image14.png
Greyscale
;
and the moiety:
PNG
media_image15.png
152
138
media_image15.png
Greyscale
,
corresponds to Formula CY5-1 or CY5-2:
PNG
media_image16.png
166
272
media_image16.png
Greyscale
or
PNG
media_image17.png
154
248
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (US 2018/0305385) as applied to claims 1-6 and 9-20 above, and in view of Shin et al (US 2012/0049192).
The discussion with respect to Chen et al as set forth in Paragraph 13 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 7, Chen et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. While the reference discloses a display device, the reference does not disclose that the display apparatus comprises a thin film transistor as recited in the present claims (Abstract).
Shin et al discloses a display apparatus comprising a thin film transistor (Abstract). The thin film transistor comprises a source electrode, a drain electrode and an active layer (Abstract). The transistor further comprises an organic light emitting device, where the first electrode of the organic light emitting device is connected to the drain electrode ([0048]). The reference discloses that the flat panel display apparatus comprising the thin film transistor easily provide uniform electrical characteristics and uniform display characteristics.
Given that both Chen et al and Shin et al are drawn to display devices comprising organic light emitting devices, and given that Shin et al does not explicitly prohibit other device elements, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the thin film transistor as taught by Shin et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device disclosed by Chen et al to include the thin film transistor disclosed by Shin et al with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (US 2018/0305385) as applied to claims 1-6 and 9-20 above, and in view of Kim et al (US 2014/0054555, hereafter Kim ‘555).
The discussion with respect to Chen et al as set forth in Paragraph 13 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 8, Chen et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. While the reference discloses a display device, the reference does not disclose that the display apparatus comprises a color filter as recited in the present claims.
Kim ‘555 discloses that a conventional organic light emitting display device includes a substrate, a thin film transistor (TFT) formed on the substrate, and a color filter ([0010]). In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a color filter in the organic light emitting display device disclosed by Chen et al, as doing so would amount to nothing more than use of an element for its intended use, in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER C. KOLLIAS whose telephone number is (571)-270-3869. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00AM – 5:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Boyd can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER C KOLLIAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786