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 .
All outstanding objections and rejections, except for those maintained below, are withdrawn in light of applicant's amendment filed on 5/19/2026.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior office action.
The new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant's amendment filed on 5/19/2026. In particular, original Claim 1 has been amended to recite a combination of limitations not previously presented. Thus, the following action is properly made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-6, 9-16, and 18-20 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_image1.png
501
514
media_image1.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_image2.png
439
474
media_image2.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 carbazole ring and join with R1 to fuse into a ring., i.e.
PNG
media_image3.png
446
550
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
In the formula disclosed by the reference, Ar1-L1-Ar2 can be ([0052] and Page 7):
PNG
media_image4.png
206
180
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
and is exemplified as ([0054] and Page 13 – LA28):
PNG
media_image5.png
284
217
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
Accordingly, the reference discloses a compound encompassed by Formulas 1-1 and 1-2:
PNG
media_image6.png
422
538
media_image6.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image7.png
346
590
media_image7.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;
rings CY1 is a C7 heterocyclic group;
rings CY2, CY31 and CY32 are C6 carbocyclic groups;
rings CY51 and CY52 are C6 carbocyclic groups, i.e. benzene;
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, R32, R51, and R52 are hydrogen;
a1 is one (1);
a2 and a4 are three (3);
a51 and a52 are four (4) or a51 is three (3) and a52 is four (4);
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_image8.png
228
396
media_image8.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the recited third compound represented by Formula 3:
PNG
media_image9.png
130
186
media_image9.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_image2.png
439
474
media_image2.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 carbazole ring and join with R1 to fuse into a ring., i.e.
PNG
media_image3.png
446
550
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
In the formula disclosed by the reference, Ar1-L1-Ar2 can be ([0052] and Page 7):
PNG
media_image4.png
206
180
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
and is exemplified as ([0054] and Page 13 – LA28):
PNG
media_image5.png
284
217
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
Accordingly, the reference discloses a compound encompassed by Formulas 1-1 and 1-2:
PNG
media_image6.png
422
538
media_image6.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image7.png
346
590
media_image7.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;
rings CY1 is a C7 heterocyclic group;
rings CY2, CY31 and CY32 are C6 carbocyclic groups;
rings CY51 and CY52 are C6 carbocyclic groups, i.e. benzene;
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, R32, R51, and R52 are hydrogen;
a1 is one (1);
a2 and a4 are three (3);
a51 and a52 are four (4) or a51 is three (3) and a52 is four (4);
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 CY2 is an imidazole group; and rings CY2, CY31, CY32, CY5, and CY52 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, R32, R51, and R52 are hydrogen;
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_image10.png
156
186
media_image10.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_image11.png
174
214
media_image11.png
Greyscale
,
corresponds to Formula CY3-1:
PNG
media_image12.png
164
244
media_image12.png
Greyscale
;
and the moiety represented by:
PNG
media_image13.png
144
218
media_image13.png
Greyscale
corresponds to Formula CY5-1 or CY5-2:
PNG
media_image14.png
166
272
media_image14.png
Greyscale
or
PNG
media_image15.png
154
248
media_image15.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, 9-16, and 18-20 above, and in view of Shin et al (US 2012/0049192).
The discussion with respect to Chen et al as set forth in Paragraph 6 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, 9-16, and 18-20 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 6 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In light of the amendments to the claims, the 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) rejection set forth in the previous Office Action is withdrawn.
Applicants argue that: (i) in Chen the general formula is broad and numerous combinations can be derived; and (ii) the reference does not recognize any specific ring structure and the associated advantages, so there is no motivation to derive the specific ring structure of the presently claimed embodiments from the reference. However, firstly while the general formula disclosed by the reference may be broad, the fact remains that the reference discloses a compound encompassed by reference. Secondly, while the reference does not disclose any specific ring structure or the associated advantages, the fact remains that the disclosure of the reference encompasses the compound of the present claims, and it is the Office’s position, absent evidence to the contrary, that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any of the rings and substituents disclosed by the reference and arrive at the instantly claimed compound with a reasonable expectation of success. Finally, it is noted that “applicant must look to the whole reference for what it teaches. Applicant cannot merely rely on the examples and argue that the reference did not teach others.” In re Courtright, 377 F.2d 647, 153 USPQ 735,739 (CCPA 1967).
As evidence of unexpected results, Applicants point to Table 6 on Page 161 of the as-filed Specification and compare Inventive Example 1, utilizing Compound 6, i.e.
PNG
media_image16.png
166
186
media_image16.png
Greyscale
,
to Comparative Example 1, utilizing Compound CE1, i.e.
PNG
media_image17.png
184
218
media_image17.png
Greyscale
.
However, while this comparison is a proper side-by-side comparison, given that the only difference between the inventive and comparative compounds is the presence of the fused carbazole ring in the inventive compound, the inventive example is not commensurate in with scope with the scope of the claims for at least the following reasons below.
In the inventive compound, ring CY1 is a benzimidazole, while claims 1 and 11 recite that CY1 is a C1-30 heterocyclic group. In the inventive compound CY2 is a benzene group, while the claims recite that CY2 is a C5-30 carbocyclic group or a C1-20 heterocyclic group. In the inventive compound CY31 and CY32 are benzene rings, while the claims recites that CY31 and CY32 are a C5-30 carbocyclic group or a C1-20 heterocyclic group. In the inventive compound CY51 and CY52 are benzene rings, while the claims recite that CY51 and CY52 are a C5-30 carbocyclic group or a C1-20 heterocyclic group. In the inventive compound CY4 is a pyridine ring, while the claims recite that CY4 is a C5-30 carbocyclic group or a C1-20 heterocyclic group. In the inventive compound L1 and L3 are direct bonds and L2 is -O-, while the claims recite that L1 to L3 are a single, bond, -C(R1a)(R1b), -O-, -S-, etc. Accordingly, it is unclear if the obtained results are indicative of all compounds encompassed by the present claims or only for the particular compound exemplified in the inventive example.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights