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 November 11, 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 November 3, 2023.
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references provided in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on November 3, 2023 have been considered. A signed copy of the corresponding 1449 form has been included with this office action.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1 – 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 20 of copending Application No. 18/522474 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because compound of Formula 1 in the instant application overlap in scope with compounds of Formula 1 in claim 1 of the ‘474 application as evidenced by compound 17 in claim 14 of the ‘474 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 – 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 20 of copending Application No. 18/298802 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because compound of Formula 1 in the instant application overlap in scope with compounds of Formula 1 in claim 1 of the ‘802 application as evidenced by compound 21 in claim 14 of the ‘802 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 – 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 10 – 12, and 14 – 20 of copending Application No. 17/683665 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because compound of Formula 1 in the instant application overlap in scope with compounds of Formula 30-1 to 30-6 in claim 1 of the ‘665 application as evidenced by compound 45 in claim 16 of the ‘665 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 1 – 8 and 10 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsai (US20220140259A1).
As per claims 1 – 8, and 10 – 13, Tsai teaches:
An organometallic compound represented by Formula 1
PNG
media_image1.png
56
170
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, wherein M1 is a transition metal, L1 is a ligand represented by Formula 1A
PNG
media_image2.png
280
222
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and L2 is a ligand represented by Formula 1B
PNG
media_image3.png
368
302
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Tsai teaches compounds containing ligand LA
PNG
media_image4.png
182
186
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(Abstract). A particular compound taught by Tsai is compound
PNG
media_image5.png
228
388
media_image5.png
Greyscale
on Page 258. This compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein M1 is Ir; n1 is 2; n2 is 1; ring CY2 is a C6 carbocyclic group, namely a benzene group as required by claim 3, represented by Formula 2-1 in claim 5; X1 and X3 are N; X2 and X4 are C; X11 to X14 and X43 to X46 are all C(R); Y1 is O; R12 is -Si(Q1)(Q2)(Q3) where Q1 – Q3 are all a C1 alkyl group, namely -CH3 as required by claim 12, so that the ring is represented by Formula 1-2 in claim 4; R32, R33, and R46 are an C1 alkyl group substituted with deuterium, namely CD3 as required by claims 11 and 12; R45 is a C6 aryl group substituted with a combination of deuterium, alkyl and cycloalkyl groups; the remaining R groups, including R13 as required by claim 8, are hydrogen. Formula 1A is represented by Formula 1A-2 in claim 6. The compound is represented by Formula 5-1 in claim 13.)
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 9 and 15 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai (US20220140259A1) as applied to claims 1 – 8 and 10 – 13 above.
As per claims 9, Tsai teaches that other substituents off of the dibenzofuran group conjugated to the Iridium based core can include biphenyl groups, such as in compound
PNG
media_image6.png
240
396
media_image6.png
Greyscale
on Page 254. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the substituent of the compound above with the biphenylene substituent so that R45 is a group represented by Formula 10-61
PNG
media_image7.png
74
82
media_image7.png
Greyscale
, as required by claim 9.
Tsai includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Tsai 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 narrower FWHM and higher efficiency ([0182]), 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 claims 15, 16, and 19 Tsai teaches:
An organic light-emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode, and an organic layer arranged between the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein the organic layer comprises an emission layer, wherein the first electrode is an anode, the second electrode is a cathode, the organic layer further comprises a hole transport region arranged between the first electrode and the emission layer, and an electron transport region arranged between the emission layer and the second electrode, the hole transport region comprises a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer, a buffer layer or a combination thereof, and the electron transport region comprises a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, or a combination thereof ([0122]: “Device 100 may include a substrate 110, an anode 115, a hole injection layer 120, a hole transport layer 125, an electron blocking layer 130, an emissive layer 135, a hole blocking layer 140, an electron transport layer 145, an electron injection layer 150, a protective layer 155, a cathode 160, and a barrier layer 170.”)
Wherein the emission layer comprises the organometallic compound ([010]: “In some embodiments, the organic layer may be an emissive layer and the compound as described herein may be an emissive dopant or a non-emissive dopant.”)
Tsai 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 Tsai as Tsai demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As per claim 17, Tsai teaches:
Wherein the emission layer further comprises a host ([0109]: “In some embodiments, the emissive region further comprises a host.”)
An amount of the host in the emission layer is greater than an amount of the at least one of the organometallic compound in the emission layer, based on weight (In the Example device, as described in paragraph [0180], the host material is provided as the majority component in the emissive layer.)
As per claim 18, Tsai teaches:
Wherein the emission layer emits a green light having a maximum emission wavelength of about 490 nm to about 550 nm (In [0180], Tsai teaches that the emitter materials are green, which is interpreted as providing light within the claimed wavelength.)
As per claim 20, Tsai teaches:
An electronic apparatus comprising the organic light-emitting device (As an OLED is an electronic apparatus, Tsai meets the claimed limitations.)
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng (US20170069848A1) in view of Hwang (US20200181184A1).
As per claims 1 – 14, Zeng teaches:
An organometallic compound represented by Formula 1
PNG
media_image1.png
56
170
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, wherein M1 is a transition metal, L1 is a ligand represented by Formula 1A
PNG
media_image2.png
280
222
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and L2 is a ligand represented by Formula 1B
PNG
media_image3.png
368
302
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Zeng teaches compounds of Formula II
PNG
media_image8.png
184
280
media_image8.png
Greyscale
([0027]). A particular compound taught by Zeng is compound F14
PNG
media_image9.png
200
296
media_image9.png
Greyscale
([0124]). While compound F14 does not contain the claimed silyl group, in Formula II, Zeng teaches that R10 may be selected from silyl groups ([0032]). Furthermore, Hwang teaches ligands of Formula 2B ([0012]). Hwang teaches that the silyl group in the fifth position of the pyridine ring provides excellent heat resistance and decomposition resistance characteristics to the compound, resulting in devices with high stability and long lifespan ([0184]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide compound F14 above with a silyl group and arrive at a compound of the claimed invention. When modified in this way, the modified compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein M1 is Ir; n1 is 2; n2 is 1; ring CY2 is a C6 carbocyclic group, namely a benzene group as required by claim 3, represented by Formula 2-1 in claim 5; X1 and X3 are N; X2 and X4 are C; X11 to X14 and X43 to X46 are all C(R); Y1 is O; R12 is -Si(Q1)(Q2)(Q3) where Q1 – Q3 are all a C1 alkyl group, namely -CH3 as required by claim 12, so that the ring is represented by Formula 1-2 in claim 4; R32, and R33 are an C1 alkyl group substituted with deuterium, namely CD3 as required by claims 11 and 12; the remaining R groups, including R13 as required by claim 8, are hydrogen. Formula 1A is represented by Formula 1A-2 in claim 6. The compound is represented by Formula 5-1 in claim 13. The compound is the same as compound 1 in claim 14
PNG
media_image10.png
154
174
media_image10.png
Greyscale
.)
Zeng includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Zeng 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 high efficiency and long lifetime ([0019]), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E). It additionally would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the specific compound of Zeng with a silyl group motivated by the desire to predictably provide excellent heat resistance and decomposition resistance characteristics to the compound, resulting in devices with high stability and long lifespan as taught by Hwang ([0184]).
As per claims 15, 16, and 19 Zeng teaches:
An organic light-emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode, and an organic layer arranged between the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein the organic layer comprises an emission layer, wherein the first electrode is an anode, the second electrode is a cathode, the organic layer further comprises a hole transport region arranged between the first electrode and the emission layer, and an electron transport region arranged between the emission layer and the second electrode, the hole transport region comprises a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer, a buffer layer or a combination thereof, and the electron transport region comprises a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, or a combination thereof ([0074]: “Device 100 may include a substrate 110, an anode 115, a hole injection layer 120, a hole transport layer 125, an electron blocking layer 130, an emissive layer 135, a hole blocking layer 140, an electron transport layer 145, an electron injection layer 150, a protective layer 155, a cathode 160, and a barrier layer 170.”)
Wherein the emission layer comprises the organometallic compound ([0133]: “According to another aspect of the present disclosure, an OLED is disclosed, wherein the OLED comprises an anode; a cathode; and an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode. The organic layer comprises a composition of material comprising a mixture of a first compound and a second compound… wherein the second compound … having a structure according to Formula II.” & [0145]: “In some embodiments of the OLED, the organic layer is an emissive layer.”)
Zeng 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 Zeng as Zeng demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As per claim 17, Zeng teaches:
Wherein the emission layer further comprises a host ([0096]: “A novel combination of host compounds containing indol-fused hosts and emissive dopants containing benzofuran or azabenzofuran ligand is disclosed.”)
An amount of the host in the emission layer is greater than an amount of the at least one of the organometallic compound in the emission layer, based on weight (In the Exmperimental Device, as described in [0192], the host is provided as the majority component as claimed.
As per claim 18, Zeng teaches:
Wherein the emission layer emits a green light having a maximum emission wavelength of about 490 nm to about 550 nm (Table 2 shows that compounds of Formula II emit light in the green region, which is interpreted as reading on the claimed wavelengths.)
As per claim 20, Zeng teaches:
An electronic apparatus comprising the organic light-emitting device ([0145]: “In some embodiments of the OLED, the OLED is incorporated into a device selected from the group consisting of a consumer product, an electronic component module, and a lighting panel.”)
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