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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figs. 3-4 are blurry. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the instant specification contains blurry formulae and compounds. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 6, 10, and 12-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 12, and 16 recite both a “C6 to C40 monocyclic aryl group” and a “C6 to C40 aryl group” in the definition for Ra and Rb. It is recommended to replace “C6 to C40 aryl group” with “C6 to C40 monocyclic aryl group” for consistency and ease of reading.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 10, and 12-19 include blurry formulae and compounds.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 1-3 and 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parham (US 2023/0080974 A1) in view of Hwang (US 2020/0287144 A1).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 5-11, Parham teaches an organic electronic device having improved power efficiency and/or lifetime by including a composition comprising an electron-transporting host selected from triazine-dibenzofuran-carbazole systems and a hole-transporting host selected from the class of biscarbazoles (abstract; ¶ [0044] and [0269]). Examples of such devices include that of Device I3 which includes an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron blocker layer, an emissive layer (EML) including compound 4 and compound 44 as hosts and compound TEG2 as a dopant, an electron transport layer, and a cathode (¶ [0291]; Table 6 on pg. 614).
44:
PNG
media_image1.png
308
250
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Formula 2:
PNG
media_image2.png
393
650
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Compound 44 (structure on pg. 633) reads on the claimed Chemical Formula 2 wherein:
Ra is a C6 monocyclic aryl group of phenyl and Rb is a polycyclic aryl group of triphenylenyl (claim 5);
Rc and Rd are not required to be present; and
R and s are each 0.
Additionally, compound 44 is identical to the claimed GHH-9 (claim 6).
4:
PNG
media_image3.png
257
276
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Formula 3:
PNG
media_image4.png
312
443
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Compound 4 (structure on pg. 623) reads on the claimed Chemical Formula 3 wherein:
Y is O;
Each X4 is N (claim 7);
Each Z represents CH wherein two adjacent Zs bind to form a ring system represented by Chemical Formula A;
W is C(R*)2;
Each R* is a C1 alkyl group;
L represents a single bond (claim 8);
Each Ar represents a C6 aryl group of phenyl (claim 9);
Each of R9 to R11 represents are not required to be present; and
g, o, p, and q are each 0.
Additionally, compound 4 is identical to the claimed GEH-4 (claim 10).
The dopant TEG2 of Parham fails to read on the claimed Chemical Formula 1 (see structure on pg. 619). However, Parham does not limit the phosphorescent emitter to a specific structure (¶ [0184] and [0188]).
Hwang teaches an organometallic compound represented by Formula 1 for use as a dopant in an emission layer of an organic light-emitting device, wherein the organometallic compound provides the device with improved driving voltage, external quantum efficiency, lifespan, roll-off ratio, and color purity (abstract; ¶ [0005], [0041], and [0253]). Examples of organometallic compounds represented by Formula 1 include compound 671 (see pg. 186).
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 TEG2 with a compound of Hwang’s Formula 1, based on the teaching of Hwang. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with improved driving voltage, external quantum efficiency, lifespan, roll-off ratio, and color purity, as taught by Hwang.
In particular, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select Hwang’s compound 671, because it would have been choosing an exemplified compound represented by Hwang’s Formula 1, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the phosphorescent emitter in the EML of the device of Hwang and possessing the benefits taught by Hwang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising organometallic compounds represented by Hwang’s Formula 1 having the benefits taught by Hwang in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
671:
PNG
media_image5.png
189
332
media_image5.png
Greyscale
1:
PNG
media_image6.png
230
471
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Compound 671 reads on the claimed Chemical Formula 1 wherein:
X is O (claim 3);
Each of X1 to X3 is CR’;
R1 represents an alkyl group and a silyl group, R2 to R4, R8, and R’ are each hydrogen, and R5 and R6 are each an alkyl group;
n is 2 (claim 2); and
p is 2, q is 4, and w is 4.
Claims 12, 14-16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parham (US 2023/0080974 A1) in view of Hwang (US 2020/0287144 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (US 2015/0280159 A1).
Regarding claims 12, 14-16, and 18-19, Parham in view of Hwang teach the organic electronic device of claim 1, as described above.
Parham in view of Hwang fail to teach the device includes multiple emitting stacks. However, Hwang does teach the organometallic compound represented by Formula 1 may emit green light (¶ [0248]).
Kim teaches display device comprising a tandem type white organic light emitting diode having improved color reproduction range and emitting efficiency (¶ [0008]-[0011]). As shown in Fig. 1, the device includes sequentially a first electrode 10; a second electrode 20; a first emitting part 100 including a first emitting layer 150, which is formed of a blue-color first emitting layer and a yellow-green first emitting layer; a second emitting part 200 including a second emitting layer 250 formed of a red-color second emitting layer and a green-color second emitting layer; and a third emitting part 300 including a third emitting layer 350 formed of a blue-color third emitting layer and a yellow-green third emitting layer (¶ [0031]-[0043], [0062], [0086], and [0102]).
Fig. 1:
PNG
media_image7.png
614
458
media_image7.png
Greyscale
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 use Parham’s compound 4 and compound 44 as hosts and Hwang’s compound 671 as a dopant in each of the yellow-green first emitting layer, the green-color second emitting layer, and the yellow-green third emitting layer in the tandem type white organic light emitting diode of Kim, based on the teachings of Parham, Hwang, and Kim. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with improved power efficiency and/or lifetime, as taught by Parham, improved driving voltage, external quantum efficiency, lifespan, roll-off ratio, and color purity, as taught by Hwang, and provide an organic light-emitting device having narrow FWHM and high luminescence efficiency, as taught by Choi.
As compound 4 and compound 44 are provided as hosts, the limitations of claims 14-15 and 18-19 are met.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parham (US 2023/0080974 A1) in view of Hwang (US 2020/0287144 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jeong (US 2022/0386470 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Parham in view of Hwang teach the organic electronic device of claim 1, as described above.
Parham in view of Hwang fail to teach an organic light-emitting display device including a driving element and the organic electronic device. However, as discussed above, the device of Parham in view of Hwang has improved power efficiency and/or lifetime (see Parham ¶ [0269]).
Jeong teaches a display device which includes a driving element substrate ES on which driving elements and a light emitting element ED are disposed, wherein the driving elements include a transistor, and wherein the light emitting element ED is electrically connected to the driving element substrate ES and the transistor (abstract; ¶ [0054] and [00058]; Fig. 3).
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 use the organic electronic device of Parham in view of Hwang as the light emitting element ED in the display device of Jeong, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Parham and Jeong according to known methods to yield predictable results of a display device with improved power efficiency and/or lifetime, as taught by Parham. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 6-9, 13-17, and 20 of copending Application No. 18/395,411 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 and 14 of ‘411 require all the limitations of claims 1 and 12 of ‘281.
For example, claim 1 of ‘411 requires an organic light-emitting diode including a first electrode; a second electrode; a light-emissive layer including a dopant material and a host material; wherein the dopant material includes an organometallic compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 and the host material includes a mixture of a compound represented by Chemical Formula 2 and a compound represented by Chemical Formula 3. Claim 3 of ‘411 recites organometallic compounds represented by Chemical Formula 1 include compounds GD-1 to GD-10; claim 6 of ‘411 recites compounds represented by Chemical Formula 2 include compounds GHH-1 to GHH-20; and claim 9 recites compounds represented by Chemical Formula 3 include compounds GEH-1 to GEH-20. Accordingly, claims 1, 3, 6, and 9 of ‘411 correspond to claims 1, 4, 6, and 10 of ‘281, respectively.
Similarly, claims 2, 4, 7-8, 13-17, and 20 of ‘411 correspond to claims 3, 5, 7-8, 11-15, and 20 of ‘281, respectively.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claim 17, the prior art does not teach or suggest one of the claimed compounds GD-1 to GD-10 wherein each compound requires: a first ligand that includes a pyridine ring connected to an aza-dibenzofuran-based group
PNG
media_image8.png
188
350
media_image8.png
Greyscale
, wherein the aza-dibenzofuran-based group is either unsubstituted or further substituted with one phenyl group, and the pyridine ring is unsubstituted or further substituted with deuterium, CD3, or a deuterium-containing alkyl group; and a second ligand that is a pyridine-phenyl-based ligand unsubstituted or further substituted with CD3, in combination with the remainder of claim 17.
Hwang (US 2020/0287144 A1), cited in the rejection above, is considered the closest prior art of record. Hwang teaches an organometallic compound represented by Formula 1 for use as a dopant in an emission layer of an organic light-emitting device, wherein the organometallic compound provides the device with improved driving voltage, external quantum efficiency, lifespan, roll-off ratio, and color purity (abstract; ¶ [0005], [0041], and [0253]). Examples of organometallic compounds represented by Formula 1 include compound 671 (see pg. 186).
671:
PNG
media_image5.png
189
332
media_image5.png
Greyscale
However, compound 671 fails to include CD3 groups on the aza-dibenzofuran ring and thus fails to include the aza-dibenzofuran-based group
PNG
media_image8.png
188
350
media_image8.png
Greyscale
. Additionally, compound 671 fails to include a pyridine-phenyl-based ligand that is unsubstituted or further substituted with CD3. Hwang teaches L2 in Formula 1 is represented by Formula 2B and thus a pyridine-phenyl-based ligand that is unsubstituted or further substituted with CD3 is not within the scope of Hwang’s Formula 1 (¶ [0007], [0011], and [0014]).
2B:
PNG
media_image9.png
229
132
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Xia (US 2017/0179410 A1) is considered relevant to the claimed invention. Xia teaches organometallic compounds comprising a ligand having deuterium substitution may be advantageously used in organic light emitting devices (¶ [0067]). Particularly, the CD3 substituent may improve compound stability due to the greater strength of the C-D bond compared to that of the C-H bond (¶ [0063]). Additionally, deuterium substitution can improve efficiency, stability, and lifetime (¶ [0066]).
However, Xia fails to provide motivation to modify Hwang’s compound such that it includes a pyridine-phenyl-based ligand that is unsubstituted or further substituted with CD3. Accordingly, Xia fails to remedy the deficiencies of Hwang.
Thus there is no prior art, either alone or in combination, which teaches or renders obvious one of the claimed compounds GD-1 to GD-10 wherein each compound requires: a first ligand that includes a pyridine ring connected to an aza-dibenzofuran-based group
PNG
media_image8.png
188
350
media_image8.png
Greyscale
, wherein the aza-dibenzofuran-based group is either unsubstituted or further substituted with one phenyl group, and the pyridine ring is unsubstituted or further substituted with deuterium, CD3, or a deuterium-containing alkyl group; and a second ligand that is a pyridine-phenyl-based ligand that is unsubstituted or further substituted with CD3, in combination with the remainder of claim 17.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN 114736243 A (cited on the IDS dated 01/27/2026) recites compounds II-176 and II-183 (see pg. 13) which read on the claimed Chemical Formula 1; and
CN 114773394 A (cited on the IDS dated 01/27/2026) recites compound I-149 (see pg. 10) which reads on the claimed Chemical Formula 1.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRAELYN R WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5pm.
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.
/BRAELYN R WATSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights