DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/22/2026 has been entered.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 8-9, 13-15, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Saito (US 2016/0329508 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 4-5, 8-9, Saito teaches an iridium complex represented by M2 (page 68):
PNG
media_image1.png
658
758
media_image1.png
Greyscale
M2 reads on applicants’ iridium complex wherein LA = Ring B = pyridine, X1-X4 = C; X1-X4 = C; RB = 1, 3, 5-triazine, R1 and R2 = phenyl; Ring A = fluorene (shows two Ra(s) fused to from three ring system); LB = RY = H; Rx and Rz = methyl, LB1 (per claims 1, 4-5, 8-9).
Regarding Claim 3, Saito teaches the limitations of independent claim 1
PNG
media_image2.png
160
344
media_image2.png
Greyscale
. The limitations of dependent claim B are viewed as a recitation of the partial (
PNG
media_image3.png
24
364
media_image3.png
Greyscale
) limitations of independent claim 1; however, the missing limitation is nonetheless applicable. Therefore, as the basis for dependent claim 3 is encompassed in rejected independent claim 1, the limitations of claim 3 are thus meet by the treatment of independent claim 1 (per claim 3).
Regarding Claims 13-15, 17, Saito teaches a light emitting device comprises a light emitting layer between an anode and a cathode. The light emitting device of the present invention preferably comprises at least one of a hole injection layer and a hole transporting layer between an anode and a light emitting layer from the standpoint of hole injectability and hole transportability (paragraph 338). The iridium complex (above) is used in the light emitting layer (paragraph 419) (per claims 13 and 15).
The OLED can be used in a display device with applications in areas such as computers and television sets (paragraph 347) (per claim 14).
The OLED also contains a host material containing a benzothiophene skeleton or carbazole skeleton (paragraph 253) (per claim 17).
Regarding Claim 20, Saito teaches composition comprising the metal complex (M2) and a host material (paragraph 248) (viewed as a formulation) (per claim 20).
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 8, 10, 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Akino (US 2011/0124808 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 5, 8, 10, Akino teaches an iridium complex represented by Ak-pg22 (page 22):
PNG
media_image4.png
356
386
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Ak-pg22 reads on applicants’ iridium complex wherein LA = Ring A = phenyl; Ring B = pyridine, RB = X1-X4 = C; RB = 1, 3, 5-triazine, R1 and R2 = phenyl; LB = Ring D = X5 = N, pyridine; Ring C = phenyl (per claims 1-5, 8,10)
Regarding Claims 13-15 , Akino teaches an OLED: anode/hole injection layer (hole transport layer)/light-emitting layer/electron injection layer (electron transport layer)/cathode (paragraph 136). The light-emitting layer contains a host material doped with the light-emitting material (Ak-pg22) (paragraph 143) (per claims 13 and 15).
The OLED include a planar light source, a light source for lighting (or light source), a light source for signs, a light source for back lights, display apparatuses, and printer heads (paragraph 152) (per claim 14).
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.
Claim(s) 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (US 2016/0329508 A1) in view of Adamovich (US 2016/0093808).
Regarding Claims 16-18, Saito teaches an OLED containing a host material containing a benzothiophene skeleton or carbazole skeleton (paragraph 253) but fails to mention applicants’ material.
Adamovich teaches a host material can include a benzothiophene (paragraph 102) (per claim 102). One example is represented by Compound H2 (page 61):
PNG
media_image5.png
336
458
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Compound H2 reads on
PNG
media_image6.png
126
192
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(per claims 16-18).
As Saito and Adamovich both teach benzothiophene containing host materials, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of invention to have selected thiophene based host materials which would have included Compound H2 of Adamovich which reads on the instant limitations, absent unexpected results (per claims 16-18).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (US 2016/0329508 A1) in view of Chen (Chem. Sci.,2015,6, 4623).
.
Regarding Claim 19, Saito teaches an OLED containing a host material containing a benzothiophene skeleton or carbazole skeleton (paragraph 253) but fails to mention applicants’ material.
Chen teaches that Zn(II)-2 (2-hydroxyphenyl)benzothiazolates have been used as host in OLEDs (page 4623).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of invention to have known host materials which would have included the Zn complex of Chen which reads on the instant limitations, absent unexpected results (per claim 19).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7, 11-12 are 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 prior art of record fails to show:
R1 or R2 (per claim 6)
LA (per claim 7)
LB (per claim 11)
Compounds (per claim 12)
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the applicant’s amendment. New art applied.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY D CLARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7087. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-4PM M-F.
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 Chriss 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.
/GREGORY D CLARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786