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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 01/23/2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 2, 4, 12-15, 18, and 23 have been cancelled.
Claims 25-28 have been added.
Claims 1, 3, 5-11, 16-17, 19-22, and 24-28 are pending.
Claims 1, 5, 10-11, 16, and 19 have been amended.
The cancellation of claims 4, 12-13, and 23 obviate the rejections of claims 4, 12-13, and 23 set forth in the last Office Action.
The amendments of claims 1, 5, 10-11, 16, and 19 have overcome:
the rejections of claims 1, 3, 5-6, 9-10, 16-17, 19-22, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshiyama et al. (JP 2008/210941 A, machine translated English document is referred to, hereafter Oshiyama) in view of Wang et al. (“Highly efficient electroluminescent materials based on fluorinated organometallic iridium compounds”, Appl. Phys. Lett. 2001, Vol. 79, page 449-451, hereafter Wang),
the rejections of claims 1, 3, 5-11, 16-17, 19-22, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takizawa et al. (US 2012/0153816, hereafter Takizawa) in view of Xia et al. (US 2013/0299795 A1, hereafter Xia ‘795), Wang et al. (“Highly efficient electroluminescent materials based on fluorinated organometallic iridium compounds”, Appl. Phys. Lett. 2001, Vol. 79, page 449-451), and Boudreault et al. (US 2016/0104848 A1).
the rejections of claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takizawa et al. (US 2012/0153816), Wang et al. (“Highly efficient electroluminescent materials based on fluorinated organometallic iridium compounds”, Appl. Phys. Lett. 2001, Vol. 79, page 449-451), and Boudreault et al. (US 2016/0104848 A1) as applied to claims 1-8, 10-12, 14-17, and 19-20 above, further in view of Li et al. (“Synthesis and electroluminescent properties of Ir complexes with benzo[c] acridine or 5,6-dihydro-benzo[c]acridine ligands” Thin Solid Film 2008, vol. 516, page 6186-6190, hereafter Li),
the rejections of claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10-11, 16-17, and 19-21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia et al. (US 2013/0299795 A1) in view of Wang et al. (“Highly efficient electroluminescent materials based on fluorinated organometallic iridium compounds”, Appl. Phys. Lett. 2001, Vol. 79, page 449-451) and Boudreault et al. (US 2016/0104848 A1) set forth in the last Office Action.
The rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see page 15-18 of the reply filed 01/23/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1, 3, 5-6, 9-10, 16-17, 19-22, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshiyama/Wang set forth in the Office Action of 09/23/2025 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the amendment is patentable.
The rejections refer to the Compound of Oshiyama as modified by Wang (section 63 and 83 of the last Office Action). The compounds do not read on the limitation of the first compound of the amended claims. Thus, the rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments see page 18-19 of the reply filed 01/23/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1, 3, 5-11, 16-17, 19-22, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takizawa/Xia ‘795/Wang/Boudreault ‘848, The rejections of claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takizawa/Xia ‘795/Wang/Boudreault ‘848/Li set forth in the Office Action of 09/23/2025 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the amended claims are patentable.
The rejections refer to the Compound of Takizawa as modified by Xia, Wang, an Boudreault (section 111). The compound does not read on the limitation of the first compound of the amended claims. Thus, the rejections are withdrawn.
However, Takizawa can still be applicable for new grounds of rejection.
Takizawa teaches Compounds A-27 ([0469]).
PNG
media_image1.png
367
621
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In the Compound A-27 of Takizawa, the substituents at the positions corresponding to R45 and R46 of Formula (4) of Takizawa are each hydrogen which does not read on the limitation of the instant claims; however, Takizawa does teach that the substituents R45 and R46 can be each phenyl and mercapto groups, and the substituents can be combined to each other to form a ring ([0026], [0088], [0092], and [0094]).
Seo discloses a phosphorescent organometallic complex used for an organic light emitting device (Ir(DTNP)2pic, Abstract).
Seo teaches that replacing the pyridine unit in the phenyl pyridine ligand with benzothienopyridine unit provides extended conjugation, reduced band gap, and shift to longer wavelength (page 2070, col. 1, par. 2 under Results and discussion).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to have modified the Compound A-27 of Takizawa by substituting the pyridine ring of the phenyl pyridine ligand with benzothienopyridine as taught by Takizawa and Seo.
The modification provides Compound of Takizawa as modified by Seo.
PNG
media_image2.png
272
530
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Compound of Takizawa as modified by Seo does not contain a fluorine-substituted methyl group substituted to the quaternary carbon of the cyclopentylmethyl substituent structure; however, Takizawa does teach that the alkyl group at the position corresponding to the R1 of formula (I) Takizawa can be substituted ([0070]), and the substituent can be fluorine ([0092]).
Wang discloses a fluorinated organometallic iridium compound used as the emitter of an organic light emitting device (Title, Abstract, Fig. 1).
Wang teaches that conversion of C-H to C-F bond by fluorination reduces the rate of radiationless deactivation, enhances photoluminescence efficiency, provides better sublimation for thin film deposition, minimizes self-quenching; enhances electron mobility; and provides tunability of electroluminescent color (page 449, column 2, paragraph 2 through page 450, column 1, paragraph 1).
Boudreault ‘848 discloses an organometallic compound comprising at least one aromatic ring and at least one substituent R ([0016]- [0017]).
Boudreault ‘848 exemplifies an R group of alkyl wherein a CH2F group is substituted at the substitution position 2 of the alkyl (RA15 of ligands LA15 in [0078]).
PNG
media_image3.png
105
359
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Boudreault ‘848 teaches that incorporation of fluorine into an alkyl group wherein at least one carbon atom is disposed between the fluorine atom and the first aromatic ring, provides fine tuning of emission color while maintaining good device efficiency and lifetime ([0015]-[0017]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to have modified the Compound of Takizawa as modified by Seo by substituting the hydrogen atom substituted to the methyl group at the quaternary carbon of the cycloalkyl substituent with fluorine (i.e. substitution of the methyl substituted to the quaternary carbon with a CH2F group) as taught by Wang and Boudreault ‘848.
The modification provides Compound of Takizawa as modified by Seo, Wang and Boudreault ‘848 (1), as shown below.
PNG
media_image4.png
333
682
media_image4.png
Greyscale
New grounds of rejection are applied. The amendment necessitates new grounds of rejection, making this Office Action final.
Applicant’s arguments see page 20-21 of the reply filed 01/23/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10-11, 16-17, and 19-21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia ‘795/Wang/Boudreault ‘848 set forth in the Office Action of 09/23/2025 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the amended claims are patentable.
The rejections refer to the Compound of Xia ‘795 as modified by Wang and Boudreault (section 168). The compound does not read on the limitation of the first compound of the amended claims. Thus, the rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments see page 21 of the reply filed 01/23/2026 regarding The provisional rejections of claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8-11, 16-17, 19-20, and 24 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16-20 of Application No. 17/518,718 (hereafter Application ‘718) set forth in the Office Action of 09/23/2025 have been considered.
Applicant argues that terminal disclaimer will be submitted.
It appears no Terminal disclaimer has been filed. The rejections are maintained with some updates. The Amendment necessitates new grounds of rejection, making this Office Action final.
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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, 5-10, 16-17, 19-22, 25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takizawa et al. (US 2012/0153816, hereafter Takizawa) in view of Seo et al. (“High efficiency yellowish green phosphorescent emitter derived from phenylbenzothienopyridine ligand” Org. Elec. 2014, vol. 15, page 2068-2072, hereafter Seo), Wang et al. (“Highly efficient electroluminescent materials based on fluorinated organometallic iridium compounds”, Appl. Phys. Lett. 2001, Vol. 79, page 449-451, hereafter Wang), and Boudreault et al. (US 2016/0104848 A1, hereafter Boudreault ‘848).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 16-17, 19-21, and 27, Takizawa discloses a phosphorescent organometallic complex used for an organic light emitting device ([0009]- [0012]), wherein the complex has a substituent group represented by formula (I) ([0064]). The substituent group includes a saturated 5- to 8-membered ring (“Z”) and a quaternary carbon (the carbon substituted by R1 in formula (I)), wherein the substituent R1 can be an alkyl group. Takizawa teaches Formula (4) as the structure of the organometallic complex ([0026]). Takizawa exemplifies Compounds A-27 ([0469]).
PNG
media_image1.png
367
621
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Takizawa exemplifies an organic light emitting device (Example 9-4 in [0470]- [0472], [0505]-[0506], and Table 9) comprising an anode (ITO), an emission layer comprising Compound A-27 of Takizawa as an emissive dopant and Compound H-1 of Takizawa ([0469]) as a host, and a cathode (Al), wherein the Compound H-1 is a carbazole compound ([0469]).
In the Compound A-27 of Takizawa, the substituents at the positions corresponding to R45 and R46 of Formula (4) of Takizawa are each hydrogen which does not read on the limitation of the instant claims; however, Takizawa does teach that the substituents R45 and R46 can be each phenyl and mercapto groups, and the substituents can be combined to each other to form a ring ([0026], [0088], [0092], and [0094]).
Seo discloses a phosphorescent organometallic complex used for an organic light emitting device (Ir(DTNP)2pic, Abstract).
Seo teaches that replacing the pyridine unit in the phenyl pyridine ligand with benzothienopyridine unit provides extended conjugation, reduced band gap, and shift to longer wavelength (page 2070, col. 1, par. 2 under Results and discussion).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to have modified the Compound A-27 of Takizawa by substituting the pyridine ring of the phenyl pyridine ligand with benzothienopyridine as taught by Takizawa and Seo.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide extended conjugation, reduced band gap, and shift to longer wavelength based on the teaching of Seo.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the substituents from hydrogen to phenyl and mercapto groups at the positions corresponding to R45 and R46 of Formula (4) of Takizawa, wherein the phenyl and mercapto groups are combined to form a fused benzothiophene to would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Compound of Takizawa as modified by Seo.
PNG
media_image2.png
272
530
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Compound of Takizawa as modified by Seo does not contain a fluorine-substituted methyl group substituted to the quaternary carbon of the cyclopentylmethyl substituent structure; however, Takizawa does teach that the alkyl group at the position corresponding to the R1 of formula (I) Takizawa can be substituted ([0070]), and the substituent can be fluorine ([0092]).
Wang discloses a fluorinated organometallic iridium compound used as the emitter of an organic light emitting device (Title, Abstract, Fig. 1).
Wang teaches that conversion of C-H to C-F bond by fluorination reduces the rate of radiationless deactivation, enhances photoluminescence efficiency, provides better sublimation for thin film deposition, minimizes self-quenching; enhances electron mobility; and provides tunability of electroluminescent color (page 449, column 2, paragraph 2 through page 450, column 1, paragraph 1).
Boudreault ‘848 discloses an organometallic compound comprising at least one aromatic ring and at least one substituent R ([0016]- [0017]).
Boudreault ‘848 exemplifies an R group of alkyl wherein a CH2F group is substituted at the substitution position 2 of the alkyl (RA15 of ligands LA15 in [0078]).
PNG
media_image3.png
105
359
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Boudreault ‘848 teaches that incorporation of fluorine into an alkyl group wherein at least one carbon atom is disposed between the fluorine atom and the first aromatic ring, provides fine tuning of emission color while maintaining good device efficiency and lifetime ([0015]-[0017]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to have modified the Compound of Takizawa as modified by Seo by substituting the hydrogen atom substituted to the methyl group at the quaternary carbon of the cycloalkyl substituent with fluorine (i.e. substitution of the methyl substituted to the quaternary carbon with a CH2F group) as taught by Wang and Boudreault ‘848.
The motivation of doing so would have been to 1) reduce the rate of radiationless deactivation, enhance photoluminescence efficiency, provide better sublimation for thin film deposition, minimize self-quenching; enhance electron mobility; and provide tunability of electroluminescent color, based on the teaching of Wang, and 2) provides fine tuning of emission color while maintaining good device efficiency and lifetime, based on teaching of Boudreault ‘848.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the substituents (i.e. from hydrogen to fluorine) of the methyl group substituted to the quaternary carbon in the compound of Takizawa would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Compound of Takizawa as modified by Seo, Wang and Boudreault ‘848 (1), as shown below.
PNG
media_image4.png
333
682
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The Compound of Takizawa as modified by Seo, Wang, and Boudreault ‘848 (1) has identical structure as the first compound of the instant claim 1, meeting all the limitations of claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 21, and 27.
The modification also provides the Organic light emitting device of Takizawa as modified by Seo, Wang, and Boudreault ‘848 (1) comprising an anode (ITO), an emission layer, and a cathode (Al), wherein the emission layer comprising the Compound of Takizawa as modified by Seo, Wang and Boudreault ‘848 (1) as the emitting dopant and the Compound H-1 of Takizawa as a host, wherein the emission layer is a composition, meeting all the limitations of claims 16-17 and 20.
Takizawa in view of Wang and Boudreault ‘848 does not disclose a specific consumer product comprising the Organic light emitting device of Takizawa as modified by Wang and Boudreault ‘848 (1); however, Takizawa does teach that the organic light emitting device can be used for a display apparatus ([0058]).
Boudreault ‘848 teaches that the organic light emitting device can be incorporated into a consumer product of a flat panel display ([0030]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to have further modified the Organic light emitting device of Takizawa in view of Wang and Boudreault ‘848 (1) by incorporating the device into a consumer product of a flat panel display, as taught by Takizawa and Boudreault ‘848.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of organic light emitting devices in a flat panel display would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides a flat panel display comprising the Organic light emitting device of Takizawa as modified by Seo, Wang, and Boudreault ‘848 (1), meeting all the limitations of claim 19.
Regarding claims 9, 22, and 25, the Organic light emitting device of Takizawa as modified by Seo, Wang, and Boudreault ‘848 (1) reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises an anode (ITO), an emission layer, and a cathode (Al), wherein the emission layer comprising the Compound of Takizawa as modified by Seo, Wang, and Boudreault ‘848 (1) as the emitting dopant and the Compound H-1 of Takizawa as a host, wherein the emission layer is a composition.
The cyclopentyl ring of the Compound of Takizawa as modified by Seo, Wang, and Boudreault ‘848 (1) at the position corresponding to the ring Z of the Formula (I) of Takizawa is not substituted; however, Takizawa does teach that the ring Z can be further substituted by an alkyl group ([0078]). Takizawa exemplifies a methyl group as the substituent of the ring Z (see examples including at least a29 in [0079]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound of Takizawa as modified by Seo, Wang, and Boudreault ‘848 (1) by substituting any hydrogen atom substituted to the cyclopentyl ring at the position corresponding to the ring Z of Formula (I) of Takizawa with a methyl group, as taught by Takizawa.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitutions of the exemplary substituent for the ring Z of Formula (I) of Takizawa would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Compound of Takizawa as modified by Seo, Wang, and Boudreault ‘848 (3) which has identical structure as the Compound of Takizawa as modified by Seo, Wang, and Boudreault ‘848 (1) except the cyclopentyl ring is substituted at least one methyl group.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8, 10-11, 16-17, 19-20, 24, and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boudreault et al. (US 2015/0236276 A1) in view of Takizawa et al. (US 2012/0153816), Wang et al. (“Highly efficient electroluminescent materials based on fluorinated organometallic iridium compounds”, Appl. Phys. Lett. 2001, Vol. 79, page 449-451), and Boudreault et al. (US 2016/0104848 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8, 10-11, 16-17, 19-20, 24, and 27-28, Boudreault ‘276 discloses a compound comprising a ligand LA of formula I of Boudreault ‘276 used as the phosphorescent emitting dopant of an organic light emitting device ([0015]- [0028]).
In the compounds of Boudreault ‘276, the substituent R3 of Formula (II) can be hydrogen, halogen, alkyl, cycloalkyl, or a combination thereof ([0113]).
Boudreault ‘276 exemplifies Compound 6766, Ir(LA46)(LB43)(Table 3 on page 79; LA46 in [0134] on page 9; LB43 in [0136])
PNG
media_image5.png
358
733
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Boudreault ‘276 teaches the structure of an organic light emitting device comprising an anode (ITO), an emission layer comprising a compound of Boudreault ‘276 as a phosphorescent emissive dopant and BAlq as a host, and a cathode (Al) ([0223]).
Boudreault ‘276 does not exemplify a specific device comprising Compound 6766; however, Boudreault ‘276 teaches that the compounds of Boudreault ‘276 can be used as a phosphorescent emissive dopant ([0015]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to have modified Compound 6766 of Boudreault ‘276 by incorporating it as the phosphorescent emissive dopant of an organic light emitting device, as taught by Boudreault ‘276.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Substitution of the phosphorescent emissive dopants of Boudreault ‘276 with Compound 6766 would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides a Modified organic light emitting device of Boudreault ‘276 comprising an anode (ITO), an emission layer comprising Compound 6766 of Boudreault ‘276 as a phosphorescent emissive dopant and BAlq as a host, and a cathode (Al).
Compound 6766 of Boudreault ‘276 has similar structure as the claimed compound of the instant claim 1. The only difference is that the Compound 6766 of Boudreault ‘276 does not include fluorine or a partially or fully fluorinated moiety substituted to the cyclopentyl ring; however, Boudreault ‘276 does teach the substituent R3 of Formula (II) can be combination of halogen, alkyl, and cycloalkyl ([0113]) and exemplifies fluorine as the halogen ([0097]).
Takizawa discloses an organometallic complex used for an organic light emitting device, wherein the complex has a substituent group represented by formula (I) ([0064]). The substituent group includes a saturated 5- to 8-membered ring (“Z”) and a quaternary carbon (the carbon substituted by R1 in formula (I)), wherein the substituent R1 can be an alkyl group. Takizawa exemplifies Substituent structure a1, wherein a methyl group is substituted to the quaternary carbon (i.e. position 1 in the figure above; [0079]).
PNG
media_image6.png
197
490
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Takizawa teaches that the saturated ring with a quaternary carbon provides sterically bulky but is more compactly and rigidly organized as compared with a chain group having the same number of atoms as the structure, which keeps an appropriate intermolecular distance and increases degree of order in the molecular arrangement; as a result a charge career mobility in the device and device efficiency are increased, and the drive voltage is reduced ([0066], [0076]- [0077]).
Takizawa does not exemplify a fluorine-substituted methyl group substituted to the quaternary carbon of the cyclopentylmethyl substituent structure; however, the R1 group of formula (I) Takizawa can be further substituted ([0064], [0070]).
Wang discloses a fluorinated organometallic iridium compound used as the emitter of an organic light emitting device (Title, Abstract, Fig. 1).
Wang teaches that conversion of C-H to C-F bond by fluorination reduces the rate of radiationless deactivation, enhances photoluminescence efficiency, provides better sublimation for thin film deposition, minimizes self-quenching; enhances electron mobility; and provides tunability of electroluminescent color (page 449, column 2, paragraph 2 through page 450, column 1, paragraph 1).
Boudreault ‘848 discloses an organometallic compound comprising at least one aromatic ring and at least one substituent R ([0016]- [0017]).
Boudreault ‘848 exemplifies an R group of alkyl wherein a CH2F group is substituted at the substitution position 2 of the alkyl (RA4 of ligands LA4 in [0078]).
PNG
media_image7.png
88
353
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Boudreault ‘848 teaches that incorporation of fluorine into an alkyl group wherein at least one carbon atom is disposed between the fluorine atom and the first aromatic ring, provides fine tuning of emission color while maintaining good device efficiency and lifetime ([0015]-[0017]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to have modified Compound 6766 of Boudreault ‘276 by substituting the hydrogen atom substituted to the quaternary carbon with a CH2F group as taught by Wang and Boudreault ‘848.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide 1) sterically bulky but is more compactly and rigidly organized as compared with a chain group having the same number of atoms as the structure, which keeps an appropriate intermolecular distance and increases degree of order in the molecular arrangement; as a result a charge career mobility in the device and device efficiency are increased, and the drive voltage is reduced, based on the teaching of Takizawa, 2) reduce the rate of radiationless deactivation, enhance photoluminescence efficiency, provide better sublimation for thin film deposition, minimize self-quenching; enhance electron mobility; and provide tunability of electroluminescent color, based on the teaching of Wang, and 3) provide an organic light emitting device with higher external quantum efficiency and better device stability by having fluorine as a part of R group and having one carbon between the fluorine atom and the quinoline ring, based on teaching of Boudreault ‘848.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
PNG
media_image8.png
400
544
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The modification provides the First compound of Boudreault ‘276 as modified by Takizawa, Wang, and Boudreault ‘848, meeting all the limitations of claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8, 10-11, 24, and 27-28.
The modification also provides the organic light emitting device of Boudreault ‘276 as modified by Takizawa, Wang, and Boudreault ‘848 comprising an anode (ITO), an emission layer comprising the First compound of Boudreault ‘276 as modified by Takizawa, Wang, and Boudreault ‘848 as a phosphorescent emissive dopant and BAlq as a host, and a cathode (Al), wherein the emissive layer materials are equated with a composition, meeting all the limitations of claims 16-17 and 20.
Boudreault ‘276 as modified by Takizawa, Wang, and Boudreault ‘848 does not disclose a specific consumer product comprising the Organic light emitting device of Boudreault ‘276 as modified by Takizawa, Wang, and Boudreault ‘848; however, Boudreault ‘848 does teach that the organic light emitting device can be incorporated into a consumer product including a flat panel display ([0095]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to have further modified the Organic light emitting device of Takizawa in view of Wang, and Boudreault ‘848 by incorporating the device into a consumer product of a flat panel display, as taught by Boudreault ‘276.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of organic light emitting devices in a flat panel display would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Furthermore, it would have been within the level of ordinary skill of a worker in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials and structure to be used to make a flat panel display.
The resultant consumer product is a flat panel display comprising the Organic light emitting device of Boudreault ‘276 as modified by Takizawa, Wang, and Boudreault ‘848, meeting all the limitations of claim 19.
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 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, 3, 5-6, 8-10, 16, 19-20 and 24-28 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 17, 20, and 28 of Application No. 17/518,718 (hereafter Application ‘718). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed at the same aspects of the same invention. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8-10, 16, 19-20 and 24-28, Application ‘718 discloses a compound (Formula I in claims 1, 17, and 20).
Application ‘718 exemplifies the following compounds (claim 28, hereafter Compound A and Compound B).
PNG
media_image9.png
256
483
media_image9.png
Greyscale
The Compounds A and B of Application ‘718 reads on the limitation of the first compound of the instant claims 1.
Application ‘718 discloses an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode, wherein an organic layer which contains a compound of Formula I (claim 17).
Application ‘718 does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising the Compound A (or B) of Application ‘718; however, Application ‘718 does teach the organic light emitting device of claim 17 can comprise the compound of Formula I of Application ‘718 (claim 17).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to have modified Compound A (or B) of Application ‘718 by incorporating it into the organic layer of an organic light emitting device of Application ‘718, as taught by Application ‘718.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Substitution of the organic layer materials of Application ‘718 in the organic light emitting device of Application ‘718 would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified organic light emitting device of Application ‘718, wherein the device comprises an anode, an organic layer (Compound A (or B) of Application ‘718), and a cathode.
The first Compound A (or B) of Application ‘718 reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach that the first compound is capable of functioning as a phosphorescent emitter in an organic light emitting device at room temperature.
It is reasonable to presume that the First Compound A (or B) of Application ‘718 is capable of functioning as a phosphorescent emitter in an organic light emitting device at room temperature.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
Applicant discloses that the first compound of the invention is capable of functioning as a phosphorescent emitter in an organic light emitting device at room temperature in the instant specification ([0062]).
The First Compound A (or B) of Application ‘718 has identical structure as Applicant’s embodiments of the first compound described in the instant specifications ([0062]- [0069]).
Therefore, the First Compound A (or B) of Application ‘718 is capable of functioning as a phosphorescent emitter in an organic light emitting device at room temperature.
The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once Modified organic light emitting device of Application ‘718 is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977). Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though the rejection is based on Section 103 instead of 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
The First Compound A of Application ‘718 reads on all the limitations of claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8-10 and 25-26.
The First Compound B of Application ‘718 reads on all the limitations of claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8-10, 24-25 and 27-28.
The Modified organic light emitting device of Application ‘718, wherein the device comprises an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer (Compound A (or B) of Application ‘718), and a cathode, wherein the organic layer materials are a composition, meeting all the limitations of claims 16 and 20. It is noted that the First Compound emits a phosphorescent light in the device structure as outlined above such that the First Compound is equated with an emissive dopant; and the organic later is equated with an emissive layer.
The Application ‘718 does not disclose a specific consumer product comprising the Modified organic light emitting device of Application ‘718; however, Application ‘718 does teach the organic light emitting device of Application ‘718 can be used for a consumer product (claim 20).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to have modified the Modified organic light emitting device of Application ‘718 by using it to make a consumer product as taught by Application ‘718.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Substitution of the organic light emitting devices in a consumer product would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides the Modified consumer product comprising the Modified organic light emitting device of Application ‘718, meeting all the limitations of claim 19.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEOKMIN JEON whose telephone number is (571)272-4599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm EST.
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.
/SEOKMIN JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights