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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2022-0116671, filed on 09/15/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 09/15/2023, 11/29/2023, 05/02/2024, and 04/28/2025 were filed after the mailing date of the instant application on 09/15/2023. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 4, the claim contains embodiments of ring CY2 that are outside the scope of parent claim 1 because they lack at least one six-membered ring. For example, claim 4 states that CY2 may be a condensed ring group in which two or more first rings are condensed with each other. However, the list of first groups include 5-membered ring systems such as furan, thiophene, pyrrole, pyrazole, imidazole, etc.
In continuing examination, the claim is being interpreted as requiring that at least one of the rings in the condensed group is six-membered.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
With respect to claim 4, the claim contains embodiments of ring CY2 that are outside the scope of parent claim 1 because they lack at least one six-membered ring. For example, claim 4 states that CY2 may be a condensed ring group in which two or more first rings are condensed with each other. However, the list of first groups include 5-membered ring systems such as furan, thiophene, pyrrole, pyrazole, imidazole, etc.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dyatkin et al. (US 2023/0337519 A1).
With respect to claims 1-5 and 11-12, Dyatkin discloses an organometallic compound comprising a ligand LA of Formula I (abstract), such as the compound below (page 132).
PNG
media_image1.png
356
628
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Dyatkin also teaches that ligand LA may have the structure of
PNG
media_image2.png
278
260
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 21), wherein X8 may be CH, and RAA may represents no substitution (paragraph 0140).
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of instant Formula 1 when M1 is iridium, L1 is represented by Formula 1A, n1 is 2, L2 is represented by Formula 1B, and n2 is 1.
In Formula 1A, X1 is nitrogen, X2 is carbon, Y1 is sulfur, CY2 is a 6-membered carbocyclic (benzene) group with a fused, 6-membered carbocyclic (benzene) group and forms a naphthalene moiety, b12 is 4 and R12 is hydrogen, b11 is 2 and R11 is hydrogen, b2 is 1, and R2 is a perfluoromethyl group.
In Formula 1B, R31 and R32 are each a substituted alkyl group (3-(3-trifluoromethyl)pentane). Any remaining R groups are hydrogen atoms or not present.
Dyatkin includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Dyatkin being one optional nitrogen atom. Absent a showing of unexpected results, 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 atom from the finite list of possible atoms (C or N) to arrive at the compound of the instant claims since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of an organometallic compound with an electron-withdrawing (CF3) group, which demonstrates a moderate to significant red shift in emission spectra, a change in triplet energy value, and a significantly changed HOMO value compared to an analogous unfluorinated compound (paragraph 0273, lines 9-25), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 6, Dyatkin teaches the compound of claim 1, and the moiety of the instant claim is represented by instant formula 1-1, as pictured above.
With respect to claims 7-8, Dyatkin teaches the compound of claim 1, and CY2 is represented by instant formula 2-1 when CY25 is a C6 carbocyclic (benzene) ring, all X variables are carbon atoms, and R22 is CF3, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 9, Dyatkin teaches the compound of claim 1, and CY2 is represented by instant Formula 2A-1.
With respect to claim 10, Dyatkin teaches the compound of claim 1, and CY2 is represented by instant Formula 2A-11 when Z22 is CF3, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 13, Dyatkin teaches the compound of claim 1, and the compound is represented by instant Formula 3-1, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 14, Dyatkin teaches the compound of claim 1, as discussed above.
Dyatkin also teaches that ancillary acetylacetonate ligand, LC, may be represented by LC1-I, which is pictured below (paragraph 0173).
PNG
media_image3.png
142
418
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Such an additional modification produces instant compound 1.
Dyatkin includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Dyatkin being the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, 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 combination of elements from the finite lists of possible combinations since the combination would have yielded the predictable result of an organometallic compound with an electron-withdrawing fluorine group, which demonstrates a moderate to significant red shift in emission spectra, a change in triplet energy value, and a significantly changed HOMO value compared to an analogous unfluorinated compound (paragraph 0273, lines 9-25), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With resepct to claims 15-17 and 19-20, Dyatkin teaches the compound of claim 1, and Dyatkin also teaches an electronic apparatus (a flat panel display, paragraph 0207) comprising an organic light emitting device with an anode (115), a cathode (160), and an organic layer between the anode and cathode which comprises a hole transport layer (125), an emission layer (135), and an electron transport layer (145) (paragraph 0212 and Figure 1), the compound is comprised as an emissive dopant (paragraph 0224) in the emissive layer (paragraph 0227) in combination with a host material (paragraph 0196).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the compound, with a host material, as an emissive dopant in the emissive layer of an organic light emitting device, such as a flat panel display, with the claimed structure as taught by Dyatkin.
With respect to claim 18, Dyatkin teaches the device of claim 16, as discussed above.
Dyatkin also teaches that ancillary ligand LC may be represented by LC1-I, which is pictured below (paragraph 0173).
PNG
media_image3.png
142
418
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Dyatkin includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Dyatkin being the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, 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 combination of elements from the finite lists of possible combinations since the combination would have yielded the predictable result of an organometallic compound with an electron-withdrawing fluorine group, which demonstrates a moderate to significant red shift in emission spectra, a change in triplet energy value, and a significantly changed HOMO value compared to an analogous unfluorinated compound (paragraph 0273, lines 9-25), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Examiner is interpreting this compound to meet the requirements of the instant claim through its use as a preferred embodiment of the claimed invention, as given on page 33 of the instant specification (compound 1). Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and it has been held that when the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112.01(II)), and the compound of Dyatkin reads on the claims.
Dyatkin is silent to the emissive wavelength of this specific compound. However, this is considered to be a property of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when the organometallic compound is used as emitter in the organic layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the claimed property described in the instant claims. Therefore, the claims are considered to be obvious over Dyatkin, and the burden shifts to applicant to show that there is an unobvious difference between the claimed composition and the composition in the prior art. See MPEP 2112 (V). In addition, the presently claimed properties are considered to be present once the work of Dyatkin was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Boudreault et al. (US 2020/0227659 A1) – teaches the advantages of partial and full fluorination of alkyl substituents.
Shih et al. (US 2022/0194974 A1) – teaches fluorination of naphthalene moieties of iridium ligands.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL SIMBANA whose telephone number is (571)272-2657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 A.M. - 4:30 P.M..
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.
/RACHEL SIMBANA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights