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. KR10-2022-0140499, filed on 10/27/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/26/2023 was filed after the mailing date of the instant application on 10/26/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The letters, numbers, and/or bonds in the chemical structure given in paragraphs [00129], [00154], [00222], [00231], [00312], and [00318] are illegible due to poor resolution. Please correct these structures so all letters, numbers, and/or bonds are clearly visible. See the example below.
PNG
media_image1.png
154
186
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Please note that this example is non-limiting and there may be other structures that require correction. Please check all formulae to make sure they are clear. Applicant may wish to make these structures clearer by increasing the size of the structure and/or font, or by making the bond lines thicker.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The letters, numbers, and/or bonds in the chemical structure given in claim 18 are illegible due to poor resolution. Please correct these structures so all letters, numbers, and/or bonds are clearly visible. See the example below.
PNG
media_image2.png
270
450
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Please note that this example is non-limiting and there may be other structures that require correction. Please check all formulae to make sure they are clear. Applicant may wish to make these structures clearer by increasing the size of the structure and/or font, or by making the bond lines thicker.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 14 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 14, the limitations of X6 and b6 introduce uncertainty into the claim because b6 is an integer of 2 to 4, but every definition of X6 includes two explicitly defined bonds. This introduces uncertainty because it is unclear if one bond of each of X6 is shared or if each of X6 comprises two mutually exclusive bonds. The latter of these possibilities further complicates the definition of X6 because chemical bonds are formed between chemical centers only. In conventional chemical notation, two distinct bonds cannot be directly connected to one another without an intervening atomic center.
In continuing examination, each X6 is being interpreted as sharing at least one bond with an adjacent X6.
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 1-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. (US 2016/0240800 A1) and further in view of Yi et al. (EP 3957701 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Ma discloses an organic light emitting device (paragraph 0089, an OLED) comprising a first and second electrode (an anode and a cathode), and an organic layer between the electrodes, and the organic layer comprises an emission layer and the emission layer comprises a compound of Formula 1 (paragraphs 0088-0089), such as the compound below (page 14).
PNG
media_image3.png
280
356
media_image3.png
Greyscale
This compound is derived from Formula 1, which is pictured below (paragraph 0016).
PNG
media_image4.png
394
594
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In this formula, Ma also teaches that when X is NRE, the phenyl group at RE may be unsubstituted (paragraph 0023), and any of RA, RB, RC, or RD may be joined to form a ring (paragraph 0024). By way of example, Ma teaches that preferably, the ring formed by adjacent RA groups is a dibenzofuran moiety (see for example, the compounds on pages 22-23).
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of Condition 3 of instant Formula 1 when M is platinum, Y1 is oxygen, CY2 a 6-membered pyridine ring, CY3 is an imidazole group condensed with a 6-membered benzene ring (benzimidazole), X11 through X14 are each CH, X42 and X43 are CR42 and CR43 and R42 and R43 are joined to form a C12 heterocyclic group (dibenzofuran), X41 and X44 are CH, X5 is a single bond, a2 is 2 and two R2 are joined to form a condensed, 6-membered benzene group, a3 is 2 and two of R3 form the aforementioned condensed benzene ring.
Ma includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Ma being a lack of the aforementioned combination including a dibenzofuran moiety 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 ligand component from the finite list of demonstrated ring systems to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a compound with high PLQY and which is suitable for use as an emitter in a PHOLED (paragraph 0135), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
However, Ma does not teach nor fairly suggest incorporating a dibenzofuran moiety when a ring analogous to instant CY3 is a non-carbene benzimidazole.
In analogous art, Yi discloses tetradentate platinum organometallic complexes which comprise at least one condensed, cyclic group in which two or more rings are condensed with each other.
Yi teaches that when an organometallic compound comprises at least one condensed, cyclic group in which two or more rings are condensed with each other, the rigidity of the organometallic compound is increased so that deformation of the molecular structure of the organometallic compound may be reduced. As a result, the full width at half maximum of the luminescence spectrum of the organometallic compound is improved, and tau (decay time) may be reduced due to the increase in charge transfer characteristics of the organometallic compound.
Yi goes on to give several example compounds wherein the condensed, cyclic group of two or more rings is a dibenzofuran which is bonded to a non-carbene benzimidazole and is located in a position relevant to the claimed invention (see for example compounds 109-180, pages 54-57, and compounds 229-240, pages 59-60).
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 incorporate a dibenzofuran group by combining instant R42 and R43 in order to increase the rigidity of the organometallic compound and reduce the deformation of the molecular structure of the organometallic compound, and as a result, improve the full width at half maximum of the luminescence spectrum of the organometallic compound, and reduce the tau (decay time) due to the increase in charge transfer characteristics of the organometallic compound, as taught by Yi.
With respect to claims 2 and 3, Ma and Yi teach the device of claim 1, and the first electrode is an anode, the second electrode is a cathode, and the emission layer comprises the organometallic compound, as discussed above, and Ma also teaches that the interlayer may also comprise a hole transport layer between the anode and emission layer, and an electron transport layer between the emission layer and the cathode (paragraph 0035 and Figure 1).
With respect to claims 4 and 5, Ma and Yi teach the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Examiner is interpreting this compound to meet the requirements of the instant claims through its use as a preferred embodiment of the claimed invention, as given on page 25 (P15) of the instant specification. 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 Ma and Yi reads on the claims.
Ma and Yi are silent to the emission wavelength and percentage of 3MLCT value 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 compound of Ma and Yi is used as an 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 Ma and Yi, 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 Ma and Yi was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
With respect to claims 6 and 7, Ma and Yi teach the device of claim 1, and Ma also teaches that the described device may be used in an electronic apparatus such as a full color display, which may also include a screen designed to filter white backlight into red, green, and blue emission (paragraph 0006).
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 device in a full color display with the use of a color filter, as taught by Ma.
With respect to claims 8 and 9, Ma and Yi teach the device of claim 1, and Ma also teaches that the device may be used in equipment such as a cell phone (paragraph 0042).
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 device in equipment, such as a cell phone, as taught by Ma.
With respect to claims 10-13, Ma discloses the compound below (page 14).
PNG
media_image3.png
280
356
media_image3.png
Greyscale
This compound is derived from Formula 1, which is pictured below (paragraph 0016).
PNG
media_image4.png
394
594
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In this formula, Ma also teaches that when X is NRE, the phenyl group at RE may be unsubstituted (paragraph 0023), and any of RA, RB, RC, or RD may be joined to form a ring (paragraph 0024). By way of example, Ma teaches that preferably, the ring formed by adjacent RA groups is a dibenzofuran moiety (see for example, the compounds on pages 22-23).
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of Condition 3 of instant Formula 1 when M is platinum, Y1 is oxygen, CY2 a 6-membered pyridine ring, CY3 is an imidazole group condensed with a 6-membered benzene ring (benzimidazole), X11 through X14 are each CH, X42 and X43 are CR42 and CR43 and R42 and R43 are joined to form a C12 heterocyclic group (dibenzofuran), X41 and X44 are CH, X5 is a single bond, a2 is 2 and two R2 are joined to form a condensed, 6-membered benzene group, a3 is 2 and two of R3 form the aforementioned condensed benzene ring.
Ma includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Ma being a lack of the aforementioned combination including a dibenzofuran moiety 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 ligand component from the finite list of demonstrated ring systems to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a compound with high PLQY and which is suitable for use as an emitter in a PHOLED (paragraph 0135), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
However, Ma does not teach nor fairly suggest incorporating a dibenzofuran moiety when a ring analogous to instant CY3 is a non-carbene benzimidazole.
In analogous art, Yi discloses tetradentate platinum organometallic complexes which comprise at least one condensed, cyclic group in which two or more rings are condensed with each other.
Yi teaches that when an organometallic compound comprises at least one condensed, cyclic group in which two or more rings are condensed with each other, the rigidity of the organometallic compound is increased so that deformation of the molecular structure of the organometallic compound may be reduced. As a result, the full width at half maximum of the luminescence spectrum of the organometallic compound is improved, and tau (decay time) may be reduced due to the increase in charge transfer characteristics of the organometallic compound.
Yi goes on to give several example compounds wherein the condensed, cyclic group of two or more rings is a dibenzofuran which is bonded to a non-carbene benzimidazole and is located in a position relevant to the claimed invention (see for example compounds 109-180, pages 54-57, and compounds 229-240, pages 59-60).
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 incorporate a dibenzofuran group by combining instant R42 and R43 in order to increase the rigidity of the organometallic compound and reduce the deformation of the molecular structure of the organometallic compound, and as a result, improve the full width at half maximum of the luminescence spectrum of the organometallic compound, and reduce the tau (decay time) due to the increase in charge transfer characteristics of the organometallic compound, as taught by Yi.
With respect to claim 15, Ma and Yi teach the compound of claim 10, as discussed above.
Ma also teaches the described compounds may be represented by the compound pictured below (page 14).
PNG
media_image5.png
266
416
media_image5.png
Greyscale
This compound can be modified in the same manner discussed above in order to meet the requirements of the parent independent claim.
The modified compound also meets the requirements of the instant claim when the group comprising X11-X14 is represented by instant Formula CY1-4 when all X groups are CH.
Ma includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Ma being a lack of the aforementioned combination including a dibenzofuran moiety 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 ligand component from the finite list of demonstrated ring systems to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a compound with high PLQY and which is suitable for use as an emitter in a PHOLED (paragraph 0135), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
It also would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a dibenzofuran group by combining instant R42 and R43 in order to increase the rigidity of the organometallic compound and reduce the deformation of the molecular structure of the organometallic compound, and as a result, the full width at half maximum of the luminescence spectrum of the organometallic compound is improved, and tau (decay time) may be reduced due to the increase in charge transfer characteristics of the organometallic compound, as taught by Yi.
With respect to claim 16, Ma and Yi teach the compound of claim 10, and CY2 is represented by instant Formula CY2-1 when all X groups are CH, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 17, Ma and Yi teach the compound of claim 10, and CY3 is represented by instant Formula CY3-3 when all X groups are CH and R31 is the same as R3, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 18, Ma and Yi teach the compound of claim 10, and the group comprising X41-X44 is represented by instant Formula CY4-5 when X49 is an oxygen atom, and all other X characters are CH.
With respect to claim 19, Ma and Yi teach the compound of claim 10, as discussed above.
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 25 (P15) of the instant specification. 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 Ma and Yi reads on the claims.
Ma and Yi are silent to the percentage of 3MLCT value 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 compound is used as a dopant 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 Ma and Yi, 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 Ma and Yi was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
With respect to claim 20, Ma and Yi teach the compound of claim 10, and the compound is identical to instant P15.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. (US 2016/0240800 A1) and Yi et al.( EP 3957701 A1) above, and further in view of Takiguchi et al. (US 2003/0235712 A1).
With respect to claim 14, Ma and Yi teach the compound of claim 10, as discussed above.
However, while Ma allows for the formation of a ring via bonding of adjacent substituents (paragraph 0024, see also the compounds on page 13), Ma does not fairly suggest an analogous compound wherein b6 is an integer of 2 to 4.
In analogous art, Takiguchi teaches a metal coordination compound wherein at least one ligand has a partial structure formed by condensation via an alkylene group having 2-10 carbon atoms. The compound is useful as a dopant in an electroluminescence device producing luminescence at high efficiency and stably keeping a high luminance for a long period (abstract).
Takiguchi teaches examples of divalent alkylene groups that are useful as linking groups in organic electroluminescent devices (paragraph 0064), which include ethylene (partial formula B), when R1 is a hydrogen atom (see Table 1).
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 an ethylene linking group for the divalent alkylene linking group of the compound of Ma and Yi, as ethylene was a known divalent alkylene bridging group which can be used to achieve a dopant compound for use in an electroluminescent device with high efficiency and which stably keeps high luminescence for a long period, as taught by Takiguchi.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang et al. (CN 112939940 A, translation provided) – teaches relevant organometallics.
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