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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 6, 14, and 18 are 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. In Chemical Formula 2, L1 does not include a single bond, but must be a C6 to 60 arylene group. Several of the compounds include L1 as a single bond, including RHH-1, RHH-3, RHH-7, RHH-8, RHH -11, RHH -12, RHH-19, and RHH-20. See RHH-1 below wherein the circled single bond is in place of L1:
PNG
media_image1.png
300
379
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
299
143
media_image2.png
Greyscale
. 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
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) 1-3, 5-12, 14-16, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 20220085300 A1) in view of Xia et al (US 10181564 B2) or Huang et al (US 20130033172 A1).
Kim discloses an OLED having a light emitting layer having the same hosts as the presently claimed Chemical Formula 2 and Chemical 3, disclosed as Chemical Formula 2 and Chemical Formula 1, respectively:
PNG
media_image3.png
321
291
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
328
286
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[abstract, claim 1].
Kim discloses similmar if not identical host compounds to the presently claimed specific embodiments RHH and REH [claims 7 and 12] having the same C6 to C60 aryl and heteroaryl groups attached to the core molecules. The compounds are used in the same capacity and arranged just as in the claimed compounds. The claimed compounds would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention because the skilled artisan would have expected the claimed hosts and disclosed hosts to have similar and overlapping if not indistinguishable properties based on the structural similarities of the compounds. Case law confirms that a prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. “An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties.” In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Kim does not disclose the claimed iridium complex of Chemical Formula 1. However, Kim discloses in the examples a very similar iridium complex as the dopant material, the same as claimed Chemical Formula 1 but missing the fused 5 membered ring of the R group:
PNG
media_image5.png
244
195
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[p235].
Xia discloses OLEDs comprising a light emitting layer which comprises a dopant having embodiments of 5-member heteroaryl ring fused quinoline ligands that read on the presently claimed Chemical Formula 1:
PNG
media_image6.png
256
188
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
29
344
media_image7.png
Greyscale
[clm 11 col 362, col 4]
As well as the claimed AcAc ligands:
PNG
media_image8.png
116
140
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
171
128
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
186
150
media_image10.png
Greyscale
[cols 4, 595].
Xia teaches that the dopants improve emission properties of an OLED [abstract].
Huang also discloses OLEDs with light emitting layers comprising iridium complex dopants that read on the claimed Chemical Formula 1, below:
PNG
media_image11.png
162
173
media_image11.png
Greyscale
[pp2,3].
Huang teaches that the complexes enhance the electroluminescent efficiency of an OLED [0017].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to combined the claimed iridium complex with the hosts of Kim because Xia and Huang teach that the iridium complexes improve emission properties and electroluminescent efficiency of OLEDs.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4, 13, and 17 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art, Xia et al (US 10181564 B2) or Huang et al (US 20130033172 A1), discloses similar dopants to the claims:
PNG
media_image6.png
256
188
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
162
173
media_image11.png
Greyscale
However, the art does not disclose the specific embodiments with the specific substituents and in most cases an additional fused benzene ring on the ligand to make a naphthyl ligand as opposed to the mostly phenyl ligands on the prior art. While each of the substituents of the on the claimed compounds might be within the scope of the prior art references, it would require excessive hindsight on the part of the office to pick-and-choose each of the substituents and variables of the claimed compounds.
Boudreault et al (US 20180013077 A1) discloses the presently claimed iridium complexes, but only as an additional emitter among many other additional emitters. It would require excessive hindsight on the part of the office to pick out the only emitter that reads on the claimed complexes to begin with, and the specific example would not read on the specific embodiments of the allowable claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL M DOLLINGER whose telephone number is (571)270-5464. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6:30pm 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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-272-1302. 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.
MICHAEL M. DOLLINGER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1766
/MICHAEL M DOLLINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights