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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9, 11-13, and 16-17, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 1 it is suggested that in the definition of "R10a is as described in connection with R3" be deleted and added to the definitions of R1a, R1b, …. and E1 to E5 prior in the claim OR be changed to "R10a is defined the same as R3" or the like for ease of reading;
in claim 9, it is suggested that "R14 to R17 are each as defined for R11 in claim 1" be changed to "R14 to R17 are each the same as R11 in claim 1" or the like for ease of reading;
in claim 11, it is suggested that "R31 to R39, R31a and R31b are each defined as R3 in claim 1" be changed to "R31 to R39, R31a and R31b are each defined the same as R3 in claim 1" for ease of reading;
in claim 12, it is suggested that "R41 to R50, R41a and R41b are each defined as R4 in claim 1" be changed to "R41 to R50, R41a and R41b are each defined the same as R4 in claim 1" for ease of reading;
in claim 13, it is suggested that "R31 and R32 are each defined as R3 in claim 1" be changed to "R31 and R32 are each defined the same as R3 in claim 1" for ease of reading;
in claim 13, it is suggested that "R14 to R17 are each defined R11 in claim 1" be changed to "R14 to R17 are each definedthe same as R11 in claim 1" for ease of reading;
in claim 16, it is suggested that the comma before comprising be delete for ease of reading;
in claim 16, it is suggested that "wherein the organic layer further comprises at least one of the organometallic compound of claim 1" be changed to "wherein the organic layer further comprises at least one
in claim 17, it is suggested that "the at least one of the organometallic compound of claim 1" be changed to "the at least one
in claim 20, it is suggested that the comma before comprising be delete for ease of reading.
Appropriate correction is required.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. CN-114933616-A (hereinafter "Lee-CN" and see English language machine translation referred to herein as "Lee-MT").
Lee et al. CN-114933616-A is cited on the IDS of 06/21/2024.
Regarding claims 1-14, 16-17, and 19-20, Lee discloses an organic photoelectric device comprising an organic functional layer between a first electrode and a second electrode (Lee-MT, page 3 of 11, lines 22-25), wherein the organic layer comprises a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, a light emitting layer, a hole blocking layer, an electron injection layer, an electron transport layer, and wherein the light emitting layer contains an organic metal complex represented by formula (I) (Lee-MT, page 4 of 11, lines 1-5 and page 2 of 11, lines 25-26). Lee discloses examples of the organic metal complex represented by formula (I) on pages 15-22 that meet the claimed Formula 1 including compounds 8-9, 56-57, and 68-69.
Thus, the device comprising the compound of Lee meets claims 1-14, 16-17, 19-20.
For example, the compound 8
PNG
media_image1.png
172
233
media_image1.png
Greyscale
meets the claimed Formula 1 and 1-2 wherein:
M1 is Pt, a transition metal;
X11 is C(R11);
X12 is C(R12);
X21 is C(R21);
X22 is N;
X23 is C(R23);
Y2 and Y3 are each C and Y4 is N;
A2 to A4 are each a chemical bond;
ring CY3 is a C12 heterocyclic ring (a carbazole group) and ring CY4 is a C5 heterocyclic ring (a pyridine group);
T1 is a single bond;
T2 is *-O-*';
T3 is a single bond;
a1 is 1;
a2 is 1;
a3 is 1;
L1 to L3 are not required to be present;
b1to b3 are not required to be present;
R13 is a group represented by Formula 2;
R1a, R1b, R2a, R2b, R3a, R3b are not required to be present, R3 is hydrogen, R4 is a substituted C1 alkyl group, R11 and R12 are each hydrogen, R21 is hydrogen, R22 is not required to be present, R23 is hydrogen, and E1 is hydrogen, E2 is an unsubstituted C1 alkyl group (a methyl group), E3 is hydrogen, E4 is an unsubstituted C1 alkyl group (a methyl group) and E5 is hydrogen;
neighboring R3 and R4 are bonded to each other to form a substituted heterocyclic group;
R10a is not required to be present; and
d3 is 6 and d4 is 1.
Regarding claim 18, Lee discloses the modified compound as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Lee appears silent with respect to the property of wherein the emission layer emits a light having a maximum emission wavelength of about 410 nanometers to about 490 nanometers.
The instant specification recites that compounds 1 and 7, which have a substantially similar structure to the cited compound, have a maximum emission at 455 nm (Table 3).
Since Lee teaches the modified compound discussed above, a structure substantially similar to that disclosed by the applicant shown to possess a maximum emission at 455 nm, the property of a maximum emission wavelength in the range of about 410 nanometers to about 490 nanometers is considered to be inherent to the compound of Lee and thus the emissive layer comprising the compound, absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP § 2112.
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.
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 Chen et al. US-20200411775-A1 (hereinafter "Chen").
Chen et al. US-20200411775-A1 is cited on the IDS of 11/21/2023.
Regarding claims 1-17 and 19-20, Chen teaches an OLED comprising a first organic layer disposed between an anode and a cathode (¶ [0077]), wherein the organic layer comprises a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer, an emissive layer, a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer (¶ [0095]), and wherein the emissive layer comprises a compound having a structure of Formula I (¶ [0078]). Chen teaches the compounds obtain narrow FWHM, high PLQY, and short excited state lifetime and can realize a highly efficient deep blue phosphorescent OLED (¶ [0144]). Chen teaches examples of the compound having a structure of Formula Iin paragraph [0075] including compound
PNG
media_image2.png
373
392
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 33).
Chen does not exemplify a compound of the claimed Formula 1. For example, the above compound of Chen differs from the claimed compound in that a group corresponding to the claimed Formula 2 shows substituents at the positions corresponding to E1 and E5 instead of one of E2 or E4. However, Chen teaches R in the Formula I, which corresponds to R13 in the claimed Formula 1, can be selected from any group in paragraph [0072] which includes R5
PNG
media_image3.png
104
229
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image4.png
116
209
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Chen, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the R group in the compound above for R8, because Chen teaches the variable may suitably be selected as such. The substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful in the emissive layer of the device of Chen and possess the beneficial properties of narrow FWHM, high PLQY, and short excited state lifetime, taught by Chen. See MPEP § 2143.I.(B).
The device comprising the modified compound of Chen meets claims 1-17 and 19-20.
For example, the modified compound of Chen corresponds to the claimed compound
PNG
media_image5.png
270
248
media_image5.png
Greyscale
and is a compound of the claimed Formula 1 and 1-2 wherein:
M1 is Pt, a transition metal;
X11 is C(R11);
X12 is C(R12);
X21 is N;
X22 is C(R22);
X23 is C(R23);
Y2 and Y3 are each C and Y4 is N;
A2 to A4 are each a chemical bond;
ring CY3 is a C12 heterocyclic ring (a carbazole group) and ring CY4 is a C5 heterocyclic ring (a pyridine group);
T1 is a single bond;
T2 is *-O-*';
T3 is a single bond;
a1 is 1;
a2 is 1;
a3 is 1;
L1 to L3 are not required to be present;
b1 to b3 are not required to be present;
R13 is a group represented by Formula 2;
R1a, R1b, R2a, R2b, R3a, R3b are not required to be present, R3 is hydrogen, R4 is a substituted C4 alkyl group (a t-butyl group), R11 and R12 are each hydrogen, R21 is not required to be present, R22 is hydrogen, R23 is hydrogen, and E1 is hydrogen, E2 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl group (a phenyl group), E3 is hydrogen, E4 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl group (a phenyl group), and E5 is hydrogen;
R10a is not required to be present; and
d3 is 6 and d4 is 1.
Regarding claim 18, Chen teaches the modified compound as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Chen appears silent with respect to the property of wherein the emission layer emits a light having a maximum emission wavelength of about 410 nanometers to about 490 nanometers.
However, Chen teaches compounds substantially similar in structure to the modified compound possessing a maximum emission in the range of 455 to 457 nm (Table 1). The instant specification recites that compounds 1 and 7, which have a substantially similar structure to the modified compound, have a maximum emission at 455 nm (Table 3).
Since Chen teaches the modified compound discussed above, a structure substantially similar to that disclosed by the applicant shown to possess a maximum emission at 455 nm and to compounds of Chen shown to possess a maximum emission in the range of 455 to 457 nm, the property of a maximum emission wavelength in the range of about 410 nanometers to about 490 nanometers is considered to be inherent to the modified compound of Chen and thus the emissive layer comprising the compound, absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP § 2112.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Lee et al. US-20220293857-A1 teaches organometallic complexes of Formula 1 (¶ [0007]) including compound 38 (page 16).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elizabeth M. Dahlburg whose telephone number is 571-272-6424. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET, and alternate Fridays.
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.
/ELIZABETH M. DAHLBURG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights