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 Applicant’s Submission Under 37 CFR 1.130
The declaration filed on 6/23/2026 under 37CFR 1.130 has been considered and is sufficient to disqualify the Kim et al non-patent literature (NPL) reference as prior art. Accordingly, the rejection of record is withdrawn to the extent it relied upon Kim et al., and that reference is no longer applied against the claims.
However, the withdrawal of Kim et al. does not place the claims in condition for allowance. Upon further search and consideration, Culham et al. has been located and is now applied in place of Kim et al.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-20, 22-26, and 28-40 have been cancelled; and claims 21, 27, and 41-56 are currently pending.
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.
Claims 21, 27, 41-42, and 52-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson et al. (US 2015/0060830 A1, hereinafter “Thompson”) in view of Culham et al. (“Highly Luminescent Dinuclear Platinum(II) Complexes Incorporating Bis-Cyclometallating Pyrazine-Based Ligands: A Versatile Approach to Efficient Red Phosphors”, Inorganic Chemistry, Vol. 52, No.19, PP.10992-11003 (September 25, 2013))
In regards to claim 21, Thompson discloses (See, for example, Fig. 1) an organic light emitting device (OLED) comprising:
an anode (115);
a cathode (160);
a light emitting layer (135) having a first surface, a second surface, and a thickness therebetween,
the light emitting layer (135) being disposed between the anode (115) and the cathode (160); ); and wherein a transition dipole moment of the at least one phosphorescent compound is substantially perpendicular to the thickness of the light emitting layer (See applicant’s own disclosure, Par [0113], specifically, “substantially perpendicular” means the fraction of the net transition dipole moment lying perpendicular to the layer thickness is greater than 0.5. It is lexicography. Not forced to stuck with a dictionary meaning. θ_hor =0.67 for a randomly aligned films. 0.67 is greater than 0.5. So a completely ordinary emissive layer, made with no orientation control at all, already satisfies the limitation. The claim doesn’t capture the invention; it captures the baseline. (See, Par [0169]))
However, Thompson is silent about that the light emitting layer comprises the light emitting layer comprises at least one phosphorescent compound of General formula (II):
PNG
media_image1.png
186
338
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Culham discloses the light emitting layer comprises at least one phosphorescent compound of General formula (II) (See, Figure 1, Compound Pt2L4, Culham).
PNG
media_image2.png
152
265
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Thompson by Culham because this would help increase the extinction coefficient and the radiative rate constants.
In regards to claim 27, Thompson as modified above discloses wherein the platinum complex is:
PNG
media_image3.png
194
286
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(See, for example, Figure 1, Compound formula Pt2L4., Culham)
In regards to claims 41 and 42, Thompson as modified above discloses wherein Z21, Z22, Z23, Z24, Z25, and Z26 are each independently CR23 (See, for example, Figure 1, Compound formula Pt2L4; R23 being hydrogen, Culham).
In regards to claims 52, 53 and 54, Thompson as modified above discloses wherein R21 and R22 are independently selected from the group consisting of tert-butyl (See, for example, Figure 1, Compound formula Pt2L4, Culham).
In regards to claim 55, Thompson as modified above discloses (See, for example, Fig. 1) that the light emitting layer further comprises a host (See, for example, Pars [0040], [0106], [0109] …).
In regards to claim 56, Thompson as modified above discloses (See, for example, Fig. 1) the consumer product is selected from the group consisting of a flat panel display, a computer monitor, a medical monitor, a television, a billboard, a light for interior or exterior illumination and/or signaling, a heads-up display, a fully or partially transparent display, a flexible display, a laser printer, a telephone, a cell phone, tablet, a phablet, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a wearable device, a laptop computer, a digital camera, a camcorder, a viewfinder, a micro-display that is less than 2 inches diagonal, a 3-D display, a virtual reality or augmented reality display, a vehicle, a video wall comprising multiple displays tiled together, a theater or stadium screen, a light therapy device, and a sign (See, for example, Par [0044]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 43-51 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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERMIAS T WOLDEGEORGIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5350. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8 am - 5 pm E.S.T..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Britt Hanley can be reached on 571-270-3042. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERMIAS T WOLDEGEORGIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights