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 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 1-4, 6-15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoesel et al (US 2007/0082284) (Stoessel).
In reference to claim 1, 2-4, 6, 8-10, 12-15 and 21, Stoessel teaches a metal complex of formula 5 as shown below with a linking group Z between ligands to form a tetradentate ligand for use in organic electroluminescent devices (Stoessel [0031] abstract),
PNG
media_image1.png
157
281
media_image1.png
Greyscale
for example wherein in the compound of formula 5, M is Pt (Stoessel [0032]), one of X is N and each other X is CR (Stoessel [0036]), each R is either hydrogen, adjacent R that are alkoxyl or alkyl together define a ring system (Stoessel [0029]) that is a furan (Stoessel [0056]), Z is O (Stoessel [0038]), T is N (Stoessel [0037]) and c is 0 (Stoessel [0039]).
Stoessel discloses the compound of formula 5 that encompasses the presently claimed compound, including wherein in the compound of formula 5, M is Pt, one of X is N and each other X is CR, each R is either hydrogen or adjacent R adjacent R that are alkoxyl or alkyl together define a ring system that is a furan, Z is O, T is N, and c is 0. Each of the disclosed substituents from the substituent groups of Stoessel are considered functionally equivalent and their selection would lead to obvious variants of compound of formula 5.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, in the absence of unexpected results, to have selected these substituents among those disclosed for compound of formula 5 to provide the compound described above, which is both disclosed by Stoessel and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
For Claim 1: Reads on formula I wherein X1 is N, X2 is C, L1 is not present, X3 is N, X4 is C, X5 is C, L2 is O, M is Pt, either RA and RC or RB and RD each represent alkyl and alkoxy that are fused to form a ring wherein the ring is a furan, each of the other R groups is hydrogen meeting condition i.
For Claim 3: Reads on X1 is N, X2 is C.
For Claim 4: Reads on X3 is N, X4 is C, X5 is C.
For Claim 6: Reads on wherein L1 is not present and L2 is O.
For Claim 8: Reads on furan.
For Claim 9: Reads on wherein they do not form a ring.
For Claim 10: The compound reads on a multiple fused ring system.
For Claim 12: Reads on
PNG
media_image2.png
162
232
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
For Claim 13: Reads on L2 is O.
For Claim 14: Reads on a furan.
For Claim 15: Reads on
PNG
media_image3.png
158
222
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
For Claim 21: Reads on compound 5-2.
In reference to claim 2, 7 and 11, Stoessel teaches the compound as described above for claim 1 and further teaches that the compound can optionally have additional substituents at any of the claimed positions, including alkyl groups, among others (Stoessel [0029]).
In the absence of unexpected results, the selection of a taught substituent at any one of these positions would have been expected by the ordinarily skilled artisan to have lead to a comparable material and such a substitution would be prima facie obvious as both Stoessel teach such substitutions.
Claim 17-20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoessel as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pflumm et al (US 2012/0068170) (Pflumm).
In reference to claim 17-20, Stoessel teaches the compound of claim 1. Stoessel further teaches that the compound is used in an organic electroluminescent device as an emission material doped into a matrix material and that such a use results in a high efficiency and long service lives (Stoessel [0062]).
However, Stoessel does not detail the inclusion of electrodes as instantly claimed or point to a specific matrix material as instantly claimed.
With respect to the difference, Pflumm teaches, in analogous art, a host material for organic EL devices that comprise anode and cathodes and is used in a display, (Pflumm [0090] [0140]) for example the compound shown below and further teaches that this host material provides improvements in in lifetime and power efficiency (Pflumm [0400] etc).
PNG
media_image4.png
208
260
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In light of the motivation of using the host as described above, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the host as described by Pflumm in order to improve power efficiency and device lifetime and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the outstanding rejections over Stoessel, Applicant argues that the the claimed materials and devices give rise to unexpected results as evidenced by a declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 08/13/2026 (Feldman Declaration). This argument has been fully considered but not found convincing for at least the following reasons.
The Feldman declaration sets forth a table of values for HOMO, LUMO, singlet and Triplet energies and percentage of metal-to-ligand charge transfer as calculated using density functional theory calculations of compounds that are either claimed and those that are unclaimed.
For a finding of unexpected results, the results presented need to be of both statistical and practical significance and be commensurate in scope with the subject matter claimed (See MPEP 716.02).
The data presented by Applicant fails to meet any of these requirements.
Initially, the calculations do not allow for an evaluation of statistical significance. There is no experiment performed and consequently no experimental variability that can be measured and reported.
Additionally, these calculations are predictions of values for the materials. By definition, predictions are what is expected and not evidence of what is unexpected. An unexpected result might be a demonstration that while such DFT calculations predict an increase in, for example, the triplet energy T1 when a certain structural change is made, actual experiments demonstrate a reduction in that value instead. Listing of predicted values itself only sets forth what would be anticipated for these materials. Furthermore, it is not unexpected that materials with different structures have different electronic properties.
Further, these values do not have any clear practical significance. The results of such calculations do not have any clear practical value.
Finally, only a few materials are demonstrated whereas the instant claims are drawn to an immense genus of compounds comprising a near infinite number of discrete materials.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. Claim 5 is drawn to the compound of formula 1 wherein L1 is present and L2 is not present. A search of the prior art did not identify these compounds.
The closest prior art identified corresponds to Stoessel. Stoessel teaches a metal complex of formula 5 as shown below with a linking group Z between ligands to form a tetradentate ligand for use in organic electroluminescent devices (Stoessel [0031] abstract). The linking group Z corresponds to a position L2.
PNG
media_image1.png
157
281
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Stoessel does not reasonably teach an alternative linkage corresponding to the instantly claimed L1 instead. Neither Stoessel, nor the prior art as whole, provide sufficiently specific motivation to have modified the materials of formula 5 to arrive at those instantly claimed before the effective filing date of the instant application.
Claim 5 is 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sean M DeGuire whose telephone number is (571)270-1027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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 A. Boyd can be reached on (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.
/Sean M DeGuire/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights