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 .
Summary of Claims
Claims 1, 12-13, and 15-16 are amended due to Applicant's amendment dated 04/15/2026. Claims 1 and 4-21 are pending.
Response to Amendment
The objections to claims 1, 10, 12-13, and 15 as set forth in the previous Office Action are overcome due to the Applicant's amendment dated 04/15/2026.
The objections to claims 9 and 11 as set forth in the previous Office Action are not overcome due to the Applicant's amendment dated 04/15/2026.
The rejection of claims 1 and 4-21 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement as set forth in the previous Office Action is withdrawn due to reconsideration of the original groups of rejection.
The rejection of claims 1 and 4-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (Lin, Wan‐Jung, et al. "Photofunctional Platinum Complexes Featuring N‐heterocyclic Carbene‐Based Pincer Ligands." Chemistry–An Asian Journal 10.3 (2015): 728-739.) in view of Hollis (US 2020/0095228 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 04/15/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 11-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Hollis and Cocchi (Cocchi, Massimo, et al. "N∧ C∧ N‐Coordinated Platinum (II) Complexes as Phosphorescent Emitters in High‐Performance Organic Light‐Emitting Devices." Advanced Functional Materials 17.2 (2007): 285-289.) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 04/15/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Hollis and Thompson (WO 2005/113704 A2) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 04/15/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1, 4-10, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Walters (US 2009/0092854 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 04/15/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 11 and 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Walters and Cocchi is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 04/15/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Walters and Thompson is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 04/15/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 22-24 of the reply dated 04/15/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 4-21 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Insofar as the arguments apply to the new grounds of rejection below, Applicant’s arguments on pages 24-28 of the reply dated 04/15/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 4-21 with respect to the rejections set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument – Applicant argues on pages 24-28 that the cited prior art fail to read on the claims as amended which requires R3 to be present, wherein a mesityl group is excluded from being selected as R3. Applicant further argues one cannot use hindsight reconstruction to pick and choose elements in the prior art to obviate the claimed invention.
Examiner's response –As discussed in the new grounds of rejection below, the newly cited reference Che (US 2010/0314994 A1) provides motivation to modify the compound of Lin with a group that reads on the claimed R3. Accordingly, the cited references read on the claims as amended.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. As discussed above and outlined below, the rejections take into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the Applicant's disclosure.
Applicant's argument –On page 27, Applicant argues that Lin states that emission can be tuned by the choice of N-substituents on the NHC ring and by the auxiliary ligand, and Hollis discloses unsymmetrical CCC-NHC metal complexes built on a central aryl ring bearing two azole units, and does not teach replacing a carbene donor arm with a non-carbene donor at that position. Thus, Applicant argues there is no teachings or reasonable expectation of success to arrive at a claimed compound.
Examiner's response –While Lin teaches emission tuning may be achieved by the choice of the substituent (R) and the auxiliary ligand (L) (abstract), this does not constitute a teaching away because the prior art references do not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the substitution elsewhere on the complexes and the prior art references do not expressly exclude their combination. Additionally, as both Lin and Hollis are directed to luminescent compounds for use as dopants in OLEDs (see Introduction of Lin; ¶ [0078] of Hollis), there is nothing in either Lin nor Hollis that suggests modifying Lin’s compound with the teaching of Hollis would not successfully arrive at a luminescent compound for use in an OLED.
Additionally, the argument that Hollis “does not teach replacing a carbene donor arm with a non-carbene donor at that position” is unclear, as the rejection does not rely on substituting a carbene group with a non-carbene group. As shown below and in the previous rejection, both Lin and Hollis are directed towards carbene-containing platinum-based tridentate complexes.
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 9 and 11 contain blurry structures.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4-11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (Lin, Wan‐Jung, et al. "Photofunctional Platinum Complexes Featuring N‐heterocyclic Carbene‐Based Pincer Ligands." Chemistry–An Asian Journal 10.3 (2015): 728-739.) in view of Hollis (US 2020/0095228 A1) and Che (US 2010/0314994 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 4-11, and 13-15, Lin teaches platinum complexes having high luminescence efficiency for use as dopants in OLEDs, including the complex Pt(MeCCCMe)(CN) (Introduction; Scheme 1 and Table 1 on pg. 729). Pt(MeCCCMe)(CN) has the structure below wherein R represents methyl.
Pt(MeCCCMe)(CN):
PNG
media_image1.png
122
116
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Pt(MeCCCMe)(CN) fails to include different groups in the location of the claimed CY1 and CY2.
Hollis teaches unsymmetrical compounds according to Formula III, which provide highly efficient, air-stable photoluminescence in OLEDs (¶ [0010], [0013], and [0078]). Hollis teaches examples of compounds represented by Formula III in Fig. 11 including compound 13 (¶ [0033]).
Formula III:
PNG
media_image2.png
167
351
media_image2.png
Greyscale
compound 13:
PNG
media_image3.png
113
189
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, 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 one of the imidazole groups with a benzimidazole group to arrive at an unsymmetrical compound represented by Hollis’ Formula III, as shown in Hollis’ compound 13. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide highly efficient, air-stable photoluminescence, as taught by Hollis.
Lin in view of Hollis:
PNG
media_image4.png
173
262
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The modified Pt(MeCCCMe)(CN) fails to read on the claimed formula as it does not include a group other than hydrogen in the location of R3.
Che teaches platinum-based organometallic complexes for use in organic light-emitting diodes (abstract). Examples of these complexes include complex 1 and 4, shown below (structures on pg. 12).
1:
PNG
media_image5.png
125
252
media_image5.png
Greyscale
4:
PNG
media_image6.png
248
250
media_image6.png
Greyscale
As shown by the structures above, complex 1 and 4 are identical except for wherein complex 4 comprises a t-butyl-substituted phenyl on the pyridine group in the para-position with respect to the N-Pt bond. As shown by the table on pg. 16, the addition of the t-butyl-substituted phenyl substituent more than doubles the maximum external quantum efficiency of a device.
Therefore, in the modified Pt(MeCCCMe)(CN), 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 hydrogen with a t-butyl-substituted phenyl group on the phenyl ring in the para-position with respect to the C-Pt bond, as shown in Che’s complex 4, based on the teaching of Che. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the maximum external quantum efficiency of the device, as taught by Che.
The modified Pt(MeCCCMe)(CN) reads on Hollis’ Formula III wherein M is Pt; R1-R9 are each selected from combinations hydrogen, alkyl, and aryl, and R11 is a neutral ligand; and Z1 and Z2 are each selected from CH or CR12, and R12 includes a substituted alkyl forming a ring structure with the carbon in the Z position (see Hollis, ¶ [0013]). Accordingly, the modified Pt(MeCCCMe)(CN) is expected to obtain the benefits taught by Hollis.
The modified Pt(MeCCCMe)(CN) is reproduced above in comparison to the claimed Formula 1.
modified Pt(MeCCCMe)(CN):
PNG
media_image7.png
362
292
media_image7.png
Greyscale
1:
PNG
media_image8.png
306
547
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The modified Pt(MeCCCMe)(CN) reads on the claimed Formula 1 wherein:
M is Pt;
L1 is a cyano group;
Y1 to Y3 are each C;
CY1 is a C7 heterocyclic group (benzimidazole), CY2 is a C3 heterocyclic group (imidazole), and CY3 is a C6 carbocyclic group (benzene) (claims 4-5 and 7);
R1 and R2 are each an unsubstituted a C1 alkyl group, and R3 is a C6 aryl group substituted with at least one C4 alkyl group (claim 6); and
a1 to a3 are each an integer of 1.
The modified Pt(MeCCCMe)(CN) alternatively reads on the claimed Formula 1 wherein CY1 and CY2 are each an imidazole ring, wherein a1 is 3, one of R1 is a C1 alkyl group and two of R1 are each a C2 alkenyl group that combine to form a ring, a2 is 1, and R2 is a C1 alkyl group, which satisfies the limitation of claim 8.
Additionally, the modified Pt(MeCCCMe)(CN) reads on the claimed Formula CY1-9 (claim 9) and Formula CY2-1 (claim 10).
The modified Pt(MeCCCMe)(CN) reads on the claimed Formula CY3-3 (claim 11).
Per claims 13-15, Lin in view of Hollis and Che appear silent with respect to the modified Pt(MeCCCMe)(CN) (i) emitting blue light having a maximum luminescence wavelength of 400 nm to 500 nm; and (ii) having a minimum excitation triplet energy level of 2.5 eV or more and 3.1 eV or less.
The instant specification recites that an organometallic compound represented by the claimed Formula 1 may emit blue light with a maximum luminescence wavelength of 400 nm to 500 nm and may have a minimum excitation triplet energy level of 2.5 eV or more and 3.1 eV or less (instant ¶ [0086]-[0088]). The instant compound 18 is an example of a compound represented by Formula 1 (instant ¶ [0085]). Additionally, the instant specification teaches examples of OLEDs comprising compounds represented by Formula 1 that emit blue light with a maximum emission wavelength within the claimed range (see Table 4 on pgs. 149-150). Since Lin in view of Hollis and Che teach the modified Pt(MeCCCMe)(CN), a substantially identical structure to the instant compound 18 disclosed by the Applicant, the properties of emitting blue light having a maximum luminescence wavelength of 400 nm to 500 nm and having a minimum excitation triplet energy level of 2.5 eV or more and 3.1 eV or less are considered to be inherent (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), 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.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (Lin, Wan‐Jung, et al. "Photofunctional Platinum Complexes Featuring N‐heterocyclic Carbene‐Based Pincer Ligands." Chemistry–An Asian Journal 10.3 (2015): 728-739.) in view of Hollis (US 2020/0095228 A1) and Che (US 2010/0314994 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Thompson (WO 2005/113704 A2).
Regarding claims 16-20, Lin in view of Hollis and Che teach the modified Pt(MeCCCMe)(CN) as described above with respect to claim 1.
While Lin teaches platinum complexes, including the complex Pt(MeCCCMe)(CN), may be used as a dopant in an OLED (Introduction; Scheme 1 and Table 1 on pg. 729), Lin in view of Hollis and Che are silent as to a device including the modified Pt(MeCCCMe)(CN).
Thompson teaches an organic light emitting device including an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode wherein the organic layer includes a compound comprising one or more carbene ligands coordinated to a metal center (abstract; ¶ [0012]). The compound comprising one or more carbene ligands coordinated to a metal center may be represented by formula III and provides benefits of improved stability (¶ [0012] and [0233]). Thompson teaches examples of devices comprising a compound comprising one or more carbene ligands coordinated to a metal center including the device of Example 20, which includes an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transporting layer, an emissive layer comprising a host doped with 6 wt% of the compound comprising one or more carbene ligands coordinated to a metal center, two electron transport layers, and a cathode (¶ [0524]).
The modified Pt(MeCCCMe)(CN) reads on Thompson’s formula III wherein: M represents Pt; L is an ancillary ligand; X1 to X3 are each C; each Q is a chemical bond; Y1 is N and Y2 is C; R1 and R3 together with Y1 and Y2 form a 5-membered cyclic group substituted with alkyl; Z1 is N and Z2 is C; R2 and R4 together with Z1 and Z2 form a 9-membered cyclic group substituted with alkyl; R5 and R6 taken together with X1 to X3 form a 6-membered cyclic group substituted with aryl and alkyl; and n and m are each 1 (see Thompson, ¶ [0233]).
Therefore, as the modified Pt(MeCCCMe)(CN) reads on Thompson’s formula III, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the modified Pt(MeCCCMe)(CN) as the dopant in the device of Thompson’s Example 20, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Lin in view of Hollis and Che with Thompson according to known methods to yield predictable results of a device with improved stability, as taught by Thompson, and high luminescence efficiency, as taught by Lin. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Regarding claim 20, although the instant claim is drawn to an apparatus, the only positive limitation of the claimed apparatus is organic light-emitting device of claim 16. Claim 20 does not add any further structural or functional limitations to the device and/or organometallic compound. Lin in view of Hollis, Che, and Thompson teaches the organic light emitting device according to claim 16, as described above, and does not include any components that would make it unfit for use as an apparatus. Therefore, the OLED of Lin in view of Hollis, Che, and Thompson according to claim 16 may be considered an apparatus.
Claims 1, 4-11, 13-15, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (Lin, Wan‐Jung, et al. "Photofunctional Platinum Complexes Featuring N‐heterocyclic Carbene‐Based Pincer Ligands." Chemistry–An Asian Journal 10.3 (2015): 728-739.) in view of Walters (US 2009/0092854 A1) and Che (US 2010/0314994 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 4-11, 13-15, and 21, Lin teaches platinum complexes having high luminescence efficiency for use as dopants in OLEDs, including the complex Pt(MeCCCMe)(CN) (Introduction; Scheme 1 and Table 1 on pg. 729). Pt(MeCCCMe)(CN) has the structure below wherein R represents methyl.
Pt(MeCCCMe)(CN):
PNG
media_image1.png
122
116
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Pt(MeCCCMe)(CN) fails to include different groups in the location of the claimed CY1 and CY2.
Walters teaches a phosphorescent emissive material for use in organic light emitting devices having the structure of formula I, wherein the emissive material provides improved thermal stability by including at least one tridentate ligand bound to a metal center through at least one carbene-metal bond (abstract; ¶ [0009]-[0012] and [0137]). Walters teaches examples of compounds having the structure of formula I including Os2a (pg. 14).
formula I:
PNG
media_image9.png
180
169
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Os2a:
PNG
media_image10.png
261
149
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in Pt(MeCCCMe)(CN), 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 one imidazole group with benzimidazole and one imidazole with naphthimidazole, as shown in Walters’ Os2a, to arrive at a compound that reads on Walters’ formula I and thus provide a compound having improved thermal stability, as taught by Walters.
modified Pt(MeCCCMe)(CN):
PNG
media_image11.png
209
429
media_image11.png
Greyscale
The modified Pt(MeCCCMe)(CN) fails to read on the claimed formula as it does not include a group other than hydrogen in the location of R3.
Che teaches platinum-based organometallic complexes for use in organic light-emitting diodes (abstract). Examples of these complexes include complex 1 and 4, shown below (structures on pg. 12).
1:
PNG
media_image5.png
125
252
media_image5.png
Greyscale
4:
PNG
media_image6.png
248
250
media_image6.png
Greyscale
As shown by the structures above, complex 1 and 4 are identical except for wherein complex 4 comprises a t-butyl-substituted phenyl on the pyridine group in the para-position with respect to the N-Pt bond. As shown by the table on pg. 16, the addition of the t-butyl-substituted phenyl substituent more than doubles the maximum external quantum efficiency of a device.
Therefore, in the modified Pt(MeCCCMe)(CN), 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 hydrogen with a t-butyl-substituted phenyl group on the phenyl ring in the para-position with respect to the C-Pt bond, as shown in Che’s complex 4, based on the teaching of Che. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the maximum external quantum efficiency of the device, as taught by Che.
The modified Pt(MeCCCMe)(CN) reads on Walters’ formula I wherein M is Pt; L is an ancillary ligand; Ring A is a 13-membered fused tricyclic group; RA is alkyl; a is 1; ring B is an 8-membered bicyclic group; RB is alkyl; b is 1; X1 to X3 are each C-R1 to C-R3 wherein R1 and R3 are each hydrogen and R2 is aryl substituted with alkyl; and m is 1 (see Walters, ¶ [0012]-[0035] and [0134). Accordingly, the modified Pt(MeCCCMe)(CN) is expected to obtain the benefits taught by Walters.
The modified Pt(MeCCCMe)(CN) is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Formula 1.
modified Pt(MeCCCMe)(CN):
PNG
media_image12.png
363
426
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Formula 1:
PNG
media_image8.png
306
547
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The modified Pt(MeCCCMe)(CN) reads on the claimed Formula 1 wherein:
M is Pt;
L1 is a cyano group;
Y1 to Y3 are each C;
CY1 is a C7 heterocyclic group (benzimidazole), CY2 is a C13 heterocyclic group, and CY3 is a C6 carbocyclic group (benzene) (claims 5 and 7);
R1 and R2 are each an unsubstituted a C1 alkyl group, and R3 is a C6 aryl group substituted with at least one C4 alkyl group (claim 6); and
a1 to a3 are each an integer of 1.
The modified Pt(MeCCCMe)(CN) alternatively reads on the claimed Formula 1 wherein CY1 and CY2 are each a benzimidazole ring, wherein a2 is 3, one of R2 is a C1 alkyl group and two of R2 are each a C2 alkenyl group that combine to form a ring, a1 is 1, and R1 is a C1 alkyl group, which satisfies the limitation of claims 4 and 8.
The modified Pt(MeCCCMe)(CN) reads on the claimed Formula CY1-9 (claim 9) and Formula CY2-17 (claim 10), and the claimed Formula CY3-3 (claim 11).
Additionally, the modified Pt(MeCCCMe)(CN) reads on the claimed groups CY1-4 and CY2-4 of claim 21 wherein:
R11 and R21 are each an unsubstituted C1 alkyl group;
R12 and R13 are each an unsubstituted C2 alkenyl group that combine to form a ring; and
R22 and R23 are each a substituted C2 alkenyl group that combine to form a ring;
wherein the substituents are each a C2 alkenyl group that further combine to form a ring.
Per claims 13-15, Lin in view of Walters and Che appear silent with respect to the modified Pt(MeCCCMe)(CN) (i) emitting blue light having a maximum luminescence wavelength of 400 nm to 500 nm; and (ii) having a minimum excitation triplet energy level of 2.5 eV or more and 3.1 eV or less.
The instant specification recites that an organometallic compound represented by the claimed Formula 1 may emit blue light with a maximum luminescence wavelength of 400 nm to 500 nm and may have a minimum excitation triplet energy level of 2.5 eV or more and 3.1 eV or less (instant ¶ [0086]-[0088]). The instant compound 18 is an example of a compound represented by Formula 1 (instant ¶ [0085]). Additionally, the instant specification teaches examples of OLEDs comprising compounds represented by Formula 1 that emit blue light with a maximum emission wavelength within the claimed range (see Table 4 on pgs. 149-150). Since Lin in view of Walters and Che teach the modified Pt(MeCCCMe)(CN), a structure substantially identical to the instant compound 18 disclosed by the Applicant, the properties of emitting blue light having a maximum luminescence wavelength of 400 nm to 500 nm and having a minimum excitation triplet energy level of 2.5 eV or more and 3.1 eV or less are considered to be inherent (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), 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.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (Lin, Wan‐Jung, et al. "Photofunctional Platinum Complexes Featuring N‐heterocyclic Carbene‐Based Pincer Ligands." Chemistry–An Asian Journal 10.3 (2015): 728-739.) in view of Walters (US 2009/0092854 A1) and Che (US 2010/0314994 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Thompson (WO 2005/113704 A2).
Regarding claims 16-20, Lin in view of Walters and Che teach the modified Pt(MeCCCMe)(CN) as described above with respect to claim 1.
While Lin teaches platinum complexes, including the complex Pt(MeCCCMe)(CN), may be used as a dopant in an OLED (Introduction; Scheme 1 and Table 1 on pg. 729), Lin in view of Walters and Che are silent as to a device including the modified Pt(MeCCCMe)(CN).
Thompson teaches an organic light emitting device including an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode wherein the organic layer includes a compound comprising one or more carbene ligands coordinated to a metal center (abstract; ¶ [0012]). The compound comprising one or more carbene ligands coordinated to a metal center may be represented by formula III and provides benefits of improved stability (¶ [0012] and [0233]). Thompson teaches examples of devices comprising a compound comprising one or more carbene ligands coordinated to a metal center including the device of Example 20, which includes an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transporting layer, an emissive layer comprising a host doped with 6 wt% of the compound comprising one or more carbene ligands coordinated to a metal center, two electron transport layers, and a cathode (¶ [0524]).
The modified Pt(MeCCCMe)(CN) reads on Thompson’s formula III wherein: M represents Pt; L is an ancillary ligand; X1 to X3 are each C; each Q is a chemical bond; Y1 is N and Y2 is C; R1 and R3 together with Y1 and Y2 form a 9-membered cyclic group substituted with alkyl and alkenyl, wherein the alkenyl substituents form a condensed ring; Z1 is N and Z2 is C; R2 and R4 together with Z1 and Z2 form a 9-membered cyclic group substituted with alkyl; R5 and R6 taken together with X1 to X3 form a 6-membered cyclic group substituted with aryl and alkyl; and n and m are each 1 (see Thompson, ¶ [0233]).
Therefore, as the modified Pt(MeCCCMe)(CN) reads on Thompson’s formula III, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the modified Pt(MeCCCMe)(CN) as the dopant in the device of Thompson’s Example 20, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Lin in view of Walters and Che with Thompson according to known methods to yield predictable results of a device with improved stability, as taught by Thompson, and high luminescence efficiency, as taught by Lin. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Regarding claim 20, although the instant claim is drawn to an apparatus, the only positive limitation of the claimed apparatus is organic light-emitting device of claim 16. Claim 20 does not add any further structural or functional limitations to the device and/or organometallic compound. Lin in view of Walters, Che, and Thompson teaches the organic light emitting device according to claim 16, as described above, and does not include any components that would make it unfit for use as an apparatus. Therefore, the OLED of Lin in view of Walters and Thompson according to claim 16 may be considered an apparatus.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claim 12, the prior art does not teach or suggest an organometallic compound represented by Formula 1 and selected from Compounds 1 to 21, wherein each of Compounds 1 to 21 comprise a phenyl group in the location corresponding to CY3, wherein the phenyl group is substituted with a phenyl substituent in the para-position with respect to the C-Pt bond, and wherein the phenyl substituent is further substituted with two or three isopropyl groups, in combination with the remainder of claim 12.
Lin (Lin, Wan‐Jung, et al. "Photofunctional Platinum Complexes Featuring N‐heterocyclic Carbene‐Based Pincer Ligands." Chemistry–An Asian Journal 10.3 (2015): 728-739), cited in the rejection above, is considered the closest prior art of record. Lin teaches platinum complexes having high luminescence efficiency for use as dopants in OLEDs, including the complex Pt(MeCCCMe)(CN) (Introduction; Scheme 1 and Table 1 on pg. 729). Pt(MeCCCMe)(CN) has the structure below wherein R represents methyl.
Pt(MeCCCMe)(CN):
PNG
media_image1.png
122
116
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Pt(MeCCCMe)(CN) fails to include different groups in the location of the claimed CY1 and CY2. Additionally, Pt(MeCCCMe)(CN) fails to include a phenyl substituent on the phenyl group in the para-position with respect to the C-Pt bond, wherein the phenyl substituent is further substituted with two or three isopropyl groups.
Hollis (US 2020/0095228 A1), cited in the rejection above, is considered relevant to the claimed invention. Hollis teaches unsymmetrical compounds according to Formula III, which provide highly efficient, air-stable photoluminescence in OLEDs (¶ [0010], [0013], and [0078]). Hollis teaches examples of compounds represented by Formula III in Fig. 11 including compound 13 (¶ [0033]).
Formula III:
PNG
media_image2.png
167
351
media_image2.png
Greyscale
compound 13:
PNG
media_image3.png
113
189
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, Hollis fails to teach a phenyl substituent on the phenyl group in the para-position with respect to the C-Pt bond, wherein the phenyl substituent is further substituted with two or three isopropyl groups. Accordingly, Hollis fails to remedy the deficiencies of Lin.
Che (US 2010/0314994 A1), cited in the rejection above, is considered relevant to the claimed invention. Che teaches platinum-based organometallic complexes for use in organic light-emitting diodes (abstract). Examples of these complexes include complex 1 and 4, shown below (structures on pg. 12).
1:
PNG
media_image5.png
125
252
media_image5.png
Greyscale
4:
PNG
media_image6.png
248
250
media_image6.png
Greyscale
As shown by the structures above, complex 1 and 4 are identical except for wherein complex 4 comprises a t-butyl-substituted phenyl on the pyridine group in the para-position with respect to the N-Pt bond. As shown by the table on pg. 16, the addition of the t-butyl-substituted phenyl substituent more than doubles the maximum external quantum efficiency of a device.
However, Che fails to teach a phenyl substituent on the phenyl group in the para-position with respect to the C-Pt bond, wherein the phenyl substituent is further substituted with two or three isopropyl groups. Accordingly, Che fails to remedy the deficiencies of Lin.
Thus there is no prior art, either alone or in combination, which teaches or renders obvious an organometallic compound represented by Formula 1 and selected from Compounds 1 to 21, wherein each of Compounds 1 to 21 comprise a phenyl group in the location corresponding to CY3, wherein the phenyl group is substituted with a phenyl substituent in the para-position with respect to the C-Pt bond, and wherein the phenyl substituent is further substituted with two or three isopropyl groups, in combination with the remainder of claim 12.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRAELYN R WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5pm.
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 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.
/BRAELYN R WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights