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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/19/2025 has been entered.
Summary of Claims
Claims 1, 12, and 16 are amended and claim 3 is cancelled due to Applicant's amendment dated 08/19/2025. Claims 1 and 4-21 are pending.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claim 3 as set forth in the previous Office Action is moot because claim 3 is cancelled due to the Applicant's amendment dated 08/19/2025.
The rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention as set forth in the previous Office Action is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 08/19/2025. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 as set forth in the previous Office Action is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 08/19/2025. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1, 4-11, and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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.) in view of Hollis (US 2020/0095228 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 08/19/2025. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 12-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cocchi in view of Hollis (US 2020/0095228 A1) and Luo (Luo, Yafei, et al. "Strategy Used for Controlling the Photostability of Tridentate Pt (II) Complexes To Enhance the Device Lifetimes of Blue Phosphorescent Organic Light-Emitting Diodes: The Role of the Pt-C*(NHC) Bond and Auxiliary Ligand." The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 122.29 (2018): 16872-16878.) is withdrawn due to reconsideration of the original grounds of rejection.
The rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cocchi in view of Walters (US 2009/0092854 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 08/19/2025. The rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Insofar as the arguments apply to the new grounds of rejection below, Applicant’s arguments on pages 22-31 of the reply dated 08/19/2024 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 22-26 that substituting the pyridine rings in Cocchi’s compound with imidazole-based ligands fundamentally alters its N^C^N coordination chemistry. Additionally, Applicant argues on pages 29-32 that Cocchi teaches away from the combination, as Cocchi teaches N^C^N coordination is essential to achieving high photoluminescence efficiency and device stability.
Examiner's response –As discussed in the new grounds of rejection below, Cocchi is relied upon to provide motivation to modify the compound Pt(MeCCCMe)(CN) of the newly cited reference 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.) by substituting a hydrogen with a mesityl group in the location of the claimed R3. Doing so results in a red-shifted emission (see Cocchi, Scheme 1 on pg. 285 and Table 1 on pg. 286). As Lin is also directed to emission tuning (see Lin, abstract), there is nothing in either Lin or Cocchi that teaches away from the combination.
Applicant's argument –Applicant argues on pages 27-30 only one paragraph of Hollis mentions “highly efficient, air-stable photoluminescence in OLEDs” and thus there is nothing to suggest that the compound of Hollis would provide better efficiency and stability than the compounds of Cocchi, without the benefit of impermissible hindsight.
Examiner's response –While Hollis may only teach the benefits of highly efficient, air-stable photoluminescence in a single paragraph (see Hollis, ¶ [0078]), it is not a requirement for the prior art to reiterate this benefit multiple times. A single iteration is sufficient for one of ordinary skill in the art to have motivation to modify the compound of Lin to arrive at the claimed invention.
As discussed above and in the rejection below, Hollis teaches unsymmetrical compounds according to Formula III provide highly efficient, air-stable photoluminescence in OLEDs (¶ [0010], [0013], and [0078]). As the compound Pt(MeCCCMe)(CN) of Lin reads on Hollis’ Formula III except wherein it is a symmetrical compound, 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 benzimidazole group to arrive at an unsymmetrical compound represented by Hollis’ Formula III, as shown in Hollis’ compound 13, and thus obtain highly efficient, air-stable photoluminescence, as taught by Hollis.
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 pages 30-31, Applicant argues that the cited references do not teach the claims as amended which require wherein L1 is a cyano group.
Examiner's response –As discussed in greater detail in the rejection below, the newly cited reference 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.) teaches a platinum tridentate complex which reads on the claimed Formula 1 wherein L1 is a cyano group. Accordingly, the cited references meet the newly amended claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9-13, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites -P(=O)(Q11)(Q12 rather than -P(=O)(Q11)(Q12) in the last line of the claim.
Claims 9-12 contain blurry structures.
For ease of reading, it is recommended in claims 13 and 15 to replace “the organometallic compound is to emit blue light” with “the organometallic compound s blue light” or “the organometallic compound is configured to emit blue light”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 4-21 are rejected 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. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 16 were initially amended with a proviso in the reply filed 10/04/2023. This proviso has been amended in subsequent replies such that claims 1 and 16 recite the following proviso for the organometallic compound represented by Formula 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
340
721
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The instant specification recites at least one of R3 may be a substituted or unsubstituted C6-C60 aryl group, a substituted or unsubstituted C1-C60 heteroaryl group, a substituted or unsubstituted monovalent non-aromatic condensed polycyclic group, or a substituted or unsubstituted monovalent non-aromatic condensed heteropolycyclic group (instant ¶ [0060]). Additionally, the instant specification recites Compound 1 to 49, some of which read on the claimed Formula 1 wherein R3 is a phenyl group substituted with at least two isopropyl groups or three methyl groups (see instant pg. 17).
Accordingly, while there is support in the specification for wherein R3 is a substituted C6-C60 aryl group and wherein R3 is a phenyl group substituted with at least two isopropyl groups or three methyl groups, there is not sufficient support for the full scope of R3 being a substituted C6-C60 aryl group substituted with at least one C1-C60 alkyl group. For this reason, claims 1 and 16 are considered to have new matter.
Claims 4-15 and 17-21 are rejected for being dependent upon claims 1 and 16.
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 and 4-10 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).
Regarding claims 1 and 4-10, 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_image2.png
122
116
media_image2.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_image3.png
167
351
media_image3.png
Greyscale
compound 13:
PNG
media_image4.png
113
189
media_image4.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.
The modified Pt(MeCCCMe)(CN) reads on Hollis’ Formula III wherein M is Pt; R1-R9 are each selected from hydrogen and alkyl, 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_image5.png
98
262
media_image5.png
Greyscale
1:
PNG
media_image6.png
306
547
media_image6.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 not required to be present (claim 6); and
a1 to a3 are each an integer of 1 and a3 is 0.
As a3 is 0, R3 is not required to be present and thus the modified Pt(MeCCCMe)(CN) need not satisfy the proviso related to R3.
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).
Claims 11-15 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) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of 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.)
Regarding claims 11-15, Lin in view of Hollis teach the modified Pt(MeCCCMe)(CN) as described above with respect to claim 1.
modified Pt(MeCCCMe)(CN):
PNG
media_image5.png
98
262
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The modified Pt(MeCCCMe)(CN) fails to include a non-hydrogen group in the location of the claimed R3.
Cocchi teaches six tridentate Pt complexes having high photoluminescence efficiencies for use as dopants in OLEDs, wherein the EL emission can be tuned by using different ligand substituents (pg. 285-286, first paragraph of Results and Discussion; Scheme 1 on pg. 285; Conclusions on pg. 288). For example, in a comparison between PtL1Cl and PtL6Cl, it is shown that replacing hydrogen with a mesityl group on the phenyl ring in the para-position with respect to the C-Pt bond results in a red-shifted emission (see Scheme 1 on pg. 285 and Table 1 on pg. 286).
Scheme 1:
PNG
media_image7.png
251
374
media_image7.png
Greyscale
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 mesityl group on the phenyl ring in the para-position with respect to the C-Pt bond, based on the teaching of Cocchi. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a redshifted emission, as taught by Cocchi.
The modified Pt(MeCCCMe)(CN) reads on the claimed Formula CY3-3 (claim 11) and the claimed compound 18 (claim 12).
Per claims 13-15, Lin in view of Hollis and Cocchi 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 Cocchi teach the modified Pt(MeCCCMe)(CN), the same structure as 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) 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 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 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; 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 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 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 and Thompson according to claim 16 may be considered an apparatus.
Claims 1, 4-10, 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).
Regarding claims 1, 4-10, 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_image2.png
122
116
media_image2.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_image8.png
180
169
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Os2a:
PNG
media_image9.png
261
149
media_image9.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.
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; 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 above in comparison to the claimed Formula 1.
modified Pt(MeCCCMe)(CN):
PNG
media_image10.png
209
429
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Formula 1:
PNG
media_image6.png
306
547
media_image6.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 not required to be present (claim 6); and
a1 to a3 are each an integer of 1 and a3 is 0.
As a3 is 0, R3 is not required to be present and thus the modified Pt(MeCCCMe)(CN) need not satisfy the proviso related to R3.
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).
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.
Claims 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 Walters (US 2009/0092854 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of 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.)
Regarding claims 11 and 13-15, Lin in view of Walters teach the modified Pt(MeCCCMe)(CN) as described above with respect to claim 1.
modified Pt(MeCCCMe)(CN):
PNG
media_image10.png
209
429
media_image10.png
Greyscale
The modified Pt(MeCCCMe)(CN) fails to include a non-hydrogen group in the location of the claimed R3.
Cocchi teaches six tridentate Pt complexes having high photoluminescence efficiencies for use as dopants in OLEDs, wherein the EL emission can be tuned by using different ligand substituents (pg. 285-286, first paragraph of Results and Discussion; Scheme 1 on pg. 285; Conclusions on pg. 288). For example, in a comparison between PtL1Cl and PtL6Cl, it is shown that replacing hydrogen with a mesityl group on the phenyl ring in the para-position with respect to the C-Pt bond results in a red-shifted emission (see Scheme 1 on pg. 285 and Table 1 on pg. 286).
Scheme 1:
PNG
media_image7.png
251
374
media_image7.png
Greyscale
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 mesityl group on the phenyl ring in the para-position with respect to the C-Pt bond, based on the teaching of Cocchi. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a redshifted emission, as taught by Cocchi.
The modified Pt(MeCCCMe)(CN) reads on the claimed Formula CY3-3 (claim 11).
modified Pt(MeCCCMe)(CN):
PNG
media_image11.png
335
425
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Per claims 13-15, Lin in view of Walters and Cocchi 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 Cocchi 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) 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 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 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; 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 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 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.
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