DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is responsive to the amendment received August 6, 2026. Claims 1, 11, 17, and 20 were amended. Claim 7 is a cancelled claim. Claims 9 and 10 are withdrawn as non-elected (applicant previously elected (A) tridentate ligand as “L1” without traverse). Claims 1-6, 8, and 11-20 are currently under consideration.
Please remove underlining marking from claim 18 as the status is “previously amended”.
The previous objection to claims 5, 14, and 19 is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 11 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or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention is withdrawn due to the August 6, 2026 amendment.
The rejection of claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ogasawara (US 2006/0099450 A1) is withdrawn due to the August 6, 2026 amendment.
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 1-6, 12-15, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogasawara (US 2006/0099450 A1).
Ogasawara teaches metal complexes comprising a tri-dentate ligand for an organic electroluminescent device (see abstract). The ligand may be according to formula I (see par. 12):
PNG
media_image1.png
118
280
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
In the formula the metal M may be platinum or palladium (see par. 69). L11 to L14 groups are described in par. 73. L15 may be a bidentate ligand such as 1,3 diketone (see par. 79, 170, 180). More specifically, formula 5-A is taught clearly showing two six-membered chelating rings (see par. 174):
PNG
media_image2.png
208
326
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
L95 is specifically defined as “monodentate to tridentate”, which encompasses bidentate in the range (see par. 180, 170). At least the two formula 1 compounds 144 and 145 taught on page 31 encompass a tridentate ligand with six-membered chelating rings:
PNG
media_image3.png
182
272
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
176
268
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claims 2-4, the compounds are considered to encompass the recited configurations given the similarity to compounds described in the instant application specification. Patent and Trademark Office can require applicants to prove that prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess characteristics of claimed products where claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes; burden of proof is on applicants where rejection based on inherency under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or on prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, and Patent and Trademark Office's inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products evidences fairness of this rejection, In re Best, Bolton, and Shaw, 195 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 5, the above discussed formula(s) appear to teach a ligand having two six-membered chelate rings and meeting at least the second listed structure of the claim. Regarding claim 6, Q rings of the formula 5-A may be selected from groups such as pyridine, pyrazine, quinoline, and pyrrole among others (see par. 176-178).
Regarding claim 12, a bidentate ligand including at least a 1, 3-diketone ligand may be selected (see par. 79) per the last shown ligand of claim 12. Regarding claim 13, while not exemplified with a Pt or Pd complex, the following bidentate ligand is recognized (see page 31 and ligand with pyridine is discussed in par. 79):
PNG
media_image5.png
74
154
media_image5.png
Greyscale
. With respect to claim 14, given the general teachings in Ogasawara of substituted or unsubstituted groups throughout the reference one would be apprised of selecting a bidentate ligand without the shown substitution with F shown in the above specific group per the first shown instant group. Regarding claim 15, a bidentate ligand including at least a 1, 3-diketone ligand such as an acetylacetone ligand may be included (see par. 79).
Regarding claims 17 and 20, the compounds are for an organic layer of a device (see abstract and par. 457). Regarding claim 18, the compounds are used with a compound having a heterocyclic skeleton (see abstract and par. 33-55), which may include a carbazole group (see par. 41).
While all possible formula 1 compounds are not exemplified by Ogasawara that would also encompass instant formula complexes, given the teachings of the reference, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to have formed compounds as defined as discussed above wherein the resultant compound and device including the compound would also meet the limitations of the instant claims. One would expect to achieve a functional compounds according to Ogasawara for a light emitting device structure with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 18 and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogasawara (US 2006/0099450 A1) in view of Min et al. (US 2015/0001488 A1).
Ogasawara is relied upon as set forth above for the rejection of claim 17.
Ogasawara teaches using the metal complex compound together with a heterocyclic skeleton containing at least two heteroatoms host material (see abstract), but is it not seen where a host comprised of indolocarbazole (per instant claim 18) was specifically selected as host in an example embodiment. In analogous art, Min et al. teaches the following compound 1-705 as a host material for a light emitting device (see par. 116):
PNG
media_image6.png
198
214
media_image6.png
Greyscale
.
The indolocarbazole-containing derivative 1-705 having two heteroatom nitrogens is identical to a compound listed in instant claim 19. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have selected a host material as taught by Min et al. for use in a device according to Ogasawara where a host material with two heteroatoms is desired as the host material, because one would expect the host material 1-705 to be useful for the function of host in the Ogasawara device. One would expect to achieve a functional device using materials according to Ogasawara and Min with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
With respect to compounds of the currently considered species (i.e., the complexes not comprising the cyclopentadienyl group for L1), claims 8, 11, and 16 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the obviousness rejection, applicant argues on page 46, “Amended claim 1 requires specifically a tridentate ligand and a monoanionic bidentate ligand”. The office respectfully notes the option of tridentate ligand of independent claims 1, 17, and 20 is only required to be included with a L2 ligand as “bidentate”. The amendment to add the word “monoanionic” before the word “bidentate” was only added to the limitation regarding when L1 is cyclopentadienyl.
With respect to the argument regarding pentacoordination, Ogasawara teaches formulas I and 5a with definitions that provide for selecting metal Pt, including a ligand with two 6-membered chelate rings, and further including a bidentate ligand. In formula 5a, L95 is specifically defined as “monodentate to tridentate”, which encompasses bidentate in the range (see par. 180, 170).
Applicant argues “Ogasawara does not disclose a single platinum complex comprising a bidentate ligand”. The office submits a reference is not limited to only teaching preferred or example embodiments. Selection of groups and atoms the same as claimed are within the defined formulas disclosed by Ogasawara as discussed in the rejection. MPEP 2123 sets forth:
“Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). "A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use." In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (The invention was directed to an epoxy impregnated fiber-reinforced printed circuit material. The applied prior art reference taught a printed circuit material similar to that of the claims but impregnated with polyester-imide resin instead of epoxy. The reference, however, disclosed that epoxy was known for this use, but that epoxy impregnated circuit boards have "relatively acceptable dimensional stability" and "some degree of flexibility," but are inferior to circuit boards impregnated with polyester-imide resins. The court upheld the rejection concluding that applicant’s argument that the reference teaches away from using epoxy was insufficient to overcome the rejection since "Gurley asserted no discovery beyond what was known in the art." Id. at 554, 31 USPQ2d at 1132.). Furthermore, "[t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004).”
On page 48 of the remarks, applicant sets forth very broad allegations of surprising, unexpected, and beneficial technical effects for the claimed compounds. Applicant did not discuss any specific comparative experimental evidence to support the allegations. Note that MPEP 716.01(c) clearly explains that objective evidence must be supported by actual proof. Arguments cannot take the place of evidence in the record. Further, when experimental evidence is presented, burden is upon applicant to show the results are truly unexpected and significant. Additionally, any experimental evidence must be commensurate in scope with the claimed subject matter – for instance, applicant’s independent claims contain a very broad formula encompassing a multitude of possible compounds whereas applicant only made four compounds in the experimental section of the instant specification (par. 149 as filed). While some properties of the four specification compounds are set forth, there are no shown comparisons to other compounds outside the scope of the claims and relevant to the prior art.
The arguments are not considered persuasive to overcome the obviousness rejection(s).
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 Dawn Garrett whose telephone number is (571)272-1523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday (Eastern Time).
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.
/DAWN L GARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights