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 interview on May 19, 2026 and the claim amendment and remarks filed May 28, 2026. Claims 1, 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 Claims 9 and 10 are withdrawn as non-elected (applicant previously elected (A) tridentate ligand as “L1” without traverse).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.
Applicant's request for reconsideration of the finality of the rejection of the last Office action is persuasive and, therefore, the finality of that action is withdrawn.
The previous rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 12-15, 17, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Igarashi et al. (US 2006/0255721 A1) is withdrawn upon further consideration of the intended recited 6-membered chelate rings.
The previous rejection of claims 1-6, 8, 11-15, 17, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Igarashi et al. (US 2006/0255721 A1) is withdrawn upon further consideration of the intended recited 6-membered chelate rings.
The previous rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Igarashi et al. (US 2006/0255721 A1) in view of Tsai et al. (US 2013/0168656 A1) is withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 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. With respect to compounds of the currently considered species (i.e., the complexes not comprising the cyclopentadienyl group for L1), claim 16 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.
Claim 8 is considered to comprise allowable subject matter and is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 14, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claims contain chemical structural formulas that are not printed clearly in the claim set as received on May 28, 2026. In claim 5 structures are blurred and small, in claim 14 the ligand at top right of page 21 is faintly printed, and in claim 19 compounds of the last three rows are unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected 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.
Claim 11 recites the shown groups are “L1-L2”, but it is unclear if the groups are combined L1 and L2 “which can be joined together by a linker” or if they are intended as a L1 or a L2. Note that if the recited groups are combined L1 and L2 the structures shown may not all be within the definitions recited in claim 1 (i.e., all that are shown are each tridentate without a further monoanionic or bidentate ligand or are cyclopentadienyl combined with a bidentate ligand), which may raise 35 U.S.C. 112(d) issue(s). Clarification and/or correction are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 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 monodentate or bidentate ligand such as 1,3 diketone (see par. 79). 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
.
At least the two compounds 144 and 145 are taught on page 31:
PNG
media_image3.png
182
272
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
176
268
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
At least the above example compounds are considered to anticipate instant formula compounds with a tridentate ligand having two six-membered chelate rings including the metal Pt as a “member” and Cl as a monoanionic ligand.
Regarding claims 2-4, the compounds are considered to encompass the recited configurations given the similarity to compounds described in the instant application specification. Note that the 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 compounds appear to meet the second listed structure of the claim.
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 monodentate or bidentate ligand such as 1,3 diketone (see par. 79). 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
.
At least the two compounds 144 and 145 are taught on page 31:
PNG
media_image3.png
182
272
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
176
268
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 1, the above formula 1 compound encompasses a tridentate ligand with six-membered chelating rings with a further monoanionic or bidentate ligand.
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 formula(a) appear to meet 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 pyidine, 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 included (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):
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 Ogaswara. 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.
Response to Arguments
As noted above the previous rejection has been withdrawn. Upon consideration of the present claims, new grounds of rejection are made in view of Ogasawara as set forth above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Fleetham, Tyler B., et al. "Tetradentate Pt (II) complexes with 6-membered chelate rings: a new route for stable and efficient blue organic light emitting diodes." Chemistry of Materials 28.10 (2016): 3276-3282.
The reference discusses use of six-membered chelate rings in a platinum complex, which is considered relevant to the field of the invention.
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).
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