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 receive September 30, 2025. Claims 1, 3, 4, 12, 17, 18, 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 Claims 9 and 10 are withdrawn as non-elected (applicant previously elected (A) tridentate ligand as “L1” without traverse).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.
The objection to claim 18 set forth in the last office action (mailed July 1, 2025) is withdrawn in view of the September 30, 2025 claim amendment.
The rejection of claims 1-8 and 11-20 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35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention set forth in the last office action (mailed July 1, 2025) is withdrawn in view of the September 30, 2025 claim amendment.
The rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Igarashi et al. (US 2006/0255721 A1) is withdrawn due to the cancellation of claim 7.
The rejection of claim 7under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Igarashi et al. (US 2006/0255721 A1) is withdrawn due to the cancellation of claim 7.
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, 3-6, 12-15, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Igarashi et al. (US 2006/0255721 A1).
Igarashi et al. teaches platinum complexes comprising a tridentate ligand and a bidentate ligand (see abstract, par. 28, and page 12). At least one example complex is the following (1-17) from page 12:
PNG
media_image1.png
178
270
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Additionally, the following tridentate- and bidentate-containing Pt complex (1-20) is taught on page 12:
PNG
media_image2.png
194
262
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
Device example 2 uses above compound “1-20” in a layer together with following host compound “CBP” (see par. 175 and par. 183) per claims 17, 18, and 20:
PNG
media_image3.png
124
260
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
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, 8, 11-15, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Igarashi et al. (US 2006/0255721 A1).
Igarashi et al. teaches pentadentate metal complexes with platinum or palladium as the central metal ion (see par. 12). The pentadentate metal complex may be comprised of a bidentate ligand and a tridentate ligand (see par. 28 and see representative specific complexes on page 12). Formulas are shown as (1), (2) or (3) in par. 31 where X groups are linking groups and Q are atom groups (see par. 32-34). X groups are described in par. 36 or may be single bond (see par. 35). Q groups connecting to the central metal Pt or Pd are described in par. 38-44 and Y is further described in par. 46. Regarding claims 2-4 groups may be selected for Igarashi et al. formulas 1 to 3 the same as claimed, which would encompass compounds also having the recited angle property of claim 2 and the geometries of claims 3 and 4. Regarding claims 5-8 and 11, groups may be selected for Igarashi et al. formulas 1 to 3 comprising groups the same as recited. Further regarding Q and X groups and specifically claim 8, heteroarylene group such as pyridine, imidazole, or quinoline, arylene such as phenylene group (see par. 39, 40), and alkylene groups such as methylene are taught (see par. 36). Regarding claim 11, especially note that an imidazole is taught and alkyl is taught for linking (see par. 39, 40, 44, 45). Regarding instant ligand L2 and instant claims 12-15, bidentate group with a phenylene and a pyridine is expressly taught within shown example compounds (see within complexes shown on page 12). Regarding device claims 17, 18, and 20, device example 2 uses a representative pentadentate compound “1-20” in a layer together with following carbazole derivative host “CBP” (see par. 175 and par. 183)
PNG
media_image3.png
124
260
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
While Igarashi et al. does not exemplify all pentadentate complexes within formulas (1) to (3) having a bidentate ligand and a tridentate ligand complexed to platinum or palladium the same as claimed, 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 form metal complexes of the reference having a tridentate ligand and bidentate comprising selected aryl or heteroaryl groups and atoms as described within the reference formulas wherein a resultant complex would also meet the limitations of the instant claims. One would expect to achieve an operational device comprising functional compounds within the disclosure of Igarashi et al. with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 19 is rejected 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).
Igarashi et al. is relied upon as set forth above.
Igarashi et al. teaches device example 2 uses a representative pentadentate compound “1-20” in a layer together with carbazole derivative host “CBP” (see par. 175 and par. 183), but does not teach other specific host material the same as compounds recited in claim 19. In analogous art, Tsai et al. teaches host materials – including carbazole-containing material - the same as claimed for use with a Pt or Pd complex in a layer of a device (see claim 28 and claims 19 and 25 on page 124). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected host material taught by Tsai et al. as host material in a device according to Igarashi et al., because one would expect the material to be similarly useful for the function of host in a device according to Igarashi et al. One would expect to achieve an operational device within the disclosures of Igarashi et al. and Tsai et al. with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 30, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
[AltContent: oval]Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) anticipation rejection over Igarashi et al. (US 2006/0255721 A1), applicant appears to argue the obviousness rejection rather than the anticipation rejection at a portion of the remarks at the top of page 44. The office maintains Igarashi et al. anticipates claims 1, 3-6, 12-15, 17, 18, and 20 by teaching specific, example complexes. Applicant emphasizes the limitation that “if L1 is a tridentate ligand, then it is coordinated to M forming at least two 6-membered chelate rings”. The office points to at least two example complexes in Igarashi in the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection. Those are Igarashi et al. compounds “1-17” and “1-20” from page 12:
[AltContent: oval]
PNG
media_image4.png
182
280
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
188
246
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
Each of the above specific complexes comprises a tridentate ligand (left side ligand – annotated with a circle in above reproduction of the structures) where there is coordinated bonding to the metal Pt from “at least two 6-membered chelate rings”. It is unclear how applicant alleges the recited ligand L1 claim limitation is distinguished from what is shown within the example complexes. Note that L1 tridentate ligands at the end of dependent instant claim 8 also show identical “at least two 6-membered rings” as pyridine rings with coordination bonding the same as depicted within above tridentate ligand “1-20” from Igarashi et al. page 12.
With respect to the obviousness rejection over Igarashi et al., applicant argues at the top of page 45 there is no teaching the central metal requires the recited ligand structure. The office maintains Igarashi et al. teaches a pentadentate metal complex may be comprised of the combination of a bidentate ligand and a tridentate ligand (see par. 28 and structures within page 12) that include 6-membered rings as required (see also argument in paragraph immediately above with respect to 6-membered rings of disclosed ligands). While Igarashi et al. may further teach additional structures outside the scope of complexes as recited, this does not negate the fact that complexes the same as recited are rendered obvious by Igarashi et al. as discussed in the rejection. Note that MPEP 2143.01 sets forth the following:
I. PRIOR ART SUGGESTION OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION NOT NECESSARILY NEGATED BY DESIRABLE ALTERNATIVES
The disclosure of desirable alternatives does not necessarily negate a suggestion for modifying the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. In In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 73 USPQ2d 1141 (Fed. Cir. 2004), the claims of a utility patent application were directed to a shoe sole with increased traction having hexagonal projections in a "facing orientation." 391 F.3d at 1196-97, 73 USPQ2d at 1142. The Board combined a design patent having hexagonal projections in a facing orientation with a utility patent having other limitations of the independent claim. 391 F.3d at 1199, 73 USPQ2d at 1144. Applicant argued that the combination was improper because (1) the prior art did not suggest having the hexagonal projections in a facing (as opposed to a "pointing") orientation was the "most desirable" configuration for the projections, and (2) the prior art "taught away" by showing desirability of the "pointing orientation." 391 F.3d at 1200-01, 73 USPQ2d at 1145-46. The court stated that "the 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…." Id. In affirming the Board’s obviousness rejection, the court held that the prior art as a whole suggested the desirability of the combination of shoe sole limitations claimed, thus providing a motivation to combine, which need not be supported by a finding that the prior art suggested that the combination claimed by the applicant was the preferred, or most desirable combination over the other alternatives. Id. See also In re Urbanski, 809 F.3d 1237, 1244, 117 USPQ2d 1499, 1504 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
(Emphasis added).
Applicant's arguments are not considered persuasive to overcome the prior art rejections over Igarashi et al. The arguments do not clearly point out the patentable novelty applicant thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited. Further, the arguments do not show how the claim limitations avoid the references by specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
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).
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