DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Amendment filed 04/22/26.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The objection to the disclosure as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 01/22/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The objection to Claim 19 as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 01/22/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claim 15 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 Non-Final Rejection filed 01/22/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claims 1-5, 8, 10, 11, 13-15, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin et al. (US 2015/0194615 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 01/22/26 is herein amended due to the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claims 1-5, 7, 10, 13, 14, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji (US 2018/0212165 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 01/22/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2015/0194615 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 01/22/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5, 8, 10, 11, 13-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2015/0194615 A1).
Regarding Claims 1-5, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 17-20, Lin et al. discloses inventive metal complexes of the following form:
PNG
media_image1.png
244
246
media_image1.png
Greyscale
([0016]), “including all its variations” ([0026], [0107]), where X1-4 = independently C or N (only) ([0023]), and L1-3 = groups such as CRR’ and NR (where R, R’ = aryl (phenyl), among others) ([0018], [0021]; see embodiments such as Compounds 19, 20, and 22 on page 8). Lin et al. discloses that variations can be produced from its particular examples and preferred embodiments ([0144]). Lin et al. discloses the following embodiment:
PNG
media_image2.png
324
408
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 23) such that M = Pt, X1-4 = C, RA = no substitution, ĸ = O, Z1 = C, Z4 = N, ring B = 5-membered heterocyclic ring, RB = no substitution, Z2 = C, RC = no substitution, ring C = 6-membered carbocyclic ring (benzene), X5-6 = C, two REs = joined together to form a ring (benzene), Z3 = N, RD = no substitution, and ring D = 6-membered heterocyclic ring (pyridine) of Applicant’s Formula I; RE’ = no substitution (in the formula as recited in Claim 14). However, Lin et al. does not explicitly disclose an embodiment that fully reads on Applicant’s Formula I, particularly in regards to the nature of the L linking group. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to modify Compound 136 as disclosed by Lin (above) such that L = NR (with R = aryl (phenyl)) of Applicant’s Formula I. The motivation is provided by the fact that the modification merely involves an exchange of one linking group (C(CH3)2) for a functional equivalent (N(aryl) such as N(phenyl)) selected from a highly finite list of viable linking groups (for any one of L1-3) as envisioned by Lin et al. (and easily envisioned from its general formula and the explicitly disclosed embodiments), thus rendering the production predictable with a reasonable expectation of success.
Lin further disclose an organic electroluminescent (EL) device (OLED) for the displays and the like comprising the following layers: substrate (110), anode (115), hole-injecting layer (120), hole-transporting layer (125), electron-blocking layer (130), light-emitting layer (135), hole-blocking layer (140), electron-transporting layer (145), electron-injecting layer (150), protective layer (155), cathode (160), and barrier layer (170) (Fig. 1; [0036], [0043]); its inventive compounds serve as dopant material in the light-emitting layer, which is combined with host material including the following ([0088]-[0089]):
PNG
media_image3.png
194
380
media_image3.png
Greyscale
([0094]).
Regarding Claim 15, Lin et al. discloses another embodiment:
PNG
media_image4.png
328
402
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(page 23) such that modifying Compound 137 in the same manner as described by the Office above would result in Ro-u = hydrogen of Applicant’s formula Pt32.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 7, 9, 12, and 16 are currently 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 closest prior art is provided by Lin et al. (US 2015/0194615 A1), which discloses compounds of the following form:
PNG
media_image1.png
244
246
media_image1.png
Greyscale
([0016]). An embodiment is disclosed:
PNG
media_image2.png
324
408
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 23). However, it is the position of the Office that neither Lin et al. singly nor in further combination with any other prior art discloses or suggests any of the compounds as recited in the claims, particularly in regards to the nature of the tetradentate ligand coordinated to the metal M of any one of Applicant’s Formulae I and II.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 57-62 with respect to the deficiencies of the previously cited prior art have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as set forth above.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY L YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1137. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 6am-3pm.
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 A 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.
/JAY YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights