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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/16/2026 has been entered.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Che et al (US 2012/0018711) (Che) in view of Lee et al (US 2018/0013078) (Lee).
In reference to claims 1-8 and 10-20, Che teaches a platinum complex of structure 1 as shown below for application in organic electronic diodes as emitting dopants in an emitting layer between an anode and cathode (Che [0010]; [0090]; examples)
PNG
media_image1.png
272
424
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
292
398
media_image2.png
Greyscale
for example, wherein in the structure 1, the compound is a complex 101 except wherein R12 is a substituted aryl group instead of a hydrogen (Che [0010] [0022] [0017]).
Che discloses the compound of structure 1 that encompasses the presently claimed compound of structure 1, including a compound of complex 101 except wherein R12 is a substituted aryl group instead of a hydrogen. Each of the disclosed substituents from the substituent groups of Che are considered functionally equivalent and their selection would lead to obvious variants of the compound of structure 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, in the absence of unexpected results, to have selected these substituents among those disclosed for R12 to provide the compound described above, which is both disclosed by Che and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Che does not expressly state that the substituted aryl group is the instantly claimed substituted fused indole groups but teaches that the selection of substituents can tune the color of the emission of the material (Che [0008]).
With respect to the difference, Lee teaches, in analogous art, similar tetradentate platinum complexes of formula 1-A for use in organic electroluminescent devices (Lee [0007] to [0009]). Lee further teaches substituents R4 (corresponding to the R12 of Che) can be either hydrogen or various alkyl or aromatic groups including, e.g. 10-132 as shown below (Lee [0101]).
PNG
media_image3.png
242
370
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
146
374
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Both Che and Lee are directed to tetradentate platinum complexes with carbon to metal bonds, nitrogen to metal bonds and chalcogen to metal bonds for use in organic light emitting devices and teach hydrogen and aryl groups such as N-phenyl carbazole groups as substituents for the ligands thereof and each teach that improvements in device properties such as efficiency, color, and lifetime can be achieved through the use of these phosphorescent materials (e.g. Che [0002] [0008] and Lee [0348]). Furthermore, the substitution of formula 10-132 of Lee for the substituted aryl of Che, absent unexpected results, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application with the predictable result of providing a phosphorescent material with improved device properties such as efficiency, color and lifetime. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (See MPEP § 2143, B).
For Claim 1: Reads on formula (I) wherein Ar is phenyl, R1 to R5, R7, R9 to R17 are each hydrogen, R6 and R8 are each t-butyl and A is a benzene ring.
For Claim 2: Reads on wherein Ar is phenyl, R1 to R5, R7, R9 to R17 are each hydrogen, R6 and R8 are each t-butyl.
For Claim 3: Reads on wherein Ar is phenyl, R1 to R5, R7, R9 to R17 are each hydrogen, R6 and R8 are each t-butyl.
For Claim 4: Reads on wherein Ar is phenyl, R1 to R5, R7, R9 to R17 are each hydrogen, R6 and R8 are each t-butyl and A is a benzene ring.
For Claim 5: Reads on wherein Ar is phenyl, R1 to R5, R7, R9 to R17 are each hydrogen, R6 and R8 are each t-butyl and A is a benzene ring.
For Claim 6: Reads on wherein Ar is phenyl, R1 to R5, R7, R9 to R17 are each hydrogen, R6 and R8 are each t-butyl and A is a benzene ring.
For Claim 7: Reads on wherein Ar is phenyl, R1 to R5, R7, R9 to R17 are each hydrogen, R6 and R8 are each t-butyl and A is a benzene ring.
For Claim 8: Reads on compound 10.
For Claims 10, 13, and 15-17: Reads on an application in an organic light emitting diode.
For Claims 11: 12, 14, and 18-20: Reads on a device with an anode, cathode, an organic layer that is an emitting layer that comprises the complex.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In reference to the outstanding rejections of claims 1-20 as unpatentable over Che (US 2012/0018711) in view of Lee (US 2018/0013078), Applicant first argues that Che teaches R1 to R14 is independently hydrogen,…substituted aryl… etc. yet fails to mention heteroaryl groups let alone carbazolyl groups. This argument has been fully considered but not found convincing. Che teaches aryl groups and carbazole groups are among the most commonly employed aryl groups in organic electronic materials. Further, Che is not relied upon to teach carbazole specifically.
Applicant further argues that Che teaches the selection of substituents to adjust color of a material whereas the instant specification points to the selection for the purpose of improving luminescent efficiency and device lifetime. This argument is not convincing. Che in view of Lee provides motivation to select different substituents as set forth above herein, the fact that the motivation is different from the motivation of Applicant does not render the resultant compound less obvious.
Applicant further argues that while Lee does not teach the groups 10-132 at the claimed position. This is not convincing as Lee is not relied upon for the teaching of a specific position or the group to be substituted.
It is noted that the outstanding rejection is under KSR rationale B, the simple substitution of one known element (in this case an aryl group) for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved.
Applicant further argues that the device examples of the instant application in table 1 that the claimed devices give rise to unexpected results. This argument has been fully considered but not found convincing.
For a finding of unexpected results, the results presented need to be of both statistical and practical significance and be commensurate in scope with the subject matter claimed (See MPEP 716.02).
First, while the inventive examples allegedly show improvements in device performance, the specification has provided no information that would allow the analysis of the statistical significance of the results. That is, there is no indication if more than one device was prepared and analyzed for each comparative and exemplary device and there is no information on the reproducibility or precision of the measured parameters presented in the data tables. Applicant has provided no additional evidence of statistical significance.
Second, the showing of the results of a few examples is not commensurate in scope with the very large number of compounds encompassed by the instant claims. For example, the compounds of formula I comprise 17 different R groups that can each be selected from an immense number of possible substituents that can be further substituted with any number of additional substituent groups whereas most of the compounds are demonstrated as one or a few options. For example, the options of R1 to R15 being a 20 carbon atom group accounts for over 1086 combinations. These examples are not intended to be interpreted as the only points in which the data is not commensurate in scope with the claims but merely to illustrate how the breadth of the claimed compounds is much larger than that set forth in the examples, these variables resulting in claiming thousands of more compounds and even more devices. As Applicant is attesting that the claimed compounds have properties that would not be expected based on the genus as a whole, for example compounds taught by Che, support for the unexpected results must be provided that covers the scope of what is claimed.
While Applicant has somewhat narrowed the scope of the claims, the scope of the claims are still immense and difficult to fathom whereas the examples are only six materials.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sean M DeGuire whose telephone number is (571)270-1027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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.
/Sean M DeGuire/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights