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 .
Response to Amendment
In the response filed 01/30/2026, the claims were amended.
These amendments are hereby entered.
In light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claims 2 and 8 as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) of claim 2 as being of improper dependent form, and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 1-5, 7, 9, 12, 14-16, and 19-20 as being unpatentable over Nishizeki et al. (JP 2016/219490 A), claim 6 as being unpatentable over Nishizeki above and further in view of Xia et al. (US 2015/0097169 A1), claim 13 as being unpatentable over Nishizeki above and further in view of Stoessel et al. (US 2007/0082284 A1), and claims 17 and 18 as being unpatentable over Nishizeki above and further in view of Metz et al. (WO 2014/177518 A1), are withdrawn by the Office.
The terminal disclaimer filed 01/30/2026 has been accepted by the office.
In light of the terminal disclaimer, the nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9-11, and 16-20 over claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 14-16 of U.S. Pat. No. 11,545,637 is withdrawn.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 16, and 19 have been amended.
Claims 21 and 22 have been added.
Claims 2 and 18 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 3-17, and 19-22 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejections over Xia et al. (US 2011/0215710 A1) have been fully considered and are persuasive.
In light of Applicants remarks, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 1-3, 5, 9, 11, 12, and 14-20 as being unpatentable over Xia et al. (US 2011/0215710 A1) are withdrawn by the Office.
Applicant’s remaining arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-17, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 1, 16, and 19, and dependent claim 21 contain proviso (iii) which states that the first group is indirectly fused to ring A or ring B. This limitation is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the art of electroluminescent devices that the inventor or a joint inventor has possession of the claimed genus at the time the application was filed.
Specifically, as discussed below, limitation (iii) is being considered as independent of conditions (1) and (2), instead requiring a compound of Formula I wherein the first group is fused to a chemical moiety, wherein the chemical moiety is further fused to ring A or ring B.
Applicant has only provided examples of ligands comprising a first group (an imidazole group) which is fused to a benzene ring and the benzene ring is further fused to one of rings A or B (see for example, the ligands in the first row of page 12 of the instant specification). The genus of “indirectly” encompasses a sufficiently large genus that merely showing examples with a benzene ring does not provide a representative number of species sufficient to show that Applicant was in possession of the claimed genus (see MPEP 2163-II-A-3-a-ii).
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.
Claims 1, 3-17, and 19-22 are 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.
With respect to independent claims 1, 16, and 19, the claims contain the proviso, (iii) the first group is indirectly fused to ring A or ring B.
Examiner finds this limitation to be unclear for at least the following reasons. In the art of organic chemistry, ring systems are “fused” when they share two or more atoms and at least one bond. It is unclear how two rings can be “indirectly” fused when they necessarily and directly share atoms and one or more bonds.
Also with respect to limitation (iii), this limitation appears to contradict earlier limitation number (2) which requires that at least one pair of two adjacent RA or one pair of two adjacent RB form the first group fused to ring A or B.
The structure of the first group is given below to facilitate discussion.
PNG
media_image1.png
94
80
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Limitation (2) requires that in the first group, the asterisks represent the points at which the first group fuses to ring A or B. Thus, the only way to interpret limitation number (2) is that the first group is fused directly with either ring A or ring B, via the locations denoted with asterisks.
In continuing examination, limitation (iii) will be considered as independent of conditions (1) and (2), instead requiring a compound of Formula I wherein the first group is fused to a moiety, wherein the moiety is further fused to ring A or ring B.
With respect to claim 21, the claim requires limitation (iii) which contradicts earlier limitation (2), as discussed above.
In continuing examination, the claim will be considered as requiring a compound of Formula I wherein the first group is fused to a chemical moiety which is further fused to ring A or ring B.
Claims 3-15, 17, 20, and 22 are rejected by virtue of dependency.
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, 3, 4, 6, 10, 12-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia et al. (US 2015/0097169 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Xia teaches a platinum metal complex (paragraph 0077) comprising a ligand wherein an azole group is fused to a pyridine group of the ligand which provides a more efficient and stable phosphorescent emitter for OLED applications (abstract and Formula I in paragraph 0016).
Xia gives an example of the azole-fused ligand in LA99 (page 16), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
364
374
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The azole portion of the ligand is derived from the structure pictured below (paragraph 0017).
PNG
media_image3.png
172
184
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In this formula, X is NR’ (paragraph 0018). Xia also teaches that R3 and R’ may be joined to form a ring (paragraph 0024)
Such a modification produces a ligand that meets the requirements of condition (2) and proviso (i) of the instant claim when two RA are joined to form the first group, and RB represents no substitution.
In the first group, R1 is a C6 aryl (phenyl) group, R2 is a C2 alkyl (ethyl) group, and R1 and R2 are joined into a ring.
This ligand can further be used to form a compound of Formula III (paragraph 0077), wherein m is 1, n is 1, and the bidentate ligand of L3-L4 is a phenylpyridine ligand (LB1, paragraph 0074), forming a heteroleptic compound.
Xia includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Xia being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known azole group and ancillary ligand from each of the finite lists of possible azole groups and ancillary ligands to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a ligand which provides a more efficient and stable phosphorescent emitter for OLED applications, commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 3, Xia teaches the compound of claim 1 and R1 and R2 are the combination of aryl and alkyl, as discussed above.
With respect to claims 4 and 6, Xia teaches the compound of claim 1, wherein two RA are joined to form the first group, and R1 and R2 are joined into a fused ring, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 10, Xia teaches the compound of claim 1, and the ligand above is represented by the formula below when two of R3 are a condensed aromatic ring.
PNG
media_image4.png
380
128
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 12, Xia teaches the compound of claim 1, and the compound has the formula Pt(LA)(LB) and LB is bidentate and different from LA as discussed above.
With respect to claim 13, Xia teaches the compound of claim 12, as discussed above.
Xia also teaches that ligand LA and ligand LB can be joined to form a tetradentate ligand (paragraph 0077).
Xia includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Xia being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to join ligand LA and ligand LB and arrive at the tetradentate compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a ligand which provides a more efficient and stable phosphorescent emitter for OLED applications, commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claims 14 and 15, Xia teaches the compound of claim 12, and LB is a phenylpyridine ligand (LB1), which is the third embodiment on the second row of claim 14 when all X characters are carbon atoms, as pictured above.
With respect to claims 16, 19, and 20, Xia teaches a consumer product such as a flat panel display (paragraph 0044) or an organic light emitting device (OLED), comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer between the electrodes which comprises a compound comprising a first ligand LA -of Formula I, as pictured and discussed in claim 1 above (paragraph 0028).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the compound of Xia in the organic layer of an OLED device such as a flat panel display, as taught by Xia.
With respect to claim 17, Xia teaches the OLED of claim 16, and Xia also teaches that the organic layer comprises a host comprising a carbazole moiety (paragraph 0090).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a host compound with a carbazole moiety as a host in the organic layer of the device, as taught by Xia.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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 RACHEL SIMBANA whose telephone number is (571)272-2657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 A.M. - 4:30 P.M..
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.
/RACHEL SIMBANA/Examiner, Art Unit 1786