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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Li279 et al (US 20150349279 A1).
Li discloses an OLED having an anode and electrode and a light processing material layer that comprises a blue light emitter and a host [0156, Fig 1, 0158] the emitter being a delayed fluorescent and/or phosphorescent emitter compound [0079, 0082] having the structure generic formula IV:
PNG
media_image1.png
211
305
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[clm 1, p167] wherein rings L1 to L4 include aryl and heteroaryl groups, Z3 includes oxygen -O- and other groups of the claimed L1 to L4 [p168] and the L3 containing group includes the claimed spiro group:
PNG
media_image2.png
128
210
media_image2.png
Greyscale
includes
PNG
media_image3.png
194
230
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[pp173, 174, claim 7] which reads on the bottom right group of the claimed formulae 1 and 3A, wherein claimed L4 is a direct bond and A1 to A4 are phenyl groups.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
Claim(s) 2-4, 6, 8-11 and 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Li279 et al (US 20150349279 A1).
Li discloses an OLED having an anode and electrode and a light processing material layer that comprises a blue light emitter and a host [0156, Fig 1, 0158] the emitter being a delayed fluorescent and/or phosphorescent emitter compound [0079, 0082] having the structure generic formula IV:
PNG
media_image1.png
211
305
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[clm 1, p167] wherein rings L1 to L4 include aryl and heteroaryl groups, Z3 includes oxygen -O- and other groups of the claimed L1 to L4 [p168] and the L3 containing group includes the claimed spiro group:
PNG
media_image2.png
128
210
media_image2.png
Greyscale
includes
PNG
media_image3.png
194
230
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[pp173, 174, claim 7] which reads on the bottom right group of the claimed formulae 1 and 3A, wherein claimed L4 is a direct bond and A1 to A4 are phenyl groups.
This rejection is made under both 35 USC 102 anticipation and 35 USC 103 obviousness. Examiner holds the opinion that the -O- for Z3 (claimed L2) and the specific group above for the ring L3 is disclosed with sufficient specificity to anticipate the claims, especially since -O- for Z3 is exemplified [at least Example 8. p166], therefore the claims are anticipated. In the alternative, the claims are certainly obvious over the combination of elements disclosed, and the mere fact that a reference suggests a multitude of possible combinations does not in and of itself make any one of those combinations less obvious. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).
Claim 17 does not actually require the presence of Formula 3B, so if a disclosed compound reads on claimed formula 3A, the disclosure reads on the claim 17.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, in addition to the host and emitters in the light processing material layer, the OLED includes an ETL and an HTL adjacent to the light processing material layer [Fig 1, 0156]. The disclosed 3-layer stack reads on the claimed emission layer with a first compound (emitter with the claimed structure), a second compound (HT host), a third compound (ET host) and a fourth compound (host and/or additional emitter [claim 14, p212], which can be a delayed fluorescence emitter [abstract].
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.
Claim(s) 7 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li279 et al (US 20150349279 A1).
The compounds of Li279 having the structure of generic formula IV:
PNG
media_image1.png
211
305
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[clm 1, p167],
wherein
the group containing ring L2:
PNG
media_image4.png
119
121
media_image4.png
Greyscale
includes
PNG
media_image5.png
126
314
media_image5.png
Greyscale
and others that read on the claimed A2 of formula 4 [0122, p13];
the group containing ring L4:
PNG
media_image6.png
107
105
media_image6.png
Greyscale
includes
PNG
media_image7.png
90
99
media_image7.png
Greyscale
[p171];
the group containing ring L1:
PNG
media_image8.png
102
91
media_image8.png
Greyscale
[0168] includes both a carbene-imidazole
PNG
media_image9.png
65
66
media_image9.png
Greyscale
[0169, top row] which would form the double bond with the platinum group, just like in claimed Formula 4, as shown in the next claim:
PNG
media_image10.png
105
74
media_image10.png
Greyscale
[claim 5, p169, second row], and the ordinarily skilled artisan would understand that this imidazole group would have similar properties to the substituted benzimidazole group of the claimed Formula 4. Li279 also discloses L1 as a benzimidazole group
PNG
media_image11.png
67
104
media_image11.png
Greyscale
, which supports the obviousness of a carbene-benzimidazole.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of Applicant’s invention to have used the claimed benzimidazole-carbene group as the ring L1 of Li279 because Li279 discloses ring L1 may be an imidazole-carbene as well as a benzimidazole, and would have expected similar if not equivalent properties from an imidazole-carbene and benzimidazole-carbene ligand. A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. “An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties.” In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
If Applicant argues that the claimed embodiments are not disclosed with sufficient specificity and that examiner is picking and choosing with improper hindsight, Examiner notes that the rejection is made under 35 USC 103 obviousness. Examiner holds the opinion that there a finite number of disclosed embodiments of rings L1 to L4 that would allow the ordinarily skilled artisan to prepare the claimed compounds. The claims are obvious over the combination of elements disclosed, and the mere fact that a reference suggests a multitude of possible combinations does not in and of itself make any one of those combinations less obvious. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).
Claim(s) 1-11 and 13-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li420 (US 20210363420 A1) in view of Li279 et al (US 20150349279 A1).
Li420 discloses an OLED with an anode and a cathode and an emissive material EML comprising a platinum dopant with structure similar to the claims and to Li279 [abstract, p18]
PNG
media_image12.png
195
344
media_image12.png
Greyscale
wherein the only aspect of the claimed Formula 1 missing from the above structure is the linking group L4. Li420 teaches the EML preferably includes two or more hosts including electron transporting and hole transporting [0192, 0197].
Li279, discussed above, discloses the compounds of the claims. The compounds of Li279 can provide improved efficiency and/or operational lifetimes in lighting devices, such as, for example, organic light emitting devices, as compared to conventional materials [0080].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of Applicant’s invention to have used the the claimed dopants in the EML of Li420 because Li279 teaches they provide improved efficiency and/or operational lifetimes in lighting devices, such as, for example, organic light emitting devices, as compared to conventional materials.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 20 are 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art, Li279 et al (US 20150349279 A1), discloses a platinum catalyst with the general structure of the claims:
PNG
media_image1.png
211
305
media_image1.png
Greyscale
L3 containing group includes the claimed spiro group:
PNG
media_image2.png
128
210
media_image2.png
Greyscale
includes
PNG
media_image3.png
194
230
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[pp173, 174, claim 7], as well as the other rings L1 to L4. However, the above structure is only one of many for the embodiments, which do not read on the claims. The compounds of the claims with the above structure have specific substitution that would require improper hindsight from the disclosure of Li279.
Other claimed compound require the linking group L4 of the claimed Formula 1 to be an N atom rather than a direct bond, which is not disclosed in Li420 and the skilled artisan would have no motivation to add it:
PNG
media_image13.png
131
180
media_image13.png
Greyscale
.
Cao et al (CN 113234106 A), cited in the European Search Report discloses the compound PT308:
PNG
media_image14.png
95
120
media_image14.png
Greyscale
which reads on every element of the claimed Formula 1 except there is no L4 group present, and since n4 of formula 1 is 1 to 3, the L4 linking group must be present. Given that this is one of hundreds of compounds, most of which do not contain any group with the A41-N-A42 group of the claims, there would be no motivation to pick out PT308 and further modify it with an L4 group. Similar structures are disclosed in Li279 et al (US 20150349279 A1), still missing the L4 linking group:
PNG
media_image12.png
195
344
media_image12.png
Greyscale
.
The art is replete with carbazole groups as a ligand group, which would not have the spiro carbon atom linkage connecting A41 through A44 in the claimed formula 1, such as Li et al (US 20140364605 A1):
PNG
media_image15.png
192
252
media_image15.png
Greyscale
[0114].
Other references:
US 20210159424 A1 teaches a spirobiacridine compound as a HT material, but does not disclose a metal complex.
Zhang et al (CN 113540186 A) discloses a spirobiacridine as a fluorescent material, but not in a metallic complex. Yang et al (CN 113105457 B) also discloses a spirobiacridine as a TADF compound, but forms a 3D network with metal atoms rather than the claimed coordination complex of metal and ligand.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL M DOLLINGER whose telephone number is (571)270-5464. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6:30pm M-F.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-272-1302. 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.
MICHAEL M. DOLLINGER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1766
/MICHAEL M DOLLINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766