Notice of AIA Status
The present application, filed after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
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 1-5 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsai et al. (US 2020/0255464).
Claim 1: Compound 40 of Tsai et al. anticipates Formula I of claim 1. As applied to Formula I, compound 40, which has the structure
PNG
media_image1.png
224
168
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 14) has M equal to iridium, L1 equal to CR where R is equal to methyl. The CR group of L1 is bonded to a first ring A which is a pyridine ring, a second ring B which is a benzene ring, and a third ring C which is a benzene ring which is bonded to a fourth ring D which is a pyridine via a linker L2 which is an NR group with R equal to phenyl with one of the carbon atoms of said phenyl is bonded to ring C via a direct bond, which is permitted in claim 1. More specifically, in the compound shown above, Z1 is N, Z2 is C, all RA are hydrogen, Z3 and Z4 are C, all RB are hydrogen atoms, Z5-Z7 are c, all RC are hydrogen atoms, L2 is NR as described above, Z8 is C, Z9is N, and three RD are hydrogen, and one RD is the group
PNG
media_image2.png
142
140
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where “*” refers to the bonding position on ring D. The group which is bonded to ring D via the bond labeled “*” satisfies the limitation of claim 1 that LA can be joined with other ligands to comprise a hexadentate ligand. The above variable assignments are more clearly visible as shown in the labeled structure:
PNG
media_image3.png
328
264
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
Claim 2: In compound 40 above, all R, RA, RB, RC, and RD groups are hydrogen, methyl, phenyl, or the moiety shown above which are groups permitted in claim 2.
Claim 3: In compound 40, variables Z1 and Z9 are N thereby anticipating claim 3.
Claim 4: In compound 40, rings A, B, C, and D are pyridine, phenyl, phenyl, and pyridine, respectively, thereby anticipating claim 4.
Claim 5: In compound 40, L1 is CR as described above, thereby anticipating claim 5.
Claim 17: The rejection of claim 1 above is wholly incorporated into the rejection of claim 17. The compounds taught by Tsai et al. are claimed to be employed in an organic light-emitting device which includes all of the same device limitations of claim 17 (claim 17 of Tsai et al.). Therefore, the preparation of an organic light emitting device comprising any one of the explicitly taught compounds of Tsai et al., including compound 40, is at once envisaged, thereby anticipating claim 17.
Claims 18 and 19: Claims 18 and 19 of Tsai et al. are identical to claims 18 and 19 of the instant application regarding the host materials. As such, Tsai et al. also anticipates the limitations regarding the host materials as recited in claims 18 and 19.
Claim 20: The rejection of claims 1 and 17 above are wholly incorporated into the rejection of claim 20. The compounds taught by Tsai et al. are claimed to be employed in a consumer product (claim 20 of Tsai et al.). Therefore, the preparation of a consumer product comprising any one of the explicitly taught compounds of Tsai et al., including compound 40, is at once envisaged, thereby anticipating claim 20.
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.
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 1-5, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoessel et al. (US 2011/0012100).
Stoessel et al. teaches hexadentate metal complexes. The compounds adhere to general formula (1) in paragraph 0005 with more specific compounds adhering to one of general formulae (6) through (10) in paragraph 0023. Specific metal complexes are taught in paragraph 0080. One such metal complex is compound (240) which has the structure
PNG
media_image4.png
150
198
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(page 39). This compound adheres to general formula (7) in paragraph 0023. However, given the overall teachings of Stoessel et al., preparing an analogous compound to compound 240 but which adheres to one of general formula (6) and (8) would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. For example, preparing compound (240) which adheres to formula (8) would have the structure
PNG
media_image5.png
148
142
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, which for purposes of assignment to Formula I of claim 1 is rewritten (without the central Ir) as
PNG
media_image6.png
150
156
media_image6.png
Greyscale
. This ligand satisfies all of the limitations of Formula I of claim 1. As applied to Formula I, this ligand has L1 equal to CR with R equal to methyl, ring A equal to pyridine with Z1 equal to N, Z2 equal to C, one RA equal to phenyl and all other RA equal to hydrogen, ring B equal to pyridine with Z3 equal to N, Z4 equal to C, one RB equal to phenyl and all other RB equal to hydrogen, ring C equal to pyridine with Z5 and Z7 equal to C, Z6 equal to N, L2 equal to NR with R equal to methyl, ring D equal to benzene with Z8 and Z9 equal to C and all RD equal to hydrogen. The iridium metal is coordinated to the two phenyl groups bonded to rings A and B which reads on the limitation “metal M can be coordinated to other ligands” as well as the limitation that “LA can be joined with other ligands to comprise a pentadentate or hexadentate ligand”.
Claim 2: In the ligand shown above, all R, RA, RB, RC, and RD groups are hydrogen, methyl, or phenyl, which are groups permitted in claim 2.
Claim 3: In the ligand shown above, variables Z1 and Z6 are N thereby satisfying claim 3.
Claim 4: In the ligand shown above rings A, B, C, and D are respectively pyridine, pyridine, pyridine, and phenyl, respectively, thereby anticipating claim 4.
Claim 5: In the ligand shown above, L1 is CR as described above, thereby anticipating claim 5.
Claim 17: The metal complexes taught by Stoessel et al. are employed as phosphorescent dopants in organic light-emitting devices. The exemplified devices comprise an anode, a cathode, and an emission layer comprising a metal complex taught by Stoessel et al. therein. The employment of the metal complex rendered obvious as described in claim 1 above in an OLED would have therefore been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, thereby satisfying claim 17.
Clam 18: The exemplified dopant is mCP (paragraph 0145) which is a carbazole-containing compound satisfying claim 18.
Claim 20: While consumer products are not taught by Stoessel et al. per se, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have prepared a consumer product from any of the light-emitting devices taught or suggested by Stoessel et al. as this represents the primary goal of any light-emitting display, that is, to enter the consumer market, thereby satisfying claim 20.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-16 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. Tsai et al. (US 2020/0255464) as described in the rejection above is drawn to hexadentate ligands. Claims 6-8 are drawn to iridium complexes having one tetradentate ligand and one bidentate ligand. Claims 9-11 are drawn to specific tetradentate ligands. The formula for the iridium complexes taught by Tsai et al. in the rejection above would necessarily be Ir(LA) with LA equal to 1. The iridium complexes taught by Tsai et al. are iridium(III) complexes and claim 12 requires that p+q+r is the oxidation state of the metal M. For this reason, Tsai et al. cannot be relied upon to reject claim 12 (and claims 13 and 14 which are dependent on claim 12). Claims 15 and 16 are drawn to specific iridium complexes which fall outside the teachings of Tsai et al.
A closely related prior art document is Tsai et al.1 (US 2019/0341561, cited on Applicants 4 page information disclosure statement, filed on 11/3/22). Tsai et al. teaches a compound comprising a first ligand LA which is analogous to Formula I of the instant application with the key difference being that there is no -L2- group which joins rings C and D together. As claimed variable L2 cannot be equal to a direct or single bond. All of the complexes taught by Tsai et al. have a direct bond between rings C and D. Tsai et al. does not teach or suggest having anything other than a direct linkage between rings C and D. For this reason, Tsai et al. is not relied upon in any prior art or double patenting rejections.
Another closely related prior art document is Che et al. (US 2023/0357294, cited on the attached PTO-892 form). Like Tsai et al. above, Che et al. teaches iridium complexes which are analogous to Formula I of the instant application but differ in that Che et al. does not teach or suggest a linker -L2- which is one of the groups recited in claim 1 and which joins rings C and D together. All of the ligands taught by Che et al. have variable L2 equal to a direct bond, which is not permitted in the instantly filed claims.
Relevant Art Cited
Additional prior art documents which are relevant to Applicants invention can be found on the attached PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT S LOEWE whose telephone number is (571)270-3298. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8 AM to 5 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski, can be reached at telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Robert S Loewe/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
1 Not the same Tsai et al. reference employed in the rejection.