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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 is drawn to a metal complex of the formula Ir(La)(Lb)(Lc) where at least two of La, Lb, and Lc are the same. This necessarily includes complexes of the formula Ir(Lb)3, Ir(Lc)3, Ir(Lb)(Lc)2, and Ir(Lb)2(Lc). There is nothing recited in claim 1 which actually requires ligand La to be present in the metal complex and the prior art which is applied below is applied under this interpretation. Applicants should incorporate a limitation which definitively states that at least one ligand La is present.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to. The limitation “R1-R5 is substituted” should be amended to “R1-R5 is a substituted”. The limitation “main chain, substituted” should be amended to “main chain, a substituted”. The limitation “main chain, or substituted” should be amended to “main chain, or a substituted”. The limitation “R6 is substituted” should be amended to “R6 is a substituted”. The limitation “carbon atoms, substituted” should be amended to “carbon atoms, a substituted”. The limitation “main chain, or substituted” should be amended to “main chain, or a substituted”.
Claim 6 is objected to. The limitation “or corresponding parts or complete deuterides of fluorides thereof” is awkward phrasing. The Examiner suggest amending this to “which includes corresponding partially or fully deuterated analogs and partially or fully fluorinated analogs thereof”.
Claim 7 is objected to. The limitation “R6 is substituted” should be amended to “R6 is a substituted”. The limitation “main chain, or substituted” should be amended to “main chain, or a substituted”.
Claim 9 is objected to. The limitation “another one is substituted” should be amended to “another one is a substituted”. The limitation “main chain, or substituted” should be amended to “main chain, or a substituted”.
Claim 10 is objected to. The limitation “another one is branched” should be amended to “another on is a branched”.
Claim 11 is objected to. The limitation “or corresponding parts or complete deuterides of fluorides thereof” is awkward phrasing. The Examiner suggest amending this to “which includes corresponding partially or fully deuterated analogs and partially or fully fluorinated analogs thereof”.
Claim 15 is objected to. The limitation “R6 is substituted” should be amended to “R6 is a substituted”. The limitation “main chain, or substituted” should be amended to “main chain, or a substituted”.
Claim 16 is objected to. The limitation “R6 is substituted” should be amended to “R6 is a substituted”. The limitation “main chain, or substituted” should be amended to “main chain, or a substituted”.
Claim 17 is objected to. The limitation “R6 is substituted” should be amended to “R6 is a substituted”. The limitation “main chain, or substituted” should be amended to “main chain, or a substituted”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 8 requires that R5 cannot be F. However, claims 9 and 10 both recite that “one of the R1-R5 is F” which does not further limit claim 8. Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 2, 7-10, 12, 13, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boudreault et al. (US 2015/0315222).
Claim 1: Boudreault et al. teaches an iridium complex of the formula Ir(Lb)(Lc)2, including the complex
PNG
media_image1.png
140
272
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 81). This complex anticipates claim 1.
Claim 2: The complex above also satisfies formula 2 with Rb, Rd, and Rf equal to hydrogen and Ra, Rc, Re, and Rg equal to a C2 alkyl group.
Claims 7-10, 15, and 18: While the iridium complex above does not satisfy the limitations of claims 7-10, 15, and 18, as written, claims 7-10, 15, and 18 further limit what is an optional embodiment as claim 1 does not actually require a ligand La to be present (at this time).
Claims 12 and 13: Device example 1 of Boudreault et al. anticipates the device limitations of claims 12 and 13.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6, 11, 14, 16, 17, 19, 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. However, once Applicants amend claim 1 to require a ligand La to be present and correct for the 112(d) rejection and claim objections above, all claims would contain allowable subject matter. Complexes which comprise a ligand La as recited by Applicants are novel and unobvious over the prior art.
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
Prosecution Insights