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 04/22/2026, the abstract and claims were amended.
These amendments are hereby entered.
In light of Applicant’s amendments to the abstract, the objection to the abstract is withdrawn by the Office.
In light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) of claims 1-20 as failing to be enabling for all definitions of K1 and K2, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claim 11 as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) of claims 4-6, 11, and 16 as being of improper dependent form, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 of claims 1 and 12-15 as being anticipated by Hwang et al. (US 2016/0155963 A1), and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 2-11 and 17-20 as being unpatentable over Hwang as applied above and further in view of Stoessel et al. (US 2007/0082284 A1), claims 1-14 and 16-20 as being unpatentable over Okuda et al. (WO 2016/088354 A1) in view of Hwang et al. (US 2016/0155963 A1) are withdrawn by the Office.
Claims 1-20 were originally filed.
Claims 21-26 have been added.
Claims 4-6, 12, 15, and 16 are canceled.
Claims 1, 12, 11, and 17-20 are instantly amended.
Claims 1-3, 7-11, 13-14, and 17-26 are pending in the application.
No claims are withdrawn from consideration and all claims are examined herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s 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, 7-11, 13-14, and 17-26 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.
With respect to independent claims 1, 17, and 20, the claims contain new matter because they have been amended to include condition (II) and proviso (c) which states that if both ZA and ZB are present and the ring containing ZA and ZB is annulated by another ring, then ZA and ZB are each independently Si or C. This represents new matter because it allows for a compound wherein ZA and ZB are both carbon atoms, which is not a part of the originally filed disclosure.
To better illustrate this, Examiner points to the structure below, which has been taken from LIST H of the independent claims, to which condition (II) and proviso (c) are meant to apply.
PNG
media_image1.png
552
466
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In this structure, both ZA and ZB are present and the ring containing ZA and ZB is annulated by another ring. As amended, the instant claims encompass a ligand of this structure wherein ZA and ZB are both a carbon atom. However, such a structure is not encompassed by the original disclosure which requires a ligand containing at least one silicon atom or one germanium atom.
As such, a ligand of Formula I wherein no silicon or germanium atom is present represents new matter.
Claims 2-3, 7-11, 13-14, 18-19, and 21-26 are rejected by virtue of dependency.
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, 7-11, 13-14, and 17-26 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, 17, and 20, the claims contain several provisos in condition (II) that rely on a situation where the ring containing ZA (and ZB) is annulated by another ring. This is confusing because the ring containing ZA is already annulated to the ligand of Formula I, so it is unclear if the provisos do or do not require that adjacent substituents are further joined to form an additional annulated ring.
In continuing examination, the annulated ring in these provisos is being interpreted as an additional fused ring which is formed by adjacent substituents on the ring of Formula II.
With respect to claim 24, ligands LAi-74- through LAi-80 comprise variables RF and RG, however, these variables are not defined in the instant claim, nor in any preceding claim.
In continuing examination, the definitions of RF and RG will be taken from LIST I on page 93 of the specification dated 11/07/2022.
Claims 2-3, 7-11, 13-14, 18-19, 21-23, and 25-26 are rejected by virtue of dependency.
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], 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.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, 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.
With respect to claim 22, the first structure on the second line of page 54 of the instant claim set does not comply with the proviso of parent claim 1 that states that in condition (II), (b) if both ZA and ZB are present, both ZA and ZB are directly bonded to the ring that coordinates to the metal M, and the ring the ring containing ZA and ZB is not annulated by another ring, then both ZA and ZB are Si.
PNG
media_image2.png
420
424
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
390
380
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 11, 13-14, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2016/0181530 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Choi teaches Compound 12 (page 40), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image4.png
290
466
media_image4.png
Greyscale
This compound is derived from Choi Formula 1 (paragraph 0010) when R11 is represented by Formula 2C (paragraph 0024).
Choi also teaches that in Formula 2C, when b1 is 1 or greater, an R group in Formula 2C may be bound to a neighboring Z3 group to form a saturated ring (paragraph 0027), such as the one demonstrated in Formula 2B(8) (page 29), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image5.png
420
598
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of condition (I)(ii) of the instant claim when A1 is a monocyclic ring system comprising a 6-membered heterocyclic ring (pyridine), A2 is a monocyclic ring system comprising a 6-membered carbocyclic ring (benzene), X1 is a nitrogen atom, and X2-X4 are carbon atoms, K1 and K2 are a direct bond, L1 is a single bond, RA forms the moiety Formula II, and RB represents zero substitution.
In Formula II, n is 1, Z1 is GeRR’, and Z2-Z4 are each CRR’. In Z1, R and R’ are each alkyl (methyl) groups, and in Z2-Z4, R and R’ are both hydrogen atoms.
Choi includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Choi being a lack of the combination of ligands above 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 combination of ligands from the finite list of preferred embodiments to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a compound with a germanium substituent, which is suitable for use as a material in an organic light-emitting device (paragraph0196), and which produces an organic light-emitting device with high efficiency (paragraph 0194), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 11, Choi teaches the compound of claim 1, and ligand LA is a phenylpyridine ligand, which is the sixth embodiment of the claim when all Y characters are carbon atoms, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 13, Choi teaches the compound of claim 1, and the compound has the formula Ir(LA)2(LB) wherein x is 2, y is 1, and z is 0 so that LC is not present and 3 is the oxidation state of iridium, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 14, Choi teaches the compound of claim 13, and LB is a phenylpyridine ligand, which is the sixth embodiment of the instant claim when all Y characters are carbon atoms, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 24, Choi teaches the compound of claim 1, and the ligand LA is represented by instant ligand LA-78 when RF is instant R1 (hydrogen), RG is instant R2 (methyl), and G is instant G17 or G18, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 25, Choi teaches the compound of claim 24, and LB is instant LB1, as pictured above.
Claims 2-8, 10 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2016/0181530 A1) as applied above, and further in view of Stoessel et al. (US 2007/0082284 A1).
With respect to claim 2, Choi teaches the compound of claim 1, which meets the requirements of condition (I), as discussed above.
Choi also teaches that the ligand can be coordinated to a platinum core (paragraph 0060), wherein the sum of n1 and n2 is 2 (paragraph 0062).
However, Choi does not teach nor fairly suggest bridging the ligands with a divalent atom to form a tetradentate ligand of instant Formula III.
In analogous art, Stoessel teaches organometallic compounds for use in an organic light emitting device (abstract and title) comprising a bridging unit “V” (paragraph 0020 and Structure 1). Stoessel teaches that the purpose of the bridge V is to promote the formation of mononuclear metal complexes of structure 1 (tetradentate organometallic complex), and suppress or completely prevent the formation of coordination polymers on reaction of the ligand of structure 2 (tetradentate chelating ligand) with metal compounds (paragraph 0021).
Stoessel teaches that V may be a divalent oxygen atom (paragraph 0028, line 1).
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 an oxygen linking group between the ligands of Choi and form a tetradentate platinum compound in order to promote the formation of mononuclear metal complexes and suppress or completely prevent the formation of coordination polymers of the chelating ligand with metal compounds, as taught by Stoessel.
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of instant Formula III when M1 is platinum, Z1* is a nitrogen atom and Z2* is a carbon atom, K3 and K4 are a direct bond, L2 is an oxygen atom, L3 is a direct bond, and L4 is an absent bond, RE and RF represent no substitution, and all other characters are the same as defined above.
With respect to claim 3, Choi and Stoessel teach the compound of claim 2, and the compound has the structure of the instant first embodiment, for the reasons pictured and stated above.
With respect to claim 7, Choi and Stoessel teach the compound of claim 2, and RA forms the moiety Formula II, and RD represents zero substitution, in Z1, R and R’ are each alkyl (methyl) groups, and in Z2-Z4, R and R’ are both hydrogen atoms, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 8, Choi and Stoessel teach the compound of claim 2 and A1 is pyridine and A2 is benzene, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 10, Choi and Stoessel teach the compound of claim 2 and in Z1 each of R and R’ are an alkyl group.
Choi also teaches that in Formula 2B(8), Z5 is a methyl group (paragraph 0159, lines 1-3).
Such a modification produces a compound wherein every R and R’ in CRR’ is alkyl.
Choi includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Choi being a lack of the combination of ligands above 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 combination of ligands from the finite list of preferred embodiments to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a compound with a germanium substituent, which is suitable for use as a material in an organic light-emitting device (paragraph0196), and which produces an organic light-emitting device with high efficiency (paragraph 0194), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 17, Choi teaches an organic light emitting device (OLED, paragraph 0212 and Figure 1) comprising an anode (11, paragraph 0214), a cathode (19, paragraph 0284), and an organic layer between the electrodes (15, paragraph 0284) and the organic layer comprises a compound of formula 1 (paragraph 0042), such as Compound 12 (page 40), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image4.png
290
466
media_image4.png
Greyscale
This compound is derived from Choi Formula 1 (paragraph 0010) when R11 is represented by Formula 2C (paragraph 0024).
Choi teaches that the ligand can be coordinated to a platinum core (paragraph 0060), wherein the sum of n1 and n2 is 2 (paragraph 0062).
Choi also teaches that in Formula 2C, when b1 is 1 or greater, an R group in Formula 2C may be bound to a neighboring Z3 group to form a saturated ring (paragraph 0027), such as the one demonstrated in Formula 2B(8) (page 29), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image5.png
420
598
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Choi includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Choi being a lack of the combination of ligands above 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 combination of ligands from the finite list of preferred embodiments to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a compound with a germanium substituent, which is suitable for use as a material in an organic light-emitting device (paragraph0196), and which produces an organic light-emitting device with high efficiency (paragraph 0194), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
However, Choi does not teach nor fairly suggest bridging the ligands with a divalent atom to form a tetradentate ligand of instant Formula III.
In analogous art, Stoessel teaches organometallic compounds for use in an organic light emitting device (abstract and title) comprising a bridging unit “V” (paragraph 0020 and Structure 1). Stoessel teaches that the purpose of the bridge V is to promote the formation of mononuclear metal complexes of structure 1 (tetradentate organometallic complex), and suppress or completely prevent the formation of coordination polymers on reaction of the ligand of structure 2 (tetradentate chelating ligand) with metal compounds (paragraph 0021).
Stoessel teaches that V may be a divalent oxygen atom (paragraph 0028, line 1).
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 an oxygen linking group between the ligands of Choi and form a tetradentate platinum compound in order to promote the formation of mononuclear metal complexes and suppress or completely prevent the formation of coordination polymers of the chelating ligand with metal compounds, as taught by Stoessel.
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of the instant formula when A1 is a monocyclic ring system comprising a 6-membered heterocyclic ring (pyridine), A2 is a monocyclic ring system comprising a 6-membered carbocyclic ring (benzene), moiety E is a monocyclic 6-membered carbocyclic (benzene) ring, moiety F is a monocyclic 6-membered heterocyclic (pyridine) ring, X1 is a nitrogen atom, and X2-X4 are carbon atoms, Z1* is a carbon atom and Z2* is a nitrogen atom, K1-K4 are a direct bond, L1 and L3 are a single bond, L2 is an oxygen atom and L4 is an absent bond, RA, RD, RE and RF represent zero substitution, n is 1, Z4 is GeRR’, and Z1-Z3 are each CRR’. In Z4, R and R’ are each alkyl (methyl) groups, and in Z1-Z3, R and R’ are both hydrogen atoms, and M is Pt.
With respect to claim 18, Choi and Stoessel teach the OLED of claim 17, and Choi also teaches that the organic layer may further comprise a host (paragraph 0274), such as mCP (page 90), which comprises a carbazole moiety, which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image6.png
155
228
media_image6.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 19, Choi and Stoessel teach the OLED of claim 17, and Choi teaches that the organic layer further comprises a host (paragraph 0274), and the host may be compound H1 (page 91), which is pictured below, which is a compound of the instant claim.
PNG
media_image7.png
172
296
media_image7.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 20, Choi teaches a full-color organic light-emitting device (a consumer device, paragraph 0267), comprising an organic light emitting device (OLED, paragraph 0212 and Figure 1) comprising an anode (11, paragraph 0214), a cathode (19, paragraph 0284), and an organic layer between the electrodes (15, paragraph 0284) and the organic layer comprises a compound of formula 1 (paragraph 0042), such as Compound 12 (page 40), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image4.png
290
466
media_image4.png
Greyscale
This compound is derived from Choi Formula 1 (paragraph 0010) when R11 is represented by Formula 2C (paragraph 0024).
Choi teaches that the ligand can be coordinated to a platinum core (paragraph 0060), wherein the sum of n1 and n2 is 2 (paragraph 0062).
Choi also teaches that in Formula 2C, when b1 is 1 or greater, an R group in Formula 2C may be bound to a neighboring Z3 group to form a saturated ring (paragraph 0027), such as the one demonstrated in Formula 2B(8) (page 29), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image5.png
420
598
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Choi includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Choi being a lack of the combination of ligands above 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 combination of ligands from the finite list of preferred embodiments to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a compound with a germanium substituent, which is suitable for use as a material in an organic light-emitting device (paragraph0196), and which produces an organic light-emitting device with high efficiency (paragraph 0194), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
However, Choi does not teach nor fairly suggest bridging the ligands with a divalent atom to form a tetradentate ligand of instant Formula III.
In analogous art, Stoessel teaches organometallic compounds for use in an organic light emitting device (abstract and title) comprising a bridging unit “V” (paragraph 0020 and Structure 1). Stoessel teaches that the purpose of the bridge V is to promote the formation of mononuclear metal complexes of structure 1 (tetradentate organometallic complex), and suppress or completely prevent the formation of coordination polymers on reaction of the ligand of structure 2 (tetradentate chelating ligand) with metal compounds (paragraph 0021).
Stoessel teaches that V may be a divalent oxygen atom (paragraph 0028, line 1).
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 an oxygen linking group between the ligands of Choi and form a tetradentate platinum compound in order to promote the formation of mononuclear metal complexes and suppress or completely prevent the formation of coordination polymers of the chelating ligand with metal compounds, as taught by Stoessel.
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of the instant formula when A1 is a monocyclic ring system comprising a 6-membered heterocyclic ring (pyridine), A2 is a monocyclic ring system comprising a 6-membered carbocyclic ring (benzene), moiety E is a monocyclic 6-membered carbocyclic (benzene) ring, moiety F is a monocyclic 6-membered heterocyclic (pyridine) ring, X1 is a nitrogen atom, and X2-X4 are carbon atoms, Z1* is a carbon atom and Z2* is a nitrogen atom, K1-K4 are a direct bond, L1 and L3 are a single bond, L2 is an oxygen atom and L4 is an absent bond, RA, RD, RE and RF represent zero substitution, n is 1, Z4 is GeRR’, and Z1-Z3 are each CRR’. In Z4, R and R’ are each alkyl (methyl) groups, and in Z1-Z3, R and R’ are both hydrogen atoms, and M is Pt.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 21-23, and 26 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
With respect to claim 9, the claim is drawn to a compound of claim 2 wherein one of Z1-Z4 is SiRR’ and the remainder of Z1-Z4 are CRR’, or two of Z1-Z4 are SiRR, and the remainder of Z1-Z4 are CRR’.
A search of the prior art did not identify the claimed invention.
The closest identified prior art is Hwang et al. (US 2016/0155963 A1).
Hwang discloses an organometallic compound wherein the pyridine portion of a bidentate ligand comprises a silyl substituent which may join with an adjacent substituent to form a condensed, saturated ring with the silicon atom in the benzylic position.
This differs from the claimed invention because the claimed invention contains two provisos to exclude these compounds. The first proviso requires that when n is 0 and the saturated, silyl-containing ring is a 5-membered ring which is fused to the pyridine ring at A1 or A2, then either two silicon atoms or present, or the benzylic positions of the 5-membered ring are not a silicon atom. The second proviso requires that when n is 1 and the saturated, silyl-containing ring is a 6-membered ring which is fused to the pyridine ring at A1 or A2, then either two silicon atoms or present, or the benzylic positions of the 6-membered ring are not a silicon atom.
Additionally, there existed no teaching nor motivation to include more than one silicon atom, or to incorporate a silicon atom at a non-benzylic position in the broader prior art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 21, the claim requires a compound of condition (II) of claim 1 wherein the metal is Pd or Pt, ligand LA is linked to ligand Ly to form a tetradentate ligand, and ligand LA is selected from a list of 72 specific embodiments set forth in the claim.
Examiner notes that every ligand LA in the claim either comprises at least one silicon atom in a saturated ring that is not fused with a pyridine ring, or when the saturated, silyl-containing ring is fused to a pyridine ring then either two silicon atoms or present, or the benzylic positions of the saturated ring do not comprise a silicon atom
A search of the prior art did not identify the claimed invention.
The closest identified prior art is Hwang et al. (US 2016/0155963 A1).
Hwang discloses an organometallic compound wherein the pyridine portion of a bidentate ligand comprises a silyl substituent which may join with an adjacent substituent to form a condensed, saturated ring with the silicon atom in the benzylic position.
This differs from the claimed invention because the claimed invention contains two provisos to exclude these compounds. The first proviso requires that when n is 0 and the saturated, silyl-containing ring is a 5-membered ring which is fused to the pyridine ring at A1 or A2, then either two silicon atoms or present, or the benzylic positions of the 5-membered ring are not a silicon atom. The second proviso requires that when n is 1 and the saturated, silyl-containing ring is a 6-membered ring which is fused to the pyridine ring at A1 or A2, then either two silicon atoms or present, or the benzylic positions of the 6-membered ring are not a silicon atom.
Additionally, there existed no teaching nor motivation to include more than one silicon atom, or to incorporate a silicon atom at a non-benzylic position in the broader prior art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 22 and 23 would be allowed by virtue of dependency.
With respect to claim 26, the claim requires a compound of claim 2 which is selected from 8 specific embodiments of a tetradentate, organometallic compound which comprises at least one condensed, saturated ring comprising one or two silicon atoms.
Examiner notes that every compound in the claim either comprises at least one silicon atom in a saturated ring that is not fused with a pyridine ring, or when the saturated, silyl-containing ring is fused to a pyridine ring then either two silicon atoms or present, or the benzylic positions of the saturated ring do not comprise a silicon atom
A search of the prior art did not identify the claimed invention.
The closest identified prior art is Hwang et al. (US 2016/0155963 A1).
Hwang discloses an organometallic compound wherein the pyridine portion of a bidentate ligand comprises a silyl substituent which may join with an adjacent substituent to form a condensed, saturated ring with the silicon atom in the benzylic position.
This differs from the claimed invention because the claimed invention contains two provisos to exclude these compounds. The first proviso requires that when n is 0 and the saturated, silyl-containing ring is a 5-membered ring which is fused to the pyridine ring at A1 or A2, then either two silicon atoms or present, or the benzylic positions of the 5-membered ring are not a silicon atom. The second proviso requires that when n is 1 and the saturated, silyl-containing ring is a 6-membered ring which is fused to the pyridine ring at A1 or A2, then either two silicon atoms or present, or the benzylic positions of the 6-membered ring are not a silicon atom.
Additionally, there existed no teaching nor motivation to include more than one silicon atom, or to incorporate a silicon atom at a non-benzylic position in the broader prior art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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
Prosecution Insights