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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on December 9, 2022.
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references provided in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on December 6, 2022 have been considered. Signed copies of the corresponding 1449 forms have been included with this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 10 – 15 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.
Claim 10 claims Formula II
PNG
media_image1.png
288
386
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and then defines L1 – L4 as being selected from a direct bond and various atoms and groups. Claim 10 then further requires that “at least one of L1 or L2 is present.” This renders the claim indefinite because as drawn, all L1 – L4 are required to be present as neither the Formula nor the definition allows for them to be absent. Therefore, it is unclear what the limitation is requiring. It is possible that the requirement is intending that at least one of L1 to L2 is not a direct bond, but this is not the language used.
Claims 11 – 15 are rejected as being dependent on claim 10.
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 – 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xia (US20190100544A1).
As per claims 1 – 4, Xia teaches:
A compound having a ligand LA comprising a structure of Formula I
PNG
media_image2.png
212
220
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Xia teaches ligands such as ligand La107
PNG
media_image3.png
222
260
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, which reads on the claimed limitation wherein moiety A is a monocyclic 6-membered carbocyclic ring, namely a benzene ring as required by claim 3; X1 to X12 is independently C; RA represents two substitutions, wherein one substitution is metal M and the other substitution is heteroaryl; RB, RC, and RD are no substitutions. Xia defines M as being selected from Cu, Ag, Au, Ru, Rh, Pd, Os, Ir, and Pt, which are all transition metals with an atomic mass of at least 40.)
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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 8 and 17 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia (US20190100544A1) as applied to claims 1 – 4 above.
As per claim 8, Xia teaches metal complexes of Formula 1
PNG
media_image4.png
198
266
media_image4.png
Greyscale
([0010]). Xia teaches that the complex has a formula of M(La)m(Lb)n(Lc)q wherein m+n+q is the oxidation state of M and La is selected from the ligand of Formula I ([0080 – 0083]). Xia does not specifically teach a metal complex with the ligand La107 above, but it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select any of the particularly taught ligands for the organometallic complex taught by Xia.
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. 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 substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of decreased aggregation and improved lifetime of the device (Abstract), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
As per claims 17 and 20, Xia teaches:
A light emitting device comprising an anode, a cathode and an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode, wherein the organic layer comprises a compound having a ligand LA ([0019]: “According to another embodiment, an electroluminescent device is disclosed comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer, disposed between the anode and the cathode, comprising a metal complex comprising a partial structure represented by Formula 1.”
A consumer product comprising an organic light emitting device ([0041]: “Devices fabricated in accordance with embodiments of the invention can be incorporated into a wide variety of consumer products that have one or more of the electronic component modules (or units) incorporated therein.”)
Xia teaches an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer and the compound is in the organic layer as discussed above. It would have been obvious to use the compound in the organic layer with the device structure of Xia as Xia demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As per claims 18 and 19, Xia teaches
The OLED wherein the organic layer further comprises a host, wherein the host is selected from the group consisting of
PNG
media_image5.png
140
162
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(As shown in Table 1, the emission layer contains the Ir-based dopants and compound HB
PNG
media_image6.png
204
328
media_image6.png
Greyscale
, which is the same as the claimed compound in claim 19 and contains an indolocarbazole group as required by claim 18.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 – 9, and 16 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:
Regarding claims 5 – 9 and 16, Xia is considered the closest prior art. Xia teaches organometallic compounds with the condensed ring group of Formula I wherein claimed ring A is a benzene ring. However, Xia does not teach or suggest or motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the compounds and formulae of claims 5 – 9 and 16.
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA N CHANDHOK whose telephone number is (571)272-5780. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 6:30 - 3:30.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. 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.
/JENNA N CHANDHOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789