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 .
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 1-13 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.
Regarding claim 1, formula 1 is not legible. The R groups are not clear and it is unclear where each R group is located. Also, the formulas in the specification are not legible. It is unclear the breadth of the claims as the formula is not legible.
Regarding claim 7, compounds 1 to 564 are not listed and it is unclear the structure of the compounds. Further clarification is needed. In the specification the compounds are not clear and are faded and blurry.
Claims 2-6 and 8-13 are rejected due to the dependence of the claims on claim 1.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, and 8-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hwang et al. (US 2020/0287144) (hereafter “Hwang”).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 5, and 8-13, Hwang teaches an electroluminescent device comprising, an anode, a hole injection layer, an hole transporting layer, a light emitting layer, an electron transporting layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode (paragraph [0417]-[0422]). Hwang teaches that the light emitting layer comprises a host material and a phosphorescent dopant (paragraph [0419]). Hwang teaches that the phosphorescent dopant can have the following structure,
PNG
media_image1.png
145
266
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image2.png
155
260
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image3.png
142
257
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, and
PNG
media_image4.png
140
265
media_image4.png
Greyscale
are a few examples (paragraphs [0242] and [0419]). Hwang teaches a that the number of each ligand can be 1 or 2 (paragraphs [0007]-[0014]). Hwang teaches that Hwang teaches that the phosphorescent dopants emit green light (paragraph [0254]). Hwang teaches that the electroluminescent device can have a stacked structure, comprising a green emitting layer, a blue emitting layer, and a red emitting layer (paragraph [0295]).
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 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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 2020/0287144) (hereafter “Hwang”) as applied to claims 1, 3-5, and 8-13 above.
Regarding claim 6, Hwang teaches that S atoms can be substituent for O atoms in the metal complexes (paragraphs [0007]-[0014] and [0242]). Hwang teaches that atoms are equivalents to each other (paragraphs [0007]-[0014] and [0242]).
Hwang does not specifically teach a metal complex that comprises the S atom and meets the applicant’s claimed formula.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the O atoms in the metal complexes of Hwang for S atoms. The substitution would been for a preferred group for another preferred groups, which Hwang teaches are equivalents to each other. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect compounds with the S atoms to act in a similar manner as the other compounds taught by Hwang.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Beers et al. (US 2014/0131676) teaches metal complexes comprising a bidentate ligand, where one of to groups on the ligand is an azadibenzofuran group.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW K BOHATY whose telephone number is (571)270-1148. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-4pm.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571)272-1234. 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.
/ANDREW K BOHATY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759