DETAILED ACTION
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 (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.
Restriction/Election Requirement
The Office acknowledges the Applicant’s election of Group 2 (M comprising a tetradentate ligand) in the Response filed 06/16/26.
The election reads on Claims 1-20.
Claims 1-20 are pending. No claims have been withdrawn from consideration.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The Specification filed 02/13/23 recites the following structures:
PNG
media_image1.png
350
538
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 54) which are not clearly drawn due to their low resolutions. They all need to be replaced by structures with clear and legible bonds and atoms (i.e., with solid lines).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim recites the following structures:
PNG
media_image1.png
350
538
media_image1.png
Greyscale
which are not clearly drawn due to their low resolutions. They all need to be replaced by structures with clear and legible bonds and atoms (i.e., with solid lines).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1, 17, and 20, which the other claims are dependent upon, and Claims 4, 10, and 15 recite “B” and “C” within Formulae I, IIA, III, and Pt(LA’)(Ly) which are nowhere defined. The Office has interpreted the moieties to be the 6-membered structures as depicted in the formulae (and have thus ignored the “B” and “C” labels).
Correction is required.
Claim 9 is 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 9, which is dependent on Claim 1, recites that “LB is selected from . . .”; however, “LB” is nowhere found in the parent claim. The Office has interpreted that the claim is instead dependent on Claim 8 for the purpose of this Examination.
Correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-15, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yi et al. (US 2022/0059781 A1).
Yi et al. discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image2.png
330
414
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 84) such that ring A =
PNG
media_image3.png
118
140
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(where R1 = combination of aryl and alkyl (t-butyl-substituted biphenyl) and RAs = joined or fused to form a ring (fused benzene) of Applicant’s Formula II), Y = O, ᴋ = O, RB = RC = hydrogen, X1-4 = C, Z1 = N, and Z2 = C of Applicant’s Formula 1; RCC = no substitution; LA and LB = connected to form a tetradentate ligand; Ra = alkyl (t-butyl), Rb = aryl (phenyl), ᴋ1’ = direct bond, and Y1-8 = C in the structure for LB as recited in Claim 9; L2-3 = direct bond, L1 = is not present, ᴋ1 = ᴋ2 = direct bond, moiety F = monocyclic ring structure comprising 6-membered carbocyclic ring (benzene), moiety E = monocyclic ring structure comprising 6-membered heterocyclic ring (pyridine), RF = alkyl (t-butyl), and RE = aryl (phenyl) of Applicant’s Formula III.
Yi et al. further discloses an organic electroluminescent (EL) device for the construction of displays (and the like) comprising the following layers: anode, hole-injecting layer, hole-transporting layer, electron-blocking layer, buffer layer, light-emitting layer, hole-blocking layer, electron-transporting layer, electron-injecting layer, and cathode (Figure; [0381], [0435]). The light-emitting layer comprises its inventive metal complexes as dopant (emitting material) which is combined with (excess) host material such as ADN and CBP ([0061], [0413]-[0417]).
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 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi et al. (US 2022/0059781 A1) in view of Jarikov (US 2006/0008672 A1).
Yi et al. discloses the organic electroluminescent (EL) device (OLED) of Claim 18 as shown above. Yi et al. discloses an organic EL device comprising a light-emitting layer comprises its inventive metal complexes as dopant (emitting material) which is combined with (excess) host material such as ADN and CBP, among others ([0061], [0413]-[0417]). However, Yi et al. does not explicitly disclose any of the host materials as recited in the claim.
Jarikov discloses a class of materials comprising an anthracene moiety which are disclosed to serve as “useful” host materials for an organic EL device of the following form ([0183]):
PNG
media_image4.png
154
256
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(page 8); specific embodiments include ADN and 9,10-bis(1-naphthalenyl)anthracene ([0187], [0190]). It would have been obvious to incorporate any of the materials as disclosed by Jarikov (including 9,10-bis(1-naphthalenyl)anthracene) into the light-emitting layer of the organic EL device as disclosed by Yi et al. The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Jarikov which is directed to known and viable materials taught to be useful host materials in the light-emitting layer of an organic EL device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY L YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1137. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 6am-3pm.
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 A 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.
/JAY YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights