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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 12/08/2023, 12/08/2023, 12/08/2023, and 12/08/2023 were filed after the mailing date of the instant application on 03/24/2023. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
In a requirement for election of species dated 05/13/2026, Applicant was required to choose from,
A compound comprising ligand LA of Formula I, wherein ligand LA is coordinated to metal M, and M is selected from
Species I, iridium
Species II, platinum
Species III: osmium, palladium, copper, silver, or gold.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species II, platinum, in the reply filed on 07/10/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 12 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 1-11 and 13-20 are examined herein.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Several ligands appear to be missing from the tables on pages 98-112.
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 2, 9-14, and 16 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 claim 2, the claim contains reference to RA, which is not present in the instant claim or in any preceding claim.
In continuing examination, this is being interpreted as a typographical error for RB.
With respect to claim 9, the claim requires that the compound of claim 1 has the formula of M(LA)p(LB)q(LC)r, wherein p is 1, 2, or 3, q is 0, 1, or 2, r is 0, 1, or 2, and p+q+r is the oxidation state of the metal M.
The metes and bounds of this claim are unclear because parent claim 1 requires that when M is Pt or Pd then ligand LA is tridentate or tetradentate, whereupon a compound of formula Pt(LA) would be formed, and p+q+r is not equal to the oxidation state of the metal or even possible.
In continuing examination, claim 9 is being interpreted as requiring that when M is Pd or Pt, then ligand LA is formed from at least one bidentate structure of Formula I which is further joined with at least one additional ligand LB to form the tridentate or tetradentate ligand.
With respect to claim 14, the claim references non-existent claim 58 in the last line of the claim.
In continuing examination, the definitions which are claimed to be present in claim 58 will instead be interpreted as the definitions found in claim 13.
With respect to claim 16, ligands Ly1, Ly2, Ly22, and Ly23 appear to be missing. Also, the claim makes reference to LIST 6, however, LIST 6 appears to be absent.
In continuing examination, only ligands which appear in LIST5 and LIST 7 will be examined.
Claims 10-13 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 2 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 2, the claim contains reference to RA, which is not present in the instant claim or in any preceding claim.
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 § 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 1-7, 9, 11, 13-14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sotoyama et al. (US 2010/0140602 A1).
With respect to claims 1-6, Sotoyama discloses compound B1 (page 75), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image1.png
382
280
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This compound comprises a ligand of instant Formula I when ring B is a 6-membered heterocyclic (pyridine) ring, A is C=X wherein X is an oxygen atom, L3 is a direct bond, K1 is an oxygen atom, K4 is a direct bond, RB represents no substitution, Z1 is a nitrogen atom, and LA is a tetradentate ligand which is coordinated to a platinum atom.
With respect to claim 7, Sotoyama teaches the compound of claim 1, as discussed above.
Sotoyama also discloses compound 164 (page 33), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
338
454
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Compound 164 meets the requirements of parent claim 1 when ring B is a 6-membered heterocyclic (pyridine) ring, A is C=X wherein X is an oxygen atom, L3 is CRR’ where R and R’ are both a C1 alkyl (methyl) group, K1 is NR’ and R’ is a C1 alkyl (methyl) group, K4 is a direct bond, RB represents no substitution, Z1 is a nitrogen atom, and LA is a tetradentate ligand which is coordinated to a platinum atom
Compound 164 also meets the requirements of the first embodiment on the second row of the instant claim for the reasons discussed above.
With respect to claim 9, Sotoyama teaches the compound of claim 1, and the compound has the formula Pt(LA)(LB) wherein p is 1 and q is 1 and 2 is the oxidation state of platinum.
With respect to claim 11, Sotoyama teaches the compound of claim 9, and LB has the structure of phenylpyridine, which is the second embodiment on row two of the claim when all Y characters are carbon atoms, all R characters are no substitution, and K1’ is a direct bond.
With respect to claim 13, Sotoyama teaches the compound of claim 9, as discussed above.
Sotoyama also teaches compound 164 (page 33), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
338
454
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Compound 164 meets the requirements of parent claim 1, as discussed above. It also meets the requirements of parent claim 9 for the same reasons discussed above.
Compound 164 also meets the requirements of instant Formula II when ring B is a 6-membered heterocyclic ring (pyridine) ring, ring D is a 6-membered carbocyclic (benzene) ring, A is C=X where X is an oxygen atom, K1 is NR’ wherein R’ is a C1 alkyl (methyl) group, K2, K3, and K4 are all a direct bond, L1 and L2 are both a direct bond, L3 is CRR’ wherein R and R’ are both a C1 alkyl (methyl) group, x, y, and z are 1, Z1 and Z3 are both a nitrogen atom and Z2 is a carbon atom, RB represents no substitution and RD represents trisubstitution of a halogen (fluorine) atom, R2 is not present, R1 is joined with Y1 to form a pyridine ring, and Y1 and Y2 are both a carbon atom.
With respect to claim 14, Sotoyama teaches the compound of claim 13, and the compound also has the structure of Formula (III) for the reasons discussed above.
With respect to claim 18, Sotoyama discloses the preparation of an organic EL device comprising an anode (ITO, paragraph 0275), a cathode (Al, paragraph 0279), and an organic layer (a luminescence layer, paragraph 0276), and the luminescence layer comprises blue luminescent material B1 (paragraph 0276 and page 75), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image1.png
382
280
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This compound comprises a ligand of instant Formula I when ring B is a 6-membered heterocyclic (pyridine) ring, A is C=X wherein X is an oxygen atom, L3 is a direct bond, K1 is an oxygen atom, K4 is a direct bond, RB represents no substitution, Z1 is a nitrogen atom, and LA is a tetradentate ligand which is coordinated to a platinum atom.
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 8, 15-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sotoyama et al. (US 2010/0140602 A1), as applied above.
With respect to claim 8, Sotoyama teaches the compound of claim 1, as discussed above.
Compound B1, pictured and discussed above, is derived from Sotoyama Formula (4) (paragraph 0180), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image3.png
337
473
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In this formula, Sotoyama also teaches that when Q2 is a group bonded to platinum via an oxygen atom, it may be a silyloxy group (paragraph 0185).
When Q2 is a silyloxy group, it forms a compound that meets the requirements of instant ligand LA2-(R3)(R1)(R1).
Sotoyama includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Sotoyama being a lack of the aforementioned silyloxy combination 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 definition for Q2 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 result of a platinum organometallic complex which can emit blue, green, or red light with low driving voltage and high efficiency (paragraph 0327), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 15, Sotoyama teaches the compound of claim 13, as discussed above. Sotoyama also teaches compound B1 (page 75), as discussed above.
Compound B1 is derived from Sotoyama Formula (4) (paragraph 0180), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image3.png
337
473
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In this formula, Sotoyama also teaches that L3 is divalent oxygen (paragraph 0172), and R2 is an alkyl group (paragraph 0179).
Such a modification produces the following ligands from lists 1 and 3 when RF is one t-butyl group.
PNG
media_image4.png
158
178
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
224
174
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Sotoyama includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Sotoyama being a lack of the aforementioned oxygen linking group and alkyl substituent 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 linking group and 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 result of a platinum organometallic complex which can emit blue, green, or red light with low driving voltage and high efficiency (paragraph 0327), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 16, Sotoyama teaches the compound of claim 13, as discussed above.
Compound 164, pictured and discussed above, is derived from Sotoyama Formula (1) (paragraph 0019), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image6.png
246
482
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In this formula, Sotoyama also teaches that Y11 is a linking group (paragraph 0020), such as divalent oxygen (paragraph 0100), and each L group may be optionally substituted (paragraph 0096).
Such a modification produces instant LA’26-(R1)(R1)(R3) Ly29-(R1)(R1)(R1).
Sotoyama includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Sotoyama being a lack of the aforementioned oxygen linking group 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 linking group 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 result of a platinum organometallic complex which can emit blue, green, or red light with low driving voltage and high efficiency (paragraph 0327), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 20, Sotoyama discloses the preparation of an organic EL device comprising an anode (ITO, paragraph 0275), a cathode (Al, paragraph 0279), and an organic layer (a luminescence layer, paragraph 0276), and the luminescence layer comprises blue luminescent material B1 (paragraph 0276 and page 75), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image1.png
382
280
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This compound comprises a ligand of instant Formula I when ring B is a 6-membered heterocyclic (pyridine) ring, A is C=X wherein X is an oxygen atom, L3 is a direct bond, K1 is an oxygen atom, K4 is a direct bond, RB represents no substitution, Z1 is a nitrogen atom, LA is coordinated to a platinum atom, and LA is a tetradentate ligand which is coordinated to a platinum atom.
Sotoyama teaches that the described organic electroluminescent device can preferably be applied to displays devices including backlights, illumination sources, signboards, and other consumer products (paragraph 0254).
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 the device of Sotoyama in a consumer product such as a display device, as taught by Sotoyama.
Claims 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sotoyama et al. (US 2010/0140602 A1), as applied above and further in view of Li et al. (US 2012/0215001 A1).
With respect to claims 10 and 17, Sotoyama teaches the compound of claim 9, as discussed above.
Compound B1, pictured and discussed above, is derived from Sotoyama Formula (4) (paragraph 0180), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image3.png
337
473
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In this formula, Sotoyama also teaches that R2 is an alkyl group (paragraph 0179), Z2 is substituted with an alkyl group (paragraph 0170), the linking groups L2 and L3 are an oxygen atom or N-Ph (paragraph 0172), and when Q2 is a group bonded to platinum via an oxygen atom, it may be a silyloxy group (-Si(CH3)2-, paragraph 0185).
Such modifications produce the compound below.
PNG
media_image7.png
216
276
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Sotoyama includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Sotoyama being a lack of the aforementioned silyloxy and aza-carbazole combination 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 definition for each variable 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 result of a platinum organometallic complex which can emit blue, green, or red light with low driving voltage and high efficiency (paragraph 0327), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
However, Sotoyama does not teach nor fairly suggest selection of an aza-carbazole-benzene moiety nor the instantly claimed substituent properties.
In analogous art, Li teaches platinum complexes with a distorted charge transfer state for use in light emitting devices (abstract).
Li teaches that using a specific donor-acceptor component creates a unique distortion in the resulting complex. Li teaches that such distortion can provide an emission spectra having a unique shape or profiles, and that by selecting appropriate donor-acceptor components, a complex having a desired emission profiles can be selected (paragraphs 0049-0050).
Embodiments of this donor-acceptor component encompass an aza-carbazole-benzene moiety (see for example paragraph 0048, and the definitions of W, X, Y, and Z in paragraph 0008).
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 preferentially modify the compound of Sotoyama to comprise the shape-distorting donor-acceptor ligand of Li in order to create a unique distortion in the resulting complex, provide an emission spectra having a unique shape or profile, and obtain a complex having a desired emission profile, as taught by Li.
Examiner is interpreting the compound above to meet the requirements of the instant claims through its use as a preferred embodiment of the claimed invention, as given on page 115 of the instant specification. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and it has been held that when the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112.01(II)), and the compound of Sotoyama and Li reads on the claims.
Sotoyama and Li are silent to the distance of any specific substituent from the metal nucleus. However, this is considered to be a property of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when the organometallic complex is used as a material in the organic layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the claimed property described in the instant claims. Therefore, the claims are considered to be obvious over Sotoyama and Li, and the burden shifts to applicant to show that there is an unobvious difference between the claimed composition and the composition in the prior art. See MPEP 2112 (V). In addition, the presently claimed properties are considered to be present once the works of Sotoyama and Li were first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sotoyama et al. (US 2010/0140602 A1) as applied above, and further in view of Metz et al. (US 2016/0072081 A1).
With respect to claim 19, Sotoyama teaches the OLED of claim 18, as discussed above.
However, Sotoyama does not teach nor fairly suggest any of the instantly claimed host materials.
In analogous art, Metz teaches a matrix material for use in combination with an emitting compound in an electroluminescent device (paragraph 0090).
Metz gives a preferred embodiment of this matrix material (page 17), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image8.png
119
225
media_image8.png
Greyscale
In this formula, T is a sulfur atom (paragraph 0084).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to use the matrix material of Metz as a host material in the device of Sotoyama as Metz teaches that these compounds are suitable matrix materials for use as a host for an emitter compound in an organic electroluminescent device (paragraph 0090).
Conclusion
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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights