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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2 recites the phrase “wherein in the La”. Applicants are advised to amend this phrase to recite “where in ligand La”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2 recites “Wherein”. Applicants are advised to amend this recite “wherein”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 5 recites the phrase “at least one of C1 and C2 is N”. Applicants are advised to amend this phrase to recite “at least one of C1 or C2 is N”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 5 recites the phrase “at least one of D1 and D2 is N”. Applicants are advised to amend this phrase to recite “at least one of D1 or D2 is N”. 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 2-8, 10-17, and 21 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitations “preferably, the ring A, the ring C, and the ring D are, at each occurrence identically or differently selected from…” and “more preferably, the ring A, the ring C, and the ring D are, at each occurrence identically or differently selected from…”., which render the scope of the claim indefinite given that it is unclear if the limitations following “preferably” and “more preferably” are required or not.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “preferably, La is selected from…”, which renders the scope of the claim indefinite given that it is unclear if the limitation following “preferably” is required or not.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “preferably, W is N”, which renders the scope of the claim indefinite given that it is unclear if the limitation following “preferably” is required or not.
Claim 5 recites the limitations “preferably, in Formula 3 to Formula 19...” and “more preferably, in Formula 3 to Formula 19….”, which render the scope of the claim indefinite given that it is unclear if the limitations following “preferably” and “more preferably” are required or not.
Claim 6 recites the limitations “preferably, the RA, RB, RC, and RD are….” and “more preferably, the RA, RB, RC, and RD are…”, which render the scope of the claim indefinite given that it is unclear if the limitations following “preferably” and “more preferably” are required or not.
Claim 7 recites the limitations “preferably, in Formula 3 to Formula 15, Formula 19 and Formula 20”, “more preferably, in Formula 3, Formula 4, Formula 6 to Formula 9, Formula 11 to Formula 15, Formula 19, and Formula 20…”, and “most preferably, the RA is…”,which render the scope of the claim indefinite given that it is unclear if the limitations following “preferably”, “more preferably”, and “most preferably” are required or not.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “preferably, in Formula 3 to Formula 18 and Formula 20…” which renders the scope of the claim indefinite given that it is unclear if the limitation following “preferably” is required or not.
Claim 9 recites the limitations “preferably, in Formula 3 to Formula 13, Formula 17, Formula 19, and Formula 20” and “more preferably, the RA and RB are…”, which render the scope of the claim indefinite given that it is unclear if the limitations following “preferably” and “more preferably” are required or not.
Claim 10 recites ligand La1492 as:
PNG
media_image1.png
160
162
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
see Page 124 of the claims which renders the scope of the claim indefinite given that it not understood what substituent is encompassed by the term “SET” recited in the above structure.
Claim 11 recites the limitations “preferably, R1 to R8 are…”, and “more preferably, at least one or two of R1 to R8 are…”, which render the scope of the claim indefinite given that it is unclear if the limitations following “preferably” and “more preferably” are required or not.
Claim 12 recites the limitations “preferably, at least one, at least two, at least three, or all of R2, R3, R6, and R7 are…”, and “more preferably, at least one, at least two, at least three, or all of R2, R3, R6, and R7 are…”, which render the scope of the claim indefinite given that it is unclear if the limitations following “preferably” and “more preferably” are required or not.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “preferably, Lc is…”, which renders the scope of the claim indefinite given that it is unclear if the limitation following “preferably” is required or not.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “preferably, the metal M is selected…”, which renders the scope of the claim indefinite given that it is unclear if the limitation following “preferably” is required or not.
Claim 16 recites the limitations “preferably, at least one of A1 to A3 is…”, and “more preferably, A2 is…”, which render the scope of the claim indefinite given that it is unclear if the limitations following “preferably” and “more preferably” are required or not.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “preferably, the metal complex is selected from..”, which renders the scope of the claim indefinite given that it is unclear if the limitation following “preferably” is required or not. Furthermore, the scope of the claim is further rendered indefinite given that the claim do not definite or depend from a claim that defines the ligands recited in the table. Accordingly, it is unclear what ligands that claim is referring to.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “preferably, the at least one host material comprises…”, which renders the scope of the claim indefinite given that it is unclear if the limitations following “preferably” and “more preferably” are required or not.
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 of this title, 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:
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, 11-2, 14-15, and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szigethy et al (US 2023/0121594).
Regarding claim 1, Szigethy et al discloses a compound with the formula ([0100]):
M(LA)p(LB)q(LC)r,
where:
LB and LC are bidentate ligands;
p is an integer [1-3];
q is an integer [0-2];
r is an integer [0-2] ([0100]); and
M is Os, Ir, Pd, Pt, Cu, Ag and Au ([0020]).
Accordingly, the reference discloses a metal complex with the recited formula:
M(La)m(Lb)n(Lc)q,
where M is Os, Ir, Pd, Pt, Cu, Ag and Au, i.e. a relative atomic mass greater than 40; m is 1 or 2; n is 1 or 2 and q is 0 or 1.
Ligand LA is disclosed as ([0097] and Page 6):
PNG
media_image2.png
218
238
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
where Y is ([0098]):
PNG
media_image3.png
152
196
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
When the metal in the formula M(LA)p(LB)q(LC)r is Ir, the reference discloses the following ligand:
PNG
media_image4.png
705
682
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
where RA1, RA14, RA13, RA12, RA11, RB1 and RC1 are hydrogen ([0098]). Accordingly, the reference discloses recited ligand La represented by Formula 1 of the claims:
PNG
media_image5.png
280
242
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
where:
Z1 is N;
Z2 is C;
W is B;
rings A and D are 6-membered aromatic rings;
ring B is heterocyclic ring having 6 carbon atoms;
RA is hydrogen;
RB represents two (2) C2 alkenyls that join to form a ring;
RC is hydrogen; and
RD is hydrogen;
In the ligand disclosed by the reference, ring C is heteroaromatic ring that is bonded to ring D through a N-C bond and not a C-C as required by the present claims. However, the ligand disclosed by the reference is but one embodiment and attention is directed to the following formula ([0069] – Formula I):
PNG
media_image6.png
270
272
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
where Z2 can be C or N ([0076]). Accordingly, the reference discloses an embodiment where ring C is heteroaromatic ring with 3 carbon atoms and bonded to ring D via a C-C bond as required by the formula of the present claims.
Ligand LB is disclosed as ([0124] – LB1):
PNG
media_image7.png
180
124
media_image7.png
Greyscale
.
This ligand corresponds to Formula 2 of the claims:
PNG
media_image8.png
280
150
media_image8.png
Greyscale
,
where U1 to U4 are CRU, where RU is hydrogen; and W1 to W4 are CRW, where RW is hydrogen.
Ligand LC is disclosed as ([0131] – LC1-I):
PNG
media_image9.png
150
188
media_image9.png
Greyscale
,
i.e. a monoionic bidentate ligand.
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed compound nor can the claimed compound be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed compound and the compound disclosed by the reference, absent a showing of criticality for the presently claimed compound, it is urged that it would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the compound which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 11, Szigethy et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the reference discloses ligand LB as:
PNG
media_image7.png
180
124
media_image7.png
Greyscale
.
This ligand corresponds to recited Formula 21:
PNG
media_image10.png
228
152
media_image10.png
Greyscale
,
where R1 to R8 are hydrogen.
Regarding claim 12, Szigethy et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, R1 to R8 in the ligand disclosed by the reference are hydrogen, and therefore, R2 is not an alkyl as recited in the present claims. However, the ligand disclosed by the reference is but one embodiment, and attention is directed to the following ligand LB (Page 25 – LB14):
PNG
media_image11.png
190
106
media_image11.png
Greyscale
,
where R2 is a methyl group.
Regarding claim 14, Szigethy et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the reference discloses ligand LC as:
PNG
media_image9.png
150
188
media_image9.png
Greyscale
.
This ligand corresponds to the recited formula:
PNG
media_image12.png
112
112
media_image12.png
Greyscale
,
where Ra and Rc are methyl groups; and Rb is hydrogen.
Regarding claim 15, Szigethy et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above M is Ir, OS, Pt, Cu, or Au.
Regarding claim 18, Szigethy et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses an organic light emitting device, i.e. an electroluminescent device, comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer disposed between the anode and cathode, where the organic layer comprises the disclosed metal complex ([0180]).
Regarding claim 19, Szigethy et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses that the organic layer is an emissive layer and the metal complex is an emissive dopants, i.e. an emissive material ([0166]).
Regarding claim 20, Szigethy et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses that the organic light emitting device emits red or white light ([0198]).
Regarding claim 21, Szigethy et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses that the organic layer comprises a host ([0167]).
Regarding claim 22, Szigethy et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses an organic light emitting device, i.e. an electroluminescent device, comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer disposed between the anode and cathode, where the organic layer comprises the disclosed metal complex and a host compound ([0180] and [0167]). Accordingly, the reference discloses a compound composition as recited by the present claims.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-19 and 22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 26 of copending Application No. 19/340,146 (published as US PGPub 2026/0096343). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the reasons given below.
Claim 26 of copending Application No. 19/340,146 recites the following organometallic complexes (see Page 165 of filed claims):
PNG
media_image13.png
285
618
media_image13.png
Greyscale
.
These compounds correspond to the formula M(La)m(Lb)n(Lc)q is, in instant claim 1, where M is Ir; m is two (2); m is one (1); and q is zero (0). Ligand La represented by Formula 1 of instant claim 1:
PNG
media_image5.png
280
242
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
where:
Z1 is N;
Z2 is C;
W is N;
rings A and D are 6-membered aromatic rings;
ring B is heterocyclic ring having 4 carbon atoms;
RA is the substituents SiH3 or an alkyl;
Rb represents two (2) C2 alkenyls that join to form a ring;
RC is hydrogen; and
RD is hydrogen.
Ligand Lb corresponds to Formula 2 of instant claim 1:
PNG
media_image8.png
280
150
media_image8.png
Greyscale
,
where U1 to U4 are CRU, where RU is hydrogen and tert-butyl; and W1 to W4 are CRW, where RW is hydrogen or a tert-butyl.
Furthermore, it is noted that:
Claim 26 of copending application encompasses the subject matter recited in instant claims 2-19 and 22.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-15, 17-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8, 11, 16-17, 20-21 and 23-27 of U.S. Patent No. 12,595,277 (U.S. ‘277).
Claim 1, of U.S. ‘277 recites a metal complex with the formula M(La)m(Lb)n(Lc)q identical to that recited instant claim 1. In claim 1 of U.S. ‘277 Ligand Lb has the formula:
PNG
media_image14.png
222
192
media_image14.png
Greyscale
,
identical to that recited in instant claim 1, with the only difference being that claim 1 of U.S. ‘277 requires that ring D is benzene, naphthalene, aza-naphthalene, pyridine or pyrimidine, while claim 1 of the instant application recites that ring D is a 5-membered unsaturated carbocyclic ring, an aromatic ring with 6 to 30 carbon atoms or a heteroaromatic ring having 3 to 30 carbon atoms.
Claim 1 of U.S. ‘277 further recites ligand Lb as:
PNG
media_image15.png
210
262
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
208
240
media_image16.png
Greyscale
which correspond to ligand Lb recited in instant claim 1:
PNG
media_image8.png
280
150
media_image8.png
Greyscale
.
Accordingly, claim 1 of U.S. ‘277 encompasses the metal complex recited in instant claim 1.
Furthermore it is noted that Claim 2-8, 11, 16-17, 20-21, and 23-27 of U.S. ‘277 encompass the subject matter recited in instant claims 2-15 and 17-22.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER C. KOLLIAS whose telephone number is (571)-270-3869. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00AM – 5:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Boyd can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER C KOLLIAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights