CTNF 18/300,664 CTNF 83866 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAILED ACTION Claim Objections Claim 18 is objected to as the host “5 l 2 -benzo[d]benzo[4,5]imidazo[3,2-a]imadazole” does not appear to make chemical sense. This is likely a typographical or optical character recognition error and the Examiner believes that “5 l 2 ” should be amended to “5H”. 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. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Independent claim 1 does not actually define ring C. Applicants should amend claim 1 to recite that “ring C represents a C 5 -C 7 membered cycloalkylene ring” or some equivalent, such as “moiety C”. Claims 2-20 are included in this rejection as they are dependent on claim 1. Claims 1-20 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Each of claims 1, 6, and 16 recite the groups BR’R’’ and CR’ for variable L (claims 1 and 16) and the groups BR’R’’ and CR’ for variable L 1 (claim 6). These groups render these claims indefinite since such groups would result in an cationic or anionic ligand. The claims do not account for ligand L A to be charged as there is no claim limitation suggesting the presence of any counterion. The specification also fails to remedy this. It is suggested that Applicants delete the above to groups to overcome these rejections. Claims 2-5, 7-15, and 17-20 are included in this rejection as they are dependent on claim 1. Claims 1-20 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites that L A is complexed to a metal M to form a 5- membered or 6-membered chelate ring. This necessarily means that linker L can only be equal to a single bond or to a group having only one atom in the linker backbone. For this reason, it is unclear how L is claimed to be equal to “alkylene, cycloalkyl, aryl, cycloalkylene, arylene, heteroarylene, and combinations thereof” First, there can be no combinations which would also satisfy the 5- to 6-membered chelate ring requirement of claim 1. Second, the groups recited above would necessarily have more than one backbone atom. Applicants should also remove the above groups as linker L to overcome this rejection and to remove “and combinations thereof”. Claims 2-20 are included in this rejection as they are dependent on claim 1. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 3 recites the limitation “and aza-variants thereof”. However, this limitation renders the claim indefinite since the metes and bounds are not clear. Applicants should include specific groups which are aza-variants or remove this limitation to overcome this rejection. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Linker L 1 is necessarily a divalent linker but all of the groups recited in the Markush group for L 1 in claim 7 refer to monovalent groups. L 1 could be an alkylene group, for example, but not an alkyl group, as instantly claimed. Correction is required. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 9 recites the limitation “C=X” however X is not defined which renders the claim indefinite. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. In claim 10, the groups G1, G4, G6, G7, G10, G11, G12, G14-G17, and G20 are not shown in any of the compounds which are recited in claim 10. As such, it is unclear why these groups are included in claim 10. If they are meant to be included in the compounds recited in clam 10, then Applicants need to amend claim 10 to reflect this. Currently, the claim is indefinite since it is not clear whether or not these G groups are meant to be included in the claimed compounds. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Variable Y’ in claim 13 includes BR e R f which necessarily results in a charged ligand. The claim does not account ligand L B and/or L c to be charged as there is no claim limitation suggesting the presence of any counterion. The specification also fails to remedy this. It is suggested that Applicants delete the above to groups to overcome this rejection. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 16 requires that at least one of L 1 and L 2 is present. However, Formula III in claim 16 does not recite a variable L rendering the claim indefinite. Correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 3-9, 11-13, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al. (US 2018/0190914) . Claim 1: Tsai et al. teaches organic electroluminescent materials, devices, and consumer products comprising the same. The organic electroluminescent devices comprises a phosphorescent compound which is present in an emission layer. The complexes have the formula M(L 1 ) x (L 2 ) y (L 3 ) z where M is selected from the group consisting of Ir, Rh, Re, Ru, Os, Pt, Au, and Cu (paragraph 0045). More specifically, Tsai et al. teaches compounds of the formula Ir(L 1 ) 2 (L 2 ) where L 1 and L 2 are selected from the structures shown in paragraph 0048. Pages 8-14 disclose specific ligands L A (which refers to ligand L 1 ). Included in these ligands are those which satisfy all of the structural limitations of Formulae I and II of claim 1. As one example, Tsai et al. teaches the ligand L A246 which has the structure PNG media_image1.png 228 194 media_image1.png Greyscale . As applied to Formula I, this ligand has A equal to quinolinyl, B equal to phenyl, one R A and one R B equal to methyl, Z 1 equal to N, Z 2 equal to C, K equal to a direct bond, and R B additionally comprises a group satisfying Formula II with Y equal to zero, C 1 equal to carbon, R 1 and R 2 equal to F, L 1 equal to CR’R” with R” equal to CF 3 and R’ being joined to form a ring with one R C group. The structure of R A51 with the variable assignments described above may be depicted as PNG media_image2.png 202 250 media_image2.png Greyscale where one R C and R’ are joined to from a ring. Claim 3: The ligand above has A and B equal to quinoline and phenyl, which satisfies claim 3. Claim 4: The ligand above has K and L equal to direct bonds which satisfies claim 4. Claim 5: The CF 3 group above as C 1 R 1 R 2 satisfies claim 5. Claim 6: The L 1 moiety comprises CR’R” which satisfies claim 6. Claim 7: The L 1 moiety comprises a partially fluorinated alkyl group which satisfies claim 7. Claim 8: For claim 8, the ligand L A410 may be relied upon. Ligand L A410 satisfies the ligand PNG media_image3.png 288 218 media_image3.png Greyscale as recited in claim 8. Claim 9: The L A246 above satisfies the ligand PNG media_image4.png 298 312 media_image4.png Greyscale as recited in claim 9. Claims 11 and 12: The preferred ligands of Tsai et al. have the formula Ir(L A ) 2 (L B ) which satisfies claim 11 and 12. Claim 13: Tsai et al. teaches that the complexes taught therein may have the formula Ir(L Ak ) 2 (L Cj ) where s is an integer from 1-15,174 which represents the combinations of the 27 ligands C with the 562 ligands A as taught on pages 8-14. All of the ligands L C satisfy the first ligand as recited in claim 13. Claims 17-20: The metal complexes taught by Tsai et al. are employed in organic electroluminescent devices and consumer products as taught and claimed. Moreover, the exemplified host material is a carbazole-containing host compound (compound H), which is identical to the 5 th host material recited in claim 19. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT S LOEWE whose telephone number is (571)270-3298. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8 AM to 5 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-1302. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form. /Robert S Loewe/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766 Application/Control Number: 18/300,664 Page 2 Art Unit: 1766 Application/Control Number: 18/300,664 Page 3 Art Unit: 1766 Application/Control Number: 18/300,664 Page 4 Art Unit: 1766 Application/Control Number: 18/300,664 Page 5 Art Unit: 1766 Application/Control Number: 18/300,664 Page 6 Art Unit: 1766 Application/Control Number: 18/300,664 Page 7 Art Unit: 1766
Prosecution Insights