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 05/31/2023 and 05/31/2023 were filed after the mailing date of the instant application on 05/31/2023. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
In the preliminary amendment, the claims and specification were amended.
These amendments are hereby entered.
Claims 1-20 were originally filed.
Claims 4, 5, and 9 are instantly amended.
No claims are added or canceled.
No claims are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application and examined herein.
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.
With respect to independent claim 1, the claim contains the limitation that two adjacent ones of X1 to X4 are C and are fused to a structure selected from Formulae II-IV.
This limitation is confusing because the carbon definitions of X1 to X4 do not include an R group, such as hydrogen, which can be replaced by a bond to any of Formulae II through IV. Thus, it is unclear how the carbon atoms form a fused structure.
In continuing examination, this limitation is being interpreted as requiring that at least two of X1 to X4 are adjacent carbon atoms and at least two of RA are joined to form a structure of Formulae II-IV which is fused to the at least two adjacent carbon atoms of X1 to X4.
Claims 2-20 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 10 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 10, the claim contains embodiments of the compound of claim 1 that do not comply with the limitation that moiety B is a fused ring system comprising two or more rings. These compounds include any compound wherein G is selected from G1 and G2.
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 § 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 1-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boudreault et al. (US 2019/0248818 A1).
With respect to claims 1, 3-4, and 6-7, Boudreault discloses Compound C3086 (page 153), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image1.png
330
484
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This compound is derived from Formula I (paragraph 0015) when Z3 and Z4 are fused to a structure of Formula II (paragraph 0018), both of which are pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
449
226
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
289
372
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In these formulae, Boudreault also teaches that Y1 and Y2 may be independently selected as an oxygen atom (paragraph 0020).
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of the instant claim when X1 through X4 are carbon atoms, moiety B is a fused ring system of two, six-membered rings (naphthalene), K is a direct bond, the ligand LA is coordinated to an iridium atom which is further coordinated to a different ligand, RB is a C1 alkyl (t-butyl) group, RC represents no substitution, and two RA are joined at X1 and X2 to form the group of Formula III. In Formula III, Y1 and Y2 are each an oxygen atom, Z1 and Z2 are each a carbon atom.
Boudreault includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Boudreault being a lack of the aforementioned oxygen atoms being explicitly selected. 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 divalent atom from the finite list of possible combinations of divalent atoms to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of an organometallic compound which is highly rigid and planar, which allows for a significant bathochromic shift of the peak wavelength and increased external quantum efficiency, and which also allows fine tuning of the color, lifetime, and emission lineshape of the compound (paragraph 0087), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 2, Boudreault teaches the compound of claim 1, and R, R’ and RC are not present, RB is an alkyl group, and the two RA are joined to form a structure of Formula III, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 5, Boudreault teaches the compound of claim 1, as discussed above.
Also as discussed above, Compound C3086 is formed when Z3 and Z4 are fused to a structure of Formula II (paragraph 0077).
Boudreault also teaches that Z2 and Z3 are fused to the structure of Formula II (paragraph 0077).
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of the instant claim when X2 and X3 are fused to a group of Formula III.
Boudreault includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Boudreault being a lack of the aforementioned oxygen atoms being explicitly selected. 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 divalent atom from the finite list of possible combinations of divalent atoms to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of an organometallic compound which is highly rigid and planar, which allows for a significant bathochromic shift of the peak wavelength and increased external quantum efficiency, and which also allows fine tuning of the color, lifetime, and emission lineshape of the compound (paragraph 0087), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 8, Boudreault teaches the compound of claim 1, and ligand LA is represented by the instant second structure on the first line of the claim, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 9, Boudreault teaches the compound of claim 1, and the ligand LA is represented by the first embodiment on the second line of page 16 of the claims, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 10, Boudreault teaches the compound of claim 1, and the ligand is instant LA649-1-1.
With respect to claims 11 and 12, Boudreault teaches the compound of claim 1, and the compound has the formula Ir(LA)2(LC), wherein p is 2, q is 0, and r is 1.
With respect to claim 13, Boudreault teaches the compound of claim 11, and LC is represented by the instant first ligand on the first line of the claim when Ra1 and Rc1 are 3-pentyl and Rb1 is a hydrogen, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 14, Boudreault teaches the compound of claim 11, and the compound is instant (LA649-1-1)2(LC17-I).
With respect to claim 15, Boudreault teaches the compound of claim 1, as discussed above.
Boudreault also teaches that RC is a t-butyl group (see RB7 on page 28, and the ligands of paragraph 0099).
Such an additional modification produces the first compound on the second row of compounds, which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image4.png
468
572
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Boudreault includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Boudreault being a lack of the aforementioned oxygen atoms being explicitly selected. 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 divalent atom from the finite list of possible combinations of divalent atoms to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of an organometallic compound which is highly rigid and planar, which allows for a significant bathochromic shift of the peak wavelength and increased external quantum efficiency, and which also allows fine tuning of the color, lifetime, and emission lineshape of the compound (paragraph 0087), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claims 17 and 20, Boudreault teaches the compound of claim 1, and Boudreault also teaches a consumer product comprising an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer comprising the compound (paragraphs 0117 and 0124).
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 include the compound in the organic layer of a consumer OLED device, as taught by Boudreault.
With respect to claims 18 and 19, Boudreault teaches the OLED of claim 17, and Boudreault also teaches that the organic layer further comprises the carbazole derivative host pictured below, which meets the requirements of the second structure on line three of page 103 of the claim when YA is a sulfur atom, all X characters are carbon atoms, and all R characters represent no substitution.
PNG
media_image5.png
182
352
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boudreault et al. (US 2019/0248818 A1) as applied above, and further in view of Stoessel et al. (US 2007/0082284 A1).
With respect to claim 16, Boudreault teaches the compound of claim 11, as discussed above.
Boudreault also teaches that the compound has the formula Pt(LA)(LB), wherein LA and LB are connected to form a tetradentate, macrocyclic ligand (paragraph 0104), and that LB may be a phenylpyridine ligand (LB161 on page 51).
However, Boudreault does not fairly suggest bridging the ligands through an oxygen atom to form a tetradentate ligand of instant Formula V.
In analogous art, Stoessel teaches organometallic compounds for use in an organic light emitting device (abstract and title) comprising a bridging unit “V” (paragraph 0020 and Structure 1). Stoessel teaches that the purpose of the bridge V is to promote the formation of mononuclear metal complexes of structure 1 (tetradentate organometallic complex), and suppress or completely prevent the formation of coordination polymers on reaction of the ligand of structure 2 (tetradentate chelating ligand) with metal compounds (paragraph 0021).
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 an oxygen linking group in the tetradentate platinum ligand of Boudreault in order to promote the formation of mononuclear metal complexes and suppress or completely prevent the formation of coordination polymers of the chelating ligand with metal compounds, as taught by Stoessel.
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of instant Formula V when M1 is platinum, moiety E is a 6-membered heterocyclic (pyridine) ring, moiety F is a 6-membered carbocyclic (benzene) ring, Z1a is a nitrogen atom and Z2a is a carbon atom, K1 and K2 are a direct bond, L1 is an oxygen atom, L2 is a direct bond, and L3 is an absent bond, RE and RF represent no substitution, and all other characters are as defined above.
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-15 and 17-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-13, 15, and 17-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,180,519 B2 in view of Zhang et al. (CN 111943986 A, using the provided translation for references).
With respect to instant independent claim 1, the requirements of instant Formula I are met by the limitations of Formula I of ‘519 and the requirements of instant Formulae III and IV are met by Formulae II and III of ‘519 when Z1 and Z2 are carbon atoms.
However, ‘519 does not teach a structure of FORMULA II, or structures of Formulae III and IV wherein Z1 and Z2 are anything other than a carbon atom.
Zhang discloses an analogous compound wherein two adjacent X1 to X4 in Formula 1 are carbon atoms, and are fused with a structure of Equation 2A, Equation 2B, or Equation 2C, which are pictured below.
PNG
media_image6.png
310
659
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Examiner notes that Equation 2C is analogous to instant Formula II.
Zhang teaches that the described compounds have a larger maximum emission wavelength, a deeper red emission color, and higher external quantum efficiency than the comparative compounds (paragraph 0215).
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 incorporate any of the fused structures of Zhang into the compound of ‘519 in order to achieve have a larger maximum emission wavelength, a deeper red emission color, and higher external quantum efficiency, as taught by Zhang.
Similarly,
The substituents of instant claim 2 are met by claim 2 of ‘519.
The definitions of moiety B of instant claim 3 are met by claims 4 and 5 of ‘519.
The carbon atoms and bonding position of instant claims 4 and 5 are met by claims 1, 8, and 9 of ‘519.
The definitions of Y1 and Y2 of instant claim 6 are met by claims 1 and 7 of ‘519.
The structures of instant claims 8, 9, and 10 are met by the limitations of claim 1 of ‘519.
The molecular formulas of instant claims 11 and 12 are met by the limitations of claim 12 of ‘519.
The ancillary ligands of instant claims 13 and 14 are met by the ancillary ligands of claim 13 of ‘519.
The compounds of instant claim 15 are within the limitations of claim 1 of ‘519 in view of Zhang.
The devices of instant claims 17 and 20 are met by the devices of claims 15 and 19 of ‘519.
The host compounds of instant claims 18 and 19 are met by the host compounds of claims 17 and 18 of ‘519.
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/Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights