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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 claims 1 and claim 3 include the group “–O–(Ar1)b1” where b1 is taught to be an integer from 0 to 3. However, this renders claims 1 and 3 indefinite as b1 can only be equal to 1 in order to satisfy the divalent nature of the oxygen atom to which it is bonded. For purposes of further examination, the group “–O–(Ar1)b1” will be interpreted to refer to the group “–(O–Ar1)b1”, which would make chemical sense. Claims 2 and 4-20 are included in this rejection as they depend on claim 1. Correction or clarification 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)(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 1-11, 13-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 2022/0393117).
Claim 1: Chen et al. teaches the Pt complex
PNG
media_image1.png
180
192
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 322). This complex anticipates Formula 1 of claim 1. As applied to Formula 1, this complex has M1 equal to Pt, X1 equal to N, X2-X4 equal to C, a1 and a2 equal to 0, L1 and L2 equal to single bonds, a3 equal to 1, L3 equal to -O-, c1 through c4 equal to 0, b2 equal to 1, Ar2 equal to a C18 aryl group, b1 equal to 1, Ar1 equal to a phenyl group, A1 equal to a pyridine ring, A2 equal to benzimidazole, A3 equal to a benzene ring, and A4 equal to a carbazole.
Claim 2: Ring A1 is a pyridine ring which is a 6-membered heterocyclic group which anticipates claim 2.
Claim 3: The compound above includes a group which anticipates Formula 1-2-3 of claim 3 with all variable assignments being described in claim 1 above.
Claim 4: In the compound above each of rings A2-A4 are those which satisfy claim 4. Claim 5: Ring A2 is a benzimidazole ring system which comprises a nitrogen atom which is p-electron deficient, thereby anticipating claim 5.
Claim 6: Ring A2 in the compound above anticipates Formula 1-3-2 with X23-X26 equal to CH and Ar2 being a C18 aryl group.
Claims 7 and 8: Because variables b1 and b2 in claim 1 may both be equal to zero, claims 7 and 8 serve to further limit the optional embodiment where Ar1 and Ar2 are present. Chen et al. teaches compounds which do not comprise Ar1 and Ar2 groups. One example is the platinum complex
PNG
media_image2.png
134
204
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 109). This complex also anticipates Formula 1 of claim 1 with b1 and b2 equal to zero, c1 equal to 1, R1 equal to a C5 heterocyclic group, c2 equal to 2, one R2 equal to methyl and one R2 equal to a C5 heterocyclic group, and all other variable assignments being the same as described in the compound of claim 1 above. The compound tuaght on page 109 may be properly relied upon to reject claims 7 and 8 since it does not comprise an Ar1 or and Ar2 group and claims 7 and 8 serve to further limit these groups (which are not required in claim 1).
Claim 9: The compound shown in claim 1 above has a coordinate bonde between M1 and X1 which anticipates claim 9.
Claim 10: Claim 10 serves to further limit optional embodiments where one or more of R1-R4 are present. Because claim 1 allows for all of these groups to be absent, claim 10 further limits an optional embodiment. Because of this, Chen et al. may be properly relied upon to rejection claim 10.
Claim 11: The compound in claim 1 above is electrically neutral, thereby anticipating claim 11.
Claims 13-16 and 18: The compounds tuaght by Chen et al., which include the compound shown in claim 1 above, are employed in organic electroluminescent devices which comprise an anode, a hole transport region, an emissive region, an electron transport region, and a cathode where the emissive region comprises the compounds which includes the compound in claim 1 above as a phosphorescent dopant material (see Fig. 1 of Chen et al.). The preparation of a device comprising the compound shown in claim 1 above in an organic electroluminescent device as tuaght by Chen et al. is at once envisaged and anticipates the limitations of claims 13-16. Moreover, said device is also inherently an electronic apparatus which anticipates claim 18.
Claim 17: Because the Pt-complex in claim 1 above anticipates all of the structural limitations of Formula 1 as instantly claimed, it would be expected that this complex would also have a 3MLCT value of greater than or equal to about 11% as recited in claim 17. A chemical compound and its propertie are inseparable.
Claim 20: Chen et al. teaches and claims consumer products (claim 57 and paragraph 0208) which comprise an organic light emitting device. The consumer products include the same types of consumer products as recited in claim 20.
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.
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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2022/0393117) in view of Toguchi et al. (US 2003/0043571), and Yamazaki et al. (US 2005/0073247), as applied to claim 18 above.
While Chen et al. does not explicitly teach an electronic apparatus comprising a thin-film transistor and one of a color filter, a color conversion layer, a touch screen layer, a polarizing layer, or a combination thereof, where the TFT satisfies the limitations of claim 19, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have included a TFT satisfying claim 19 and at least a color filter given the teachings of Toguchi et al. and Yamazaki et al. Chen et al. and Toguchi et al. and Chen et al. and Yamazaki et al. are combinable teachings as they are both from the same field or organic electroluminescent devices. Specifically, Yamazaki et al. teaches that color filters are standard components used to enhance color purity and improve the reliability of light-emitting devices (paragraph 0017). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate a color filter as taught by Yamazaki et al. into the devices of Chen et al. to achieve these known benefits. Further, Toguchi et al. teaches a light-emitting display device which is comprised of a plurality of light-emitting pixels, a power supply to power said pixels, and thin-film transistors which are electrically coupled between the power supply and the organic electroluminescent device (Fig. 14 and claim 21 of Toguchi et al.). The thin-film transistor controls the conduction between the common power supply and the organic electroluminescent device (paragraph 0027). The thin-film transistors are comprised of a source electrode and a drain electrode (paragraph 0115). The thin-film transistor is a critical part of the device architecture which allows for precise current control and active matrix addressing, which would improve the power efficiency in the light-emitting devices taught by Chen et al. The combination of Toguchi et al. and Chen et al. involves the use of a known element to perform its known function in a known environment to achieve a predictable result. Further, connecting the source or drain of a driving transistor to a light-emitting load of an organic electroluminescent device is the standard industry configuration for controlling brightness.
Comment on Patentability
While all claims stand rejected, claim 12 is free of any prior art rejections. Chen et al. which represents the closest prior art, does not teach or fairly suggest the complexes recited in claim 12.
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
Prosecution Insights