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 .
This office action is responsive to the response to the election of species requirement received on 12/18/2025. Applicant elected without traverse a compound having ligand LA having the formula 1C wherein:
PNG
media_image1.png
178
328
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
184
340
media_image2.png
Greyscale
While applicant did not appear to list claims reading upon the elected species, the office submits claims 1-4, 7, 11, 12, and 14-20 are considered to read upon the elected species. Claims 5, 6, 8-10 and 13 are withdrawn as non-elected species (noting that with respect to 9 and 10 there is no 1C formula configuration where the X4 is bonding to B ring and with respect to claim 13 no additional linkages to other ligands was listed in the election).
The instant application is a continuation of 16/113,587, now patent no. US 11,778,897. Note that the currently considered species is not presently rejected over the patent on the grounds of obviousness double patenting, because the parent application/patent claims all of variables X1 to X6 are C.
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.
Claim 14 is 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.
Claim 14 recites a compound Ax having the formula Ir(LAi)3, but it is not understood what is intended as a meaning for Ai as Ai is not further limited except for stating i is an integer. It is unclear if LAi is the same as LA in the previous claims, upon which claim 14 depends. Clarification and/or correction are required.
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 18 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. 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 18 depends upon claim 17. Claim 17 requires certain moieties be part of a host material, but the following compound in claim 18 does not contain any of these moieties:
PNG
media_image3.png
90
238
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
Claim 18 recites a host outside the scope of claim 17, upon which claim 18 depends.
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, 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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 11, 12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boudreault et al. (US 2016/0260913 A1; listed on 06/30/2023 I.D.S.).
Boudreault et al. teaches ligands for metal complexes for an organic light emitting device (see abstract). A ligand L is included of Formula 1 (see par. 16):
PNG
media_image4.png
136
120
media_image4.png
Greyscale
where the R is the following formula II:
PNG
media_image5.png
106
212
media_image5.png
Greyscale
two adjacent * are where the formula II ring fuses to the B ring.
With respect to the elected instant species and instant claims 1-4, 7, and 15, Boudreault et al. X may be NR’ per instant Y, instant B ring is the Boudreault et al. ring where Y is carbon, the N of the B ring is the instant X3, the bonding line of the B ring corresponds to instant X4 as a carbon, the Boudreault ring A corresponds to instant B as a benzene ring where R2 of Boudreault combine to form a ring and Z is carbon (see par. 16). A terminal ring in the above Boudreault et al. X-containing group (formula II) is benzene ring corresponding to instant C as benzene. The Boudreault X-containing ring may be fused to the Boudreault B ring such that the configuration is the same as the bonding pattern of instant Formula 1C, although this configuration does not appear to be shown in an example embodiment. Metal M may include iridium (see par. 63).
Regarding claims 11, 12, and 14 (i.e., Ir(LA)3), there may be three of the ligand LA in the complex (per applicant’s election of no optional linkage to other ligands). The ligand is only “optionally linked” with other ligands according to Boudreault (see par. 46) and the ligand(s) may complex to a Ir (III) iridium metal atom (par. 16, 47).
Regarding the device of claims 15 and 16, the complex is used in a device (see claim 21, page 171) in an emissive layer as dopant or non-emissive dopant (see claim 23, page 171). Regarding claims 17 and 18, host material may include a compound the same as claimed (see claim 26, page 172). Regarding claim 19, the complex in a device may be a consumer product (see par. 4-6, 31). Regarding claim 20, a formulation including the complex may be formed (see par. 18).
While a metal complex compound the same as the elected species is not shown in an example embodiment in Boudreault et al., given the teachings of the reference, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form an iridium metal complex having a ligand according to definitions for Boudreault et al. Formulas I and II as described above wherein the resultant complex would also meet the limitations of the instant claims. One would expect to achieve a functional light emitting complex for use in a device, consumer product, or formulation within the teachings of Boudreault et al. with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wang, L. X., MEI, Q. B., YAN, F., TIAN, B., WENG, J. N., ZHANG, B., & HUANG, W. (2012). Application of fused-heterocyclic compounds in red phosphorescent iridium (III) complexes. Acta Physico-Chimica Sinica, 28(7), 1556-1569.
The reference teaches metal complexes with ligands comprising fused ring groups. The reference is considered relevant to the state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dawn Garrett whose telephone number is (571)272-1523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday (Eastern Time).
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.
/DAWN L GARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786