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 .
Status of Claims
Pursuant to the Response to Restriction Requirement, received June 24, 2026, applicant elects species 2 for further prosecution:
PNG
media_image1.png
246
221
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. Applicant asserts claims 1-11 and 17-20 encompass the selected species. Claims 12-16 are hereby withdrawn.
Claims 1-11 and 17-20 are examined.
Priority
This application, filed on January 25, 2024, is a US Nonprovisional application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) and claims benefit to US Provisional application No. 63/483,761, filed on February 8, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The 4 Information Disclosure Statements (IDSs) filed on July 15, 2024 have been acknowledged and considered.
Specification Objections
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means,” “said,” and “comprising” should be avoided.
The abstract recites legal phraseology: the word “comprising” in the first two sentences and the word “comprise” in the first sentence. The abstract recites terms that can be implied: “Provide are,” “Also provided are,” and “Further provided are,” in the first, second, and third sentences, respectively.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because it recites “The claim of claim 8…” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 4 and 10 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.
The written description and the claims are separate statutory requirements. Under modern claim practice, claims must stand alone to define an invention. Ex parte Fressola, 27 USPQ2d 1608 (BPAI 1993). Claims 4 and 10 refer to “LIST 5” and “LIST 6” to convey substituents bonded to compounds displayed in Tables A-C in claims 4 and 10. As a result, one of ordinary skill in the art must refer back to the specification to understand what the claimed invention is.
Appropriate correction 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US20220112231 (IDS – 8 pages, U.S. Patent Application Publications, Cite No. 7) (“Han”).
Claim 1 recites a compound comprising two or more carbene atoms coordinated to Pt(II) or Pd(II) wherein the compound comprises at least one deuterium atom. Claim 2 recites the compound of claim 1, where the carbene atoms are trans or cis, or the compound comprises four metal carbon bonds, or the compound comprises at least one metal-oxygen bond, or the compound comprises at least one deuterated alkyl or deuterated phenyl group.
Han teaches compound 45
PNG
media_image2.png
510
364
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(p. 22), which includes two carbene atoms coordinated to Pt(II), four metal carbon bonds, one metal-oxygen bond, and one deuterated alkyl group.
Accordingly, claims 1-2 are anticipated by Han.
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.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20160028028 (“Li”) in view of US 6,677,060 (“Kaisha”).
Li teaches a preparation of tetradentate platinum (II) complexes cyclometalated with functionalized phenyl carbene ligands (¶ [0006]). Li states: “Because the strong spin-orbit coupling of the heavy metal atom enhances intersystem crossing (ISC) very efficiently between singlet and triplet excited states, phosphorescent metal complexes, such as platinum complexes, have demonstrated their potential to harvest both the singlet and triplet excitons to achieve 100% internal quantum efficiency. Thus, phosphorescent metal complexes are good candidates as dopants in the emissive layer of organic light emitting devices (OLEDs) and a great deal of attention has been received both in the academic and industrial fields.” (¶ [0064]). One of the platinum complexes taught is
PNG
media_image3.png
287
411
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(p. 37, claim 2).
Li does not teach platinum complexes that are partially or fully deuterated.
Kaisha teaches that substituting deuterium for hydrogen generates important physical effects because of the mass differences between the isotopes. Kaisha teaches the heavier isotope, deuterium, lies lower in the potential well, and hence has a lower zero-point energy and vibration frequency, and smaller vibration amplitude than hydrogen. Kaisha also teaches that the carbon-deuterium chemical bond is stronger, more stable, and reacts more slowly than the carbon-hydrogen chemical bond, so the deuterated organic system has better thermal stability, and longer lifetime in optoelectronic devices. Kaisha states: “Deuterated luminescent material may also have a higher electroluminescent quantum yield as a result of smaller non radiative triplet rate.” (col. 2, ll. 54-67; col. 3, ll. 12-19). Kaisha also states: “Deuterated materials may exceed that limit for electrofluorescence because of their slow triplet production rate. Therefore, deuterated materials may efficiently produce more singlet excitons than non-deuterated materials, with a potential singlet exciton production exceeding 25%. Since the EL light emission efficiency is directly related with the production rate of singlet exciton, higher exciton production results in higher EL efficiency.” (col. 4, ll. 5-20).
Li and Kaisha are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of optimizing organic materials for electroluminescent devices. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA), before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of the cited references to arrive at the instantly claimed compounds. It would have been prima facie obvious to modify the compound of Li by substituting one or more of the hydrogen atoms with one or more deuterium atoms because Kaisha teaches carbon deuterium chemical bonds have better thermal stability, longer lifetime in optoelectronic devices, and have a higher electroluminescent quantum yield as a result of smaller non-radiative triplet rate in the context of organic semiconducting materials. Further Kaisha states that cyclic rings, fused cyclic rings, and combinations, can be partially or fully deuterated (col. 5, ll. 30-35). Accordingly, claims 1-11 are prima facie obvious in view of the compound taught by Li and the motivation provided by Kaisha.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han.
Han teaches as disclosed above and at least those teachings are incorporated by reference herein.
Han teaches a light emitting device with a first electrode that is an anode, a second electrode that is a cathode, and an interlayer disposed between the first and second electrode, in which the interlayer includes a host and a dopant and the dopant is a compound represented by Formula 1, like compound 45,
PNG
media_image2.png
510
364
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(p. 22; claims 1-3). Example 1 teaches a light emitting device with an anode, a cathode, 3,3-di(9H-carbazol-9-yl)biphenyl (mCBP),
PNG
media_image4.png
342
577
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, as a host, and compound 1 (¶ [0528]). The host has two carbazole moieties. Han also teaches other potential hosts like compound H47
PNG
media_image5.png
211
462
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(p. 58).
Han fails to teach an anticipatory embodiment.
Han is analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of preparing organic materials for electroluminescent devices. Therefore, applying KSR prong A and/or B, it would have been prima facie obvious to a PHOSITA to follow the teachings of Han to prepare an organic light emitting device and a consumer product with an anode, a cathode, an organic layer disposed in between the anode and cathode to arrive at the products instantly claimed. Han teaches the organic layer includes a compound represented by Formula 1, which includes compound 45 as taught by Han. Additionally, Han teaches the interlayer includes an emission layer. The emission layer includes a host and a dopant; based on Example 1 of Han, the host is mCBP which has two carbazole chemical moieties. Accordingly, claims 17-18 and 20 are prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 19, Han teaches other host compounds that can be included in the light emitting device like compound H47 (¶ [0290]). Compound H47 is the same as the species in the instant claim (Claims, p. 144, 1st column).
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAHIL CHANDER AGGARWAL whose telephone number is (571)272-7755. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-5pm.
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, Adam C Milligan can be reached at (571) 270-7674. 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.
/SAHIL CHANDER AGGARWAL/Examiner, Art Unit 1623
/CLINTON A BROOKS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1621
Prosecution Insights