DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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.
Election/Restrictions
The applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 16-24 and 26-34, drawn to a compound of formula (1), an oligomer, polymer, or dendrimer comprising the compound, a formulation comprising the compound, and a device comprising the compound in the reply filed on 05/23/2025 was previously acknowledged.
Claim 25 was withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/23/2025.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 03/25/2026 has been entered.
Claim 35 is new due to the applicant's amendment.
Claims 16-35 are pending and claim 25 is withdrawn from consideration.
The rejection of claims 16-23 and 26-34 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Inoue et al. US-20070009760-A1 and the rejection of claim 24 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Inoue et al. US-20070009760-A1 as applied to claim 16 and further in view of Stoessel et al. US-20110284799-A1 as set forth in the previous Office action are each withdrawn.
However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made in view of Takiguchi et al. US-20080131730-A1.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments on pages 18-20 of the reply dated 03/25/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 16-23 and 26-34 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Inoue et al. US-20070009760-A1 and the rejection of claim 24 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Inoue et al. US-20070009760-A1 as applied to claim 16 and further in view of Stoessel et al. US-20110284799-A1 as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered and are persuasive with respect to the argument that an aromatic ring system formed between two R1 radicals is not encompassed by the claims. The rejection has been withdrawn.
However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made in view of Takiguchi et al. US-20080131730-A1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 35 recites "wherein two or more adjacent radicals R1 with one another or R1 with R optionally form a ring system which does not comprise any double bonds." However, there is no recitation in the specification that two or more adjacent radicals R1 with one another or R1 with R optionally form a ring system which comprises bonds other than single and double, for example, triple bonds, and this appears to be encompassed by the limitation "does not comprise any double bonds."
The specification positively recites that "two or more adjacent radicals R1 with one another or R1 with R here may form a mono- or polycyclic, aliphatic, aromatic or heteroaromatic ring system" on page 4 of the specification, and that "two carbon atoms are bonded into an aromatic or heteroaromatic system and the bond between these two caron atoms is thus formally between the degree of bonding of a single bond and that of a double bond. The drawing-in of the formal double bond… it is apparent to the person skilled in the art that this is taken to mean an aromatic bond" on page 7 of the specification. None of the exemplary compounds show wherein two or more adjacent radicals R1 with one another or R1 with R optionally form a ring system which comprises bonds other than single and double, e.g., triple bonds. Consequently, it is unclear that the applicant had possession at the time of filing the claimed invention wherein two or more adjacent radicals R1 with one another or R1 with R form a ring system other than an aliphatic (single bonds) or aromatic or heteroaromatic (single and double bonds) ring system, though this now appears to be encompassed by claim 35.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 16-23 and 29-30, 33, and 35 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Takiguchi et al. US-20080131730-A1 (hereinafter "Takiguchi").
It is noted that Takiguchi et al. US-20080131730-A1 is cited on the IDS of 02/08/2024.
Regarding claims 16-23 and 29-30, 33, and 35, Takiguchi discloses an electroluminescent device in which an organic compound layer containing a metal complex compound is interposed between two opposing electrodes and a voltage is applied between the electrodes to emit light (¶ [0055]), the metal complex comprising a partial structure represented by the formula (2) (¶ [0008]-[0009]), wherein the compound is in the light-emitting layer (¶ [0061], see also example device in ¶ [0097-[0103]). Takiguchi discloses specific examples of the metal complex in Table 14 (page 25-26), Table 18 (page 31), and Table 22 (page 35) which meet the claimed formula (1). For example, compound 189
PNG
media_image1.png
310
1068
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Table 14, page 25) meets the claimed formula (1) wherein:
M is iridium;
CyC is an aryl group having 6 aromatic ring atoms (a benzene ring), wherein CyC is coordinated to M via a carbon atom, is substituted by two radicals R, and is bonded to CyD via a covalent bond;
CyD is a heteroaryl group having 5 aromatic ring atoms (a pyridine ring), wherein CyD is coordinated to M via a neutral nitrogen atom, is substituted by one radical R, and is bonded to CyC via a covalent bond;
R on CyD is N(R1)2 where R1 is in each case an alkyl group having 1 C atom;
R2 is not required to be present;
L' is a co-ligand (L1' in the above table);
L' is different from L;
n is 2;
m is 1;
CyC contains two adjacent carbon atoms which are substituted by radicals R, wherein the respective radicals R, together with the C atoms, form a ring of formula (3);
A1 is C(R3)2 where R3 are each F;
A2 is C(R1)2 where R1 are each F; and
and G is not required to be present.
Thus, the device of Takiguchi comprising the metal complex meets claims 16-23 and 29-30, 33, and 35.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim 24 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Takiguchi et al. US-20080131730-A1 (hereinafter "Takiguchi") as applied to claim 16 and further in view of Stoessel et al. US-20110284799-A1 (hereinafter "Stoessel").
It is noted that Stoessel et al. US-20110284799-A1 is cited on the IDS of 02/08/2024.
Regarding claim 24, Takiguchi discloses the compound as described above with respect to claim 16.
Takiguchi does not specifically disclose a compound as described above wherein the compound is a compound of one of formulae (17) to (22) wherein V is a single bond or bridging unit which covalently bonds L to one another or L to L'.
Stoessel teaches a metal complex compound of the formula M(L)n(L')m for use in the emitting layer of an organic EL device (¶ [0005]-[0006], ¶ [0078]), wherein the compound may have a bridging unit V which links ligand L to one or more further ligands L or L' (¶ [0043]), which represents a bridging unit containing 1 to 80 atoms from the third, fourth, fifth and/or sixth main group or a 3- to 6-membered homo- or heterocycle which covalently bonds the part-ligands L to one another or covalently bonds L to L' (¶ [0044]). Stossel teaches that the bridging unit V increases the chemical and thermal stability of the complexes by bridging L to one another or to L' (¶ [0045]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the compound of Takiguchi to comprise a bridging unit V of Stoessel between at least two of the ligands, based on the teaching of Stoessel. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase the chemical and thermal stability of the complex, as taught by Stoessel.
Claims 26, 28, 31-32, and 34 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Takiguchi et al. US-20080131730-A1 (hereinafter "Takiguchi") as applied to claim 16 and further in view of Schulte et al. US-20070281182-A1 (hereinafter "Schulte").
It is noted that Schulte et al. US-20070281182-A1 is cited on the IDS of 02/08/2024.
Regarding claims 26 and 31-32, Takiguchi discloses the compound as described above with respect to claim 16.
Takiguchi does not specifically disclose an oligomer, polymer, or dendrimer comprising the compound as described above or an electronic device comprising the oligomer, polymer, or dendrimer.
Schulte discloses phosphorescent copolymers comprising at least one triplet emitter, characterized in that the triplet emitter has at least three links to the polymer (¶ [0017]), wherein the triplet emitters bonded in the phosphorescent copolymer are preferably organometallic complexes (¶ [0036]), and preferably have a structure of the formula (1) (¶ [0038]), which encompasses the compounds of Takiguchi. Schulte teaches the phosphorescent copolymers for us as electroluminescent materials (¶ [0057]) in at least one layer of a light emitting device (¶ [0059]). Schulte teaches the phosphorescent copolymers which have high emission efficiency, low operating voltage and a long lifetime at the same time as simple synthetic accessibility and good solubility (¶ [0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the metal complex of Takiguchi such that it is incorporated into the phosphorescent copolymer of Schulte, wherein the metal complex has at least three links to the polymer, based on the teaching of Schulte. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain high emission efficiency, low operating voltage and a long lifetime at the same time as simple synthetic accessibility and good solubility, as taught by Schulte.
Regarding claim 28 and 34, Takiguchi in view of Schulte teaches the copolymer as described above with respect to claim 26.
Takiguchi in view of Schulte does not specifically teach a formulation comprising a polymer comprising the compound as described above and at least one further compound.
However, Takiguchi teaches the compound having a partial structure represented by the general formula (2) allows for the concentration at which the material is dispersed in a host material can be increased, and hence a light-emitting device containing the material at a high concentration and having high emission efficiency can be obtained (¶ [0018]), and teaches specific example devices wherein the emitting layer comprises the compound with a host material MCP (¶ [0100]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the copolymer of Takiguchi in view of Schulte in the light emitting layer with a host material (i.e. a formulation of the polymer comprising the metal complex and the host), based on the teaching of Takiguchi. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain a device with high emission efficiency, as taught by Takiguchi.
Claim 27 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Takiguchi et al. US-20080131730-A1 (hereinafter "Takiguchi") as applied to claim 16.
Regarding claim 27, Takiguchi discloses the compound as described above with respect to claim 16.
Takiguchi does not specifically disclose a formulation comprising the compound as described above and at least one further compound.
However, Takiguchi teaches the compound having a partial structure represented by the general formula (2) allows for the concentration at which the material is dispersed in a host material can be increased, and hence a light-emitting device containing the material at a high concentration and having high emission efficiency can be obtained (¶ [0018]), and teaches specific example devices wherein the emitting layer comprises the compound with a host material MCP (¶ [0100]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the metal complex of Takiguchi in the light emitting layer with a host material (i.e. a formulation of the metal complex and the host), based on the teaching of Takiguchi. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain a device with high emission efficiency, as taught by Takiguchi.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elizabeth M. Dahlburg whose telephone number is 571-272-6424. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET, and alternate Fridays.
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.
/ELIZABETH M. DAHLBURG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights