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.
Pre-AIA Examination
In response to the applicant's request that the application be examined under the AIA provisions because the present application claims priority to International Application No. PCT/EP2013/001926 and has an effective filing date of July 2, 2013, the examiner directs the applicant to language in MPEP § 2159: "An application filed on or after March 16, 2013, that, as originally filed, discloses and claims only subject matter also disclosed in an earlier application (filed before March 16, 2013) to which the later filed application is entitled to priority or benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119, 120, 121, 365, or 386, is a pre-AIA application." The instant application appears to contain only subject matter also disclosed in the earlier application of EP12005715.3 (filed August 7, 2012), to which the instant application is entitled to priority under 35 U.S.C. 119. The applicant has not specifically pointed to any claim to a claimed invention having an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013. Therefore, the application is being examined under pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
As noted in the previous Office actions, 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Claim 25 was withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 07/16/2026 has been entered.
Claims 16 and 35 are amended due to the applicant's amendment.
Claims 16-35 are pending and claim 25 is withdrawn from consideration.
The rejection of claim 35 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 as set forth in the previous Office action is overcome due to the applicant's amendment. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 16-23 and 29-30, 33, and 35 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Takiguchi et al. US-20080131730-A1, the rejection of claim 24 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Takiguchi et al. US-20080131730-A1 as applied to claim 16 and further in view of Stoessel et al. US-20110284799-A1, the rejection of claims 26, 28, 31-32, and 34 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Takiguchi et al. US-20080131730-A1 as applied to claim 16 and further in view of Schulte et al. US-20070281182-A1, and the rejection of claim 27 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Takiguchi et al. US-20080131730-A1 as applied to claim 16 as set forth in the previous Office action are each overcome due to the applicant's amendment. The rejections are each withdrawn.
However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made in view of Ma et al. US-6687266-B1.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments on pages 19-21 of the reply dated 07/16/2026 with respect to the rejections under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) and under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument – The applicant argues on pages 19-21 that the rejections set forth in the previous Office Action are overcome due to the applicant's amendment.
Examiner's response -- The claims did not previously require the amended limitations of wherein F is deleted from the definitions of R1 and R3 and the amended limitations are met in the new grounds of rejection below in view of Ma et al. US-6687266-B1.
Applicant's argument – The applicant argues on pages 20-21 that Stoessel and Schulte fail to cure the alleged deficiencies of Takiguchi.
Examiner's response -- The applicant has not provided additional arguments with respect to Stossel and Schulte and therefore, for the reasons outlined above, this is not found persuasive.
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, 27, 29-30, 33, and 35 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Ma et al. US-6687266-B1 (hereinafter "Ma").
Regarding claims 16-23, 27, 29-30, 33, and 35, Ma discloses an organic light emitting device comprising an emissive layer disposed between an anode and a cathode, wherein the emissive layer includes a material having the structure
PNG
media_image1.png
161
178
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Col. 2, last paragraph) and discloses the emissive layer further comprising a host material (Col. 5, third paragraph; Col. 17, last paragraph). Ma discloses specific examples of the emissive layer material including compound 19 (Table 1, Col. 15-16), having the structure
PNG
media_image2.png
290
397
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
The compound 19 of Ma 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 9 aromatic ring atoms (a benzimidazole 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 a straight-chain alkyl group having 1 carbon atom;
R2 is not required to be present;
L' is a co-ligand (acac);
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 and A3 are each O;
A2 is C(R1)2 where R1 are each H;
G is not required to be present; and
R3 is not required to be present.
Thus, the device of Ma comprising the compound meets claims 16-23, 27, 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 Ma et al. US-6687266-B1 (hereinafter "Ma") 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, Ma discloses the compound as described above with respect to claim 16.
Ma 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 Ma 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 Ma et al. US-6687266-B1 (hereinafter "Ma") 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, Ma discloses the compound as described above with respect to claim 16.
Ma 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 Ma 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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