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 .
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.
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.
Claims 1-20 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.
Claims 1, 17, and 20, which the other claims are dependent upon, recite the dash line (“-------“) connected to moiety C of Formula II which is nowhere defined. The office has interpreted this dashed line to represent a bond (of any type) to another chemical moiety within RA or RB, or to moiety A or B (of Formula I) for the purpose of this Examination.
Correction is required.
Claim 7 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.
The claim recites the scope of “T” which is nowhere found in the depicted formulae for the ligand LA.
Correction is required.
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.
The claim recites the structures for LY in TABLE 3 which renders the exact scope of the claim indefinite as it is not clear where or how the LY is connected to LA’ (as the dashed lines found in LY has been interpreted to be bonds connected to ĸ3 and ĸ4). Furthermore, several variables found in the structures of LA’ and LY are nowhere defined (such as RAA). The Applicant should ensure that all variables found in the structures have been defined in the claim.
Correction is required.
Claim 15 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.
The claim recites the structures for LY in TABLE 5 which renders the exact scope of the claim indefinite as it is not clear where or how the LY is connected to LA’ (as the dashed lines found in LY has been interpreted to be bonds connected to ĸ3 and ĸ4). Furthermore, the variables found in the structures of LA’ and LY are nowhere defined as LIST D and LIST E are nowhere recited in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, 12-14, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anemian et al. (WO 2013/107487 A1).
Anemian et al. discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image1.png
302
152
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 39) such that moiety A = 6-membered heterocyclic ring (pyridine), moiety B = 6-membered carbocyclic ring (benzene), Z1 = N, Z2 = C, ĸ1 = direct bond, L1 = direct bond, X1-4 = C, RA = hydrogen, RB = combination of amino and heteroaryl comprising the following substituent:
PNG
media_image2.png
99
91
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(such that moiety C = monocyclic ring system comprised of 6-membered carbocyclic ring (benzene), moieties D-E = 6-membered carbocyclic ring (benzene), Z = C, Q2-3 = C, and Q1 = N of Applicant’s Formula II), ĸ2-4 = direct bond, M1 = Pt, Z6 = N, Z7 = C, L3-4 = absent a bond, L2 = direct bond, RG = RH = hydrogen, RB and RH are joined together to form a ring, moiety G = 6-membered heterocyclic ring (pyridine), and moiety H = 6-membered carbocyclic ring (benzene) of Applicant’s Formula III. Anemian et al. further discloses an organic electroluminescent (EL) device for the construction of displays and the like comprising a pair of electrodes, interposed therein a light-emitting layer(s) comprising its inventive compounds as dopant (emitting) material which is in combination with host (matrix) material(s) (lines 7-34, page 50; lines 1-4, page 57). Host materials include indolocarbazoles (lines 9-15, page 93).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anemian et al. (WO 2013/107487 A1).
Anemian et al. discloses the compound of Claim 1 as shown above in the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection. The compound is shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
302
152
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 39). Anemian et al. discloses that its inventive compounds are encompassed by the following formula:
PNG
media_image3.png
260
440
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(line 5, page 3); structures for W include the following:
PNG
media_image4.png
240
220
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(line 5, page 17) where R1 = H or F (among others) (lines 8-9, page 19). However, Anemian et al. does not explicitly disclose a compound as recited in the claim. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to modify Formula (253) as disclosed by Anemian et al. (above) such that the resulting compound comprises (at least one) fluorine (F). The motivation is provided by the fact that the modification merely involves an exchange of one atom (hydrogen) for a functional equivalent (F) of the heterocyclic substituent group selected from a highly finite list of viable substituents as taught by Anemian et al. (and easily envisioned from the scope of the general formula), thus rendering the production predictable with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anemian et al. (WO 2013/107487 A1) as applied above and in further view of Ryu et al. (KR 10-2011-0016047).
Examiner’s Note: The Office has relied on the Machine English translation of foreign document publication KR 10-2011-0016047 (herein referred to as “Ryu et al.”) as the English equivalent. Unless otherwise noted, all figure, paragraph, and page numbers referenced herein refer to numbers found in the Machine English translation.
Anemian et al. discloses the organic electroluminescent (EL) device (OLED) of Claim 17 as shown above in the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection. Anemian et al. discloses that the light-emitting layer comprises host (matrix) materials (lines 7-34, page 50; lines 1-4, page 57); host materials include indolocarbazoles (lines 9-15, page 93). However, Anemian et al. does not explicitly disclose any of the host materials as recited in the claim.
Ryu et al. discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image5.png
236
142
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(page 32 of Ryu et al.) as host material for use in the light-emitting layer of an organic EL device, the use of which results in high driving efficiency and excellent lifespan characteristics (page 8). It would have been obvious to incorporate compound H103 as disclosed by Ryu et al. into the light-emitting layer of the organic EL device as disclosed by Anemian et al. (as host material). The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Ryu et al. which teaches that the use of its inventive compounds in such a manner results in a device with high driving efficiency and excellent lifespan characteristics.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY L YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1137. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 6am-3pm.
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 A 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.
/JAY YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights