Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 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 of this title, 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 negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 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 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 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 28, 31-32, 38, and 42-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yasukawa et al (WO 2007/029533, cited on IDS filed 10/18/2023, see English language translation cited on IDS filed 10/18/2023).
Regarding claim 28, Yasukawa et al discloses the following phosphorescent compound, corresponding to recited Formula (2) ([0058] – Compound 1-1):
PNG
media_image1.png
440
512
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
In the above compound, for recited Formula (I):
PNG
media_image2.png
134
216
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
Z is cyclohexyl group and the integer ns is zero (0). R1 is H and not an alkyl as recited in the present claims. However, this compound is but one embodiment and attention is directed to Formula (6) of the reference ([0033]), i.e.
PNG
media_image3.png
251
229
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
where R11 and R12 are substituents such as a methyl or a cyclohexyl group which can be further substituted ([0048]). Thus, the disclosure of the reference encompasses a cyclohexyl substituted by a methyl, i.e.
PNG
media_image4.png
200
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
Thus, the group R1 in recited Formula (I) is a methyl, i.e. an alkyl group.
Compound (1-1) of the reference corresponds to recited Formula (2), i.e.
PNG
media_image5.png
205
370
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
where:
M21 is Ir, i.e. a group 10 metal;
A21 is N;
A22 and A23 are C;
k is three (3);
Z21 is an aromatic nitrogen-containing heterocyclic containing a methyl substituent;
l is zero (0);
n is one (1);
S21 corresponds to Formula (1);
m is zero (0); and
Z22 is an aromatic hydrocarbon ring.
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed compound nor can the claimed compound be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed compound and the compound disclosed by the reference, absent a showing of criticality for the presently claimed compound, it is urged that it would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the compound which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 31, Yasukawa et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Given that in the present claims, the integer ns can be zero (0), the claims do not require the recited groups R2 and R3, and therefore, the reference discloses the compound of the present claims.
Regarding claim 32, Yasukawa et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the recited group Z is a cyclohexyl group.
Regarding claim 38, Yasukawa et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the reference discloses a metal complex given by recited Formula (12), i.e.
PNG
media_image6.png
205
415
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
where:
M121 is Ir;
R123 is a substituent;
R124 corresponds to S121 and corresponds to Formula (I);
the integer n is one (1);
B121 to B124 are C-R126, where R126 is H;
the integer k is three (3);
the integer l is zero (0); and
the integer m is zero (0).
Regarding claim 42, Yasukawa et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the reference discloses substituent a8 of the claims:
PNG
media_image7.png
84
88
media_image7.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 43, Yasukawa et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses that the metal complex is found in a light emitting layer of an organic light emitting device ([0020]).
Regarding claim 44, Yasukawa et al discloses an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, a cathode, and a light emitting layer between the anode and cathode ([0020]). The light emitting layer comprises the following phosphorescent compound, corresponding to recited Formula (2) ([0020] and [0058] – Compound 1-1):
PNG
media_image1.png
440
512
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
In the above compound, for recited Formula (I):
PNG
media_image2.png
134
216
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
Z is cyclohexyl group and the integer ns is zero (0). R1 is H and not an alkyl as recited in the present claims. However, this compound is but one embodiment and attention is directed to Formula (6) of the reference ([0033]), i.e.
PNG
media_image3.png
251
229
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
where R11 and R12 are substituents such as a methyl or a cyclohexyl group which can be further substituted ([0048]). Thus, the disclosure of the reference encompasses a cyclohexyl substituted by a methyl, i.e.
PNG
media_image4.png
200
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
Thus, the group R1 in recited Formula (I) is a methyl, i.e. an alkyl group.
Compound (1-1) of the reference corresponds to recited Formula (2), i.e.
PNG
media_image5.png
205
370
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
where:
M21 is Ir, i.e. a group 10 metal;
A21 is N;
A22 and A23 are C;
k is three (3);
Z21 is an aromatic nitrogen-containing heterocyclic containing a methyl substituent;
l is zero (0);
n is one (1).
S21 corresponds to Formula (1);
m is zero (0); and
Z22 is an aromatic hydrocarbon ring.
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed compound nor can the claimed compound be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed compound and the compound disclosed by the reference, absent a showing of criticality for the presently claimed compound, it is urged that it would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the compound which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 45, Yasukawa et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses a lighting apparatus comprising the disclosed device ([0230]).
Regarding claim 46, Yasukawa et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses a display comprising the disclosed device ([0261]).
Regarding claim 47, Yasukawa et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses a lighting apparatus, i.e. an illumination apparatus, comprising the disclosed device ([0230]).
Claims 28 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Knowles et al (US 2007/0190359, cited on IDS filed on 10/18/2023).
Regarding claim 28, Knowles discloses the following compound (Page 13 – es 36):
PNG
media_image8.png
278
541
media_image8.png
Greyscale
.
The compound comprises a substituent where in recited Formula (I):
PNG
media_image2.png
134
216
media_image2.png
Greyscale
ns is zero (0), and Z is a cyclohexyl group. The recited group R1 is H and not an alkyl as required by the present claims. However, this compound is but one embodiment and the reference discloses Formula (Gs1-1) ([0068], i.e.
PNG
media_image9.png
377
371
media_image9.png
Greyscale
,
where the group R1e is a hydrocarbyl or substituted hydrocarbyl ([0067]). Paragraph [0061] discloses substituted hydrocarbyl as cycloalkyl substituted with a C1-20 alkyl. Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses recited group R1 as a C1-20 alkyl.
From the above, the reference discloses a compound given by recited Formula (A1), i.e.
PNG
media_image10.png
283
319
media_image10.png
Greyscale
,
where:
E1d and E1a are N and the remaining groups E are C;
R1a, R1b, R1c, R1d, R1f, R1g, R1h, and R1i are H; and
R1e corresponds to recited Formula (I).
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed compound nor can the claimed compound be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed compound and the compound disclosed by the reference, absent a showing of criticality for the presently claimed compound, it is urged that it would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the compound which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 41, Knowles et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the reference discloses a compound given by recited Formula (A1-2), i.e.
PNG
media_image11.png
301
323
media_image11.png
Greyscale
,
where the recited groups E1f to E1q are C; R1e corresponds to recited Formula (I) and the remaining groups R are H.
Claims 28 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ise et al (US 2006/0073359, cited on IDS filed on 10/18/2023).
Regarding claim 28, Ise et al discloses the following compound ([0006] – Formula (V)):
PNG
media_image12.png
527
590
media_image12.png
Greyscale
,
where R1-E8 are H; Ra and Rb are substituents, the integers n and m are [0-3] ([0007]). The substituent Ra or Rb is a cyclopentyl or cyclohexyl group that can be further substituted with a group such as a C1-20 alkyl ([0043] and [0061]). Thus, the reference discloses a compound with a substituted given by recited Formula (I),
PNG
media_image2.png
134
216
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
where the integer ns is zero (0), Z is a cyclopentyl or cyclohexyl group, and R1 is a C1-20 alkyl.
In the compound of the reference the groups L1 and L2 are single bonds and L3 is a linking group. Thus, the reference discloses a compound given by recited Formula (14), i.e.
PNG
media_image13.png
316
499
media_image13.png
Greyscale
,
where:
A141 to A144 are C;
Z143 and Z144 are aromatic hydrocarbon rings;
Z141 and A142 are aromatic nitrogen containing heterocyclic groups;
E141 is a divalent linking group;
the integers k, l, and m are zero (0);
the integer n is one (1); and
S141 corresponds to recited Formula (1).
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed compound nor can the claimed compound be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed compound and the compound disclosed by the reference, absent a showing of criticality for the presently claimed compound, it is urged that it would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the compound which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 39, Ise et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the reference discloses a compound given by recited Formula (15), i.e.
PNG
media_image14.png
370
544
media_image14.png
Greyscale
,
where:
A151 to A154 are C;
Z151 and Z152 are aromatic hydrocarbon rings;
the integers k, l and m are zero (0);
R156-R158, R153 and R154 are H;
R155 is S151 which corresponds to recited Formula (1); and
the integer n is zone (1).
Claims 28-30 and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kwong et al (US 2003/0072964, cited on IDS filed on 10/18/2023).
Regarding claim 28, Kwong et al discloses a metal complex comprising the following ligand ([0019]):
PNG
media_image15.png
202
130
media_image15.png
Greyscale
or
PNG
media_image16.png
196
104
media_image16.png
Greyscale
,
where n is an integer [0-5] ([0023]); Z is NR ([0021]); and R is given by R11 ([0022]). The group R11 is H or a C1-20 alkyl optionally substituted by one or more substituents X ([0012]). The group X is given by R12, where R12 is a C1-20 alkyl ([0014]). The term “alkyl” is disclosed as encompassing linear, branched and cyclic alkyl groups such as methyl and cyclohexyl ([0169]). The disclosure of the reference encompasses a cyclohexyl group substituted with a methyl group, i.e.
PNG
media_image4.png
200
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
where “-“ denotes the bond to the ligand. Thus in recited Formula (I):
PNG
media_image2.png
134
216
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
R1 is a methyl, i.e. an alkyl group, and the recited integer ns is zero (0).
Alternatively, the cyclohexyl can have two (2) substitutions X on one carbon, i.e.
PNG
media_image17.png
200
400
media_image17.png
Greyscale
,
where each X is methyl, and one (1) methyl group is found attached to the ligand. In recited Formula (1):
PNG
media_image2.png
134
216
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
R1 is an alkyl group, R2 and R3 are H; and the integer ns is one (1).
The reference discloses that the compound has the formula ([0007] – I):
PNG
media_image18.png
341
349
media_image18.png
Greyscale
,
where (A1-A2) corresponds to the ligands:
PNG
media_image15.png
202
130
media_image15.png
Greyscale
or
PNG
media_image16.png
196
104
media_image16.png
Greyscale
,
The compound disclosed by the reference corresponds to recited Formula (2):
PNG
media_image19.png
226
370
media_image19.png
Greyscale
,
where:
M21 is Ir ([0018]);
A21 and A22 are C;
Z21 is pyridine;
Z22 is benzene; and
L22 -E-21-L23 is a bidentate ligand.
In the compound of the reference n is an integer [1-3] and m is the formal charge of the metal ([0015]-[0016]). Thus, for Ir, m is three (3) and therefore the integer n corresponding to the integer k is [1-2] and l in recited Formula (2) is given by (m-n) is [2-1].
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed compound nor can the claimed compound be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed compound and the compound disclosed by the reference, absent a showing of criticality for the presently claimed compound, it is urged that it would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the compound which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 29, Kwong et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, ns in recited Formula (I) is one (1).
Regarding claim 30, Kwong et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, ns in recited Formula (I) is one (1).
Regarding claim 33, Kwong et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the reference discloses a compound given by recited Formula (3), i.e.
PNG
media_image20.png
246
388
media_image20.png
Greyscale
,
where:
M31 is Ir;
R33 to R36 are H or a substituent given by S31 or S32, where S31 or S32 represents a group given by recited Formula (I);
Z32 is an aromatic hydrocarbon ring;
L32-E31-L33 corresponds to the bidentate ligand discussed above;
the integer k is [1-2]; and
the integer l is [2-1] such that k + l is three (3).
Regarding claim 34, Kwong et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the reference discloses a compound given by recited Formula (4), i.e.
PNG
media_image21.png
227
417
media_image21.png
Greyscale
,
where:
M41 is Ir;
R43 to R46 are H or a substituent given by S41 or S42, where S41 or S42 represents a group given by recited Formula (I);
B41 to B44 are C-R47, where R47 is a substituent;
L42, L43 and E41 form a bidentate ligand;
the integer k is [1-2]; and
the integer l is [2-1] such that k + l is three (3).
Regarding claim 35, Kwong et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the reference discloses a compound given by recited Formula (5), i.e.
PNG
media_image22.png
225
415
media_image22.png
Greyscale
,
where:
M51 is Ir;
R53 to R59 and R510 are H or a substituent given by S51 or S52, where S51 or S52 represents a group given by recited Formula (I);
L42, L43 and E41 form a bidentate ligand;
the integer k is [1-2]; and
the integer l is [2-1] such that k + l is three (3).
Regarding claim 37, Kwong et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the reference discloses a compound given by recited Formula (9), i.e.
PNG
media_image23.png
226
418
media_image23.png
Greyscale
,
where:
M91 is Ir;
R93 to R95 are H or a substituent given by S91, where S91 or S92 represents a group given by recited Formula (I);
the integer k is [1-2];
the integer l is [2-1] such that k + l is three (3); and
B91 to B94 care C-R96, where R96 is hydrogen or S92.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 28-45 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,832,508 (U.S. ‘508).
Claim 1 of U.S. ‘508 recites a metal complex identical to that recited in instant claim 28. The only difference between the metal complex recited in instant claim 28 and that of claim 1 of U.S. ‘508 is that Z31 in Formula (2) does not present a pyrazole and Z1 does not represent a pyridine ring having additional rings fused.
Furthermore, it is noted that:
Claim 2 of U.S. ‘508 recites subject matter identical to instant claim 29.
Claim 3 of U.S. ‘508 recites subject matter identical to instant claim 30.
Claim 4 of U.S. ‘508 recites subject matter identical to instant claim 31.
Claim 5 of U.S. ‘508 recites subject matter identical to instant claim 32.
Claim 6 of U.S. ‘508 recites subject matter identical to instant claim 33.
Claim 7 of U.S. ‘508 recites subject matter identical to instant claim 34.
Claim 8 of U.S. ‘508 recites subject matter identical to instant claim 35.
Claim 9 of U.S. ‘508 recites subject matter identical to instant claim 36.
Claim 10 of U.S. ‘508 recites subject matter identical to instant claim 37.
Claim 11 of U.S. ‘508 recites subject matter identical to instant claim 39.
Claim 12 of U.S. ‘508 recites subject matter identical to instant claim 40.
Claim 13 of U.S. ‘508 recites subject matter identical to instant claim 41.
Claim 14 of U.S. ‘508 recites subject matter identical to instant claim 42.
Claim 15 of U.S. ‘508 recites an organic electroluminescence device comprising a pair of electrodes, an organic layer disposed between the electrodes, identical to instant claim 44. Claim 15 of U.S. ‘508 further recites that the organic layer comprises a metal complex identical to that recited in instant claim 44. The only difference between the metal complex recited in instant claim 44 and that of claim 15 of U.S. ‘508 is that Z31 in Formula (2) does not present a pyrazole and Z1 does not represent a pyridine ring having additional rings fused.
Furthermore, it is noted that:
Claim 16 of U.S. ‘508 recites subject matter identical to instant claim 43.
Claim 17 of U.S. ‘508 recites subject matter identical to instant claim 45.
Claim 18 of U.S. ‘508 recites subject matter identical to instant claim 46.
Claim 19 of U.S. ‘508 recites subject matter identical to instant claim 47.
Claims 28-36, 38, and 43-45 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 10,403,832 (U.S. ‘832).
Claim 1 of U.S. ‘832 recites a metal complex comprising a substituent given by Formula (I), i.e.
PNG
media_image24.png
152
206
media_image24.png
Greyscale
,
where R1 is an alkyl group, R2 and R3 are H or an alkyl group, ns is an integer from 0 to 6 and Z represented a saturated 5- to 8- membered ring. Accordingly, Claim 1 of U.S. ‘832 recites a metal complex comprising a substituent identical to that recited in instant claim 28. Claim 1 of U.S. ‘832 further recites a metal complex given by Formulas (2), (14), and (A1-1), identical to Formulas (2), (14) and (A1) recited in instant claim 28.
Furthermore, it is noted that:
Claim 2 of U.S. ‘832 recites subject matter identical to that recited in instant Claim 29.
Claim 3 of U.S. ‘832 recites subject matter identical to that recited in instant Claim 30.
Claim 4 of U.S. ‘832 recites subject matter identical to that recited in instant Claim 31.
Claim 5 of U.S. ‘832 recites subject matter identical to that recited in instant Claim 32.
Claim 6 of U.S. ‘832 recites subject matter encompassing that recited in instant Claim 33.
Claim 6 of U.S. ‘832 recites subject matter identical to that recites in instant Claim 34.
Claim 7 of U.S. ‘832 recites subject matter identical to that recited in instant Claim 35.
Claim 8 of U.S. ‘832 recites subject matter identical to that recited in instant Claim 36.
Claim 9 of U.S. ‘832 recites subject matter identical to that recited in instant Claim 38.
Claim 1 of U.S. ‘832 recites subject matter encompassing the subject matter recited in instant Claim 43.
Claim 1 of U.S. ‘832 recites an organic light emitting device comprising a pair of electrode and an organic layer comprising a light emitting layer and disposed between the electrodes, identical to that recited in instant claim 44. The light emitting layer comprises as metal complex with a substituent given by Formula (I), i.e.
PNG
media_image24.png
152
206
media_image24.png
Greyscale
,
where R1 is an alkyl group, R2 and R3 are H or an alkyl group, ns is an integer from 0 to 6 and Z represented a saturated 5- to 8- membered ring. Accordingly, Claim 1 of U.S. ‘832 recites a metal complex comprising a substituent identical to that recited in instant claim 44. Claim 1 of U.S. ‘832 further recites a metal complex given by Formulas (2), (14), and (A1-1), identical to Formulas (2), (14) and (A1) recited in instant claim 44.
Furthermore, it is noted that:
Claim 1 of U.S.’832 recites subject encompassing the subject matter recited in instant claim 45.
Claims 28-35, 38-40, 42, and 44 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 8, 11, 14, 16, and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 8,945,725 (U.S. ‘725).
Claims 1 U.S. ‘725 recites a metal complex comprising a substituent given by Formula (I), i.e.
PNG
media_image24.png
152
206
media_image24.png
Greyscale
,
where R1 is an alkyl group, R2 and R3 are H or an alkyl group, ns is an integer from 1 to 6 and Z represented a saturated 5- to 8- membered ring. Accordingly, Claim 1 of U.S. ‘725 recites a metal complex comprising a substituent identical to that recited in instant claim 28. Claim 1 of U.S. ‘725 further recites that the metal complex is given by Formulas (2) and (14), identical to Formulas (2) and (14) recited in instant claim 28.
Furthermore, it is noted that:
Claim 1 of U.S. ‘725 recites subject matter encompassing the subject recited in instant claim 29.
Claim 2 of U.S. ‘725 recites subject matter identical to that recited in instant Claim 30.
Claim 3 of U.S. ‘725 recites subject matter identical to that recited in instant Claim 31.
Claim 4 of U.S. ‘725 recites subject matter identical to that recited in instant Claim 32.
Claim 5 of U.S. ‘725 recites subject matter identical to that recited in instant Claim 33.
Claim 6 of U.S. ‘725 recites subject matter identical to that recited in instant Claim 34.
Claim 8 of U.S. ‘725 recites subject matter identical to that recited in instant Claim 35.
Claim 11 of U.S. ‘725 recites subject matter encompassing the subject matter recited in instant Claim 38.
Claim 14 of U.S. ‘725 recites subject matter identical to that recited in instant Claim 39.
Claim 16 of U.S. ‘725 recites subject matter identical to that recited in instant Claim 40.
Claim 21 of U.S. ‘725 recites a substituent recited in instant Claim 42.
Claim 1 of U.S. ‘725 recites an organic light emitting device comprising a pair of electrode and an organic layer comprising a light emitting layer and disposed between the electrodes, identical to that recited in instant claim 44. The light emitting layer comprises as metal complex with a substituent given by Formula (I), i.e.
PNG
media_image24.png
152
206
media_image24.png
Greyscale
,
where R1 is an alkyl group, R2 and R3 are H or an alkyl group, ns is an integer from 1 to 6 and Z represented a saturated 5- to 8- membered ring. Accordingly, Claim 1 of U.S. ‘725 recites a metal complex comprising a substituent identical to that recited in instant claim 44. Claim 1 of U.S. ‘725 further recites a metal complex given by Formulas (2) and (14), identical to Formulas (2) and (14) recited in instant claim 44.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER C. KOLLIAS whose telephone number is (571)-270-3869. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00AM – 5:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Boyd can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER C KOLLIAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights