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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
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” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the language “The present invention provides” and (FIG 1 ) should be deleted. The abstract should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. The abstract contains parentheses, and it is not clear if parentheses are part of the abstract. There is no figure shown in the abstract. Appropriate correction is required.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 2, 4 and 9-11 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.
Claim 2 recites “is selected from, but not limited to” is indefinite and unclear claim language. The description can be interpreted as further limiting and imply illustrating multiple meanings of the present application, thus making the scope of instant claims unclear.
Claim 4 recites “or the like”. Regarding claim 4, the phrase "or the like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 9-11 depends on claim 2; therefore, the claims are also indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. Appropriate correction is required
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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(s) 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2016/0285015 A1) in view of She et al. (CN 11548371 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Li et al. teach (see abstract, claims, examples and drawings) a phosphorescent tetradentate metal complex (high radiation rate platinum complex luminescent material) based on disclose compound Pt-ON1-Cab on page 24, [0120]
PNG
media_image1.png
297
265
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
It is noted that Li et al. teach the same general formula (1) and core structure as the instantly claimed invention. However, Pt-ON1-Cab compound of Li et al. only difference from the instant claimed formula (1) is that Ra and Rb are hydrogen. Nonetheless, the examiner has added She et al. to demonstrate the conventional technical approaches to one of ordinary skilled in the art can be easily derived by using a compound having the following structure ( see claims abstract and examples) :
PNG
media_image2.png
200
220
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[0058] wherein Ra and Rb are not hydrogen and each independently represent alkyl (methyl) , which are used as doping agents in the light emitting layer of OLED devices, due to increased molecular rigidity, reduced vibration and rotation from the carbazole ring, result in more than twice of the quantum efficiency, shorter excited state lifetime, and high radiative transition speed compared to tetradentate ring metal complexes with unsubstituted Cz ligands ( see claims, [0057-0072, Table 2, figures). Although, She’s tetradentate ring metal is Pd and not Pt as instantly claimed, it is well-known in the art to interchange palladium and platinum as coordinating metal. Nonetheless,
Li et al. and She et al. are analogous art in the OLED field. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify the carbazole ligand at positions 1, 8 in the complex of Li et al. with the substitutent methyl as taught by She et al. in view of providing increased molecular rigidity, reduced vibration and rotation from the carbazole ring.
Regarding claims 3 and 9, Li et al. teaches an organic light emitting device comprising the high radiation rate platinum complex luminescent material based on the carbazole (see claims and examples).
Regarding claim 4, Li et al. teaches the organic light emitting device is an organic light emitting diode, a light emitting diode, a light emitting electrochemical cell or the like (claims 17-20).
Regarding claims 5 and 10, Li et al. teach a light emitting device comprising platinum complex luminescent material as a phosphorescence luminescent material or delayed fluorescent material in an organic light emitting device (claim 18)
Regarding claims 6 and 11, Li et al. teach a light emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode, and an organic layer, wherein the organic layer is disposed between the first and second electrodes, and the organic layer comprises platinum complex material (see figures and examples).
Regarding claim 7, Li et al. teach the organic layer is at least one of a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, a light emitting layer or active layer, an electron blocking layer or an electron transport layer (see figures and examples).
Regarding claim 8, Li et al. teaches a display apparatus comprising the light emitting device (examples).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Li et al. (US 2019/0322928 A1; see abstract, claims and examples) teach a blue phosphorescent tetradentate cyclic-metal platinum complex luminescent material as instantly claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANCEITY N ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8:00 am-6:00 pm; IFP; PHP).
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/CHANCEITY N ROBINSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737
Prosecution Insights