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 .
The preliminary amendment dated July 25, 2024 is entered. Claims 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, and 11 were amended. Claim 9 is canceled. Claims 12-20 were added. Claims 1-8 and 10-20 are pending.
Drawings
The drawing filed on 11/17/2023 is acceptable subject to correction of the informalities indicated below. In order to avoid abandonment of this application, correction is required in reply to the Office action. The correction will not be held in abeyance. The informality is the following:
The single drawing is currently labeled as “FIG. 1”. Per 37 C.F.R. 1.84 (u), “Where only a single view is used in an application to illustrate the claimed invention, it must not be numbered and the abbreviation “FIG.” must not appear.”
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Per 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1), the specification should be amended throughout to refer to “the FIGURE” rather than to “FIG. 1”. (See the original specification at least at page “9/33” for correction and any other occurrences of a reference to “FIG. 1” that may be present).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 a objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 includes the phrase “and the “substituted” refers to substitution with halogen, amino, cyano, C1-C4 alkyl, or fluorinated C1-C4 alkyl”. Since the remainder of claim 5 does not recite a substituted group, it appear the phrase is not necessary for claim 5.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-8 and 11-20 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. [Note that dependent claims are included in rejection(s) based upon their respective dependence upon a rejected claim.]
Claim 1 recites “A heterocyclic modified platinum complex”, but it is unclear what is considered “modified” in the complex. The use of the term “modified” and the intended meaning is unclear. Clarification and/or correction are required.
Claim 1 recites the abbreviation “ONCN”, but it is unclear if the abbreviation has a clear single and accepted meaning. The abbreviation is considered to render the claim indefinite. Clarification and/or correction are required.
Each of claims 8 and 15 to 17 recite a precursor ligand that is “namely” a specifically shown formula. The word “namely” renders the claims indefinite, because it is unclear if the claims are required to have the shown formula. The intended scope of the claim is unclear (see MPEP 2173.05(d) Exemplary Claim Language). Clarification and/or correction are required.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "The metallic platinum complex". It is not seen where the word “metallic” was previously set forth in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “The metallic” in the claim.
Claim 7 contains some numbers in the chart at the end of the claim that do not have a structure shown. The extra included numbers (40 to 43) are not understood.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 8 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 8 depends upon claim 1. Claim 8 recites a “precursor” in the preamble while parent claim 1 recites a platinum complex. The ligand recited in claim 8 is only a portion of what is encompassed by the complex in claim 1. Claim 8 fails to include all of the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 15 depends upon claim 2. Claim 15 recites a “A precursor” in the preamble while parent claim 2 recites a platinum complex. The ligand recited in claim 15 is only a portion of what is encompassed by the complex in claim 2. Claim 15 fails to include all of the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 16 depends upon claim 3. Claim 16 recites a “precursor” in the preamble while parent claim 3 recites a platinum complex. The ligand recited in claim 16 is only a portion of what is encompassed by the complex in claim 3. Claim 16 fails to include all of the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 17 depends upon claim 4. Claim 16 recites a “precursor” in the preamble while parent claim 4 recites a platinum complex. The ligand recited in claim 16 is only a portion of what is encompassed by the complex in claim 4. Claim 17 fails to include all of the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Che et al. (US 2012/0018711 A1).
Che et al. teaches platinum complexes according to Structure I (see par. 10):
PNG
media_image1.png
208
344
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Each of the X1 to X20 may be caron (see par. 14) and R6 may be selected as substituted or unsubstituted aryl (see par. 14) while the remainder of R1 to R5 and R7 to R14 may be selected as a group or hydrogen (see par. 14). More specifically, Complex 219 shows that an aryl group and/or substituted aryl group may be a para-bonded biphenyl group at R6, but an ortho-bonded biphenyl is not exemplified. Per MPEP 2144.09, compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). See also In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978) (stereoisomers prima facie obvious). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed a positional isomer of Complex 219 with an ortho biphenyl group in place of a para biphenyl group, because one would expect using the group would provide a complex with a similar result of phosphorescent light emission. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect a compound within the definition of Structure I as defined and also meeting the limitations of the instant claims to be a light emitting phosphorescent complex for a light emitting device with a predictable result and reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 2-5 and 12-14, the definitions of Structure I encompass the limitations (see par. 10).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Structure I variable R12 may be selected as alkyl of 4 carbon atoms (see par. 15). Further regarding claim 7, a Structure I may include a biphenyl group at the R6 position that is ortho bonding per instant compound 1 as discussed above.
Regarding claims 8 and 15-17 the claims are rejected above under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), but it is noted that Che et al. teaches the precursor ligand structures in Structure II (see par. 14-15) per forming complexes of claims 1-4.
Regarding claims 10, 11, and 18-20, the Che et al. complexes of Structure I are used as a light emitting material in a device (see par. 91-102 and claim 3 on page 21).
Given the teachings of the reference, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to prepare the material of the reference for a device as described above wherein the resultant compound and material would also meet the limitations of the instant claims. One would expect to achieve functional compounds for an operational device structure according to Che et al. with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
CF Kui, Steven, et al. "Robust Phosphorescent Platinum (II) Complexes Containing Tetradentate O^ N^ C^ N Ligands: Excimeric Excited State and Application in Organic White‐Light‐Emitting Diodes." Chemistry–A European Journal 19.1 (2013): 69-73.
Mao, Mao, et al. "High-performance organic light-emitting diodes with low-efficiency roll-off using bulky tetradentate [Pt (O^ N^ C^ N)] emitters." Journal of Materials Chemistry C 7.24 (2019): 7230-7236.
The above two non-patent literature references are considered relevant to the field of the endeavor.
Cheng, Gang, et al. "Structurally robust phosphorescent [Pt (O^ N^ C^ N)] emitters for high performance organic light-emitting devices with power efficiency up to 126 lm W− 1 and external quantum efficiency over 20%." Chemical Science 5.12 (2014): 4819-4830.
The above reference was listed on the IDS, but a copy was not included.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dawn Garrett whose telephone number is (571)272-1523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday (Eastern Time).
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.
/DAWN L GARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights