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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/14/2025 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of (A) a compound represented by Formula II, wherein rings A, B, and C are each a 6-membered ring, ring Z is (A1), and Z1 is N, in the reply filed on 10/20/2022 is acknowledged.
Upon further consideration, all the requirements of species election applied in the previous Office Actions have been withdrawn. No claim is withdrawn.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 11/18/2025 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 11-25, 27-59, 61-79, and 83-98 have been cancelled.
Claims 2, 4, 9-10, 26, 60, 80-82, and 99-108 are pending.
Claims 2, 4, 9-10, 26, 60, and 99-101 have been amended.
The amendment of claims 2, 4, 9-10, 26, 60, and 99-101 has overcome:
the rejections of claims 1-2, 4, 9-10, 26, 95, 98-99, and 102 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li et al. (US 2018/0337350 A1, hereafter Li ‘350),
the rejections of claims 83 and 90 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2018/0337350 A1),
the rejections of claims 1-2, 4, 10, 26, 95, 97, and 99 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li et al. (US 2019/0276485 A1, hereafter Li ‘485),
the rejections of claims 83, 90, and 98 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2019/0276485 A1),
the rejections of claims 1-2, 9-10, 26, 83, 95, 98, 100, and 102 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hara et al. (US 2017/0183368 A1, hereafter Hara),
the rejection of claim 90 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara et al. (US 2017/0183368 A1) set forth in the last Office Action.
The rejections are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see pages 29-31 of the reply filed 11/18/2025 regarding the rejections of claims 1-2, 4, 9-10, 26, 95, 98-99, and 102 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li ‘350, the rejections of claims 83 and 90 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li ‘350 set forth in the Office Action of 08/11/2025 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the rejections should be withdrawn.
The rejections refer to Compounds p39-2 and p79-2 (see section 14 of the last Office Action), which does not read on the limitations of Formulas IVa to IVg of the amended claims. Thus, the rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments see pages 29-31 of the reply filed 11/18/2025 regarding the rejections of claims 1-2, 4, 10, 26, 95, 97, and 99 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li ‘485, the rejections of claims 83, 90, and 98 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li ’485 set forth in the Office Action of 08/11/2025 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the rejections should be withdrawn.
The rejections refer to Compounds p5-1 (see section 19 of the last Office Action), which does not read on the limitations of Formulas IVa to IVg of the amended claims. Thus, the rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments see pages 29-31 of the reply filed 11/18/2025 regarding the rejections of claims 1-2, 9-10, 26, 83, 95, 98, 100, and 102 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hara, the rejection of claim 90 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara set forth in the Office Action of 08/11/2025 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the rejections should be withdrawn.
The rejections refer to Compounds (100) and (132) (see section 23 of the last Office Action), which does not read on the limitations of Formulas IVa to IVg of the amended claims. Thus, the rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments see pages 29-31 of the reply filed 11/18/2025 regarding the rejections of claims 1-2, 9-10, 26, 83, 95-96, and 99-102 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Han et al. (US 2020/0220089 A1, hereafter Han) and the rejections of claims 4, 90, and 98 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US 2020/0220089 A1) set forth in the Office Action of 08/11/2025 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the rejections should be withdrawn.
The rejections refer to Compound 1 (see section 29 of the last Office Action), which does not read on the limitations of Formulas IVa to IVg of the amended claims. Thus, the rejections are withdrawn.
However, Han teaches Compound 24 ([0174]).
PNG
media_image1.png
240
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Compound 24 has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula IVa.
It is noted that in the Compound 24 of Han the ring comprising Pt-C-C-O-C-C (i.e. the part annotated by Z5’ in the figure above) reads on all the limitations of the ring Z5’ of Applicant’s Formula IVa of the instant claims because the ring is a 6-membered heterocyclic ring.
New grounds of rejections are applied using the Compound 24 of Han.
Claim Objections
Claims 60, 107, and 108 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Applicant recites “wherein rings Z1’ to Z7’ are consecutively fused to each other:” An amendment to “wherein rings Z1’ to Z7’ are fused to each other:” reads better because some rings are not connected to each other in a consecutive order. For example, in Formula IVg, rings Z1’ to Z7’ are connected Z6’-Z7’-Z3’-Z2’-Z1’-Z4’-Z5’ which is not a consecutive order.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 26 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.
Regarding claim 26, Applicant claims structural formulas of ligands each of which comprises a bridge structure (L3)m3. However, Applicant does not provide the definition of m3. It is unclear what is the limitation of the variable m3, rendering this claim indefinite.
For the purpose of prosecution, the Examiner interprets the limitation to mean that m3 is 1.
Claims 2, 4, 9-10, 26, 60, 80-82, and 99-108 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.
Regarding claims 60 and 107-108, Applicant claims structural Formulas IVa through IVg, each of which comprises X9. However, the claims do not provide the definition of X9. It is unclear what is the limitation of the variable X9, rendering this claim indefinite.
For the purpose of prosecution, the Examiner interprets the limitation to mean X9 can be C or N.
Regarding claims 2, 4, 9-10, 26, 80-82, and 99-106, claims 2, 4, 9-10, 26, 80-82, and 99-106 are rejected due to the dependency from claims 60 and 107-108.
Claim 80 is 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.
Regarding claim 80, claim 80 claims structural formulas. However, some structural formulas having an option to choose n to be 0 or 1 (i.e. the 1st through 8th, 13th and 14th structural formulas), do not read on the limitations of Formula IVa through IVg of claim 60. Currently claim 80 is dependent from claim 60. Thus, claim 80 fails to incorporate all the limitation to which it refers.
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 81 is 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.
Regarding claim 81, claim 81 claims structural formulas. However, some of them including the following structural formulas (i.e. the structural formulas on page 11) do not read on the limitations of Formula IVa through IVg of claim 60.
PNG
media_image2.png
161
543
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
517
542
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Currently claim 81 is dependent from claim 60. Thus, claim 81 fails to incorporate all the limitation to which it refers.
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 82 is 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.
Regarding claim 82, claim 82 claims structural formulas. However, some of them including T1, T6, T7, T8, T12, T13, T17, T20, T22, T28, T33, T37, T41, T45, and T46 do not read on the limitations of Formula IVa through IVg of claim 60. Currently claim 82 is dependent from claim 60. Thus, claim 82 fails to incorporate all the limitation to which it refers.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 2, 9-10, 26, 60, 99-102, and 106 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Han et al. (US 2020/0220089 A1, hereafter Han).
Regarding claims 2, 9-10, 26, 60, 99-102, and 106, Han discloses a compound (Formula 1A in [0012]) used for an organic light emitting device ([0005]). Han exemplifies Compound 24 ([0174]).
PNG
media_image1.png
240
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Compound 24 has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula IVa.
It is noted that in the Compound 24 of Han the ring comprising Pt-C-C-O-C-C (i.e. the part annotated by Z5’ in the figure above) reads on all the limitations of the ring Z5’ of Applicant’s Formula IVa of the instant claims because the ring is a 6-membered heterocyclic ring.
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4, 105, and 107-108 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US 2020/0220089 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 105, Han discloses a compound (Formula 1A) used for an organic light emitting device ([0005]). Han exemplifies Compound 24 ([0174]).
PNG
media_image1.png
240
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Compound 24 of Han reads on Applicant’s Formula IVa as outlined above.
The Compound 24 of Han is an example of the Formula 1A of Han ([0012]).
In the Compound 24, the ring corresponding to A2 of Formula 1A of Han is imidazole carbene, which does not read on the limitation of the claim; however, Han does teach that the ring A2 can be pyridine,
PNG
media_image4.png
133
149
media_image4.png
Greyscale
([0074]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound 24 of Han by substituting the unsubstituted imidazole carbene ring at the position corresponding to the ring A2 of Formula 1A of Han with an unsubstituted pyridine, as taught by Han.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Substitution of imidazole carbene with pyridine at the position corresponding to the ring A2 of Formula 1A of Han would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified Compound 24 of Han, wherein the compound has identical structure as Compound 24 of Han except the unsubstituted imidazole carbene ring at the position corresponding to A2 of Formula 1A of Han is substituted by an unsubstituted pyridine.
Regarding claims 107-108, the Compound 24 of Han reads on Applicant’s Formula IVa as outlined above.
Han does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device (OLED) comprising the Compound 24 of Han; however, Han does teach that the compound of Han can be incorporated into an organic light emitting device ([0005], [0033]).
Han teaches the structure of the OLED comprising an anode, an emissive layer, and a cathode ([0033], Example 1 in [0460], Table 2),
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound 24 of Han by incorporating it into the emissive layer of an organic light emitting device, as taught by Han.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Substitution of the light emitting materials in an OLED would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified organic light emitting device of Han comprising an anode, an emissive layer (Compound 24 of Han as an emissive dopant), and a cathode, meeting all the limitations of claim 107.
Han does not disclose a specific consumer product comprising the Modified organic light emitting device of Han; however, Han does teach that the organic light emitting device of Han can be implemented into a consumer product (i.e. organic light emitting apparatus in [0467]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified organic light emitting device of Han by implementing it into a consumer product, as taught by Han.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Substitution of the organic light emitting devices in a consumer product would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides a consumer product comprising the Modified organic light emitting device of Han, meeting all the limitations of claim 108.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEOKMIN JEON whose telephone number is (571)272-4599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm EST.
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.
/SEOKMIN JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786