DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 2, 2025 has been entered.
The claim amendment dated December 2, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 10, 14, 15, 17, and 20 were amended. Claims 3 and 19 were canceled. Claims 21 and 22 were added.
Claims 7 and 16 were withdrawn claims. The election of species requirement is now withdrawn. Claims 1, 2, 4-18, and 20-22 are pending and under consideration.
The rejection of claims 1-6, 8-15, 17, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (US 2016/0359121 A1) in view of CN 111039991 A is withdrawn due to the claim amendment dated December 2, 2025.
The rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (US 2016/0359121 A1) in view of CN 111039991 A, and in further view of Xia et al. (US 2014/0203268 A1) is withdrawn due to the claim amendment dated December 2, 2025.
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 10, 14, and 15 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.
In claim 10 on page 6 of 59 of the 12/02/2025 claim set, the range of “LAi-1 through LAi-66” is recited as defined , but some of this range is not listed in the table immediately following the phrase as some have been deleted (for example, LAi-1 is deleted from the table). Accordingly, the recitation of the ligand range is considered unclear.
In claim 14 (which depends upon claim 10) on page 22 of 59 of the claim, a compound group range “Ir(A1-2)3 to Ir(LA600-66)3” is set forth in the third line of the claim (encompassing corresponding m as 2 through 66), but this recited range includes values corresponding to integer m that are no longer recited. The group ranges recited in the last line of page 22, in the third line of page 23, in the sixth line of page 23, in the ninth line of page 23, in the twelfth line of page 23, and in the fifteenth line of page 23 have similar problems with respect to the recited LA ligand and corresponding integer m no longer recited. Accordingly, the recitation of the ligand range is considered unclear and inconsistent.
Claim 15 depends upon claims 10 and 14 and is also included in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections above.
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 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 recites ligands LA with variables Y and “Z”s defined broadly such that structures not clearly within the proviso of now amended parent claim 1 “ii) ring A is a 6-mambered ring provided that if Y in Formula II is S then at least one of Z1 to Z4 is N” are included within dependent claim 8. Accordingly, claim 8 appears to recites ligands outside the scope of claim 1 upon which claim 8 depends.
Claim 15 recites structures that appear to be outside the scope of the proviso of parent claim 1 “ii) ring A is a 6-mambered ring provided that if Y in Formula II is S then at least one of Z1 to Z4 is N”. In at least the following from claim 15 there is not a corresponding one of Z1 to Z4 as N:
PNG
media_image1.png
190
220
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
170
258
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
186
218
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
Accordingly, claim 15 appears to recite structures outside the scope of a claim upon which the claim depends.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9, 11-13, 16-18, and 20-22 are allowed. The closest prior art is considered to be Ito et al. (US 2016/0359121 A1) discussed in the last office action. Ito et al. fails to teach or to render obvious ligands for forming a metal complex having the specific combination of rings as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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