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 .
Status of Claims and Response to Amendments
The amendments filed May 27, 2026 have been acknowledged and entered. Claims 19-27, 31, and 33-42 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statements
Acknowledgement is made of the Information Disclosure Statement filed on June 29, 2026. All references have been considered except where marked with a strikethrough.
Election/Restriction
The present examination is based on Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (presently claims 19-27, 31, 33, and 36-42, drawn to an iridium complex of Formula (1) or Formula (2)) and the species of Formula (1) (pictured below for convenience) in the reply filed on November 20, 2025. Claims 34-35 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on November 20, 2025.
PNG
media_image1.png
224
496
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant remarks filed May 27, 2026 did not overcome the art rejections set forth in the previous office action. The search has thus been limited the subgenus indicated previously (see pages 3-4 of Office Action mailed January 27, 2026).
Claims 19-27, 31, 36, 38 and 40-42 read on the expanded subgenus.
Claims 33, 37 and 39 (in full) and claims 19-27, 31, 36, 38 and 40-42 (all in part, other than the above indicated subgenus) are additionally withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species.
Withdrawn Rejections
Applicant is notified that any outstanding rejection or objection that is not expressly maintained in this Office Action has been withdrawn or rendered moot in view of Applicant’s amendments and/or
remarks.
Claim Objections
Claims 36 and 42 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 36 recites “CyC is independently selected from CyD-1 to CyD-18” and it is believed the claim should instead recite “CyD is independently selected from CyD-1 to CyD-18”
Claim 42 recites “Formula (I)” and should instead recite “Formula (1)” in order to be consistent with claim 19.
Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Maintained Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 19, 21-27, 31, 36, 38 and 40-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watanabe et al. (US 2014/0252333). The claims read on the compounds disclosed in pages 11-24 of the reference.
The reasons for this rejection were set forth in the previous office action mailed March 5, 2025 are incorporated herein by reference.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed May 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states that as amended, claim 19 requires that "CyD of Lact is substituted by an extension unit comprising an aromatic system with a triplet energy greater than ETJ,L, wherein ETJ,L is the triplet energy of the homoleptic complex Ir(L) 3." The structures of General Formula (A), which require CN or halogenated alkyl do not meet this requirements. Claims 20-27 and 31 are also patentable both because they depend on claim 19 and because of the additional features claimed therein. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection based on Watanabe be withdrawn (page 3 of remarks).
Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reason that Watanabe teaches many additional compounds which meet the required structural limitations of the claims. For instance, Watanabe additionally teaches compound 4-10 (page 17; pictured below for convenience) which corresponds to Formula (1) wherein Lact is to Formula (L-1) wherein CyD of Lact is a heteroaryl group which has 6 aromatic ring members (5 carbon atoms and 1 N atom, i.e. pyridinyl) substituted by an aromatic system (phenyl) and CyC is an aryl group having 6 aromatic ring atoms (6 carbon atoms, i.e. phenyl) substituted with phenyl; each L is the same and corresponds Formula (L-1) wherein CyD of L is an unsubstituted heteroaryl group which has 6 aromatic ring atoms (5 carbon atoms and 1 N atom, i.e. pyridinyl) and CyC is an aryl group having 6 aromatic ring atoms (6 carbon atoms, i.e. phenyl) substituted by an electronically active group (CN).
PNG
media_image2.png
273
266
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Watanabe teaches all structural limitations of Formula (1) and therefore would intrinsically have the claimed properties. Watanabe thus anticipates the claimed invention.
Claims 19-20, 22-27, 31, 36, 38 and 40-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Margulies et al. (US2017/0365801 A1) (herein after “Margulies”).
The reasons for this rejection were set forth in the previous office action mailed January 27, 2026 are incorporated herein by reference.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed May 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states that as amended, claim 19 requires that "L is substituted by an electronically active group or an electronically active group forms a bridge between CyC and CyD ofL." Margulies's compounds do not read on amended claim 19.
Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reason the CD3 group of compound 13 is an electronically active group corresponding to a straight chain alkyl having 1 carbon atom (see claims 38 and 41, the electronically active group is a straight-chain alkyl having 1 to 20 carbon atoms; such a group includes CD3).
PNG
media_image3.png
156
293
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Margulies teaches all structural limitations of Formula (1) and therefore would intrinsically have the claimed properties. Margulies thus anticipates the claimed invention.
Double Patenting
Claims 19-27, 31, 36, 38 and 40-42 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 14-26 of copending Application No. 18/028,770 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are anticipated by the claims of the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 19-27, 31, 36, 38 and 40-42 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 10,340,471 B2 or claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 10,854,835 or claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,631,825 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are anticipated by the claims of the patents.
The reasons for this rejection were set forth in the previous office action mailed January 27, 2026 are incorporated herein by reference.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed May 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant respectfully requests that these rejections be held in abeyance until agreement is reached on patentable subject matter (page 4 of remarks).
This response is found not persuasive since a complete response to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection is either a reply by applicant showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference claims or the filing of a terminal disclaimer in accordance with 37 CFR 1.321 in the pending application(s) with a reply to the Office action (see MPEP § 1490 for a discussion of terminal disclaimers). Such a response is required even when the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is provisional. As filing a terminal disclaimer, or filing a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference application’s claims, is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims, such a filing should not be held in abeyance. Only objections or requirements as to form not necessary for further consideration of the claims may be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated.
The rejection is still deemed proper and maintained.
Rejections Necessitated by Applicant Amendment
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112b
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 19-27, 31, 36, 38 and 40-42 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. The claims are indefinite for the reasons that follow:
Claim 19 recites the term “comprising” (see extension unit comprising). The transitional term "comprising", which is synonymous with "including," "containing," or "characterized by," is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps. See MPEP 2111.03. In the present case, the term “comprising” renders the scope of the claims ambiguous and indefinite because it is unclear what structure is intended by “an extension unit comprising”.
Claims 20-27, 31, 36, 38 and 40-42 depend from claim 19 and include the above mentioned limitation and are therefore are also indefinite.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)270-0917. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 5 pm.
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, Jeffrey Murray can be reached on (571) 272-9023. 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.
July 1, 2026
/K.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1624
/BRUCK KIFLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1624
Prosecution Insights