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 .
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.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on April 22, 2026.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 9 and 14 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Amendments
Applicant's amendments to the claims, filed April 22, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) 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 as set forth in the office action filed February 10, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed April 22, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1 – 5 and 7 – 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen 2 as set forth in the office action filed February 10, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed April 22, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen 2 in view of Jeong as set forth in the office action filed February 10, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Chen 2 fails to provide for the specific combination of substituents associated with Formula 2a and that Chen 2 does not provide any teaching, suggestion or motivation to arrive at the claimed organometallic compound. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The provisos referred to by Applicant are only required when M is Pt. Chen 2 teaches tetradentate organometallic compounds that are Pt or Pd. Therefore, as noted in the rejection below, the compounds of Chen 2, when modified to include a Pd atom, still meet the claimed limitations.
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 5 and 9 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.
Claims 5 and 9 are dependent on claim 1. Claim 1 recites provisos under which a substituent is required to be selected from Formula 2a. Claims 5 and 9 also recite a compound of Formula 2a. However, the definitions for R11, R12 and L11 are different in each of the recitations of Formula 2a. Because the Formulae are numbered the same, this renders the claim indefinite as it is not clear if the definitions of R11 and R12 in claims 5 and 9, which are broader than that of claim 1, are improperly broadening the scope of Formula 2a in claim 1 or what values of the variables in Formula 2a are allowed when.
Examiner recommends either renumbering the Formulae and/or variables or aligning the definitions so that claim 1 contains the broader definitions.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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 1 – 5, 7 – 13, and 15 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen 2 (US20250197717A1).
As per claims 1 – 5, and 7 – 12, Chen 2 teaches:
An organometallic compound represented by Formula 1
PNG
media_image1.png
398
538
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Chen teaches compounds of Formula II
PNG
media_image2.png
158
270
media_image2.png
Greyscale
([0006]). A specific compound within the scope of Formula II taught by Chen 2 is
PNG
media_image3.png
250
256
media_image3.png
Greyscale
on page 33. While this compound does not contain the heteroaryl group substituent required by the claimed Formula, the specific compound above contains a deuterated terphenyl group in the R position. Another option for the R group taught by Chen 2 is R111 on page 18
PNG
media_image4.png
128
270
media_image4.png
Greyscale
. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to replace the deuterated terphenyl group of the compound with R group R111. Furthermore, while this compound is a Platinum compound, Chen 2 teaches that the metallic compound may be Pt or Pd ([0085]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the Pt in the above compound with Pd. When modified in this way, the modified compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein M1 is a metal atom that forms a square planar structure with a tetradentate ligand, namely Pd as required by claim 2; ring A1 is a C7 heterocyclic group, namely an imidazole group as required by claim 3, represented by Formula 2-1(32) in claim 7; ring A2 is a C5 heterocyclic group, namely a pyridine group as required by claim 3, represented by Formula 2-1(1) in claim 7; ring A3 is a C6 carbocyclic group, namely a benzene ring as required by claim 3, represented by Formula 2-2(1) in claim 7; ring A4 is a C6 carbocyclic group, namely a benzene ring as required by claim 3, represented by Formula 2-2(1) in claim 7; a1 is 0 so that ring A1 and A2 are not connected; a2 to a4 are each 1; L2 is *-N(R5)-*; L3 is *-O-*; L4 is a single bond; Y2 is a nitrogen atom and the remaining Y atoms are C; B1 to B4 are chemical bonds; R1 is a substituted C12 heteroaryl group substituted with R10a wherein R10a is a C6 carbocyclic group, wherein R1 corresponds to R29, namely a group represented by Formula 2a wherein R11 and R12 are both a C6 aryl group and L11 is *-O-*; R2 is a C4 alkyl group; R3 is a C1 alkyl group that bonds to R5 to form a ring; R4 is hydrogen; R5 is a C6 aryl group; b1 to b3 are integers of 1; b4 is an integer of 3. The compound is represented by Formula 2 in claim 10. As M1 is Pd, the provisos (1) and (2) do not apply.)
Chen 2 includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Chen 2 being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of narrow FWHM, high PLQY and short excited state lifetime ([0139]), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
As per claim 13, Chen 2 appears silent with respect to the energy level of a triplet metal-centered state of the organometallic compound. However, Chen 2 teaches compounds within the scope of claimed Formula 1 and 2. Therefore, the property of the energy level of a triplet metal-centered state is considered to be inherent (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims.
As per claims 15 – 17, Chen 2 teaches:
A light emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode facing the first electrode and an interlayer between the first electrode and the second electrode and comprising an emission layer ([0091]: “Device 100 may include a substrate 110, an anode 115, a hole injection layer 120, a hole transport layer 125, an electron blocking layer 130, an emissive layer 135, a hole blocking layer 140, an electron transport layer 145, an electron injection layer 150, a protective layer 155, a cathode 160, and a barrier layer 170.”)
Wherein the emission comprises the organometallic compound ([0074]: “In some embodiments of the emissive region, the compound is an emissive dopant or a non-emissive dopant.”)
The emission layer further comprises a host ([0075]: “In some embodiments of the emissive region, the emissive region further comprises a host.”)
Wherein an amount of the organometallic compound included in the emission layer is 0.01 parts by weight to 30 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the emission layer (Host materials are general understood to be the majority of the layer, therefore it is the Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide the dopant material in a minor portion, such as that claimed.)
Chen 2 teaches an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer and the compound is in the organic layer as discussed above. It would have been obvious to use the compound in the organic layer with the device structure of Chen 2 as Chen 2 demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As per claim 18, Chen 2 teaches:
Wherein the emission layer is to emit blue light with a maximum wavelength of about 440 nm or more or about 470 nm or less (In Table 1, the compounds show emission within the claimed range.)
As per claim 19, Chen teaches:
An electronic apparatus comprising the light-emitting device (As an OLED is considered an electronic apparatus, Chen 2 teaches the claimed limitations.)
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen 2 (US20250197717A1) as applied to claims 1 – 5, 7 – 13, 15 – 19 above, and further in view of Jeong (US20170162796A1).
As per claim 20, Chen 2 teaches that organic devices, such as transistors may employ the materials and structure taught ([0100]). Chen 2 does not specifically teach:
Wherein the thin-film transistor comprises a source electrode and a drain electrode
The first electrode of the light-emitting device is electrically connected to the source electrode
Jeong teaches OLED devices (Abstract). Jeong further teaches the OLEDs may be part of an electronic apparatus comprising a thin-film transistor ([0199]). Jeong teaches the thin film transistor includes a gate electrode, a source electrode, an activation layer and a drain electrode ([0203]). Jeong teaches that the first electrode of the OLED is connected to the drain electrode ([0205]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the OLED of Chen 2 in a thin film transistor device with the structure claimed because Jeong teaches this application and device structure was known as predictably suitable for OLED devices prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is allowed
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 6 limits the substituents off of Formula 2a to non-aryl containing groups. None of the prior art suggests or teaches substituents off of the group of Formula 2a that are entirely non-aryl substituents.
Claim 14 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 14 requires one of four specific Pt-based compounds, wherein the group represented by Formula 2a is required to have either deuterium or alkyl substituents. None of the prior art suggests or teaches substituents off of the group of Formula 2a that are entirely non-aryl substituents.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA N CHANDHOK whose telephone number is (571)272-5780. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 6:30 - 3:30.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached on (571) 270-7692. 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.
/JENNA N CHANDHOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights