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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/9/2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “(ii) least one of R1-R3”. Applicants are advised to amend this phrase to recite “(ii) at least one of R1-R3”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 17 recites “(ii) least one of R1-R3”. Applicants are advised to amend this phrase to recite “(ii) at least one of R1-R3”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 20 recites “(ii) least one of R1-R3”. Applicants are advised to amend this phrase to recite “(ii) at least one of R1-R3”. 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 2, 10, and 22 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “each of RA and R1-R4 is independently a hydrogen or a substituent selected from the group consisting of deuterium, fluorine, alkyl, cycloalkyl,….” which renders the scope of the claim indefinite for the following reasons. Claim 2, depends from claim 1, and claim 1 requires that at least one of R1-R4 is an electron-withdrawing group and at least proviso (i) or (ii) is true, i.e. at least one of R1-R3 is a 5- or 6-membered aryl or heteroaryl ring that is further fused to form a fused ring structure, and at least one of R1-R3 is a 5- or 6-membered carbocyclic or heterocyclic ring that is further fused or further substituted by least one moiety selected from the group consisting of deuterium, halogen, etc.. Thus, claim 1 has certain requirements for R1-R4. However, in claim 2 one could choose each of R1 to R4 to be hydrogen or deuterium, and such a selection would not meet the requirements for R1 to R4 recited in claim 1. Accordingly, it is unclear how one of simultaneously have R1 to R4 be hydrogen in claim 2 and still meet the above requirements for R1 to R4 recited in claim 1.
Claim 10, Page 41 recites G1, i.e.
PNG
media_image1.png
66
62
media_image1.png
Greyscale
;
however, the table in the claim does not recite an LA ligand containing G1. Accordingly, it is unclear why the claim recites G1 when the table does not recite a ligand comprising G1.
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.
Claim 3 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.
Claim 3 recites that ligand LA has a structure of Formula III:
PNG
media_image2.png
180
144
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
which fails to limit the scope of the parent claim for the following reasons. Claim 3 depends from claim 1, and claim 1 recites formula I as:
PNG
media_image3.png
162
108
media_image3.png
Greyscale
where ring A1 may or may not be present. Accordingly, Formula I in claim 1 encompasses two (2) embodiments, i.e. either ring A1 is present or ring A1 is not present, and these two (2) embodiments are exactly the two (2) embodiments recited in claim 3. Accordingly, claim 3 does not further limit the scope of the parent claim, and therefore, the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112 (d) have not been met.
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
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, 9, 12, 14, 17-18, 20, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Watanabe et al (US 2014/0252333).
Regarding claim 1, Watanabe et al discloses the following organometallic complex (Page 15 – 3-6):
PNG
media_image4.png
244
364
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
This compound comprises a ligand corresponding to ligand LA represented by Formula I:
PNG
media_image5.png
330
204
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
where:
ring A is benzene, i.e. a 6-membered carbocyclic ring;
ring A1 is not present;
RA is hydrogen;
R1, R2 and R4 are H;
R3 is a phenyl substituted cyano group, i.e. an electron-withdrawing group. This phenyl group meets the requirements that at least one or R1 to R4 is an electron-withdrawing group, and further meets proviso (ii) of the claims, i.e. R3 is a 6-memebered aryl group substituted by a nitrile group; and
the ligand is coordinated to the metal Ir.
Regarding claim 2, Watanabe et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, RA is hydrogen; R1, R2 and R4 are H; and R3 is a phenyl substituted cyano group, i.e. an aryl substituted with a cyano group.
Regarding claim 3, Watanabe et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the reference discloses a ligand corresponding to Formula III:
PNG
media_image6.png
348
250
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Watanabe et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, R3 is a 6-membered aromatic ring meeting condition (ii) of the claims.
Regarding claim 9, Watanabe et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, ligand LA corresponds to the recited ligand:
PNG
media_image7.png
208
156
media_image7.png
Greyscale
,
where X is CR, and R represents hydrogen and C1 alkyls.
Regarding claim 12, Watanabe et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the compound disclosed by the reference has the formulas M(LA)p(LB)q(LC)r, where p is one (1); q is two (2); and r is zero (0).
Regarding claim 14, Watanabe et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, in the compound disclosed by the reference ligand LB corresponds to:
PNG
media_image8.png
198
88
media_image8.png
Greyscale
,
where Ra is a methyl group; and Rb is hydrogen
Regarding claim 26, Watanabe al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, R3 is a 6-membered carbocyclic ring, i.e. phenyl, substituted with a nitrile group, thereby meeting position (ii) of the claims.
Regarding claim 17, Watanabe et al discloses an organic light emitting device comprising an anode a cathode, and an organic layer disposed between the anode and cathode ([0014]). The organic layer comprises the following organometallic complex ([0015 Page 15 – 3-6):
PNG
media_image4.png
244
364
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
This compound comprises a ligand corresponding to ligand LA represented by Formula I:
PNG
media_image5.png
330
204
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
where:
ring A is benzene, i.e. a 6-membered carbocyclic ring;
ring A1 is not present;
RA is hydrogen;
R1, R2 and R4 are H;
R3 is a phenyl substituted cyano group, i.e. an electron-withdrawing group. This phenyl group meets the requirements that at least one or R1 to R4 is an electron-withdrawing group, and further meets proviso (ii) of the claims, i.e. R3 is a 6-memebered aryl group substituted by a nitrile group; and
the ligand is coordinated to the metal Ir.
Regarding claim 18, Watanabe et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the organic layer comprises a dibenzofuran, dibenzothiophene, or carbazole host compounds ([0186]-[0187]):
Regarding claim 20, Watanabe et al discloses an organic light emitting device, i.e. a consumer product, comprising an anode a cathode, and an organic layer disposed between the anode and cathode ([0014]). The organic layer comprises the following organometallic complex ([0015 Page 15 – 3-6):
PNG
media_image4.png
244
364
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
This compound comprises a ligand corresponding to ligand LA represented by Formula I:
PNG
media_image5.png
330
204
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
where:
ring A is benzene, i.e. a 6-membered carbocyclic ring;
ring A1 is not present;
RA is hydrogen;
R1, R2 and R4 are H;
R3 is a phenyl substituted cyano group, i.e. an electron-withdrawing group. This phenyl group meets the requirements that at least one or R1 to R4 is an electron-withdrawing group, and further meets proviso (ii) of the claims, i.e. R3 is a 6-memebered aryl group substituted by a nitrile group; and
the ligand is coordinated to the metal Ir.
In light of the above, it is clear that Watanabe et al anticipates the presently recited claims.
Claims 1-3, 6, 9, 12, 14, 17, 20, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a2) as being anticipated by Lee et al (US 2022/0102652).
Regarding claim 1, Lee et al discloses the following organometallic complex (Page 124 – 486):
PNG
media_image9.png
288
378
media_image9.png
Greyscale
.
This compound comprises a ligand corresponding to ligand LA represented by Formula I:
PNG
media_image5.png
330
204
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
where:
ring A is benzene, i.e. a 6-membered carbocyclic ring;
ring A1 is a 5-membered carbocyclic ring;
RA represents two (2) alkenyl substituents that are joined to form a ring;
R1 and R4 are H;
R2 is F, i.e. an electron-withdrawing group;
R3 is a 6-membered carbocyclic ring, i.e. phenyl, substituted with three (3) alkyl moieties, thereby meeting position (ii) of the claims, i.e. at least one of R1 to R4 is a 6-membered carbocyclic or heterocyclic group further substituted with an alkyl; and
the ligand is coordinated to the metal Ir.
Regarding claim 2, Lee et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, RA represents two (2) alkenyl substituents; R1 and R4 are H; R2 is F, and R3 is a phenyl group, i.e. an aryl substituted with three (3) alkyl moieties.
Regarding claim 3, Lee et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the reference discloses a ligand corresponding to Formula III:
PNG
media_image6.png
348
250
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Lee et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, R3 is a 6-membered carbocyclic ring, i.e. phenyl, substituted with three (3) alkyl moieties, thereby meeting position (ii) of the claims.
Regarding claim 9, Lee et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the ligand LA corresponds to the recited ligand:
PNG
media_image7.png
208
156
media_image7.png
Greyscale
,
where X is CR, and R represents hydrogen and C1 alkyls.
Regarding claim 12, Lee et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the compound disclosed by the reference has the formulas M(LA)p(LB)q(LC)r, where p is one (1); q is two (2); and r is zero (0).
Regarding claim 14, Lee et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, in the compound disclosed by the reference ligand LB corresponds to:
PNG
media_image8.png
198
88
media_image8.png
Greyscale
,
where Ra is a silyl substituted with three (3) alkyls groups; and Rb is hydrogen
Regarding claim 26, Lee et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, R3 is a 6-membered carbocyclic ring, i.e. phenyl, substituted with three (3) alkyl moieties, thereby meeting position (ii) of the claims.
Regarding claim 17, Lee et al discloses an organic light emitting device comprising first and second electrodes ([0041]), i.e. an anode and a cathode, and an organic layer disposed between the electrode ([0041]). The organic layer comprising the following organometallic complex ([0041] and Page 124 – 486):
PNG
media_image9.png
288
378
media_image9.png
Greyscale
.
This compound comprises a ligand corresponding to ligand LA represented by Formula I:
PNG
media_image5.png
330
204
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
where:
ring A is benzene, i.e. a 6-membered carbocyclic ring;
ring A1 is a 5-membered carbocyclic ring;
RA represents two (2) alkenyl substituents that are joined to form a ring;
R1 and R4 are H;
R2 is F, i.e. an electron-withdrawing group;
R3 is a 6-membered carbocyclic ring, i.e. phenyl, substituted with three (3) alkyl moieties, thereby meeting position (ii) of the claims, i.e. at least one of R1 to R4 is a 6-membered carbocyclic or heterocyclic group further substituted with an alkyl; and
the ligand is coordinated to the metal Ir.
Regarding claim 20, Lee et al discloses an organic light emitting device, i.e. a consumer product, comprising first and second electrodes ([0041]), i.e. an anode and a cathode, and an organic layer disposed between the electrode ([0041]). The organic layer comprising the following organometallic complex (([0041] and Page 124 – 486):
PNG
media_image9.png
288
378
media_image9.png
Greyscale
.
This compound comprises a ligand corresponding to ligand LA represented by Formula I:
PNG
media_image5.png
330
204
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
where:
ring A is benzene, i.e. a 6-membered carbocyclic ring;
ring A1 is a 5-membered carbocyclic ring;
RA represents two (2) alkenyl substituents that are joined to form a ring;
R1 and R4 are H;
R2 is F, i.e. an electron-withdrawing group;
R3 is a 6-membered carbocyclic ring, i.e. phenyl, substituted with three (3) alkyl moieties, thereby meeting position (ii) of the claims, i.e. at least one of R1 to R4 is a 6-membered carbocyclic or heterocyclic group further substituted with an alkyl; and
the ligand is coordinated to the metal Ir.
In light of the above, it is clear that Lee et al anticipates the presently recited claims.
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 of this title, 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:
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 4-5, 7, 18, 25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 2022/0102652).
The discussion with respect to Lee et al as set forth in Paragraph 16 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 4, Lee et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the reference discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image9.png
288
378
media_image9.png
Greyscale
.
This compound does not possess a cyano electron-withdrawing group as required by the present claim. However, the compound disclosed by the reference is but one embodiment, and attention is directed to Formula 2A ([0060]):
PNG
media_image10.png
220
276
media_image10.png
Greyscale
,
where R1 can be a cyano group instead of fluorine ([0074]).
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed compound nor can the claimed compound be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed compound and the compound disclosed by the reference, absent a showing of criticality for the presently claimed compound, it is urged that it would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the compound which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 5, Lee et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the reference discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image9.png
288
378
media_image9.png
Greyscale
.
This compound does not possess a cyano electron-withdrawing group as required by the present claim. However, the compound disclosed by the reference is but one embodiment, and attention is directed to Formula 2A ([0060]):
PNG
media_image10.png
220
276
media_image10.png
Greyscale
,
where R1 can be a cyano group instead of fluorine ([0074]).
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed compound nor can the claimed compound be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed compound and the compound disclosed by the reference, absent a showing of criticality for the presently claimed compound, it is urged that it would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the compound which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7, Lee et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the reference discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image9.png
288
378
media_image9.png
Greyscale
.
In this compound R1 is hydrogen and not a cyano group as required by the present claim. However, the compound disclosed by the reference is but one embodiment, and attention is directed to Formula 2A ([0060]):
PNG
media_image10.png
220
276
media_image10.png
Greyscale
,
where b1 can be an integer from [0-20] ([0027]); and R1 can be a cyano group ([0074]).
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed compound nor can the claimed compound be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed compound and the compound disclosed by the reference, absent a showing of criticality for the presently claimed compound, it is urged that it would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the compound which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 18, Lee et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses that the organic layer, i.e. the light emitting layer (EML) comprises 4,4'-N,N'-dicarbazole-biphenyl (CBP), and therefore, the host compound comprises a carbazole moiety ([0127]-[0129])
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed organic light emitting device nor can the claimed organic light emitting device be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed organic light emitting device and the organic light emitting device disclosed by the reference, absent a showing of criticality for the presently claimed host compound, it is urged that it would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the host compound which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 25, Lee et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the reference discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image9.png
288
378
media_image9.png
Greyscale
.
In this compound R3 is not a 6-membered carbocyclic ring that is further fused to form a ring structure as required by the present claims. However, the compound disclosed by the reference is but one embodiment, and attention is directed to Formula 2A ([0060]):
PNG
media_image10.png
220
276
media_image10.png
Greyscale
,
where Z1 can the following ([0147] and Page 22 – Formula 10-237):
PNG
media_image11.png
172
126
media_image11.png
Greyscale
,
where one hydrogen is substituted with a fluoro group ([0147]).
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed compound nor can the claimed compound be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed compound and the compound disclosed by the reference, absent a showing of criticality for the presently claimed compound, it is urged that it would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the compound which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 27, Lee et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the reference discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image9.png
288
378
media_image9.png
Greyscale
.
In this compound R3 is not a 6-membered carbocyclic ring substituted by a fused aryl as required by the present claims. However, the compound disclosed by the reference is but one embodiment, and attention is directed to Formula 2A ([0060]):
PNG
media_image10.png
220
276
media_image10.png
Greyscale
,
where Z1 can the following ([0147] and Page 20 – Formula 10-204):
PNG
media_image12.png
242
186
media_image12.png
Greyscale
,
where one hydrogen is substituted with a fluoro group ([0147]).
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed compound nor can the claimed compound be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed compound and the compound disclosed by the reference, absent a showing of criticality for the presently claimed compound, it is urged that it would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the compound which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-10, 12, 14, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwong et al (US 2004/0214038).
Regarding claim 1, Kwong et al discloses an organometallic complex comprising the following ligand ([0030]):
PNG
media_image13.png
380
386
media_image13.png
Greyscale
.
where M is Ir ([0032] and [0098]): ring A is benzene, i.e. a 6-membered carbocyclic ring; R1 to R4 and R9 to R12 can be H, F, CN or R ([0034]), where R is C5-40 aryl ([0035]); and therefore, the C5-40 aryl encompasses benzene, i.e. a C6 aryl. Furthermore, the aryl can be substituted by a substituent X, where X is F or CN ([0035]-[0036]).
This compound comprises a ligand corresponding to ligand LA represented by Formula I:
PNG
media_image5.png
330
204
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
where:
ring A is benzene, i.e. a 6-membered carbocyclic ring;
RA is H;
R1 is F or CN (a nitrile or a cyano group), i.e. an electron withdrawing group;
R2 is H;
R4 is H; and
R3 is benzene, i.e. a 6-membered carbocyclic ring substituted by a fluorine or cyano group, thereby, meeting provision (ii) of the claims, i.e. at least one of R1 to R3 is a 5-membered or 6-membered carbocyclic ring which is further substituted with a halogen; and
the ligand is coordinated to the metal Ir.
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed compound nor can the claimed compound be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed compound and the compound disclosed by the reference, absent a showing of criticality for the presently claimed compound, it is urged that it would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the compound which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Kwong et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, RA is H; R1 is H; R2 is F or CN, i.e. a nitrile group; R3 is a combination of benzene and fluorine, i.e. an aryl; and R4 is H.
Regarding claim 4, Kwong et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the electron-withdrawing group is CN.
Regarding claim 5, Kwong et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the electron-withdrawing group is CN, i.e. a cyano group.
Regarding claim 6, Kwong et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, R3 is benzene substituted with CN or fluorine, thereby meeting provision (ii) of the claims.
Regarding claim 7, Kwong et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, R1 is a cyano group.
Regarding claim 9, Kwong et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the ligand corresponds to the recited ligand:
PNG
media_image14.png
216
168
media_image14.png
Greyscale
where X is C.
Regarding claim 10, Kwong et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, in the compound:
PNG
media_image13.png
380
386
media_image13.png
Greyscale
,
R1 and R3 can be a C1 alkyl ([0034]-[0035]).
From the discussion above, the ligand disclosed by the reference corresponds to the recited ligand LAi-1:
PNG
media_image15.png
128
156
media_image15.png
Greyscale
,
where RF is H (RF1); Re is CN (R1’) and G is G2:
PNG
media_image16.png
90
110
media_image16.png
Greyscale
,
thereby, corresponding to ligand LA1-1 of the claims.
Regarding claim 12, Kwong et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, in the compound:
PNG
media_image13.png
380
386
media_image13.png
Greyscale
,
m is [1-3] ([0038]); and n is [0-2]. Accordingly, the reference discloses a compound with the formula M(LA)p(LB)q(LC)r, where p is [1-3]; q is [0-2]; and r is zero (0).
Regarding claim 14, Kwong et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, in the compound:
PNG
media_image13.png
380
386
media_image13.png
Greyscale
,
(A1-A2) is the ligand ([0042]):
PNG
media_image17.png
122
104
media_image17.png
Greyscale
.
This ligand corresponds to the ligand:
PNG
media_image18.png
144
136
media_image18.png
Greyscale
Ra1 and Rc1 are methyl groups and Rb1 is H.
Regarding claim 22, Kwong et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, in the formula:
PNG
media_image13.png
380
386
media_image13.png
Greyscale
,
m is [1-3] and n is [0-2] ([0038]-[0039]). Accordingly, the reference discloses a compound with the formula Ir(LA)3.
Regarding claim 23, Kwong et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, in the formula:
PNG
media_image13.png
380
386
media_image13.png
Greyscale
,
R1 and R2 can form a fused 4- to 7-membered cyclic group such as an aryl ([0010]). Accordingly, R1 and R2 can join to form a fused benzene ring. R3 can be an alkyl such as tert-butyl ([0010] and [0109]). The substituent R4 can be a C6 aryl substituted by X ([0035]), where X is R’, and R’ can be a C1-20 alkyl ([0037]). The alkyl is defined a straight or branched chain alkyl containing 1 to 15 carbon atoms ([0109]) which can be further substituted by with one or more halogens such as fluorine ([0109]). In light of the above, the disclosure of the reference encompasses ligand LA1021-1 of the claims:
PNG
media_image19.png
200
172
media_image19.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 24, Kwong et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, in the formula:
PNG
media_image13.png
380
386
media_image13.png
Greyscale
,
R1 and R2 can form a fused 4- to 7-membered cyclic group such as an aryl ([0010]). Accordingly, R1 and R2 can join to form a fused benzene ring. R3 can be an alkyl such as tert-butyl ([0010] and [0109]). R4 can be a C6 aryl substituted by X ([0035]), where X is R’, and R’ can be a C1-20 alkyl ([0037]). The alkyl is defined a straight or branched chain alkyl containing 1 to 15 carbon atoms ([0109]) which can be further substituted by with one or more halogens such as fluorine ([0109]).
The ligand (A1-A2) can be the ligand acac ([0042]):
PNG
media_image20.png
116
76
media_image20.png
Greyscale
,
where the acac ligand can be substituted with one or more of an alkyl, e.g. a C1 alkyl ([0043] and [0109]). Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses an embodiment where the acac ligand is substituted with four (4) C1 alkyls, and therefore, the reference discloses the compound:
PNG
media_image21.png
228
298
media_image21.png
Greyscale
.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/9/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In light of the amendments to the claims, the claim objections and the 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) and (b) rejections set forth in the previous Office Action are withdrawn. Furthermore, in light of the amendments to the claims, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of the claims over Fukuzaki and Kim, as set forth in the previous Office Action are withdrawn.
Regarding Kwong et al, Applicants argue that one should consider the actual compound disclosed by the reference, i.e. the specific general structures in the reference have phenyl-quinoline and phenyl-isoquinoline bases. However, while the reference may disclose specific structures comprising phenyl-quinoline and phenyl-isoquinoline bases, the fact remains that the reference discloses the general formula:
PNG
media_image13.png
380
386
media_image13.png
Greyscale
.
where M is Ir’ ring A is benzene; R1 to R4 and R9 to R12 can be H, F, CN or R, where R is C5-40 aryl ([0035]); and the aryl can be substituted by a substituent X, where X is F or CN. To that end it is noted that “applicant must look to the whole reference for what it teaches. Applicant cannot merely rely on the examples and argue that the reference did not teach others.” In re Courtright, 377 F.2d 647, 153 USPQ 735,739 (CCPA 1967).
Applicants argue that the claims have been amended to recites that “no two adjacent one of R1, R2, R3, or R4 are joined or fused to form a ring” which would exclude the phenylquinoline and phenylisoquinoline ligands. However, as discussed above, the reference the general formula:
PNG
media_image13.png
380
386
media_image13.png
Greyscale
,
and in this formula adjacent substituents are not requires to join to form a fused ring.
Applicants point to MPEP 2144.08 3 (C) which states the following:
In making an obviousness determination, Office personnel should consider the number of variables which must be selected or modified, and the nature and significance of the differences between the prior art and the claimed invention. See, e.g., In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 350, 21 USPQ2d 1941, 1943 (Fed. Cir. 1992)
and
Similarly, consider any teaching or suggestion in the reference of a preferred species or subgenus that is significantly different in structure from the claimed species or subgenus. Such a teaching may weigh against selecting the claimed species or subgenus and thus against a determination of obviousness. Baird, 16 F.3d at 382-83, 29 USPQ2d at 1552
However, it is the Examiner’s position, absent evidence to the contrary that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to selected any of the substituents disclosed by the reference, and thereby, arrive at the instantly claimed compound with a reasonable expectation of success. Furthermore, it is the Examiner’s position that while the reference may prefer certain substituents, the fact remains that the general teaching of the reference discloses substituents encompassed by the present claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER C. KOLLIAS whose telephone number is (571)-270-3869. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM – 5:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Boyd can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER C KOLLIAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights