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 3, 2026.
Claims 1, 3, 5 – 8, 16, 17, 20, 22, 28, 29, and 32 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 4, 9 – 12, 15, 21, 23, 24, and 27 have been cancelled. Claims 2, 13, and 25 have been cancelled previously.
Claims 1, 3, 5 – 8, 14, 16 – 20, 22, 26 – 32 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Amendments
Applicant's amendments to the claims, filed April 3, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1, 3 – 12, 14 – 23, 26 – 30, and 32 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘142 in view of Xia as set forth in the office action filed December 10, 2025. Claims 9 – 12, 15, 21 and 27 have been cancelled.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed April 3, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘142 in view of Xia and further in view of Tsai as set forth in the office action filed December 10, 2025. Claim 24 has been cancelled.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed April 3, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17 – 23, 26, 28 – 30, and 32 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kottas in view of Bae as set forth in the office action filed December 10, 2025. Claims 4, 9, 11, 15, 21, 23, and 27 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 3, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the compounds provided by the present application obtain higher sublimiation yield and a lower evaporation temperature. Applicant also argues that when applied in electroluminescent devices, the compounds provide an improved device lifetime and a narrower full width at half maximum. Applicant provides Table 7 as evidence of these properties. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The difference in FWHM between Metal Complex 13 in Example 4 and GD2 in Comparative Example 4 is 0.4 nm, which does not appear to be a statistically significant improvement. Regarding the sublimation yield in Table 2, Examiner notes that a single species of metal complex has been shown, with a particular bulky C4 group on the ppy ligand. As written, claim 1 does not require a tert-butyl group, and it is not clear from the data that similar results would be seen with straight chain alkyl groups of the same length. Similarly, Examiner notes that the inventive compounds require a phenyl substituent on the dibenzofuran ring, which is also not required by the Formula of claim 1. With regards to the arguments surrounding the unexpectedly improved lifetime values for the inventive compounds as compared to the comparative compounds, Examiner notes that the claims are not commensurate in scope with the data for at least the reason that the properties are the result of the use of a compound in a device with a particular host material, whereas the claims are directed to a compound.
Applicant argues that ‘142 does not disclose a single compound with both of the claimed technical features and that the lists of possible substituents in the ‘142 patent are large and it would not have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to select each of the claimed substituents out of the numerous options allowed by ‘142. Examiner respectfully disagrees. ‘142 teaches a ppy ligand with a tert-butyl group and a dibenzothiophene ligand with a cyano group, so one of ordinary skill would only have had to switch the ppy ligand of J079 with the ppy ligand of J084 to arrive at the claimed compound. Furthermore, Applicant sets forth a chemical formula which similarly encompasses a large number of compounds wherein each variable is selected from many defined possibilities. Just as Applicant sets forth that a person of ordinary skill in the art could form compounds from a disclosed, broadly defined chemical formula including compounds not expressly set forth as the example compounds, the Office submits that one of the same skill in the art would know how to form compounds from the chemical structure formula teaching in ‘142. ‘142’s teachings suggest that each derivative disclosed within the expressly derived formula is predictably functional for use in an EL device as there is no teaching away from any of the compounds within the defined formula.
Applicant argues that the backbone structure of Bae is completely different from the metal complex in Kottas and therefore it would not have been obvious to combine the teachings of Bae with the teachings of Kottas. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kottas defines the variables as being selected from a finite number of potential substitutions including cyano groups. Additionally, as both Kottas and Bae teach bidentate Ir ligands, it would be reasonable to assume that the addition of a cyano group substitution to the structure of Kottas would have a similar effect to the addition of the cyano group in Bae.
Information Disclosure Statements
The references provided in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on December 9, 2025 has been considered. Signed copies of the corresponding 1449 forms have been included with this office action.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 3, 5 – 8, 14, 16 – 20, 22, and 26 – 32 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 6 – 11, 13 – 25, and 27 – 29 of copending Application No. 17/530611 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims overlap in scope with respect to the claimed compounds. The instant application requires an organometallic ligand with a ligands of Formula 1A and Formula 1Ba
PNG
media_image1.png
216
288
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, wherein at least one of the substituents on the X atoms is a cyano and the total of the all the substituents on the U atom represent at least 4 total carbon atoms. Several of the compounds specifically claimed in claim 16 of the ‘611 copending application, including at least compound 361 would read on the claimed formula of the instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 3, 5 – 8, 14, 16 – 20, 22, and 26 – 32 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 17 and 19 – 30 of copending Application No. 17/649239 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims overlap in scope with respect to the claimed compounds. The instant application requires an organometallic ligand with a ligands of Formula 1A and Formula 1Ba (structure shown above), wherein at least one of the substituents on the X atoms is a cyano and the total of the all the substituents on the U atom represent at least 4 total carbon atoms. Several of the compounds specifically claimed in claim 19 of the ‘239 copending application, including at least compound 601 would read on the claimed formula of the instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 3, 5 – 8, 14, 16 – 20, 22, and 26 – 32 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4 – 11 and 13 – 35 of copending Application No. 17/705696 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims overlap in scope with respect to the claimed compounds. The instant application requires an organometallic ligand with a ligands of Formula 1A and Formula 1Ba (structure shown above), wherein at least one of the substituents on the X atoms is a cyano and the total of the all the substituents on the U atom represent at least 4 total carbon atoms. Several of the compounds specifically claimed in claim 13 of the ‘696 copending application, including at least compound GD147 would read on the claimed formula of the instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 3, 5 – 8, 14, 16 – 20, 22, and 26 – 32 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3 – 27 of copending Application No. 17/856067 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims overlap in scope with respect to the claimed compounds. The instant application requires an organometallic ligand with a ligands of Formula 1A and Formula 1Ba (structure shown above), wherein at least one of the substituents on the X atoms is a cyano and the total of the all the substituents on the U atom represent at least 4 total carbon atoms. Several of the compounds specifically claimed in claim 20 of the ‘067 copending application, including at least compound 3 would read on the claimed formula of the instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 3, 5 – 8, 14, 16 – 20, 22, and 26 – 32 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3 – 5, 8 – 18, 20 – 30 of copending Application No. 17/856081 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims overlap in scope with respect to the claimed compounds. The instant application requires an organometallic ligand with a ligands of Formula 1A and Formula 1Ba (structure shown above), wherein at least one of the substituents on the X atoms is a cyano and the total of the all the substituents on the U atom represent at least 4 total carbon atoms. Several of the compounds specifically claimed in claim 20 of the ‘081 copending application, including at least compound 20 would read on the claimed formula of the instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 3, 5 – 8, 14, 16 – 20, 22, and 26 – 32 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 5, 7, 11 – 20, and 23 – 33 of copending Application No. 17/859914 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims overlap in scope with respect to the claimed compounds. The instant application requires an organometallic ligand with a ligands of Formula 1A and Formula 1Ba (structure shown above), wherein at least one of the substituents on the X atoms is a cyano and the total of the all the substituents on the U atom represent at least 4 total carbon atoms. Several of the compounds specifically claimed in claim 23 of the ‘914 copending application, including at least compound 1 would read on the claimed formula of the instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 3, 5 – 8, 14, 16 – 20, 22, and 26 – 32 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 29 of copending Application No. 17/889980 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims overlap in scope with respect to the claimed compounds. The instant application requires an organometallic ligand with a ligands of Formula 1A and Formula 1Ba (structure shown above), wherein at least one of the substituents on the X atoms is a cyano and the total of the all the substituents on the U atom represent at least 4 total carbon atoms. Several of the compounds specifically claimed in claim 21 of the ‘980 copending application, including at least compound 1290 would read on the claimed formula of the instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 3, 5 – 8, 14, 16 – 20, 22, and 26 – 32 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 8, 10 - 31 of copending Application No. 17/989164 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims overlap in scope with respect to the claimed compounds. The instant application requires an organometallic ligand with a ligands of Formula 1A and Formula 1Ba (structure shown above), wherein at least one of the substituents on the X atoms is a cyano and the total of the all the substituents on the U atom represent at least 4 total carbon atoms. Several of the compounds specifically claimed in claim 26 of the ‘164 copending application, including at least compound GD-1 would read on the claimed formula of the instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 3, 5 – 8, 14, 16 – 20, 22, and 26 – 32 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 24 of copending Application No. 17/989201 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims overlap in scope with respect to the claimed compounds. The instant application requires an organometallic ligand with a ligands of Formula 1A and Formula 1Ba (structure shown above), wherein at least one of the substituents on the X atoms is a cyano and the total of the all the substituents on the U atom represent at least 4 total carbon atoms. Several of the compounds specifically claimed in claim 12 of the ‘201 copending application, including at least compound GD-1 would read on the claimed formula of the instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 3, 5 – 8, 14, 16 – 20, 22, and 26 – 32 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 23 of copending Application No. 18/124217 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims overlap in scope with respect to the claimed compounds. The instant application requires an organometallic ligand with a ligands of Formula 1A and Formula 1Ba (structure shown above), wherein at least one of the substituents on the X atoms is a cyano and the total of the all the substituents on the U atom represent at least 4 total carbon atoms. Several of the compounds specifically claimed in claim 18 of the ‘217 copending application, including at least compound 216 would read on the claimed formula of the instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 3, 5 – 8, 14, 16 – 20, 22, and 26 – 32 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 24 of copending Application No. 18/126645 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims overlap in scope with respect to the claimed compounds. The instant application requires an organometallic ligand with a ligands of Formula 1A and Formula 1Ba (structure shown above), wherein at least one of the substituents on the X atoms is a cyano and the total of the all the substituents on the U atom represent at least 4 total carbon atoms. Several of the compounds specifically claimed in claim 19 of the ‘645 copending application, including at least compound 133 would read on the claimed formula of the instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 3, 5 – 8, 14, 16 – 20, 22, and 26 – 32 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 23 of copending Application No. 18/157225 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims overlap in scope with respect to the claimed compounds. The instant application requires an organometallic ligand with a ligands of Formula 1A and Formula 1Ba (structure shown above), wherein at least one of the substituents on the X atoms is a cyano and the total of the all the substituents on the U atom represent at least 4 total carbon atoms. Several of the compounds specifically claimed in claim 18 of the ‘225 copending application, including at least compound 154 would read on the claimed formula of the instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 3, 5 – 8, 14, 16 – 20, 22, and 26 – 32 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, and 9 – 19 of copending Application No. 18/215504 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims overlap in scope with respect to the claimed compounds. The instant application requires an organometallic ligand with a ligands of Formula 1A and Formula 1Ba (structure shown above), wherein at least one of the substituents on the X atoms is a cyano and the total of the all the substituents on the U atom represent at least 4 total carbon atoms. Several of the compounds specifically claimed in claim 12 of the ‘504 copending application, including at least compound GD1 would read on the claimed formula of the instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 3, 5 – 8, 14, 16 – 20, 22, and 26 – 32 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 22 of copending Application No. 18/237579 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims overlap in scope with respect to the claimed compounds. The instant application requires an organometallic ligand with a ligands of Formula 1A and Formula 1Ba (structure shown above), wherein at least one of the substituents on the X atoms is a cyano and the total of the all the substituents on the U atom represent at least 4 total carbon atoms. Several of the compounds specifically claimed in claim 17 of the ‘579 copending application, including at least compound 2061 would read on the claimed formula of the instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 3, 5 – 8, 14, 16 – 20, 22, and 26 – 32 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 17 – 20 of copending Application No. 18/504682 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims overlap in scope with respect to the claimed compounds. The instant application requires an organometallic ligand with a ligands of Formula 1A and Formula 1Ba (structure shown above), wherein at least one of the substituents on the X atoms is a cyano and the total of the all the substituents on the U atom represent at least 4 total carbon atoms. Several of the compounds specifically claimed in claim 20 of the ‘682 copending application, including at least compound GD1 would read on the claimed formula of the instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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, 3, 5 – 8, 14, 16 – 19, 26, and 28 – 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘142 (CN111808142A, using the provided machine translation) in view of Xia (US20100244004A1).
As per claims 1, 8, 14, 16 – 19, and 28 – 30, ‘142 teaches:
A metal complex having a general formula of
PNG
media_image2.png
30
116
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, wherein La has a structure represented by Formula 1A and Lb has a structure represented by Formula 1Ba
PNG
media_image3.png
210
288
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(‘142 teaches compound of Chemical Formula 1
PNG
media_image4.png
270
562
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(Abstract). A specific compound taught by ‘142 is compound J084
PNG
media_image5.png
132
166
media_image5.png
Greyscale
([0020]), which contains the claimed cyano group, but does not specifically teach that the total number of carbon atoms in all of the Ru is at least 4. However, another compound taught by ‘142 is compound J079
PNG
media_image6.png
154
144
media_image6.png
Greyscale
([0020]), wherein on the phenyl-pyridine ligand, the pyridine is substituted with a tert-butyl group. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the phenyl-pyridine ligand of J084 with the tert-butyl group of J079. When compound J084 is modified in this way, the resulting compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein M is Ir, m is 2 and n is 1; La has a structure represented by Formula 1A and Lb has a structure represented by Formula 1Ba; X3 to X8 are selected from C, X7 is selected from CRx wherein Rx is cyano and the remaining Rx are hydrogen; Y1 to Y4 are selected from CRy and one Ry is an unsubstituted alkyl having 3 carbon atoms and the remaining Ry are hydrogen; U1 to U4 are selected from CRu and one Ru is an alkyl group having 4 carbon atoms, namely U2, represented by
PNG
media_image7.png
62
42
media_image7.png
Greyscale
in claim 28 so that the total number of carbon atoms in all of the Ru is at least 4 and the remaining Ru are hydrogen; W1 to W4 are selected from CRw and Rw are hydrogen. The compound is represented by Formula 2 in claim 3. Ligand La is La1 in claim 17. Ligand Lb is Lb966 in claim 18.)
‘142 does not teach a dibenzofuran ligand as currently claimed. However, Xia teaches heteroleptic iridium complexes which include a ligand with a single pyridyl dibenzo-substituted ligand for use as emitting dopants in OLEDs (Abstract). This is a similar structure and use as the compounds of ‘142. In Formula 1, the compound is defined so that the dibenzo group can be either a dibenzofuran or a dibenzothiophene ([0017]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to swap the dibenzothiophene condensed ring system of ‘142 for a dibenzofuran condensed ring system of Xia because Xia teaches the groups are functionally equivalent in heteroleptic iridium complexes for use in OLEDs (Abstract). When modified in this way, the ligand Lb is represented by Lb1 in claim 18.
As per claims 3, and 5 – 7, ‘142 teaches a compound J076
PNG
media_image8.png
174
176
media_image8.png
Greyscale
([0020]), where there is a phenyl substituent on the dibenzothiophene group. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a phenyl substituent to the cyano-substituted dibenzothiophene of compound J084. When modified in this way, the compound has one Rx that is cyano and another one of Rx that is an unsubstituted aryl having 6 carbon atoms (as per claims 5 and 6), namely a phenyl group as required by claim 7.
As per claim 26, ‘142 teaches:
A compound composition containing the metal complex (As no other component is required, the compound of ‘142 above is interpreted as the claimed composition.)
Claims 20, 22, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘142 (CN111808142A, using the provided machine translation) in view of Xia (US20100244004A1) as applied to claims 1, 3, 5 – 8, 14, 16 – 19, 26, and 28 – 30 above, and further in view of Tsai (US20210054010A1).
As per claim 20, ‘142 teaches:
An electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a cathode and an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode, wherein at least one layer of the organic layer contains the metal complex, wherein the organic layer containing the metal complex is a light-emitting layer ([0054]: “An organic electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a cathode, and an intermediate layer disposed between the anode and the cathode; wherein the intermediate layer includes a light emitting layer including the organic phosphorous light emitting compound of chemical formula 1.”)
‘142 does not teach:
Wherein the first host compound has a structure represented by Formula 3
PNG
media_image9.png
152
336
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Tsai teaches organometallic compounds containing a dibenzofuran group in a ligand ([0006]). These compounds are similar in structure to the ligands of ‘142. Tsai further teaches that these compounds can be used in a light emitting layer with a host material, such as
PNG
media_image10.png
136
318
media_image10.png
Greyscale
([0096 – 0099]). This compound reads on the claimed formula wherein Lx is a single bond, all V and T are C and both Ar1 are substituted aryl having 6 carbon atoms.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a host material of Tsai in the device of ‘142 because Tsai teaches that the host material is predictably suitable as a host material for similar Ir-based compounds. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), and MPEP § 2144.07.
As per claim 22, ‘142 is silent with respect to the emission light color. However, since ‘142 teaches substantially the same compound as disclosed by Applicant, the property of light emission color is considered to be inherent, 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 that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP 2112.
As per claim 32, ‘142 teaches:
Wherein the light-emitting layer further contains at least two host compounds, (Since claim 32 requires two host compounds, but does not require that they are different compounds, two molecules of the host material above are interpreted as the claimed two host compounds.)
Claims 1, 8, 14, 17 – 19, 26, and 28 – 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kottas (US20130026452A1) in view of Bae (US20160233440A1).
As per claims 1, 8, 17, and 28 – 30, Kottas teaches:
A metal complex having a general formula of
PNG
media_image2.png
30
116
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, wherein La has a structure represented by Formula 1A and Lb has a structure represented by Formula 1Ba
PNG
media_image3.png
210
288
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Kottas teaches compounds of Formula I
PNG
media_image11.png
210
324
media_image11.png
Greyscale
([0015]). A specific compound taught by Kottas is compound 31 in Table 1 on page 9 wherein R2 is an ethyl group, R3 is a methyl group, R4 is an isopropyl group and R1, R5 and R6 are all hydrogen. This compound reads on the claims wherein M is Ir, m is 2 and n is 1, X is O; X1 to X8 are each CR, Y1 to Y4 are each CRy, U1 to U4 are CRu, W1 to W4 are each CRw; one Ry group is an alkyl having 2 carbon atoms and the remaining R groups are hydrogen. While the compound does not specifically teach that the total number of carbon atoms in all of the Ru is at least 4, Kottas also teaches compound 40 in Table 1, wherein R4 is an isobutyl group, represented by
PNG
media_image12.png
64
66
media_image12.png
Greyscale
in claim 28. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the phenyl-pyridine ligand of compound 31 with the isobutyl group of 40. This compound is represented by Formula 2 in claim 3. The La ligand is La78 in claim 17.)
The specific compound does not teach a cyano substituent as required by the claims. However, the definition for Ra in Kottas lists cyano as an option for Ra ([0015]).
Bae teaches cyano group substitutions on organometallic ligands (Abstract). Bae teaches that by supplying a cyano group substitution to the ligand, the organometallic compound may have a deep HOMO energy level creating high triplet energy levels due to an increased band gap ([0185]). This provides a deep emission color ([0185]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure of a compound taught by Kottas, such as the compound show above, to specifically select a cyano group substituent for Ra from the list of options for Ra provided by Kottas, motivated by the desire to predictably produce an organometallic compound with high triplet energy level and deep emission color as taught by Bae ([0185]).
Kottas includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Kottas 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 compounds with improved OLED properties, including saturated green emission (Abstract), 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 14, Kottas teaches compound 46, wherein R4 is an isobutyl group and R5 is a methyl group. R3 and R6 correspond to U1 and U4 and are both hydrogen, meeting the limitations of claim 14.
As per claims 18 and 19, Kottas teaches compound 181, wherein R1 and R2 are both methyl groups. When the compound is modified by a cyano group, it reads on ligands Lb957. When this ligand is combined with the La of compound La78 above, the compound reads on claim
As per claim 26, Kottas teaches:
A compound composition containing the metal complex (As no other component is required, the compound of Kottas above is interpreted as the claimed composition.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 31 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 31, ‘142 is considered relevant to the claimed invention. While ‘142 teaches bidentate Ir-based compounds with similar structures to those claimed, the compounds of ‘142 are limited to dibenzothiophene compounds, which differs from the particularly claimed compounds in claim 31. Kottas and Bae are also considered relevant to the claimed invention. While the combination of Kottas and Bae teach bidentate Ir-based compounds with similar structure to those claimed, the combination of Kottas and Bae does not provide sufficient teaching, suggestion or motivation to arrive at the particularly claimed compounds in claim 31.
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