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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 29, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on January 29, 2026.
Claims 1, 4, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 25 and 27 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 2, 3, 12, and 16 have been canceled. Claim 5 has been cancelled previously.
Claims 1, 4, 6 – 11, 13 – 25, and 27 – 29 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references provided in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on March 9, 2026 have been considered. Signed copies of the corresponding 1449 forms have been included with this office action.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed January 29, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1 – 4, 6 – 20, and 22 – 28 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘142 in view of Xia as set forth in the office action filed November 3, 2025.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed January 29, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 21 and 29 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 November 3, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 29, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that compared to GD2 with fluorine substitution at a non-claimed position, metal complexes 4 and 14 of the instant application redshifts the maximum emission wavelength by nearly 20nm and narrows the full width at half maximum by 18.5 nm and 23.0 nm respectively. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Compound GD3, which contains two CD3 substituents and no fluorine substituents, has a similar maximum emission wavelength and FWHM as compared to metal complexes 4 and 14. Therefore, it is not clear that the properties are necessarily the result of the claimed Formula, as it appears that two substituents in the Y2 and Y3 positions provide similar results, even when there is no fluorine. Examiner also notes that the claims do not require the second substituent on the pyridine ring, as is present in both the inventive Examples.
Applicant argues that the comparison between the Examples and Comparative Examples shows that device containing the inventive compounds provide excellent effect. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The data shown in Table 2 is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention for at least the reasons that the claims are directed to a compound whereas the data is shown for the use of a compound in a device in an emission layer with a specific combination of host materials. Additionally, while the data shown in the table with respect to the voltage and EQE shows that the values of the two example compounds have lower voltage and higher EQE, the range of the values in the entire table is quite narrow, which a difference of only 0.07 volts between the worse of the two inventive examples and best performing comparative example, and an efficiency difference of less than 1% between the worse of the two inventive examples and best performing comparative example. It is not clear that such a small difference in values amounts to something “unexpectedly superior.” Examiner notes that there is a much larger absolute difference in efficiency values between Examples 1 – 4 (2.38%) than between the worst performing inventive examples and best performing comparative example (0.75%).
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, 4, 6 – 11, 13 – 25, and 27 – 29 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 as evidenced by compound La1 in claim 17, ligands within the scope of the copending ‘645 application contain a fluorine substituent on the pyridine ring and a cyano group on the dibenzofuran group, which is a species of the genus formula in the instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 4, 6 – 11, 13 – 25, and 27 – 29 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 25 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 as evidenced by compound Lb1-46 in claim 18, ligands within the scope of the copending ‘067 application contain a fluorine substituent on the pyridine ring and a cyano group on the dibenzofuran group, which is a species of the genus formula in the instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 4, 6 – 11, 13 – 25, and 27 – 29 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 15 and 17 – 27 of copending Application No. 17/659967 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because as evidenced by compound La442 in claim 14, ligands within the scope of the copending ‘967 application contain a fluorine substituent on the pyridine ring and a cyano group on the dibenzofuran group, which is a species of the genus formula in the instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 4, 6 – 11, 13 – 25, and 27 – 29 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 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 as evidenced by compound GD57 in claim 12, ligands within the scope of the copending ‘504 application contain a fluorine substituent on the pyridine ring and a cyano group on the dibenzofuran group, which is a species of the genus formula in the instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 4, 6 – 11, 13 – 25, and 27 – 29 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 as evidenced by compound GD57 in claim 12, ligands within the scope of the copending ‘201 application contain a fluorine substituent on the pyridine ring and a cyano group on the dibenzofuran group, which is a species of the genus formula in 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, 4, 6 – 11, 13 – 20, 22 – 25, 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘142 (CN111808142A, using the previously provided machine translation) and further in view of Xia (US20100244004A1).
As per claims 1, 4, 6 – 10, and 24, ‘142 teaches:
A metal complex having a general formula of
PNG
media_image1.png
234
392
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(‘142 teaches compound of Chemical Formula 1
PNG
media_image2.png
270
562
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Abstract). A specific compound taught by ‘142 is compound J084
PNG
media_image3.png
132
166
media_image3.png
Greyscale
([0020]), which contains the claimed cyano group, but does not specifically show a fluorine atom in the claimed position. However, another compound taught by ‘142 is compound J087
PNG
media_image4.png
124
128
media_image4.png
Greyscale
([0020]), where the ligand contains the fluorine group. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the phenyl ring in the phenyl-dibenzothiophene ligand of J084 with a fluorine group of J087. When compound J084 is modified in this way, the resulting compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein M is Ir, m is 1; X1 to X6 and X8 are selected from C, X7 is selected from CRx wherein Rx is cyano; Y1 to Y4 are selected from CRy and wherein two Ry are hydrogen, one Ry is a fluorine, namely the Ry for Y3 and one Ry is a C3 alkyl group, namely the Ry for Y2; Lb is represented by
PNG
media_image5.png
154
90
media_image5.png
Greyscale
in claim 3, wherein Ra and Rb are hydrogen.)
‘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 heterolpetic iridium complexes for use in OLEDs (Abstract).
As per claims 11 and 25, the modified compound above does not show a second substituent on the condensed ring group. However, in the definitions of R, R is taught to be selected from several non-hydrogen options. Furthermore, compounds, such as compound J071
PNG
media_image6.png
196
214
media_image6.png
Greyscale
contain multiple substituents on the condensed ring group. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill int art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a second substituent, such as deuterium, on the dibenzothiophene ring and arrive at the claimed compound.
As per claim 13, the modified compound above does not teach a substituent in the R2, R3, R6, or R7 positions. However, in the definitions for R in ‘142, several nonhydrogen substituents are listed as options. Additionally, ‘142 teaches compounds with multiple substituents on the phenyl-pyridine ligand, such as J002
PNG
media_image7.png
130
144
media_image7.png
Greyscale
. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the phenyl pyridine ligand of the compound above to include nonhydrogen substituents and arrive at the claimed ligand.
As per claims 14, 15 and 27, the only difference from the above modified compound and compound La34
PNG
media_image8.png
164
136
media_image8.png
Greyscale
is that the tert butyl group in La34 is an isopropyl group in the modified compound. However, in the definitions for R, they include C1 – C8 alkyl groups and ‘142 teaches compounds with tert-butyl substitutions, such as J079
PNG
media_image9.png
188
178
media_image9.png
Greyscale
. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the isopropyl group of the modified compound to a tert-butyl group and arrive at the claimed ligand. Ligand Lb is Lb1 in claim 15, therefore, when the alkyl groups are substituted, the compound meets the claim limitations of claim 27.
As per claim 16, when the alkyl group of the modified compound above is removed so that the pyridine ring is the same as that in compound J087, the ligand is the same as ligand La2
PNG
media_image10.png
156
124
media_image10.png
Greyscale
and the compound is the same as claimed complex 2.
As per claims 17 and 18, ‘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.”)
As per claim 19, ‘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 20, 22, and 28 ‘142 teaches:
Wherein the light-emitting layer further contains at least one first host compound and one second host compound, wherein the metal complex is doped in the host compound and the weight of the metal complex accounts for 1% to 30% of the total weight of the light-emitting layer ([0153]: “EML (light-emitting layer): a host material CBP… and a doping material J010 are mixed and evaporated at a weight ratio of 90:10 for 30nm to form a light-emitting layer.” As the claim requires a first host compound and a second host compound, but does not require that the compounds are different, both of the host compounds are interpreted as being CBP and ‘142 meets the claimed limitations.)
As per claim 23, ‘142 teaches:
A compound composition containing the metal complex (The emission layer is interpreted as the compound composition.)
Claims 21 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘142 (CN111808142A, using the previously provided machine translation) and further in view of Xia (US20100244004A1) as applied to claims 1, 4, 6 – 11, 13 - 20, 22 – 25, 27 and 28 above, and further in view of Tsai (US20210054010A1).
As per claims 21 and 29, ‘142 does not teach:
Wherein the first host compound has a structure represented by Formula 3
PNG
media_image11.png
152
336
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Tsai teaches organometallic compounds containing a dibenzothiophene 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_image12.png
136
318
media_image12.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. This compound is of formula 3-h in claim 29.
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.
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
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