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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/25/2025 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of species (A1) a compound of Formula I, wherein M is Ir; and (B4) X is O, S, or Se in the reply filed on 2/25/2021 is acknowledged.
Upon further consideration, the species election (B1) through (B4) are merged to a single species (B1’). It is noted that the requirement of species election for (A1)-(A2) is maintained.
Applicant's election is now equated with (A1) a compound of Formula I, wherein M is Ir; and (B1’) X is BR’, CR’R”, SiR’R”, GeR’R”, SnR’R”, NR’, PR’, SbR’, BiR’, O, S, or Se.
Claim 16 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 11/25/2025 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 3, 7, 18-19 have been canceled.
Claims 21-24 have been added.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-17, and 20-24 are pending.
Claim 16 has been withdrawn.
Claims 1, 10, 15, 17, and 20 have been amended.
The cancellation of claims 3, 7, and 18-19 obviates the rejections of claims 3, 7, and 18-19 set forth in the last Office Action.
The amendments of claims 1, 10, 15, 17, and 20 have overcome:
the rejections of claims 1-5, 7-13, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Margulies et al. (US 2017/0365801 A1, hereafter Margulies).
the rejections of claims 1-5, 7-14, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boudreault et al. (US 2019/0237683 A1, hereafter Boudreault ‘683) in view of Ji et al. (US 2018/0138427 A1, hereafter ji),
the rejections of claims 1-5, 7-9, 11-13, and 17-20 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 16-17, and 19-20 of US Patent no. 12,035,613 (hereafter Patent ‘613) set forth in the last Office Action.
The rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see page 96-98 of the reply filed 11/25/2025 regarding the rejections of claims 1-5, 7-13, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Margulies set forth in the Office Action of 04/02/2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant argues that the amended claims are allowable over Margulies.
The cited rejections refer to the Modified compound of Margulies (2) (see section 62 of the last Office Action).
The compound does not read on the limitation of Formula I of the amended claims; thus, the rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments see page 98-100 of the reply filed 11/25/2025 regarding the rejections of claims 1-5, 7-14, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boudreault ‘683/Ji set forth in the Office Action of 04/02/2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant argues that the amended claims are allowable over Boudreault ‘683 and Ji
The cited rejections refer to the Compound of Boudreault ‘683 as modified by Ji (see section 82 of the last Office Action).
The compound does not read on the limitation of Formula I of the amended claims; thus, the rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments see page 100-104 of the reply filed 11/25/2025 regarding the rejections of claims 1-5, 7-15, and 17 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11, and 17-18 of Patent ‘658 set forth in the Office Action of 04/02/2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant argues that the double patenting rejections should be withdrawn in light of the amendment.
Respectfully, the Examiner does not agree.
PNG
media_image1.png
296
194
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The cited rejections refer to the Example 1 of Patent ‘658 (see section 95 of the previous Office Action). The compound still reads on the limitation of Formula I of the amended claims. The rejections are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments see page 100-104 of the reply filed 11/25/2025 regarding the rejections of claims 1-5, 7-9, 11-13, and 17-20 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 16-17, and 19-20 of Patent ‘613 set forth in the Office Action of 04/02/2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant argues that the double patenting rejections should be withdrawn in light of the amendment.
The cited rejections refer to the Example 1 of Patent ‘613 (see section 110 of the last Office Action). The compound does not read on the limitation of Formula I of the amended claims; thus, the rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries 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 1-2, 4-5, 8-9, 11-13, 17, and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamovich et al. (US 2019/0280213 A1, hereafter Adamovich) in view of Ji et al. (US 2018/0138427 A1, hereafter ji).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-9, 11-13, 17, and 20-23, Adamovich discloses a first composition used for an organic light emitting device and a consumer product ([0018]-[0019]), wherein the first composition comprises a first compound of Formula I ([0071]) and a second compound comprising a ligand of Formula III ([0086]).
PNG
media_image2.png
578
617
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Adamovich teaches a formula as the subgenus of the Formula III ([0091], hereafter Formula A) and exemplifies a compound as the second compound ([0093], the 1st compound on page 18, hereafter Compound p18-1).
Adamovich does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising the Compound p18-1; however, Adamovich does teach the first composition of Adamovich can be used as the emissive layer material ([0018]). Adamovich teaches the structure of an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, an emissive layer containing a first composition (a first Compound H1 as a host, a second compound as a dopant), and a cathode ([0156]). Adamovich teaches Compound p18-1 is used as the second compound of the first composition of Adamovich ([0093]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound p18-1 of Adamovich as the second compound of the organic light emitting device of Adamovich, as taught by Adamovich.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the second compounds of Adamovich in the device of Adamovich would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified organic light emitting device of Adamovich comprising an anode, an emissive layer (a first Compound H1 as a host, a second Compound p18-1 as a dopant), and a cathode.
Adamovich does not disclose a specific consumer product comprising the Modified organic light emitting device of Adamovich; however, Adamovich does teach that the organic light emitting device can be incorporated into a consumer product ([0099], [0019]) such as a display panel ([0038]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified organic light emitting device by incorporating it into a consumer product, as taught by Adamovich.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the OLEDs in a consumer product would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified consumer product of Adamovich comprising the Modified organic light emitting device of Adamovich.
In the Compound p18-1 of Adamovich, the adjacent substituents of hydrogen at the positions corresponding to R1 do not form a fused benzene ring; however, Adamovich does teach that the substituents R13 and R14 can be general substituents and can be joined to form a ring ([0089]). Adamovich further teaches Formula A (see the structure above), wherein R1 can be general substituents and any two substituents can be joined to form a ring ([0092]). Adamovich exemplifies alkenyl, alkyl, halogen, and combination thereof can be the general substituents ([0061]). That is, Adamovich does teach that adjacent alkenyl groups at the position corresponding to R13 and R14 of can be joined to form a fused naphthalene ring and adjacent alkenyl groups at the positions corresponding to R1 can be joined to form a fused benzene ring.
Ji discloses a compound comprising a bidentate ligand LA and used for an organic light emitting device (Formula I in [0016]-[0031]). The bidentate ligand LA has a heterocyclic ring (i.e. pyridine) coordinating to the metal center, wherein the heterocyclic ring necessarily has a 5-6-6 fused rings of C, D, and E ([0016], [0020]). Ji exemplifies thiophene, benzene, and benzene as the rings C, D, and E (see ligand LA21 in [0082]).
PNG
media_image3.png
205
349
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Ji teaches that the fused rings provides strong interaction with host in an OLED device, enhanced electronic conductivity, larger dipole moment, and better light extraction, which help improvement of efficiency and performance in an OLED device ([0137]).
The compounds of Ji has a pyridine ring at the position corresponding to the ring B of the compound of Ji which is different from the compound of Adamovich wherein the ring at the equivalent position is pyrimidine; however, an ordinary skill in the art would understand similar benefits should be achievable in the compound of Adamovich, because the benefits taught by Ji essentially stems from extension of conjugated aromatic rings C-D-E, indicating more conjugated rings C-D-E should be more beneficial as compared to less conjugated rings C-D in terms of the electronic conductivity, dipole moment, and light extraction.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound p18-1 of Adamovich by incorporating a fused benzene ring to the terminal benzene ring including R1 of the Formula A of Adamovich (i.e. substituting the hydrogen atoms at the positions corresponding to R1 of Formula A of Adamovich with a fused benzene ring), as taught by Adamovich and Ji.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provides strong interaction with host in an OLED device, enhanced electronic conductivity, larger dipole moment, and better light extraction, which help improvement of efficiency and performance in an OLED device based on the teaching of Ji.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of hydrogen with a fused benzene ring at the positions corresponding to R1 of Formula A (or the substituents at the positions corresponding to R13 an R14 with a fused ring in Formula IV) of Adamovich would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
PNG
media_image4.png
276
741
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Compound of Adamovich as modified by Ji , meeting all the limitations of claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-9, 11-13, and 21-23.
The modification provides Organic light emitting device of Adamovich as modified by Ji comprising an anode, an emissive layer (a first Compound H1 as a host, a second Compound of Adamovich as modified by Ji as a dopant), and a cathode, meeting all the limitations of claim 17.
The modification provides Consumer product of Adamovich as modified by Ji comprising the Organic light emitting device of Adamovich as modified by Ji, meeting all the limitations of claim 20.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-14, 17, 20-21, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rayabarapu et al. (US 2012/0061654 A1, hereafter Rayabarapu) in view of Ji et al. (US 2018/0138427 A1).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-14, 17, and 20-21, Rayabarapu discloses a compound (Formula I) used for an organic light emitting device ([0015]) and exemplifies Compound 86 ([0065]).
PNG
media_image5.png
296
533
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In the compound of Formula I of Rayabarapu, RA is a substituent having the structure
PNG
media_image6.png
128
87
media_image6.png
Greyscale
, wherein X can be S; and R1 can be alkenyl ([0016]).
Rayabarapu does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising the Compound 86 of Rayabarapu; however, Rayabarapu does teach that the compound of Rayabarapu can be used as a dopant with a host in the emissive layer of an organic light emitting device having structure of an anode, an emissive layer, and a cathode ([0029], example in [0110]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound 86 of Rayabarapu by incorporating it into the emissive layer of an organic light emitting device, as taught by Rayabarapu.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the dopants of Rayabarapu in the device of Rayabarapu would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified organic light emitting device of Rayabarapu comprising an anode, an emissive layer (a host, Compound 86 as a dopant), and a cathode.
Rayabarapu does not disclose a consumer product comprising the Modified organic light emitting device Rayabarapu; however, Rayabarapu does teach that the organic light emitting device of Rayabarapu can be incorporated in a consumer product such as a flat panel display ([0030], [0044]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified organic light emitting device of Rayabarapu by incorporating it into a consumer product, as taught by Rayabarapu.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified consumer product of Rayabarapu comprising the Modified organic light emitting device of Rayabarapu.
The Compound 86 of Rayabarapu has substituents hydrogen at the positions corresponding to R1 of Formula I of Rayabarapu, which does not read on the limitation of the instant claims; however, Rayabarapu does teach R1 can be alkenyl ([0016]).
While Rayabarapu is silent about connection of the adjacent substituents at the positions R1 of the Formula I of Rayabarapu, an ordinary skill in the art would understand two adjacent alkenyl groups can be connected to form a fused benzene ring because a fused benzene can be considered as two substituted alkenyl groups.
Ji discloses a compound comprising a bidentate ligand LA and used for an organic light emitting device (Formula I in [0016]-[0031]). The bidentate ligand LA has a heterocyclic ring (i.e. pyridine) coordinating to the metal center, wherein the heterocyclic ring necessarily has a 5-6-6 fused rings of C, D, and E ([0016], [0020]). Ji exemplifies thiophene, benzene, and benzene as the rings C, D, and E (see ligand LA1 in [0082]).
PNG
media_image7.png
208
390
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Ji teaches that the fused rings provides strong interaction with host in an OLED device, enhanced electronic conductivity, larger dipole moment, and better light extraction, which help improvement of efficiency and performance in an OLED device ([0137]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound 86 of Rayabarapu by incorporating a fused benzene ring to the terminal benzene ring including R1 of the
PNG
media_image6.png
128
87
media_image6.png
Greyscale
of Rayabarapu (i.e. substituting the hydrogen atoms at the positions corresponding to R1 with a fused benzene ring), as taught by Rayabarapu and Ji.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provides strong interaction with host in an OLED device, enhanced electronic conductivity, larger dipole moment, and better light extraction, which help improvement of efficiency and performance in an OLED device based on the teaching of Ji.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
PNG
media_image8.png
184
645
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Compound of Rayabarapu as modified by Ji, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-14, and 21.
The modification also provides Organic light emitting device of Rayabarapu as modified by Ji comprising an anode, an emissive layer (a host, Compound of Rayabarapu as modified by Ji as a dopant), and a cathode, meeting all the limitations of claim 17.
The modification also provides Consumer product of Rayabarapu as modified by Ji comprising the Organic light emitting device of Rayabarapu as modified by Ji, meeting all the limitations of claim 20.
Regarding claim 24, The Compound of Rayabarapu as modified by Ji reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
In the compound, the naphthothiophene ring represented by
PNG
media_image6.png
128
87
media_image6.png
Greyscale
is substituted to the positions corresponding to the X4 and X3 of Applicant’s Formula I, which does not read on the limitation of the claim; however, Rayabarapu does teach the moiety
PNG
media_image6.png
128
87
media_image6.png
Greyscale
can be substituted to the positions corresponding to X2 and X1 of Applicant’s Formula I ([0016], RA can be substituted to any substitutable position of the pyridine ring of Formula I of Rayabarapu) and exemplifies Compound 85 ([0065]), wherein the moiety
PNG
media_image6.png
128
87
media_image6.png
Greyscale
is substituted to the positions corresponding to X2 and X1 of Applicant’s Formula I.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound of Rayabarapu as modified by Ji by substituting the position of the naphthothiophene ring represented by
PNG
media_image6.png
128
87
media_image6.png
Greyscale
with the positions corresponding to X2 and X1 of Applicant’s Formula I
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Compound of Rayabarapu as modified by Ji (2).
PNG
media_image9.png
301
517
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 11-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rayabarapu et al. (US 2012/0061654 A1, hereafter Rayabarapu) in view of Ji et al. (US 2018/0138427 A1) and Boudreault et al. (US 2015/0001472 A1, hereafter Boudreault ‘472).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 11-13, and 15, Rayabarapu discloses a compound (Formula I) used for an organic light emitting device ([0015]) and exemplifies Compound 122 ([0065]).
PNG
media_image10.png
328
575
media_image10.png
Greyscale
In the compound of Formula I of Rayabarapu, RA is a substituent having the structure
PNG
media_image6.png
128
87
media_image6.png
Greyscale
, wherein X can be CRR’; and R1 can be alkenyl ([0016]).
The Compound 86 of Rayabarapu has substituents hydrogen at the positions corresponding to R1 of Formula I of Rayabarapu, which does not read on the limitation of the instant claims; however, Rayabarapu does teach R1 can be alkenyl ([0016]).
While Rayabarapu is silent about connection of the adjacent substituents at the positions R1 of the Formula I of Rayabarapu, an ordinary skill in the art would understand two adjacent alkenyl groups can be connected to form a fused benzene ring because a fused benzene can be considered as two substituted alkenyl groups.
Ji discloses a compound comprising a bidentate ligand LA and used for an organic light emitting device (Formula I in [0016]-[0031]). The bidentate ligand LA has a heterocyclic ring (i.e. pyridine) coordinating to the metal center, wherein the heterocyclic ring necessarily has a 5-6-6 fused rings of C, D, and E ([0016], [0020]). Ji exemplifies a formula ([0077], the 1st formula on page 6, hereafter Formula p6-1).
PNG
media_image11.png
273
472
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Ji teaches that the fused rings provides strong interaction with host in an OLED device, enhanced electronic conductivity, larger dipole moment, and better light extraction, which help improvement of efficiency and performance in an OLED device ([0137]).
The compounds of Ji has a heteroatom selected from O, S, Se, or NR at the position X of the Formula p6-1 of Ji which is different from the compound of Rayabarapu wherein the heteroatom at the equivalent position is C; however, an ordinary skill in the art would understand similar benefits should be achievable in the compound of Rayabarapu, because the benefits taught by Ji essentially stems from extension of conjugated aromatic rings B-C-D-E, indicating more conjugated rings B-C-D-E should be more beneficial as compared to less conjugated rings B-C-D in terms of the electronic conductivity, dipole moment, and light extraction.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound 122 of Rayabarapu by incorporating a fused benzene ring to the terminal benzene ring including R1 of the
PNG
media_image6.png
128
87
media_image6.png
Greyscale
of Rayabarapu (i.e. substituting the hydrogen atoms at the positions corresponding to R1 with a fused benzene ring), as taught by Rayabarapu and Ji.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provides strong interaction with host in an OLED device, enhanced electronic conductivity, larger dipole moment, and better light extraction, which help improvement of efficiency and performance in an OLED device based on the teaching of Ji.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
PNG
media_image12.png
234
679
media_image12.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Compound of Rayabarapu as modified by Ji (3).
The compound has similar structure as Applicant’s embodiment of claim 15 (the 2nd compound on page 84). The only difference is that the terminal methyl groups of the acetylacetone ligand of the compound are required to be a pentyl group. However, Rayabarapu teaches formula
PNG
media_image13.png
226
316
media_image13.png
Greyscale
, wherein R4 and R5 can be alkyl ([0025]-[0026]).
Boudreault ‘472 discloses an Ir complex comprising an acetylacetonate ligand of Formula I and used for an organic light emitting device ([0015], [0002]) and exemplifies ligand LA1 ([0041]).
PNG
media_image14.png
300
567
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Boudreault ‘472 teaches that the device comprising an Ir complex containing the ligand LA1 provides smaller FWHM, lower voltage and higher luminous, external quantum, and power efficiencies than the comparative device comprising an acetylacetonate ligand (Compare Example 1 comprising Compound 8 with the Comparative Example 1 comprising Comparative Compound 1 in [0073]-[0076] and Table 3).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound of Rayabarapu as modified by Ji (3) by substituting the methyl group at the positions corresponding to R4 and R5 of Formula
PNG
media_image13.png
226
316
media_image13.png
Greyscale
of Rayabarapu, as taught by Rayabarapu and Boudreault ‘472.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provides smaller FWHM, lower voltage and higher luminous, external quantum, and power efficiencies based on the teaching of Boudreault ‘472.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Compound of Rayabarapu as modified by Ji and Boudreault ‘472.
PNG
media_image15.png
246
718
media_image15.png
Greyscale
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 1-2, 4-5, 8-14, 17, and 23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11, and 17-18 of US Patent no. 11,081,658 (hereafter Patent ‘658). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed at the same aspects of the same invention.
Regarding claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-14, 17, and 23, Patent ‘658 discloses a compound comprising a ligand LA represented by Formula I (claim 1). Patent ‘658 exemplifies a compound (col. 405, the 4th compound, hereafter Example 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
296
194
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Example 1 compound reads on the compound comprising the first ligand LA of the instant claims, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-14, and 23.
Patent ‘658 does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising the Example 1 compound; however, Patent ‘658 does teach an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, an organic layer, and a cathode, wherein the organic layer comprises a compound of Patent ‘658 (claim 18).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Example 1 compound by incorporating it into the organic layer of an organic light emitting device, as taught by Patent ‘658.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the organic layer materials of the Patent ‘658 in the OLED device of Patent ‘658 would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The Modification provides Modified organic light emitting device comprising an anode, an organic layer containing the Example 1 compound, and a cathode, meeting all the limitations of claim 17.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-14, 17, and 20-23 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 16, 17, and 20 of US Patent application no. 17/518,718 (reference application, hereafter Application ‘718). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed at the same aspects of the same invention. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-14, 17, and 20-23, Application ‘718 discloses a compound comprising a ligand LA represented by Formula I (claim 1). Application ‘718 exemplifies a compound (the 6th compound on page 218 of the published application, hereafter Example 1) (claim 16).
PNG
media_image16.png
222
385
media_image16.png
Greyscale
The Example 1 compound reads on the compound comprising the first ligand LA of the instant claims, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-14, and 21-23.
Application ‘718 does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising the Example 1 compound; however, Application ‘718 does teach an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, an organic layer, and a cathode, wherein the organic layer comprises a compound of Application ‘718 (claim 17).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Example 1 compound by incorporating it into the organic layer of an organic light emitting device, as taught by Application ‘718.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the organic layer materials of the Application ‘718 in the OLED device of Application ‘718 would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The Modification provides Modified organic light emitting device comprising an anode, an organic layer containing the Example 1 compound, and a cathode, meeting all the limitations of claim 17.
Application ‘718 does not disclose a specific consumer product comprising the Modified organic light emitting device; however, Application ‘718 does teach a consumer product comprising an organic light emitting device of Application ‘718 (claim 20).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified organic light emitting device of Application ‘718 by incorporating it into a consumer product, as taught by Application ‘718.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides a consumer product comprising the Modified organic light emitting device of Application ‘718, meeting all the limitations of claim 20.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEOKMIN JEON whose telephone number is (571)272-4599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm EST.
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, JENNIFER BOYD can be reached at (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 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.
/SEOKMIN JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786