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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/08/2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of species (A1) a compound comprising a ligand LA of Formula I of claim 1, wherein M is Ir, and (B2) the ligand LA comprises a structure of Formula IV but not Formula III of claim 5, in the reply filed on 8/28/2025 is acknowledged.
In the Office Action of 10/01/2025, the requirement of species election has been updated to withdraw the requirement of election for (B1) and (B2) only. Applicant’s election without traverse is directed to the species (A1) a compound comprising a ligand LA of Formula I of claim 1, wherein M is Ir.
Claim 16 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group.
With respect to the instant claims 8-9 and 11, a search of the prior art did not show the elected species. As none of the claims were specifically drawn to applicant's elected species in combination with the limitations of claims 8-9 and 11 in independent form, no claims have been indicated as allowable. However, claim written in independent form which requires all the limitations of claims 8-9 and 11 as well as being limited to the elected species along with any dependent claims which require all the limitation of claims 8-9 and 11 as well as being limited to the elected species would be allowable.
Claims 8-9 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims as well as being limited to the elected species. This objection to the claims is only with respect to Applicant’s elected species.
It is noted that the potential allowability of claims 8-9 and 11 has not be determined with respect to species beyond Applicant's elected species, i.e. potential examinable species that could found once the search is expanded beyond Applicant's elected species.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 05/21/2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim 16 has been withdrawn.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 9-10, 14-15, 17, and 20 have been amended.
The amendments of claims 1, 5, 7, 9-10, 14-15, 17, and 20 have overcome:
the rejections of claims 1-7, 9, 12-14, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoessel et al. (US 2015/0171348 A1, hereafter Stoessel), and
the rejections of claims 15 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoessel et al. (US 2015/0171348 A1) as applied to the claims 1-7, 9, 12-14, and 17-20 above, further in view of Boudreault et al. (US 2015/0001472 A1, hereafter Boudreault) set forth in the last Office Action.
The rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see the page 125 of the reply filed on 05/21/2026 regarding the rejections of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the Office Action of 02/23/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the claim is amended to depend on claim 1 such that the rejection should be withdrawn.
Respectfully, the Examiner does not agree.
While the dependency of claim has been fixed, there are another issue.
Applicant recites formulas including at least Ir(LAi-m)3, Ir(LA1-1)3 to Ir(LA2508-73)3, Ir(LAi-m)2(LCj-I), Ir(LA1-1)2(LC1-I) to Ir(LA2508-73)2(LC1416-I), etc., wherein in the formulas the ligands LAi-m and LA1-1 to LA2508-73 are not defined either in claim 14 nor the claim 1 from which the claim 14 depend. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what is the limitation of the ligands LAi-m and LA1-1 to LA2508-73, rendering this claim indefinite.
For at least this reason, the argument is not found persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments see page 126-127 of the reply filed on 05/21/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1-7, 9, 12-14, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoessel, and the rejections of claims 15 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoessel/Boudreault set forth in the Office Action of 02/23/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the amendment overcome the previous rejections.
The rejections are withdrawn, rendering this argument moot.
Examiner’s Note
Claim 16 is withdrawn because the claim is directed to a non-elected species such that the claim is not prosecuted. However, it should be noted that the claim 16 is dependent from claim 1 wherein the compound of claim 1 is directed to an Ir complex, while the compound of claim 16 is directed to a Pd or Pt complex. Claim 16 fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Therefore, claim 16 would have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), if the claim was prosecuted.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 10, it appears that the formula structures of LAi”-45 through LAi”-48 are same as formula structures of LAi”-79 through LAi”-82. One of them should be deleted.
In claim 10, there are two sets of formula structures under the same name. Examples includes LAi”-45 through LAi”-48. One of two sets should be deleted or renamed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites “The compound of claim 1, wherein … a formula of Pt(LA)(LB); …”. However, claim 1 requires the compound of claim 1 to be an Ir complex. Currently claim 12 is dependent from claim 1. Therefore, claim 12 fails to include all the limitations of the claims upon which they depend.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is rejected due to the dependency from the rejected claim .
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 14, Applicant recites formulas including at least Ir(LAi-m)3, Ir(LA1-1)3 to Ir(LA2508-73)3, Ir(LAi-m)2(LCj-I), Ir(LA1-1)2(LC1-I) to Ir(LA2508-73)2(LC1416-I), etc., wherein in the formulas the ligands LAi-m and LA1-1 to LA2508-73 are not defined either in claim 14 nor the claim 1 from which the claim 14 depend. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what is the limitation of the ligands LAi-m and LA1-1 to LA2508-73, rendering this claim indefinite.
For the purpose of the prosecution, the Examiner interprets the limitation to mean that each of the ligands LAi-m and LA1-1 to LA2508-73 is same as the ligand LA of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-6 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aubert et al. (“Linear and Nonlinear Optical Properties of Cationic Bipyridyl Iridium(III) Complexes: Tunable and Photoswitchable?”, Inorg. Chem. 2011, vol. 50, page 5027-5038, hereafter Aubert).
Regarding claims 1-6 and 12-14, Aubert discloses Compound 2e (Fig. 2e; Table 6; and page 5035), wherein the methyl-substituted carbon atoms of two thiophene rings are connected by a single bond under UV irradiation (Fig. 9).
PNG
media_image1.png
348
591
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Compound 2e of Aubert has identical structure as Applicant’s compound of the instant claims, wherein the polycyclic ring enclosed by a dashed box in the figure above reads on the limitation of Applicant’s Formula I.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Takada et al. (US 2012/0153273 A1, hereafter Takada).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4-6, and 12-14, Takada discloses a compound for an organic light emitting device ([0001], [0010]-[0016]) and exemplifies a compound ([0141], the 4th compound on page 21, hereafter Compound p21-4).
PNG
media_image2.png
318
607
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Compound p21-4 of Takada has identical structure as Applicant’s compound of the instant claims.
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.
Claim 7, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada et al. (US 2012/0153273 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Takada discloses a compound for an organic light emitting device ([0001], [0010]-[0016]) and exemplifies a compound ([0141], the 1st compound on page 14, hereafter Compound p14-1).
PNG
media_image3.png
311
544
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In the Compound p21-4 of Takada, the substituents at the positions corresponding to R1a and R1b are not a fused cycloalkyl substituted by fluorine, which does not read on the limitation of the instant claim; however, Takada does teach that the substituents R1a and R1b can be each a fluorine substituted hydrocarbon substituent ([0015]), wherein the substituents can be bonded to each other to form a ring ([0016]). Takada exemplifies a fused difluorocyclopentyl ring as the substituents (see the 4th compound on page 21 in [0141]).
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 p14-1 of Takada by substituting the substituents at the positions corresponding to R1a and R1b with a fused difluorocyclopentyl ring, as taught by Takada.
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 exemplified substituents in the compound of the Formula (A1-1) of Takada 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
256
544
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Modified compound of Takada.
Regarding claims 17-18 and 20, the Compound p21-4 of Takada reads on all the features of the compound comprising the ligand LA comprising the Formula I of the instant claims.
Takada does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising the Compound p21-4 of Takada; however, Takada does teach that the compound of Takada can be used as the light emitting layer material of an organic light emitting device ([0036]-[0041]). Takada further teaches that the light emitting layer can further include a host ([0174]).
Takada teaches the structure of an organic light emitting device, comprising an anode, an emissive layer (the compound of Takada as a dopant, a carbazole Compound H-1 as a host), and a cathode ([0282]-[0288], Example 1 in Table 2).
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 p21-4 of Takada by incorporating it into the emissive layer of an organic light emitting device as a emissive dopant, as taught by Takada.
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 exemplified host materials of Takada in the OLED device of Takada 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 Takada comprising an anode, an emissive layer (Compound p21-4 of Takada as a dopant, a carbazole compound H-1 as a host), and a cathode, meeting all the limitations of claims 17-18.
Takada does not disclose a specific consumer product comprising the Modified organic light emitting device of Takada; however, Takada does teach that the organic light emitting device can be incorporated in a consumer product such as a display unit or an illumination unit ([0044]-[0047]).
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 Takada by incorporating it into a consumer product, as taught by Takada.
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 light emitting devices of Takada in a consumer product of Takada 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 Takada, meeting all the limitations of claim 20.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada et al. (US 2012/0153273 A1) as applied to claims 7, 17-18, and 20 above, further in view of Kai et al. (US 2010/0187977 A1, hereafter Kai).
Regarding claim 19, the Modified organic light emitting device of Takada reads on all the features of claim 17 as outlined above.
The device comprises an anode, an emissive layer (Compound p21-4 of Takada as a dopant, a carbazole compound H-1 as a host), and a cathode.
The host compound H-1 of Takada does not read on the limitation of claim 19; however, Takada does teach that a host compound can be used with the compound of Takada in the light emitting layer of the device ([0169], [0174]).
Kai teaches a host compound (Compound (3) in [038]) which is used to make the emitting layer of organic light emitting device with a phosphorescent dopant ([039]).
PNG
media_image5.png
248
481
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Kai further teaches the compound of Kai provides remarkable improvements in luminous efficiency and driving stability to make an excellent organic electric element ([039], [047])
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to have modified the Modified organic light emitting device of Takada by substituting the host compound with the Compound (3) of Kai, as taught by Takada and Kai.
The motivation of doing so would provide the organic light emitting device with improved luminous efficiency and driving stability, based on teaching of Kai.
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 modification also provides Organic light emitting device of Takada as modified by Kai comprising an anode, an emissive layer (Compound p21-4 of Takada as an emissive dopant, Compound (3) of Kai as a host), and a cathode.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada et al. (US 2012/0153273 A1) in view of Kamatani et al. (US 2010/0219407 A1, hereafter Kamatani).
Regarding claim 3, Takada discloses a compound for an organic light emitting device ([0001], [0010]-[0016]) and exemplifies a compound ([0141], the 4th compound on page 21, hereafter Compound p21-4).
PNG
media_image2.png
318
607
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In the Compound p21-4 of Takada, the cyclopentyl group are substituted by two fluoro groups and four hydrogen groups, which does not read on the limitation of the instant claim; however, Takada does teach that the substituents R1d and R1e can be each a fluorine substituted hydrocarbon substituent ([0015]), wherein the substituents can be bonded to each other to form a ring ([0016]). Takada further teaches the hydrocarbon substituent (i.e. cyclopentyl) can be fully fluorinated (i.e. perfluoro alkyl in [0086]).
Kamatani discloses a complex compound used for an organic light emitting device ([0001]).
Kamatani teaches halogen atoms as the substituent of the complex can induce repulsion of molecules to each other, which improves synthesis and emitting efficiency, and suppresses quenching ([0106]).
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 p21-4 of Takada by substituting the fused difluorocyclopentyl ring at the positions corresponding to R1d and R1e of Formula (A1-1) of Takada with a fused perfluorocyclopentyl ring, as taught by Takada and Kamatani.
The motivation of doing so would have been to induce repulsion of molecules to each other, which improves synthesis and emitting efficiency, and suppresses quenching, based on the teaching of Kamatani.
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 the hydrogen atoms substituted to the hydrocarbon groups at the positions R1d and R1e of Formula (A1-1) of Takada with fluorine atoms 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 Takada as modified by Kamatani.
PNG
media_image6.png
248
572
media_image6.png
Greyscale
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
Prosecution Insights