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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 17 December 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 17 December 2025 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 1, 8-9, 11, and 14 have been amended.
Claims 5-6 and 12-13 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-4, 7-11, and 14-20 are pending.
The amendment to claim 1 has overcome the rejections of claims 1-13 and 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. (US 2013/0181190 A1) (hereafter “Ma”) in view of Iwawaki et al. (WO 2006/035640 A1) (hereafter “Iwawaki”) and Ragini et al. (US 2006/0228582 A1) (hereafter “Ragini”) set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1-13 and 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. (US 2013/0181190 A1) (hereafter “Ma”) in view of Iwawaki et al. (WO 2006/035640 A1) (hereafter “Iwawaki”) and Ragini et al. (US 2006/0228582 A1) (hereafter “Ragini”) set forth in the last Office action have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-11, 14-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hwang et al. (EP 3792270 A1) (hereafter “Hwang”).
Regarding claims 1-4, 7-11, and 14-17: Hwang discloses an organic light emitting device comprising a first electrode that is an anode, a second electrode that is a cathode, and an organic layer located between the first electrode and a second electrode {paragraphs [0279]-[0284] and Table 2: Example 16}.
The organic layer comprises an emission layer {paragraphs [0279]-[0284] and Table 2: Example 16}. The emission layer comprises a host and a dopant where the host is present in greater amount than the dopant {paragraph [0281]}.
The light emitting dopant has the structure shown below {paragraph [0283] and Table 2: Example 16}.
PNG
media_image1.png
418
816
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The organic layer further comprises a hole transport region located between the first electrode and the emission layer; the hole transport region comprises a hole injection layer and a hole transport layer {paragraphs [0279]-[0284] and Table 2: Example 16}.
The organic layer further comprises an electron transport region located between the emission layer and the second electrode; the electron transport region comprises an electron transport layer and an electron injection layer {paragraphs [0279]-[0284] and Table 2: Example 16}.
The ligands of the compound shown above have the structure of the instant A100 and B53.
Regarding claim 20: Hwang discloses all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
The only positive limitation of the claimed composition is the organometallic compound of claim 1, which is disclosed as described above.
The instant specification describes that the compounds having the structure of the instant Formula 1 are capable of being used in the claimed diagnostic composition {paragraphs [0176]-[0178]}. The specification does not describe any further structure required for the compound having the structure of the instant Formula 1 to capable of use as a diagnostic composition. Therefore, the compound of Hwang meets the limitations of the current claim 20. See MPEP 2111.02.
Claim(s) 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hwang et al. (US 2021/0083205 A1) (hereafter “Hwang ‘205”).
Regarding claims 1-14: Hwang ‘205 discloses the compound shown below {p. 614}.
PNG
media_image2.png
340
678
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hwang et al. (EP 3792270 A1) (hereafter “Hwang”).
The applied reference has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Regarding claim 18: Hwang discloses all of the features with respect to claims 1 and 17, as outlined above.
Hwang discloses the claimed invention above, but fails to discloses that the emission layer emits green light having a maximum emission wavelength of about 500 nm to about 600 nm. It is reasonable to presume that the emission layer emitting green light having a maximum emission wavelength of about 500 nm to about 600 nm is inherent to Hwang. Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials and like processes which would result in the claimed property.
Hwang teaches that the compounds of the disclosure of Hwang emit light greater than 500 nm and can emit green light {paragraph [0116]}.
Furthermore, the compound of Hwang is structurally similar to the instant compounds 1-1 and 148-53, which are described by the instant specification in Table 57 as having T1 energies of 2.522 eV and 2.550 eV, respectively. This would roughly correlate to maximum emission wavelengths of 486 nm and 486 nm, respectively. These differ from 500 nm by 14 nm, which is within 3%. Such a value would be considered to be “about” 500 nm. Given the structural similarities, the compound of Hwang would have a peak emission wavelength of about 500 nm to about 600 nm and thus, the emission layer emits green light having a maximum emission wavelength of about 500 nm to about 600 nm.
The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once the Hwang product is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977). Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though the rejection is based on Section 103 instead of 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
In the case that the product discloses by Hwang and the product of the instant claim 18 have indistinctive differences, the rejection is made alternatively under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) over Hwang.
Hwang does not specifically teach that the emission layer of Hwang emits green light having a maximum emission wavelength of about 500 nm to about 600 nm.
Given the close structural similarity between the compound of Hwang and the compounds of the current claims, any structural differences between the two products would have been indistinctive and known in the prior art.
Therefore, at the time of the invention, in the case that the product taught by Hwang and the product of the instant claim 18 have indistinctive differences, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have modified the organic electroluminescent device of Choi to have the same structure of the product of the instant claim 18. Any such modification would have been known in the prior art and would have an emission layer that emits green light having a maximum emission wavelength of about 500 nm to about 600 nm.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2022/0127287 A1) (hereafter “Park”) in view of Ragini et al. (US 2006/0228582 A1) (hereafter “Ragini”).
The applied reference has a common Inventor and assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding claims 1-4 and 7-9: Park discloses the compound shown below {p. 48}.
PNG
media_image3.png
490
572
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Park teaches that the compounds of the disclosure of Park are useful as light emitting dopants in organic light emitting devices {paragraph [0200]}.
Park does not teach that the compound shown above comprises a silyl substituent.
Ragini teaches metal complex compounds having the structure shown below {paragraph [0016]}.
PNG
media_image4.png
500
454
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Where in the structurally formula above rings CY1 and CY2 can each be aromatic rings and A^B is a monoanionic bidentate ligand {paragraph [0016]}. At least one of CY1, CY2, and A^B comprises a silyl substituent {paragraph [0016]}.
The compounds of Ragini are useful as phosphorescent light-emitting dopants in the light-emitting layer of organic light-emitting devices {abstract and paragraphs [0014]-[0015] and [0057]-[0060]}.
Ragini teaches that silyl substituted cyclometalated transition metal complexes have heat stability and highly efficient blue luminescence {paragraph [0029]}. Ragini exemplifies trimethylsilyl {paragraphs [0057]-[0060]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the compound of Park shown above by substituting the compounds with a trimethylsilyl group at a position equivalent to the instant R11 to R14 or R21 to R24, based on the teaching of Ragini. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a metal complex having heat stability and efficient luminescence, as taught by Ragini. Furthermore, the selection of R11 to R14 or R21 to R24 would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (the possible positions for substitution), with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of substituent and substituent positions to be used to make compounds for use in an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light emitting devices.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-9, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 2022/0235081 A1) (hereafter “Kang”) in view of Ragini et al. (US 2006/0228582 A1) (hereafter “Ragini”).
The applied reference has a common Inventor and assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding claims 1-4, 7-9, and 10-11: Kang discloses the compound shown below {p. 89}.
PNG
media_image5.png
456
642
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Kang teaches that the compounds of Kang are useful as light emitting dopants in organic light emitting devices {paragraph [0170]}.
Kang does not teach that the compound shown above comprises a silyl substituent.
Ragini teaches metal complex compounds having the structure shown below {paragraph [0016]}.
PNG
media_image4.png
500
454
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Where in the structurally formula above rings CY1 and CY2 can each be aromatic rings and A^B is a monoanionic bidentate ligand {paragraph [0016]}. At least one of CY1, CY2, and A^B comprises a silyl substituent {paragraph [0016]}.
The compounds of Ragini are useful as phosphorescent light-emitting dopants in the light-emitting layer of organic light-emitting devices {abstract and paragraphs [0014]-[0015] and [0057]-[0060]}.
Ragini teaches that silyl substituted cyclometalated transition metal complexes have heat stability and highly efficient blue luminescence {paragraph [0029]}. Ragini exemplifies trimethylsilyl {paragraphs [0057]-[0060]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the compound of Kang shown above by substituting the compounds with a trimethylsilyl group at a position equivalent to the instant R11 to R14 or R21 to R24, based on the teaching of Ragini. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a metal complex having heat stability and efficient luminescence, as taught by Ragini. Furthermore, the selection of R11 to R14 or R21 to R24 would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (the possible positions for substitution), with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of substituent and substituent positions to be used to make compounds for use in an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light emitting devices.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-11, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2022/0259237 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) in view of Iwawaki et al. (WO 2006/035640 A1) (hereafter “Iwawaki”).
The applied reference has a common Inventor and assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding claims 1-4, 7-11, and 15-17: Lee discloses an organic light-emitting device comprising a first electrode that is an anode, a second electrode that is cathode, and an organic layer located between the first electrode and the second electrode and comprising an emission layer {paragraphs [0344]-[0348] and Table 98: Example 6}.
The emission layer comprises the compound shown below as a light-emitting dopant in addition to a host material {paragraphs [0344]-[0348] and Table 98: Example 6}.
PNG
media_image6.png
386
594
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The host material is contained in an amount greater than the amount of the compound shown above {paragraphs [0344]-[0348] and Table 98: Example 6}.
The compound shown above emits light with a maximum emission wavelength of 526 nm {paragraphs [0344]-[0348] and Table 98: Example 6}.
The organic layer further comprises a hole injection layer and a hole transport layer between the first electrode and the light-emitting layer {paragraphs [0344]-[0348] and Table 98: Example 6}.
The organic layer further comprises a blocking layer and an electron transport layer between the light-emitting layer and the second electrode {paragraphs [0344]-[0348] and Table 98: Example 6}.
Lee does not exemplify a similar compound to the organometallic compound shown above in which a fluorine substituent is present.
Iwawaki teaches organic light-emitting devices comprising phosphorescent light-emitting dopants {abstract; p. 6, line 20 through p. 7, line 15; p. 7, line 23 through p. 8, line 13}.
The phosphorescent light-emitting dopant is preferably an iridium complex comprising a halogen atom {p. 8, lines 12-13}.
Iwawaki teaches that the halogen atom is preferably fluorine and is introduced as a substituent into the phosphorescent compound for the purpose of improving the suppression of concentration quenching and/or the ease of vapor deposition {p. 10, lines 4-11}.
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 organometallic compound of Lee shown above but substituting the compound with a fluorine atom at one of the positions equivalent to the instant R31 to R36, R41 to R46, or Ar1, based on the teaching of Iwawaki. The motivation for doing so would have been for the purpose of improving the suppression of concentration quenching and/or the ease of vapor deposition, as taught by Iwawaki. Furthermore, the selection of R31 to R36, R41 to R46, or Ar1 would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (the possible positions for substitution), with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of substituent and substituent positions to be used to make compounds for use in an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light emitting devices.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-10, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2022/0344600 A1) (hereafter “Lee ‘600”) in view of Ragini et al. (US 2006/0228582 A1) (hereafter “Ragini”).
The applied reference has a common Inventor and assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding claims 1-4, 7-10, and 15-17: Lee discloses an organic light-emitting device comprising a first electrode that is an anode, a second electrode that is cathode, and an organic layer located between the first electrode and the second electrode and comprising an emission layer {paragraphs [0310]-[0314] and Table 58: Example 5}.
The emission layer comprises the compound shown below as a light-emitting dopant in addition to a host material {paragraphs [0310]-[0314] and Table 58: Example 5}.
PNG
media_image7.png
402
732
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The host material is contained in an amount greater than the amount of the compound shown above {paragraphs [0310]-[0314] and Table 58: Example 5}.
The organic layer further comprises a hole injection layer and a hole transport layer between the first electrode and the light-emitting layer {paragraphs [0310]-[0314] and Table 58: Example 5}.
The organic layer further comprises a blocking layer and an electron transport layer between the light-emitting layer and the second electrode {paragraphs [0310]-[0314] and Table 58: Example 5}.
Lee ‘600 does not teach that the compound shown above comprises a silyl substituent.
Ragini teaches metal complex compounds having the structure shown below {paragraph [0016]}.
PNG
media_image4.png
500
454
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Where in the structurally formula above rings CY1 and CY2 can each be aromatic rings and A^B is a monoanionic bidentate ligand {paragraph [0016]}. At least one of CY1, CY2, and A^B comprises a silyl substituent {paragraph [0016]}.
The compounds of Ragini are useful as phosphorescent light-emitting dopants in the light-emitting layer of organic light-emitting devices {abstract and paragraphs [0014]-[0015] and [0057]-[0060]}.
Ragini teaches that silyl substituted cyclometalated transition metal complexes have heat stability and highly efficient blue luminescence {paragraph [0029]}. Ragini exemplifies trimethylsilyl {paragraphs [0057]-[0060]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the compound of Lee ‘600 shown above by substituting the compounds with a trimethylsilyl group at a position equivalent to the instant R11 to R14 or R21 to R24, based on the teaching of Ragini. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a metal complex having heat stability and efficient luminescence, as taught by Ragini. Furthermore, the selection of R11 to R14 or R21 to R24 would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (the possible positions for substitution), with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of substituent and substituent positions to be used to make compounds for use in an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light emitting devices.
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4 and 7-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,010,909 in view of Iwawaki et al. (WO 2006/035640 A1) (hereafter “Iwawaki”).
Regarding claims 1-4 and 7-11: Claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,010,909 discloses the compound shown below {col. 1314}.
PNG
media_image6.png
386
594
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,010,909 does not teach a similar compound to the organometallic compound shown above in which a fluorine substituent is present.
Iwawaki teaches organic light-emitting devices comprising phosphorescent light-emitting dopants {abstract; p. 6, line 20 through p. 7, line 15; p. 7, line 23 through p. 8, line 13}.
The phosphorescent light-emitting dopant is preferably an iridium complex comprising a halogen atom {p. 8, lines 12-13}.
Iwawaki teaches that the halogen atom is preferably fluorine and is introduced as a substituent into the phosphorescent compound for the purpose of improving the suppression of concentration quenching and/or the ease of vapor deposition {p. 10, lines 4-11}.
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 organometallic compound of Claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,010,909 shown above but substituting the compound with a fluorine atom at one of the positions equivalent to the instant R31 to R36, R41 to R46, or Ar1, based on the teaching of Iwawaki. The motivation for doing so would have been for the purpose of improving the suppression of concentration quenching and/or the ease of vapor deposition, as taught by Iwawaki. Furthermore, the selection of R31 to R36, R41 to R46, or Ar1 would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (the possible positions for substitution), with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of substituent and substituent positions to be used to make compounds for use in an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light emitting devices.
Claims 1-4 and 7-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,069,940. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because.
Regarding claims 1-4 and 7-10: Claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,069,940 discloses the compound shown below {col. 1220}.
PNG
media_image8.png
460
638
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DYLAN CLAY KERSHNER whose telephone number is (303)297-4257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm (Mountain).
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.
/DYLAN C KERSHNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786