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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 26, 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on November 26, 2025.
Claims 1, 7, 10, 13 and 15 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 4 – 6 have been canceled.
Claims 1 – 3 and 7 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed November 26, 2025, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1 – 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Thomas as set forth in the office action filed September 29, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 – 3 and 7 – 20 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 § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 – 3, 7 – 14, and 16 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishibe (US20170294596A1) in view of Thomas (Thomas, K. R. Justin et al. “Efficient Red-Emitting Cyclometalated Iridium (III) Complexes Containing Lepidine-Based Ligands.” Inorganic Chemistry. 44 (2005): 5677 – 5685., cited in the IDS filed August 11, 2022 and provided by Applicant) and Choi (US20190326527A1).
As per claims 1 – 3, and 7 – 14, Ishibe teaches:
An organometallic compound, represented by Formula 1
PNG
media_image1.png
64
190
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, wherein Ln1 is represented by Formula 1B-2
PNG
media_image2.png
308
234
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and Ln2 is a ligand represented by Formula 2-1 or Formula 2-2
PNG
media_image3.png
244
366
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Ishibe teaches organometallic compounds with a ligand represented by Formula 1A
PNG
media_image4.png
214
306
media_image4.png
Greyscale
([0008]), wherein n is selected from 1, 2 or 3 and m is selected from 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4 ([0017 – 0019]). A particular compound Ishibe teaches is compound 9
PNG
media_image5.png
182
302
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, which differs from the claimed compound in that the ligand of compound 9 contains a benzene ring instead of the claimed phenanthrene ring. However, Ishibe teaches that A11 may be a phenanthrene ring ([0044]). Furthermore, Thomas teaches that Ir (III) ligands with phenathrenyl groups are red-shifted as compared to benzene rings (Page 5682, Right Column, Last Paragraph). 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 modify compound 9 of Ishibe to replace the benzene ring with a phenanthrene ring motivated by the desire to predictably produce a red-shift in the compound as taught by Thomas (Page 5682, Right Column, Last Paragraph) and because Ishibe teaches that a phenanthrene group is predictably suitable group for that position ([0055]). Ishibe teaches that ligand L11 may be represented by Formulae selected from
PNG
media_image6.png
148
292
media_image6.png
Greyscale
and 3-6
PNG
media_image7.png
104
302
media_image7.png
Greyscale
([0104]), although Ishibe does not teach any specific ligand within these formula. Choi teaches similar organometallic Ir based compounds and teaches that ancillary ligands may include
PNG
media_image8.png
106
330
media_image8.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image9.png
116
314
media_image9.png
Greyscale
([0131]). In Example compounds, such as compound 1
PNG
media_image10.png
164
344
media_image10.png
Greyscale
([0141]), Choi teaches that the Z11 and Z13 groups are selected from methyl groups, and the Z12 group is a hydrogen group. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify compound 9 of Ishibe to include one or two ligands of the claimed Formula 2-1 or 2-2 because Ishibe teaches that ligands of those Formula are predictably suitable for use in the organometallic compounds of Ishibe and Choi teaches specific ligands within those Formula that were known as suitable bidentate ligands for use in Ir-based organometallic compounds. When modified in this way, the compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein M1 is a transition metal, namely Iridium (Ir) as required by claim 2; Ln1 is a ligand represented by Formula 1B-2; Ln2 is a ligand represented by Formula 2-1 or 2-2; n1 is 1 or 2; n2 is 2 or 1, so that the sum of n1 and n2 is 3 as required by claim 3; X11 – X14 are C(R); X1 is N(R15); X31 and X32 are O; R13 and R15 are unsubstituted C1 alkyl groups and the remaining R groups are hydrogen. The ligand represented by Formula 11-4 in claim 7. The ancillary ligand is represented by Formula 21-1 in claim 8 or Formula 22-1 in claim 9. The entire compound is represented by Formula 31-4 and 31-8 in claim 13. The compound is electrically neutral as required by claim 14.)
Ishibe includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Ishibe being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of organic light-emitting devices with improved efficiency and improved lifespan characteristics ([0145]), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
As per claims 16 and 17, Ishibe teaches:
An organic light emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode, and an organic layer located between the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein the organic layer comprises an emission layer, wherein the organic layer further comprises at least one of the organometallic compound of claim 1 ([0022 – 0025]: “According to an aspect of another embodiment, an organic light-emitting device includes: a first electrode; a second electrode; and an organic layer disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein the organic layer includes an emission layer and at least one organometallic compound represented by one of Formulae 1A and 1B. The organometallic compound may be included in the emission layer.”)
As per claim 18, Ishibe teaches:
Wherein the emission layer further comprises a host, and an amount of the host in the emission layer is greater than an amount of the organometallic compound in the emission layer ([0200 – 0201]: “The emission layer may include, as a dopant, the organometallic compound represented by one of Formulae 1A and 1B. When the emission layer includes a host and a dopant, an amount of the dopant maybe in a range of about 0.01 to about 20 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the host, but is not limited thereto.”)
As per claim 19, Ishibe teaches:
Wherein the first electrode is an anode, the second electrode is a cathode, the organic layer further comprises a hole transport region located between the first electrode and the emission layer, and an electron transport region located between the emission layer and the second electrode, the hole transport region comprises a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer, a buffer layer or a combination thereof and the electron transport region comprises a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, or a combination thereof ([0158 – 0160]: “For example, the first electrode may be an anode, the second electrode may be a cathode, and the organic layer may include: i) a hole transport region that is disposed between the first electrode and the emission layer, wherein the hole transport region may include at least one selected from a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, and an electron blocking layer, and ii) an electron transport region that is disposed between the emission layer and the second electrode, wherein the electron transport region may include at least one selected from a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, and an electron injection layer.”)
As per claim 20, Ishibe teaches:
An electronic apparatus, comprising the organic light-emitting device (As an OLED is considered to be an electronic apparatus, Ishibe teaches the claimed limitations.)
Claims 1 – 3, 7, 8 and 10 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US20170155063A1) in view of Thomas (Thomas, K. R. Justin et al. “Efficient Red-Emitting Cyclometalated Iridium (III) Complexes Containing Lepidine-Based Ligands.” Inorganic Chemistry. 44 (2005): 5677 – 5685., cited in the IDS filed August 11, 2022 and provided by Applicant).
As per claims 1 – 3, 7, 8, and 10 – 14, Wu teaches:
An organometallic compound, represented by Formula 1
PNG
media_image1.png
64
190
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, wherein Ln1 is represented by Formula 1B-2
PNG
media_image2.png
308
234
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and Ln2 is a ligand represented by Formula 2-1 or Formula 2-2
PNG
media_image3.png
244
366
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Wu teaches organometallic compounds with a ligand represented by Formula (I)
PNG
media_image11.png
182
300
media_image11.png
Greyscale
(Abstract). A particular compound Wu teaches is
PNG
media_image12.png
142
240
media_image12.png
Greyscale
([0020]), which differs from the claimed compound in that the ligand of Wu contains a benzene ring instead of the claimed phenanthrene ring. However, Wu teaches that R2 – R5 can be combined to form an aryl group ([0019]) Furthermore, Thomas teaches that Ir (III) ligands with phenathrenyl groups are red-shifted as compared to benzene rings (Page 5682, Right Column, Last Paragraph). 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 modify the compound of Wu to replace the benzene ring with a phenanthrene ring motivated by the desire to predictably produce a red-shift in the compound as taught by Thomas (Page 5682, Right Column, Last Paragraph) and because Wu teaches that the group may be a fused aryl group ([0019]). When modified in this way, the compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein M1 is a transition metal, namely Iridium (Ir) as required by claim 2; Ln1 is a ligand represented by Formula 1A-1; Ln2 is a ligand represented by Formula 2-1; n1 is 2; n2 is 1, so that the sum of n1 and n2 is 3 as required by claim 3; X11 – X14 are C(R15); X1 is O; X31 and X32 are O; all the R groups are hydrogen. The ligand represented by Formula 11-2 in claim 7. The ancillary ligand is represented by Formula 21-1 in claim 8. The entire compound is represented by Formula 31-2 in claim 13. The compound is electrically neutral as required by claim 14.)
Wu includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Wu being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of organic light-emitting devices with improved efficiency and improved lifespan characteristics ([0016]), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
As per claim 15, the only difference between the modified compound of Wu above and claimed compound 3
PNG
media_image13.png
146
156
media_image13.png
Greyscale
is the methyl group substituent. However, in the definitions for R1, Wu teaches that the group can be an alkyl group and Wu teaches a specific compound with a methyl group in that position
PNG
media_image14.png
156
276
media_image14.png
Greyscale
([0020]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the modified compound of Wu above to include a methyl group in the R1 position and arrive at claimed compound 3.
Wu includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Wu being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of organic light-emitting devices with improved efficiency and improved lifespan characteristics ([0016]), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
As per claims 16 and 17, Wu teaches:
An organic light emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode, and an organic layer located between the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein the organic layer comprises an emission layer, wherein the organic layer further comprises at least one of the organometallic compound of claim 1 ([0008]: “According to another embodiment of the disclosure, the disclosure provides an organic light-emitting device, the device includes a pair of electrodes; and an organic light-emitting element disposed between the electrodes, wherein the organic light-emitting element includes the aforementioned organic metal compound.” & [0089]: “According to another embodiment of the disclosure, the organic light-emitting device can be a phosphorescent organic light-emitting device, and the emission layer of the organic light-emitting element can include a host material and a dopant, wherein the dopant can include the organic metal compound having a structure of Formula (I) of the disclosure.”)
As per claim 18, Wu teaches:
Wherein the emission layer further comprises a host, and an amount of the host in the emission layer is greater than an amount of the organometallic compound in the emission layer (In the device prepared for the Examples, as described in [0091 – 0092], the light emitting layer was formed with a weight ratio of host:dopant of 94:6.)
As per claim 19, Wu teaches:
Wherein the first electrode is an anode, the second electrode is a cathode, the organic layer further comprises a hole transport region located between the first electrode and the emission layer, and an electron transport region located between the emission layer and the second electrode, the hole transport region comprises a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer, a buffer layer or a combination thereof and the electron transport region comprises a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, or a combination thereof ([0088]: “The organic light-emitting element 16 at least includes an emission layer, and can further include a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron transport layer, and an electron injection layer.”)
As per claim 20, Wu teaches:
An electronic apparatus, comprising the organic light-emitting device (As an OLED is considered to be an electronic apparatus, Wu teaches the claimed limitations.)
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US20240292748A1, US20230320188A1, US20200328360A1, US20200091441A1, and US20190112324A1 all teach organometallic Ir-based compounds that could be used in a rejection against the claims as currently presented.
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