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.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on April 14, 2026.
Claims 1, and 15 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 3 – 6 have been cancelled previously.
Claims 1, 2, and 7 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Amendments
Applicant's amendments to the claims, filed April 14, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1 – 3, 7 – 14, and 16 – 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishibe in view of Thomas and Choi as set forth in the office action filed February 6, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed April 14, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1 – 3, 7, 8, and 10 – 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Thomas as set forth in the office action filed February 6, 2026.
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 Lee (US20200328360A1) 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, Lee 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
(Lee teaches organometallic compounds with a ligand represented by Formula 2
PNG
media_image4.png
208
290
media_image4.png
Greyscale
([0015]). A particular compound Lee teaches is compound 221
PNG
media_image5.png
230
298
media_image5.png
Greyscale
([0172]), which differs from the claimed compound in that the ligand of Lee contains a benzene ring instead of the claimed phenanthrene ring. However, Lee teaches that CY21 can be a phenanthrene group ([0069]) 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 Lee 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 Lee teaches that the group may be a phenanthrene group ([0069]). 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; 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 S; X31 and X32 are O; R13 is a C6 aryl group, namely a group represented by 10-12
PNG
media_image6.png
74
72
media_image6.png
Greyscale
in claim 10 and all the remaining R groups are hydrogen. The ligand is represented by Formula 11-4 in claim 7. The ancillary ligand is represented by Formula 21-1 in claim 8. The entire compound is represented by Formula 31-4 in claim 13. The compound is electrically neutral as required by claim 14.)
Lee includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Lee 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 ([0175]), 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 9, while modified compound 221 above shows an acac ligand on the Ir complex, Lee teaches that L2 may be selected from a group including ligand 3-1(308)
PNG
media_image7.png
98
310
media_image7.png
Greyscale
([0161]), which is the same as ligand 22-1 in claim 9.
Lee includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Lee 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 ([0175]), 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, Lee 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 ([0039 – 0040]: “Another aspect of the present disclosure provides an organic light-emitting device including: a first electrode; a second electrode; and an organic layer disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode and including an emission layer, wherein the organic layer may include at least one organometallic compound represented by Formula 1. The organometallic compound included in the emission layer of the organic layer may act as a dopant.”)
As per claim 18, Lee 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 ([0182]: “For example, the organometallic compound represented by Formula 1 may be included in the emission layer. In this regard, the organometallic compound may act as a dopant, and the emission layer may further include a host (that is, an amount of the organometallic compound represented by Formula 1 is smaller than an amount of the host).”)
As per claim 19, Lee 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 ([0186]: “For example, in the organic light-emitting device, the first electrode is an anode, and the second electrode is a cathode, and the organic layer further includes a hole transport region between the first electrode and the emission layer and an electron transport region between the emission layer and the second electrode, and the hole transport region includes a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer, or any combination thereof, and the electron transport region includes a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, or any combination thereof.”)
As per claim 20, Lee teaches:
An electronic apparatus, comprising the organic light-emitting device (As an OLED is considered to be an electronic apparatus, Lee teaches the claimed limitations.)
Claims 1 – 3, 7 – 15, and 16 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US20190112324A1) 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, and 9 – 14, Kim 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
(Kim teaches organometallic compounds of Formula 1
PNG
media_image8.png
34
216
media_image8.png
Greyscale
([0052]) with a ligand represented by Formula 2-3
PNG
media_image9.png
180
300
media_image9.png
Greyscale
([0119]). A particular compound Kim teaches is compound 7
PNG
media_image10.png
176
304
media_image10.png
Greyscale
([0152]), which differs from the claimed compound in that the ligand of Kim contains a benzene ring instead of the claimed phenanthrene ring. However, Kim teaches that CY21 can be a phenanthrene group ([0080]) 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 Kim 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 Kim teaches that the group may be a phenanthrene group ([0080]). Additionally, compound 7 of Kim does not contain an auxiliary ligand. However, in Formula 1 of Kim, Kim teaches that ligand L2 can be selected from 3-118
PNG
media_image11.png
104
304
media_image11.png
Greyscale
([0144]). Therefore, it would have further been obvious replace one of the ligands of Kim with an auxiliary ligand represented by Formula 3-118. 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 2-2; 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 S; all the R groups are hydrogen. The ligand represented by Formula 11-4 in claim 7. The ancillary ligand is represented by Formula 22-1 in claim 9. The entire compound is represented by Formula 31-8 in claim 13. The compound is electrically neutral as required by claim 14.)
Kim includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Kim 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 high efficiency and long lifespan ([0153]), 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 8, while modified compound 7 above does not show an acac ligand on the Ir complex, Kim teaches that L2 may also be selected from a group including ligand 3-111
PNG
media_image12.png
110
304
media_image12.png
Greyscale
([0144]), which is the same as ligand 21-1 in claim 8.
Kim includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Kim 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 high efficiency and long lifespan ([0153]), 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 differences between modified compound 7 above with the acac ligand of claim 8 and claimed compound 4
PNG
media_image13.png
140
156
media_image13.png
Greyscale
is the bonding of the two condensed cyclic groups and the methyl substituent. However, Kim teaches compound such as compound 38
PNG
media_image14.png
200
306
media_image14.png
Greyscale
, which contains the methyl group in the claimed position. Furthermore, Kim teaches alternative bonding patterns for the condensed ring systems, including Formula 2-5
PNG
media_image15.png
170
306
media_image15.png
Greyscale
([0119]). 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 further modify the compound to adjust the bonding position of the rings and to include a methyl group substituent and arrive at claimed compound 4.
Kim includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Kim 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 high efficiency and long lifespan ([0153]), 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, Kim 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 ([0164]: “The organometallic compound of Formula 1 may be used between a pair of electrodes of an organic light-emitting device. For example, the organometallic compound represented by Formula 1 may be included in the emission layer.”)
As per claim 18, Kim 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 ([0164]: “In this regard, the organometallic compound may act as a dopant, and the emission layer may further include a host (that is, an amount of the organometallic compound represented by Formula 1 is smaller than an amount of the host).”)
As per claim 19, Kim 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 ([0168]: “In an embodiment, in the organic light-emitting device, the first electrode is an anode, and the second electrode is a cathode, and the organic layer further includes a hole transport region disposed between the first electrode and the emission layer and an electron transport region disposed between the emission layer and the second electrode, wherein the hole transport region includes a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer, a buffer layer or any combination thereof, and wherein the electron transport region includes a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, or any combination thereof.”)
As per claim 20, Kim teaches:
An electronic apparatus, comprising the organic light-emitting device (As an OLED is considered to be an electronic apparatus, Kim teaches the claimed limitations.)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA N CHANDHOK whose telephone number is (571)272-5780. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 6:30 - 3:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Marla McConnell can be reached on (571) 270-7692. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JENNA N CHANDHOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights