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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/09/2026 has been entered.
Summary of Claims
Claims 1, 16-17, 20, and 23 are amended, claim 24 is new, and claim 22 is cancelled due to Applicant's amendment dated 03/09/2026. Claims 1, 3-17, 20-21, and 23-24 are pending.
Response to Amendment
The rejections of claim 22 as set forth in the previous Office Action are moot because claim 22 is cancelled due to the Applicant's amendment dated 03/09/2026.
The rejection of claims 1, 3-17, 20-21, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement as set forth in the previous Office Action is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 03/09/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1, 3-7, 9-11, 17, 20, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shentu (English translation of CN 113620996 A obtained from Global Dossier) in view of Kim (US 2016/0043330 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 03/09/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shentu in view of Kim, Beers (US 2013/0048963 A1), and Fleetham (Fleetham, Tyler, Guijie Li, and Jian Li. “Phosphorescent Pt (II) and Pd (II) complexes for efficient, high-color-quality, and stable OLEDs.” Advanced Materials 29.5 (2017): 1601861.) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 03/09/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shentu in view of Kim and Zhang (Zhang, Jie, et al. "New phosphorescent platinum (II) Schiff base complexes for PHOLED applications." Journal of Materials Chemistry 22.32 (2012): 16448-16457) and Kim (US 2016/0043330 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 03/09/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1 ,3-4, 6-8, 12-17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (US 2016/0240800 A1) in view of Beers is withdrawn due to reconsideration of the original grounds of rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 48-51 of the reply dated 03/09/2026 with respect to the rejections as set forth in the previous Office Action have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new grounds of rejection set forth below.
Insofar as the arguments apply to the new grounds of rejection below, Applicant’s arguments on pages 51-58 of the reply dated 03/09/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 3-4, 6-8, 12-17, and 20-21 as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument –On pages 51-58, Applicant argues there is no reasonable expectation of success in combining Beers with the primary reference.
Examiner's response –In the new grounds of rejection below, the newly cited reference Lee (US 2018/0244706 A1) teaches an organometallic compound represented by Formula 1 having reduced roll-off ratio and improved efficiency, wherein examples of the organometallic compound include compound 93 (¶ [0009] and [0185]; pg. 38).
In the rejection of claim 8, compound 93 fails to read on the claimed Formula 1 wherein L3 and L4 are not direct bonds. However, Lee teaches T1 may be selected as *-O-*’ (¶ [0009] and [0019]).
Beers suggests modifying a direct bond with a linkage breaks conjugation and may provide a higher triplet energy, and therefore may be advantageous when used in an OLED (¶ [0057] and [0060]). For example, Beers teaches Compounds 1-4 (which each include an oxygen linkage) and Comparative Compounds 1-4 (which each include a direct bond) (see Beers, pg. 72).
Compound 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
182
194
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Comparative Compound 1:
PNG
media_image2.png
182
195
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Beers teaches Compounds 1-4 have disrupted conjugation and high triplet energy, and this allows for the photophysics to be governed primarily by the phenyl-isoimidazole cyclometallating ligand (¶ [0074] and [0140]). Additionally, breaking conjugation may result in a bluer color, improved sublimation, and improved efficiency (¶ [0065]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the direct bond in the location of T1 with *-O-*’, based on the teaching of Beers. The motivation for doing so would have been to break conjugation and provide a higher triplet energy, as taught by Beers.
Accordingly, as selecting *-O-*’ in the location of T1 is within the scope of Lee’s Formula 1, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect such a modification to successfully provide an organometallic compound which provides reduced roll-off ratio and improved efficiency, as taught by Lee.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 63/262,247, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
The only subject matter of ‘247 relevant to a compound of the claimed Formula I of the instant invention is present in claim 45 and pages 38 and 43-44 of the specification, which recite the following compounds:
PNG
media_image3.png
168
265
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
171
252
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
215
254
media_image5.png
Greyscale
That is, ‘247 provides support only for the specific structures above, wherein RA’ and RB’ combine to form a ring, and does not provide support for the full breadth of a compound represented by the claimed Formula I of the instant invention.
It should be noted that the claimed Formula I includes the proviso that (i) RA and RB do not form a ring. As discussed in the 112(b) rejection below, it is not clear which groups the claimed Formula I may not form a ring. However in the case where the variables RA and RB are a typographical error and are meant to be the variables RA’ and RB’, it should be noted that ‘247 does not provide any support for compounds of the claimed Formula I.
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 63/262,587, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
‘587 does not recite any compounds relevant to a compound of the claimed Formula I of the instant invention. Accordingly, ‘587 fails to provide adequate support for a compound of the claimed Formula I.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The newly added claim 24 recites wherein L1 is NR and L1 and R1 are joined or fused to form a 5-membered ring. The instant specification recites L1 may be NR2 and adjacent R1 and R2 may be joined or fused together to form a ring (instant ¶ [0053]). The instant specification also recites Y1 is NR1, L1 is NR2, and R1 and R2 are joined or fused to form a 5-membered heterocyclic ring (instant ¶ [0071]). Accordingly, while there is support for 1) L1 is NR2 and adjacent R1 and R2 are joined or fused together to form a ring; or 2) Y1 is NR1, L1 is NR2, and R1 and R2 are joined or fused to form a 5-membered heterocyclic ring, there is not sufficient support for wherein L1 is NR and L1 and R1 are joined or fused to form a 5-membered ring. For this reason, claim 24 is considered to have new matter.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-17, 20-21, and 23-24 are 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.
In proviso (II) (b) of claims 1, 17, and 20 and in claims 23-24, the limitations recite L1 may be NR. However, in the definition of L1 in claims 1, 17, and 20, the limitations recite L1 may be NR2. Accordingly, it is unclear if proviso (II) (b) and claims 23-24 are referring to NR2 when reciting “NR” or if the limitations are referring to a completely different variable. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as NR2 in proviso (II) (b) and claims 23-24.
Claim 16 recites the compound
PNG
media_image6.png
217
314
media_image6.png
Greyscale
which reads on the claimed Formula I wherein “-----” represents no bond and L1 and R1 do not join to form a ring. However, claim 1 (of which claim 16 depends upon) recites the newly added proviso that requires at least one of the following to be true: “-----” represents a single bond, or L1 and R1 join to form a ring. Since the compound above does not satisfy the proviso, it is unclear how the compound reads on the amended claim. For purposes of examination, the above compound will be interpreted as not present.
Claims 3-16, 21, and 23-24 are further rejected for their dependency upon claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 16 is 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.
As discussed above with respect to the 112(b) rejection of claim 16, the compound above does not properly depend from the formula recited in claim 1. If the compound is selected, it does not satisfy all the requirements of Formula I. Thus claim 16 does not properly depend from claim 1.
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.
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 (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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 12, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee (US 2018/0244706 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 12, and 21, Lee teaches an organometallic compound represented by Formula 1 having reduced roll-off ratio and improved efficiency (¶ [0009] and [0185]). Examples of compounds represented by Formula 1 include compound 93, which is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Formula I (pg. 38).
93:
PNG
media_image7.png
223
227
media_image7.png
Greyscale
1:
PNG
media_image8.png
304
382
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Compound 93 reads on the claimed Formula 1 wherein:
Ring A is a 6-membered heterocyclic ring of pyridine, and Rings B and D are each a 6-membered carbocyclic ring of benzene (claim 3);
Z1 is N and Z2 and Z3 are each C;
X1 to X5 are each C (claim 4);
K1 is a direct bond and K2 is O (claim 6);
a is 1 and b is 0;
Y1 is NR1;
----- represents a single bond (claim 21);
L1 is O, and L2 to L3 are each a direct bond, and L4 is not required to be present (claim 7); and
R1 is aryl, RA’ to RC’ are each hydrogen, and RD’ is a combination of hydrogen and aryloxy wherein adjacent RD’ combine to form a ring.
Compound 93 satisfies provisos (I)(i), (I)(ii), and (II)(a).
Per claim 12, Compound 93 reads on the formula Pt(PA’)(Ly) wherein LA’ is
PNG
media_image9.png
206
165
media_image9.png
Greyscale
and Ly is
PNG
media_image10.png
184
117
media_image10.png
Greyscale
.
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.
Claims 5, 9, 13-15, 17, 20, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2018/0244706 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Lee teaches Compound 93, as described above with respect to claim 1.
Compound 93 fails to read on the claimed Formula I wherein one of X1 to X3 is N. However, Lee teaches CY2-CY5 moiety may be represented by Formulae CY2-1 to CY2-12 (¶ [0117]).
93:
PNG
media_image7.png
223
227
media_image7.png
Greyscale
1:
PNG
media_image11.png
219
325
media_image11.png
Greyscale
CY2-1:
PNG
media_image12.png
126
105
media_image12.png
Greyscale
CY2-2:
PNG
media_image13.png
129
103
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Lee, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute benzene with pyridine in the location of CY2 to arrive at a ring having the structure of CY2-2, because Lee teaches the CY2-CY5 moiety may suitably be selected as CY2-2. The substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as the compound represented by Lee’s Formula 1 and possess the benefits taught by Lee. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select Formula CY2-2, because it would have been choosing from one of Formulae CY2-1 to CY2-12, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the compound represented by Formula 1 and possessing the benefits taught by Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Formula 1 having the benefits taught by Lee in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
The modified Compound 93 reads on the claimed Formula 1 wherein X3 is N.
Regarding claims 9 and 23-24, Lee teaches Compound 93, as described above with respect to claim 1.
Compound 93 fails to read on the claimed Formula I wherein L1 is NR2. However, Lee does teach in Formula 1 T3 may be selected as *-O-*’ or *-N(L5)b5-(R5)]-*’, among others (¶ [0019]).
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Lee, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute *-O-*’ with *-N(L5)b5-(R5)]-*’ in the location of R3, because Lee teaches T3 may suitably be selected as *-N(L5)b5-(R5)]-*’. The substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as the compound represented by Lee’s Formula 1 and possess the benefits taught by Lee. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select *-N(L5)b5-(R5)]-*’, because it would have been choosing from a list of groups suitable for T3, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the compound represented by Lee’s Formula 1 and possessing the benefits taught by Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Lee’s Formula 1 having the benefits taught by Formula 1 in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Compound 93 fails to include S in the location of X51 of Formula 1. However, Lee does teach X51 may be S, as exemplified in Compound 1 (see structure on pg. 27).
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Lee, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute N-Ph with S in the location of X51 (as shown in Compound 1) because Lee teaches X51 may suitably be selected as S. The substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as the compound represented by Lee’s Formula 1 and possess the benefits taught by Lee. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
The modified Compound 93 reads on the claimed Formula 1 wherein Y1 is S and L1 is NR2. As claims 9 and 23-24 do not require R1 to be present, the limitations are met.
Regarding claims 13-15, Lee teaches Compound 93, as described above with respect to claim 12.
Compound 93 fails to read on the claimed Formula I wherein RA is hydrogen. However, Lee teaches in Formula 1 that CY1 may be a C5-C30 carbocyclic group or a C1-C30 heterocyclic group wherein examples thereof include dibenzofuran (as shown in Compound 93) or unsubstituted phenyl (as shown in Compound 1) (¶ [0017]; see structure on pg. 27).
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Lee, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute dibenzofuran in the location of CY1 with unsubstituted phenyl (as exemplified in Compound 1), because Lee teaches CY1 may suitably be selected as unsubstituted phenyl. The substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as a compound represented by Formula 1 and possess the benefits taught by Lee. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
Per claim 13, the modified Compound 93 reads on the formula Pt(PA’)(Ly) wherein LA’ is
PNG
media_image9.png
206
165
media_image9.png
Greyscale
and Ly is
PNG
media_image10.png
184
117
media_image10.png
Greyscale
; RA, RB, RE, and RF are each hydrogen and R1 is unsubstituted phenyl.
Per claim 14, the modified Compound 93 reads on the formula Pt(PA’)(Ly) wherein LA’ is
PNG
media_image14.png
181
172
media_image14.png
Greyscale
and Ly is
PNG
media_image15.png
194
128
media_image15.png
Greyscale
; wherein each of Rs, Rt, Ru, and Rv is hydrogen or aryl.
Per claim 15, the modified Compound 93 reads on the formula Pt(PA’)(Ly) wherein LA’ is LA’2-(R1)(R1)(R10) and Ly is Ly28-(R1)(R1)(R1).
Regarding claims 17 and 20, Lee teaches Compound 93, as described above with respect to claim 12.
Lee fails to specifically teach a device comprising Compound 93. However, Lee does teach an organic light-emitting device having low driving voltage, high efficiency, high power, high quantum efficiency, long lifespan, low roll-off ratio, and excellent color purity by including a first electrode, a second electrode, and an organic layer disposed between the first and second electrode, wherein the organic layer includes a compound represented by Formula 1 (¶ [0190]-[0195]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Compound 93 in Lee’s organic light-emitting device as described above, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Lee according to known methods to yield predictable results of an organic light-emitting device with low driving voltage, high efficiency, high power, high quantum efficiency, long lifespan, low roll-off ratio, and excellent color purity, as taught by Lee. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Per claim 20, an organic light-emitting device is an electronic device, which is considered a consumer product (¶ [0185]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2018/0244706 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Beers (US 2013/0048963 A1) and Fleetham (Fleetham, Tyler, Guijie Li, and Jian Li. "Phosphorescent Pt (II) and Pd (II) complexes for efficient, high‐color‐quality, and stable OLEDs." Advanced Materials 29.5 (2017): 1601861.)
Regarding claim 8, Lee teaches Compound 93, as described above with respect to claim 1.
93:
PNG
media_image7.png
223
227
media_image7.png
Greyscale
1:
PNG
media_image11.png
219
325
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Compound 93 fails to read on the claimed Formula 1 wherein L3 and L4 are not direct bonds. However, Lee teaches T1 and T2 may be selected as *-O-*’ (¶ [0019]).
Beers teaches in tetradentate Pt(II) complexes, providing a linkage between aryl groups in a ligand (instead of a single bond) breaks conjugation and may provide a higher triplet energy, and therefore may be advantageous when used in an OLED (¶ [0057] and [0060]). Beers teaches the linkage may be O, as highlighted in Compound 1 (pg. 19).
Beers’ Compound 1:
PNG
media_image16.png
180
236
media_image16.png
Greyscale
In the analogous art of OLEDs, Fleetham teaches the triplet energy of a metallic complex may be raised through the use of a nonconjugated bridging group (first paragraph of pg. 3). In particular, Fleetham teaches bridging ligands of an emitting Pt complex with oxygen provides a rigid structure, the result of which provides efficient emission and breaks conjugation between the two ligands (abstract; pg. 13, first paragraph of right column). Fleetham teaches such a metal complex may lead to a significant improvement of light-extraction efficiency (pg. 2, left column; pg. 15, last paragraph). Fleetham teaches examples of compounds including a bridging oxygen, as shown in PtOO1 below (Figure 4).
PtOO1:
PNG
media_image17.png
134
111
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the direct bonds in the locations of T1 and T2 with *-O-*’, based on the teaching of Beers and Fleetham. The motivation for doing so would have been to break conjugation and provide a higher triplet energy, as taught by Beers, and to raise the triplet energy, break conjugation, and provide efficient emission and improved light-extraction efficiency, as taught by Fleetham.
The resulting compound reads on the claimed Formula 1 wherein each of L3 and L4 is O.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRAELYN R WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5pm.
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.
/BRAELYN R WATSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights