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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 24, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on March 24, 2026.
Claims 1, 13, 14, 17 and 20 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 21 – 23 have been added.
Claims 9, 16, and 19 have been canceled.
Claims 1 – 8, 10 – 15, 17, 18, and 20 – 23 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed March 24, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6 – 10, 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ji as set forth in the office action filed November 28, 2025.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed March 24, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 17 – 20 under 35 U.S.C. as being unpatentable over Ji as set forth in the office action filed November 28, 2025.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on March 24, 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Application 17/718757 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
The declaration, filed by Applicant on March 24, 2026, has been fully considered and is hereby entered.
Applicant's arguments filed March 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claim 1 has been amended to recite that if moiety D is dibenzofuran at least one of R1 or R2 is a para-substituted 6-membered ring wherein R1 or R2 does not comprise biphenyl. Applicant notes that this overcomes the rejection based on Lee’s compound 164. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the rejection from November 28, 2025 and in the rejection below, compound 164 of Lee is modified to switch out the oxygen atom for a sulfur atom as allowed by formula 2 of there. Therefore, the proviso does not appear to apply, as the modified compound of Lee contains a dibenzothiophene group, not a dibenzofuran group.
Applicant argues that the presence of a second iteration of ligand LA according to instant Formula I as an emitter results in unexpected improvements of luminous efficacy, external quantum efficiency, and power efficiency in an OLED as compared to an emitter compound with three distinct ligands. Applicant points to the instant specification and the declaration submitted with the response as evidence of this. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the data in the declaration and instant specification is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention, which is directed towards a compound, not a device containing the compound.
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to claims 1 – 8, 10 – 15, 17 – 19, and 21 – 23 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 § 112
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 13 recites that LA1 to LA79 have the following structures. However, ligands LA78 and LA79 are not shown. This renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what structures ligands LA78 and LA79 are intended to refer to.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 – 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14 – 16, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yu (US20150021585A1).
As per claims 1 – 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14 – 16, and 22, Yu teaches:
A heteroleptic compound having a Formula Ir(LA)m(LB)3-m, having a structure of
PNG
media_image1.png
178
324
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Yamazaki teaches compounds represented by chemical Formula C-7
PNG
media_image2.png
254
296
media_image2.png
Greyscale
([0077]). This compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein m is 2; ring A is a monocyclic ring comprising 6-membered aromatic rings, namely a pyridine ring as required by claim 10.; ring C is a monocyclic ring comprising 6-membered aromatic rings; ring D is a monocyclic ring comprising 6-membered aromatic ring; RA represents 1 substitution; RB, RC, RD, and RE represent no substitution; R1 represents an aryl group, namely a phenyl group as required by claim 5; R2 represents an alkyl group; RA represents an alkyl group as required by claim 8. As the substitutions R1 and R2 are capable of being substituted by the moieties claimed, Yu anticipates claim 7. Ligand LA is represented by
PNG
media_image3.png
174
132
media_image3.png
Greyscale
in claim 12. Ligand LB is represented by
PNG
media_image4.png
180
98
media_image4.png
Greyscale
in claim 14, wherein RG is represented by R1 and RF is represented by R2 as in k=68.)
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 – 5, 7, 8, 10, 12 – 15, 17, 18, 20, 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US20210155647A1).
As per claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 10, 12 – 15, 17, 20, 22 and 23 Lee teaches:
A heteroleptic compound having a Formula Ir(LA)m(LB)3-m, having a structure of
PNG
media_image1.png
178
324
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Lee teaches ligands of formula 2
PNG
media_image5.png
244
316
media_image5.png
Greyscale
. A specific compound Lee teaches is compound 164
PNG
media_image6.png
222
308
media_image6.png
Greyscale
([0116]), which contains a dibenzofuran group without the corresponding para-substituted 6-membered ring required by the claim. However, in formula 2 of Lee, X21 is taught to be selected from among O and S. 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 replace the oxygen in the dibenzofuran group with a sulfur atom, creating a dibenzothiophene group. When modified in this way, the modified compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein m is 2, as required by claim 22, A is a monocyclic ring comprising a 6-membered aromatic ring, namely a pyridine ring as required by claim 10; D is a polycyclic fused ring structure comprising both 5-membered and 6-membered aromatic rings; C is a monocyclic ring comprising a 6-membered aromatic ring; R2 represents a substituent selected from the group of aryl, namely a phenyl group as required by claim 5 and the remaining R1, RA, RC, and RD are hydrogen. As compound 164 contains a R2 group that can be independently substituted, the compound of Lee meets the limitations of claim 7. Ligand LA is selected from
PNG
media_image7.png
180
158
media_image7.png
Greyscale
in claim 12 and LA1 in claim 13
PNG
media_image8.png
182
124
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Ligand LB is selected from LBk-23
PNG
media_image9.png
156
180
media_image9.png
Greyscale
in claim 14 wherein k is 1 and RF and RG are both hydrogen.)
An organic light emitting device comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode, wherein the organic layer comprises the heteroleptic compound ([0036]: “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 and including an emission layer, the organic layer including at least one organometallic compound represented by Formula 1.” As an OLED is a consumer product, Lee also meets the limitations of claim 20.)
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 OLED devices with low driving voltage, high external quantum efficiency, long lifespan, and low roll-off ratio ([0126]), 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 3, the compound above specifically teaches an aryl group in the R2 position. However, in Formula 2, Lee shows that the bonding of the R1 group is variable. 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 move the aryl group from the claimed R2 position as shown above, to another position, such as the claimed R1 position.
As per claim 8, Lee does not specifically teach:
A compound of Formula I wherein at least one RA, one RB, one RC, one RD, or one RE is deuterium, alkyl or a combination of both
In Formula 2 of Lee, R1 and R2 are selected from deuterium or an alkyl group ([0050 – 0071]). Furthermore, Lee teaches compounds, such as compound 166
PNG
media_image10.png
196
358
media_image10.png
Greyscale
, where the dibenzofuran group is substituted with an alkyl group. 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 similarly substitute the dibenzothiophene group of modified compound 164 above and arrive at the claimed compound wherein RD is an alkyl group.
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 OLED devices with low driving voltage, high external quantum efficiency, long lifespan, and low roll-off ratio ([0126]), 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 18, Lee teaches:
The organic layer further comprises a host, wherein the host comprises at least one chemical moiety selected from the group consisting of…. Carbazole ([0162 – 0163]: “The emission layer may include a host and a dopant, and the dopant may include the organometallic compound represented by Formula 1. The host may include… CBP.”)
Claims 1, 2, and 4 – 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Margulies (US20170365801A1).
As per claims 1, 2, 4 – 10, and 12 – 16, and 21 – 23, Margulies teaches:
A heteroleptic compound having a Formula Ir(LA)m(LB)3-m, having a structure of
PNG
media_image1.png
178
324
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Margulies teaches compounds of Formula M(L1)x(L2)y(L3)z wherein L1 – L3can be the same or different, x can be 1, 2 or 3, y can be 0, 1 or 2, and z can be 0, 1, or 2 as long as the sum of x, y and z is the oxidation state of the metal ([0105 – 0110]). Margulies teaches compound 23
PNG
media_image11.png
180
336
media_image11.png
Greyscale
, which contains three different ligands. However, in the general Formula of Margulies, the ligands are not necessarily different. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to replace the ligand at the bottom of the compound with a second ligand identical to the left ligand and arrive at a compound of the claimed Formula. When modified in this way, the compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein m is 2 as required by claim 22; moiety A is a monocyclic 6-membered ring, namely a pyridine ring; moiety C is a monocyclic 6-membered ring; moiety D is a monocyclic 6-membered ring; RA, RB, and RC are a mono substitution that is a combination of alkyl and deuterium; RD and RE represent no substitutions; R1 represents hydrogen and R2 represents a combination of aryl, alkyl and deuterium, namely a substituted phenyl group as required by claims 5 and 23, the group is para substituted as required by claim 6; RA is not para to N. As the modified compound contains a R2 group that can be independently substituted, Margulies meets the limitations of claim 7. Ligand LA is represented by
PNG
media_image12.png
180
134
media_image12.png
Greyscale
in claim 12; and LA18
PNG
media_image13.png
200
142
media_image13.png
Greyscale
in claim 13; ligand LB is represented by LBk-1
PNG
media_image14.png
148
162
media_image14.png
Greyscale
, wherein RF is hydrogen and RG is CD3. This compound is the same as
PNG
media_image15.png
150
228
media_image15.png
Greyscale
in claim 21 on page 37.)
Margulies includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Margulies 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 improved efficiency ([0002]), 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 11, another compound taught by Margulies is compound 26
PNG
media_image16.png
206
680
media_image16.png
Greyscale
, wherein instead of the substituted benzene ring, the phenyl group is substituted with a carbazole group. 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 replace the substituted benzene ring of modified compound 23 with a carbazole group as in compound 26. This group contains the 5-membered ring required by claim 11.
Margulies includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Margulies 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 improved efficiency ([0002]), 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 17, 18, and 20, Margulies teaches:
A consumer product comprising an organic light-emitting device , wherein the organic light emitting device comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode, wherein the organic layer contains the heteroleptic compound ([0018]: “According to another aspect, a consumer product comprising an OLED is disclosed wherein the OLED comprises: an anode; a cathode; and an organic layer, disposed between the anode and the cathode, comprising a compound having a metal coordination complex structure; wherein the compound is capable of functioning as an emitter in an organic light emitting device at room temperature”)
Wherein the organic layer further comprises a host, wherein the host comprises at least one chemical moiety selected from.. carbazole… ([0142 – 0147]: “The organic layer can also include a host… The host can be, but is not limited to, a specific compound selected from the host group consisting of
PNG
media_image17.png
152
288
media_image17.png
Greyscale
.”)
Margulies teaches an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer and that the compound is in the organic layer with a host material as discussed above. It would have been obvious to use the compound in the organic layer with the device structure of Margulies as Margulies demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (US20150021585A1) as applied to claims 1 – 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14 – 16, and 22 above.
As per claims 17, 18, and 20, Yu teaches compound C-7, shown above. Yu does not specifically an Example of the compound in a device. However, Yu teaches:
An OLED comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode, wherein the organic layer comprises the organometallic compound ([0101]: “In another embodiment, an organic optoelectric device includes an anode, a cathode, and an organic thin layer, e.g., one or more organic thin layers, between the anode and the cathode. At least one of the organic thin layers may include the composition for an organic optoelectric device.”)
Wherein the organic layer further comprises a host, wherein the host comprises at least one chemical moiety selected from the group consisting of… carbazole… (Yu teaches examples of host compounds include
PNG
media_image18.png
294
310
media_image18.png
Greyscale
, which includes the claimed carbazole group.)
A consumer product comprising the OLED ([0113]: “In another embodiment, a display device including the organic optoelectric device is provided.”)
Yu teaches an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer and that the compound is in the organic layer with a host material containing a carbazole group as discussed above. It would have been obvious to use the compound in the organic layer with the device structure of Yu as Yu demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
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