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 .
DETAILED ACTION
A proper terminal disclaimer filed on April 9, 2026 is acknowledged. As a result, applicant overcame the pending ODP rejection. Also, amended claims and applicant’s arguments thereof overcame the pending obviousness rejection.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-18, 20 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3771717 A1 (Feb. 3, 2021).
EP having a publication date of Feb. 3, 2021 which is prior to the earliest effective filing date of April 23, 2021 (PRO 63/178,673) for the instant application would be qualified under 35. U.S.C. 102(a) as well as 35 U.S.C. 103 and Exceptions under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) would not apply due to different (co)inventors.
Regarding non-elected Formula II of claims 1 17 and 20 and Formula IV of claim 5 as well as the recited species of claim 16 would be rejoined since EP teaches and equates the recited bonding position of ring C to ring A for the Formula I and Formula II. Thus, the requirement for the election of species mailed on June 3, 2025 is withdrawn and all claims (including withdrawn claims 8 and 11) are examined.
EP teaches a compound comprising Ir(LB26)2 LA3-1-1 as a first compound in [0085].
The instant claim 1 further recites “when ring C is a phenyl ring, at least one Rc comprises four or more atoms that are each independently C or Si over the compound taught by EP.
EP teaches various compounds comprising the recited clause in [0085] except they comprise the instant B being three rings.
EP further teaches and equates the four rings and three rings as well as five rings as the B in [0070].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention to substitute the instant B being three rings with the four ring taught for the Ir(LB26)2 LA3-1-1 in various compounds taught in [0085] since EP teaches and equates the four rings and three rings as well as five rings as the B in [0070] absent showing otherwise.
See In re Mills, 477 F.2d 649, 176 USPQ 196 (CCPA), In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976): Reference must be considered for all that it discloses and must not be limited to preferred embodiments or working examples. MPEP 2123.
Regarding claims 2-6 and 8-12, the above discussed modified compounds of the Ir(LB26)2 LA3-1-1 would meet claims 2-4 or make them obvious.
Regarding claim 13, the compound having a structure of Ir(LB28)2LA2-1-642 taught at top of page 58 of EP substituted the instant B being three rings with the four ring taught as a fourth compound and a fifth compound of page 8 of EP would make at least the recited LA26 and LA39 of claim 13 obvious. Other compounds of claim 13 would have been obvious by ligands LA taught in [0070] of EP with various substituents taught in [0050] of EP.
Regarding the recited ligands of claim 14, ligands LB taught in [0075] would make them obvious.
Regarding the recited ligands of claim 54, ligands taught in [0077] would make them obvious.
Regarding claims 16, 22 and 23, utilization ligands LA taught in [0070] for the Ir(LB26)2 LA3-1-1 taught in [0085] with various substituents taught in [0050] would make the recited compounds obvious. Further as to the recited tert-butyl, EP teaches the tert-butyl as C at top of page 27.
Regarding claims 17, 18 and 20, EP teaches an OLED in claim 14 and a consumer product in claim 15.
Regarding claim 24, various compounds (e.g., Ir(L-B120)2LA2-1-2 of Ir(LB28)2LA2-1-43) taught in [0085] with four or more rings as the instant ring B would make the recited substituents obvious.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAE H YOON whose telephone number is (571)272-1128. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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, Robert Jones can be reached at (571)270-7733. 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.
/TAE H YOON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights