CTNF 17/743,561 CTNF 91937 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. Response to Amendment The amendment of 27 February 2026 has been entered. Disposition of claims: Claims 1, 3, 7, 9, and 17 have been amended. Claims 18-20 are cancelled. Claims 21-23 are new. Claims 1-17 and 21-23 are pending. The amendment to claim 7 has overcome the objection to claim 7 set forth in the last Office action. The objection has been withdrawn. The cancellation of claim 19 has rendered moot the objection to claim 19 set forth in the last Office action. The objection has been withdrawn. The amendment to claim 1 has required the revision of the rejection of claims 1-2, 8-9, 11, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Je et al. (KR 10-2013-0043460 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Je”) set forth in the last Office action. The revised rejection is outlined below. The amendment to claim 1 has required the revision of the rejection of claims 11-2, 9, and 12-13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Han et al. (US 2022/0320447 A1) (hereafter “Han”) set forth in the last Office action. The revised rejection is outlined below. The amendment to claim 1 has required the revision of the rejection of claims 1-2, 4, 9, 11, and 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li (US 2019/0233453 A1) (hereafter “Li”) set forth in the last Office action. The revised rejection is outlined below. The amendment to claim 1 has required the revision of the rejection of claims 1-2, 9, and 12-13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bae et al. (US 2020/0392173 A1) (hereafter “Bae”) set forth in the last Office action. The revised rejection is outlined below. The amendment to claim 1 has required the revision of the rejection of claims 1-2, 4, 7, 9, and 12-13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US 2022/0320447 A1) (hereafter “Han”) set forth in the last Office action. The revised rejection is outlined below. The amendments to claims 1 and 17 have overcome the rejections of claims 1-2, 4-7, 9, 11, and 17-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ise et al. (US 2005/0227112 A1) (hereafter “Ise”) in view of Tanaka et al. (JP 2012-164731 A— machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Tanaka”) set forth in the last Office action. The cancellation of claims 19 and 20 has rendered moot the rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ise et al. (US 2005/0227112 A1) (hereafter “Ise”) in view of Tanaka et al. (JP 2012-164731 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Tanaka”), and further in view of Ma (US 2010/0237334 A1) (hereafter “Ma”) and the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ise et al. (US 2005/0227112 A1) (hereafter “Ise”) in view of Tanaka et al. (JP 2012-164731 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Tanaka”), and further in view of Lamansky et al. (US 2002/0182441 A1) (hereafter “Lamansky”) set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn. However, new grounds of rejection have been made, as outlined below. The amendment to claim 1 has overcome the rejections of claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-11, and 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ise et al. (US 2005/0227112 A1) (hereafter “Ise”) in view of Tanaka et al. (JP 2012-164731 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Tanaka”) set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn. However, new grounds of rejection have been made, as outlined below. Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 2 7 February 2026 regarding the rejection of claims 1-2, 8-9, 11, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Je et al. (KR 10-2013-0043460 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Je”) set forth in the last Office action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claim amendments have overcome the rejection. However, the cited reference still reads on the current claims for the reasons outlined below. Specifically, in each of the cited compounds, b can be interpreted as 0; a, c, and d can each be interpreted as 1; L1 and L3 can each be interpreted each direct bonds; L4 can be interpreted as NR; K1, K2, K3, and K4 are direct bonds . 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 27 February 2026 regarding the rejection of claims 11-2, 9, and 12-13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Han et al. (US 2022/0320447 A1) (hereafter “Han”) set forth in the last Office action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claim amendments have overcome the rejection. However, the cited reference still reads on the current claims for the reasons outlined below. Specifically, in each of the cited compounds, b can be interpreted as 0; a, c, and d can each be interpreted as 1; L 1 can be interpreted as a direct bond; L 3 can be interpreted as NR; L 4 can be interpreted as O; K 1 , K 2 , K 3 , and K 4 are direct bonds . 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 27 February 2026 regarding the rejection of claims 1-2, 4, 9, 11, and 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li (US 2019/0233453 A1) (hereafter “Li”) set forth in the last Office action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claim amendments have overcome the rejection. However, the cited reference still reads on the current claims for the reasons outlined below. Specifically, in each of the cited compounds, b can be interpreted as 0; a, c, and d can each be interpreted as 1; L 1 can be interpreted as a direct bond; L 3 can be interpreted as NR; L 4 can be interpreted as O; K 1 , K 2 , K 3 , and K 4 are direct bonds; the moiety B can be interpreted as pyrazole; one of rings A, B, C, and D are a 5-membered ring coordinated to the metal M by an M-N bond. Alternatively, where in each of the cited compounds, d can be interpreted as 0; a, b, and c can each be interpreted as 1; L 1 can be interpreted as NR; L 3 can be interpreted as a single bond; L 4 can be interpreted as O; K 1 , K 2 , K 3 , and K 4 are direct bonds; the moiety D can be interpreted as pyrazole; one of rings A, B, C, and D are a 5-membered ring coordinated to the metal M by an M-N bond . 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 27 February 2026 regarding the rejection of claims 1-2, 9, and 12-13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bae et al. (US 2020/0392173 A1) (hereafter “Bae”) set forth in the last Office action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claim amendments have overcome the rejection. However, the cited reference still reads on the current claims for the reasons outlined in the rejection below. Specifically, in the cited compounds b can be interpreted as 0; a, c, and d can each be interpreted as 1; L 1 can be interpreted as a direct bond; L 3 can be interpreted as a NR; L 4 can be interpreted as a O; K 1 , K 2 , K 3 , and K 4 are each direct bonds . 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 27 Feb ruary 2026 regarding the rejection of claims 1-2, 4, 7, 9, and 12-13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US 2022/0320447 A1) (hereafter “Han”) set forth in the last Office action have b een fully considered but they are not persuasive. Appli cant argues that the claim amendments have overcome the rejection. However, the cited reference still reads on the current claims for the reasons outlined in the rejection below. Specifically, in the cited compound: b can be interpreted as 0; a, c, and d can be interpreted as 1; L 1 can be interpreted as a direct bond; L 3 can be interpreted as a NR; L 4 can be interpreted as a O; K 1 , K 2 , K 3 , and K 4 are direct bonds; one of rings A, B, C, and D are a 5-membered ring coordinated to the metal M by an M-N bond; the moiety B comprises a five membered ring and a six membered ring. Alternatively, in the cited compound: d can be interpreted as 0; a, b, and c can be interpreted as 1; L 1 can be interpreted as NR; L 3 can be interpreted as a single bond; L 2 can be interpreted as a O; K 1 , K 2 , K 3 , and K 4 are direct bonds; one of rings A, B, C, and D are a 5-membered ring coordinated to the metal M by an M-N bond; the moiety D comprises a five membered ring and a six membered ring. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1-2, 4-7, 9, 11, and 17-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ise et al. (US 2005/0227112 A1) (hereafter “Ise”) in view of Tanaka et al. (JP 2012-164731 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Tanaka”) set forth in the last Office action. The cancellation of claims 19 and 20 has rendered moot the rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ise et al. (US 2005/0227112 A1) (hereafter “Ise”) in view of Tanaka et al. (JP 2012-164731 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Tanaka”), and further in view of Ma (US 2010/0237334 A1) (hereafter “Ma”) and the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ise et al. (US 2005/0227112 A1) (hereafter “Ise”) in view of Tanaka et al. (JP 2012-164731 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Tanaka”), and further in view of Lamansky et al. (US 2002/0182441 A1) (hereafter “Lamansky”) set forth in the last Office action 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. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-11, and 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ise et al. (US 2005/0227112 A1) (hereafter “Ise”) in view of Tanaka et al. (JP 2012-164731 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Tanaka”) set forth in the last Office action 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. Examiner’s Note This Office action is being made non-final, because the rejection for claim 8 is not necessitated by amendment. The previous rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 102 over Je et al. (KR 10-2013-0043460 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Je”) did not read on claim 8 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA 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. 07-31-01 Claims 1-17 and 21-23 are 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. Regarding claims 1 and 17: Claims 1 and 17 recite the limitation that “if d is 0, a is 1, L 1 is a direct bond, and moiety A is an imidazole-derived carbene, then an R A and an R B are not joined or fused to form a ring comprising a spiro carbon”. Neither the specification nor the originally filed claims recite adjacent substituents R A and R B joining or fusing to form a ring that specifically comprises a spiro carbon. Because this subject matter is not recited, it cannot be specifically excluded in a negative limitation. Any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure. If alternative elements are positively recited in the specification, they may be explicitly excluded in the claims. See In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1019, 194 USPQ 187, 196 (CCPA 1977) ("[the] specification, having described the whole, necessarily described the part remaining."). See also Ex parte Grasselli, 231 USPQ 393 (Bd. App. 1983), aff’d mem., 738 F.2d 453 (Fed. Cir. 1984). See MPEP 2173.05(i). Regarding claims 2-16 and 21-23: Claims 2-16 and 21-23 are rejected due to their dependence from claim 1. 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-17 and 21-23 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. Regarding claims 1 and 17: Claims 1 and 17 recite the limitation “if d is 0, a is 1, L 1 is a direct bond, moiety A is an imidazole-derived carbon, and R A attached to X 1 has a structure of Formula II, then R X is not cycloalkyl or cyano”. It is unclear what is an “imidazole-derived carbon”, rendering the claims indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the claims are being interpreted as reciting “an imidazole-derived carbene”. Regarding claims 2-16 and 21-23: Claims 2-16 and 21-23 are rejected due to their dependence from claim 1. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 07-15 AIA Claims 1-2, 9, 11, 13, and 21-22 are r ejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a )(1) as being a nticipated b y J e et al. (KR 10-2013-0043460 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Je”) . Regarding claims 1-2, 9, 11, 13, and 21-22: Je discloses the compounds shown below {(p. 2, lines 22-25: The compounds of the disclosure of Je have the structure of Chemical Formula 1 of Je.), (p. 5, lines 4-3: The compounds having the structure of Chemical Formula 1 of Je are exemplified by the compounds having the structures of Chemical Formulas 18 through 201.), (p. 9, Chemical Formula 105), (p. 14, Chemical Formula 199)} . [AltContent: textbox (Je’s Chemical Formula 199)] [AltContent: textbox (Je’s Chemical Formula 105)] PNG media_image1.png 608 434 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 780 936 media_image2.png Greyscale Where in each of the compounds above, b can be interpreted as 0; a, c, and d can each be interpreted as 1; L 1 and L 3 can each be interpreted each direct bonds; L 4 can be interpreted as NR; K 1 , K 2 , K 3 , and K 4 are direct bonds . 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-2, 9, 13, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Han et al. (US 2022/0320447 A1) (hereafter “Han”) . Regarding claims 1-2, 9, 13, and 21-22: Han discloses the compound shown below {(paragraphs [0007] and [0107]-[0108]: The compounds of the disclosure of Han have the structure of Chemical Formula 1 of Han.), (paragraph [0147]: The compounds having the structure of Chemical Formula 1 of Han are exemplified by the compounds having the structures of Compounds 1 through 145 of Han.), (p. 27, Compounds 79-80)} . [AltContent: textbox (Han’s Compound 80)] [AltContent: textbox (Han’s Compound 79)] PNG media_image3.png 594 672 media_image3.png Greyscale PNG media_image4.png 636 668 media_image4.png Greyscale Where in each of the compounds above, b can be interpreted as 0; a, c, and d can each be interpreted as 1; L 1 can be interpreted as a direct bond; L 3 can be interpreted as NR; L 4 can be interpreted as O; K 1 , K 2 , K 3 , and K 4 are direct bonds . 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-2, 4, 9, 11, 13-15, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Li (US 2019/0233453 A1) (hereafter “Li”) . Regarding claims 1-2, 4, 9, 11, 13-15, and 21-22: Li discloses the compounds shown below (among others that meet the current claim limitations) {(paragraph [0067]: The compounds of the disclosure of Li have the structure of formula (I) of Li.), (paragraph [0074]: The compounds having the structure of formula (I) of Li are exemplified by the compounds having the structures of Compounds Pt1 through Pt1152 of Li.), (p. 56, Compounds Pt317 to Pt319; p. 58, Compounds Pt329 to Pt331; p. 59, Compounds Pt337 to Pt339)} . PNG media_image5.png 826 380 media_image5.png Greyscale PNG media_image6.png 820 368 media_image6.png Greyscale PNG media_image7.png 358 500 media_image7.png Greyscale PNG media_image8.png 868 376 media_image8.png Greyscale Where in each of the compounds above, b can be interpreted as 0; a, c, and d can each be interpreted as 1; L 1 can be interpreted as a direct bond; L 3 can be interpreted as NR; L 4 can be interpreted as O; K 1 , K 2 , K 3 , and K 4 are direct bonds; the moiety B can be interpreted as pyrazole; one of rings A, B, C, and D are a 5-membered ring coordinated to the metal M by an M-N bond. Alternatively, where in each of the compounds above, d can be interpreted as 0; a, b, and c can each be interpreted as 1; L 1 can be interpreted as NR; L 3 can be interpreted as a single bond; L 4 can be interpreted as O; K 1 , K 2 , K 3 , and K 4 are direct bonds; the moiety D can be interpreted as pyrazole; one of rings A, B, C, and D are a 5-membered ring coordinated to the metal M by an M-N bond. Where L A’ comprises moieties D and C . 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-2, 9, 13, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Bae et al. (US 2020/0392173 A1) (hereafter “Bae”) . Regarding claims 1-2, 9, 13, and 21-22: Bae discloses the compound shown below {(paragraphs [0008]-[0014] and [0058]-[0064]: The compounds of the disclosure of Bae have the structure of Formula 1 of Bae.), (paragraph [0230]: The compounds having the structure of Formula 1 of Bae are exemplified by the compounds having the structures of Compounds 1 through 325 of Bae.), (p. 5, Compound 69; p. 87, Compound 262)} . [AltContent: textbox (Bae’s Compound 262)] [AltContent: textbox (Bae’s Compound 69)] PNG media_image9.png 522 636 media_image9.png Greyscale PNG media_image10.png 498 632 media_image10.png Greyscale Where b can be interpreted as 0; a, c, and d can each be interpreted as 1; L 1 can be interpreted as a direct bond; L 3 can be interpreted as a NR; L 4 can be interpreted as a O; K 1 , K 2 , K 3 , and K 4 are each direct bonds . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-2, 4, 8-9, 13, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US 2022/0320447 A1) (hereafter “Han”) . Regarding claims 1-2, 4, 8-9, 13, and 21-22: Han discloses the compound shown below {(paragraphs [0007] and [0107]-[0108]: The compounds of the disclosure of Han have the structure of Chemical Formula 1 of Han.), (paragraph [0147]: The compounds having the structure of Chemical Formula 1 of Han are exemplified by the compounds having the structures of Compounds 1 through 145 of Han.), (p. 26, Compound 75)} . [AltContent: textbox (Han’s Compound 75)] PNG media_image11.png 522 666 media_image11.png Greyscale Han does not exemplify compounds similar to the compounds shown above in which the phenyl group substituted with two tertiary butyl groups are instead substituted with two triethylsilyl groups. However, Han teaches that the compounds of Han have the structure of Chemical Formula 1 of Han, shown below { paragraphs [0007] and [0107]-[0108]} . PNG media_image12.png 358 550 media_image12.png Greyscale Where R 1 can be a substituted aryl group {paragraphs [0008] and [0113]} . Han further teaches that the substituted groups of a substituted aryl group can be silyl {paragraph [0043]} . The silyl group can be triethylsilyl {paragraph [0056]} . At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compound of Han shown above by substituting triethylsilyl groups in place of the tertiary butyl groups on the phenyl substituent of the imidazole ring, based on the teaching of Han. The substitution would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). The selection of triethylsilyl would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (the described substituents of Han), with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of substituent and substituent positions to be used to make compounds for use in an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light emitting devices. In the resultant compound: b can be interpreted as 0; a, c, and d can be interpreted as 1; L 1 can be interpreted as a direct bond; L 3 can be interpreted as a NR; L 4 can be interpreted as a O; K 1 , K 2 , K 3 , and K 4 are direct bonds; one of rings A, B, C, and D are a 5-membered ring coordinated to the metal M by an M-N bond; the moiety B comprises a five membered ring and a six membered ring. Alternatively, in the resultant compound: d can be interpreted as 0; a, b, and c can be interpreted as 1; L 1 can be interpreted as NR; L 3 can be interpreted as a single bond; L 2 can be interpreted as a O; K 1 , K 2 , K 3 , and K 4 are direct bonds; one of rings A, B, C, and D are a 5-membered ring coordinated to the metal M by an M-N bond; the moiety D comprises a five membered ring and a six membered ring . 07-21-aia AIA Claim(s ) 1-2, 4-7, 9, 11, 13, 17, and 21-22 are re jected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ta keda et al. (JP 2009-267444 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Takeda”) in view of Tanaka et al. (JP 2012-164731 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Tanaka”) . Regarding claims 1-2, 4-7, 9, 11, 13, 17, and 21-22: Takeda discloses an organic light emitting device (OLED) comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode {paragraphs [0143]-[0147] and Table 5: Example 1-5} . The organic layer comprises the compound shown below in addition to a host material mCP {(paragraphs [0143]-[0147] and Table 5: Example 1-5 comprises compound H-1, which is mCP as a host, and compound 2-1 as the light-emitting dopant.), (paragraph [0156]: structure of Compound 2-1)} . PNG media_image13.png 430 470 media_image13.png Greyscale Where d can be assigned as 0; a, b, and c can be assigned as 1; L 1 and L 3 are direct bonds; L 2 is CRR’; K 1 , K 2 , K 3 , and K 4 are direct bonds; one of rings A, B, C, and D are a 5-membered ring coordinated to the metal M by an M-N bond. Takeda does not teach that the phenyl substituents have the structure of the instant Formula II. Tanaka teaches metal complexes comprising silyl containing moieties, and exemplifies the compound below {(paragraphs [0028]-[0033]: The compounds of the disclosure of Tanaka have the structure of general formula [G] of Tanaka and further can be metal complexes having the structure of general formula [2] of Tanaka.), (paragraph [0107]: The compounds of the disclosure of Tanaka are exemplified by compounds D-1 through D-50.), (paragraph [0110]: Compound D-20)} . PNG media_image14.png 866 934 media_image14.png Greyscale Tanaka teaches that the metal complexes comprising the silyl moieties of the disclosure of Tanaka enable organic electroluminescent devices with improved lifetime {paragraphs [0022]-[0023]} . At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compound of Takeda such that the phenyl groups were replaced with the three fused ring silyl moiety of Tanaka shown above (including the attachment point), based on the teaching of Tanaka. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the lifetime of the device of Takeda, based on the teaching of Tanaka . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 23 is re jected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ta keda et al. (JP 2009-267444 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Takeda”) in view of Tanaka et al. (JP 2012-164731 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Tanaka”) as applied to claim s 17-18 above, and further in view of Lamansky et al. (US 2002/0182441 A1) (hereafter “Lamansky”) . Regarding claim 23: Takeda as modified by Tanaka teaches all of the features with respect to claims 1 and 17, as outlined above. Claim 23 differs from claim 17 in the organic light-emitting device is comprised in a consumer product. Takeda does not teach a consumer product comprising the organic light-emitting device of Takeda as modified by Tanaka described above. Lamansky teaches the use of organic electroluminescent devices in display devices {paragraph [0139]} . Lamansky teaches that flat panel displays utilizing organic light emitting devices (which are organic electroluminescent devices) would have bright colors, wide viewing angle, low power requirements, broad temperature ranges, and thin form factor {paragraph [0010]} . At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the organic light-emitting device of Takeda as modified by Tanaka to be part of a display device, based on the teachings of Lamansky. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a display device with bright colors, wide viewing angle, low power requirements, broad temperature ranges, and thin form factor, as taught by Lamansky . 07-21-aia AIA Claim( s) 1-2, 4-13, 17, and 21-22 are r ejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over J eong et al. (US 2019/0044085 A1) (hereafter “Jeong”) in view of Tanaka et al. (JP 2012-164731 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Tanaka”) . Regarding claims 1-2, 4-13, 17, and 21-22: Jeong discloses an organic light emitting device (OLED) comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode {paragraphs [0428]-[0432] and Table 1: Example 12 uses CBP as a host and compound A-350 as a light-emitting dopant.} . The organic layer comprises the compound shown below in addition to the host material CBP (also shown below) {paragraphs [0428]-[0432] and Table 1: Example 12 uses CBP as a host and compound A-350 as a light-emitting dopant.} . PNG media_image15.png 816 730 media_image15.png Greyscale Where b can be interpreted as 0; a, c, and d can be interpreted as 1; L1, L3, and L4 are direct bonds; K2 is O; K1, K3, and K4 are direct bonds; one of rings A, B, C, and D are a 5-membered ring coordinated to the metal M by an M-N bond; the moiety A comprises a five-membered ring and a six-membered ring. Alternatively, a can be interpreted as 0; b, c, and d can be interpreted as 1; L2, L3, and L4 are direct bonds; K1 is O; K2, K3, and K4 are direct bonds; the moiety D comprises a five-membered ring and a six-membered ring. [AltContent: textbox (CBP)] PNG media_image16.png 264 600 media_image16.png Greyscale Jeong does not teach that the phenyl substituent on the imidazole ring has the structure of the instant Formula II. Tanaka teaches metal complexes comprising silyl containing moieties, and exemplifies the compound below {(paragraphs [0028]-[0033]: The compounds of the disclosure of Tanaka have the structure of general formula [G] of Tanaka and further can be metal complexes having the structure of general formula [2] of Tanaka.), (paragraph [0107]: The compounds of the disclosure of Tanaka are exemplified by compounds D-1 through D-50.), (paragraph [0110]: Compound D-20)} . PNG media_image14.png 866 934 media_image14.png Greyscale Tanaka teaches that the metal complexes comprising the silyl moieties of the disclosure of Tanaka enable organic electroluminescent devices with improved lifetime {paragraphs [0022]-[0023]} . At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compound of Jeong such that the phenyl group substituent on the imidazole ring was replaced with the three fused ring silyl moiety of Tanaka shown above (including the attachment point), based on the teaching of Tanaka. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the lifetime of the device of Takeda, based on the teaching of Tanaka . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-07 AIA 07-97 12-51-07 Claim 3 is allowed. 07-43-02 AIA Claim 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Any of Je et al. (KR 10-2013-0043460 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Je”), Han et al. (US 2022/0320447 A1) (hereafter “Han”), Li (US 2019/0233453 A1) (hereafter “Li”), and Bae et al. (US 2020/0392173 A1) (hereafter “Bae”) can be considered the closest prior art. However, none of these cited references teach or disclose either the substituents of the current claim 3 or the substituent patterns of the compounds of the current claim 16. Neither does the broader prior art teach or motivate adding the required substituents positions to the compounds of Je, Han, Li, or Bae in order to meet the claim limitations . Conclusion 07-40 AIA Applicant's amendment necessitated the 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DYLAN CLAY KERSHNER whose telephone number is (303)297-4257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm (Mountain). 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. /DYLAN C KERSHNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786 Application/Control Number: 17/743,561 Page 2 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 17/743,561 Page 3 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 17/743,561 Page 4 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 17/743,561 Page 5 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 17/743,561 Page 6 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 17/743,561 Page 7 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 17/743,561 Page 8 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 17/743,561 Page 9 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 17/743,561 Page 10 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 17/743,561 Page 11 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 17/743,561 Page 12 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 17/743,561 Page 13 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 17/743,561 Page 14 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 17/743,561 Page 15 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 17/743,561 Page 16 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 17/743,561 Page 17 Art Unit: 1786
Prosecution Insights