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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 01/05/2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 3, 7, 15, and 19 have been canceled.
Claims 21-24 have been added.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-14, 16-18, and 20-24 are pending.
Claims 1, 6, 9, 13-14, 17, and 20 have been amended.
The cancellation of claims 3, 7, 15, and 19 obviates the rejections of claims 3, 7, 15, and 19 set forth in the last Office Action.
The amendment of claim 9 have overcome the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the last Office Action. The rejection has been withdrawn.
The amendments of claims 1, 6, 9, 13-14, and 20 have overcome:
the rejections of claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 10-11, and 13-14 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2023/0084208 A1, hereafter Kim ‘208),
the rejections of claims 17-18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2023/0084208 A1),
the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2023/0084208 A1) as applied to claims 7 and 17-20 as outlined above, further in view of Wu et al. (US 2012/0228583 A1, hereafter Wu),
the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2023/0084208 A1) as applied to claims 7 and 17-20 as outlined above, further in view of Kim et al. (US 2022/0209142 A1, hereafter Kim ‘142).
the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2023/0084208 A1) as applied to claims 7 and 17-20 as outlined above, further in view of Kim et al. (US 2008/0194853 A1, hereafter Kim ‘853), and
the rejections of claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 10-11, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2022/0209142 A1, hereafter Kim ‘142) set forth in the last Office Action.
The rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see page 48-52 of the reply filed 01/05/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 10-11, and 13-14 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim ‘208, the rejections of claims 17-18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ‘208, the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ‘208/Wu, the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ‘208/Kim ‘142, the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ‘208/Kim ‘853 set forth in the Office Action of 09/04/2025 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the amended claims are patentable over the combination of Kim ‘208.
The rejections refer to the Compound p669-7 of Kim ‘208 (section 10 of the last Office Action). The compound does not read on the limitation of Formula I of the amended claims; thus, the rejections are withdrawn.
However, the reference is till applicable for new grounds of rejection.
Kim ‘208 exemplifies a compound ([0352], the seventh compound on page 669, hereafter Compound p669-7).
PNG
media_image1.png
318
662
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The phenyl group substituted to the nitrogen atom of the benzimidazole carbene ring at the position corresponding to the ring A1 of Formula 10-3 of Kim ‘208 (i.e. the part enclosed by a dashed circle in the figure above) is an unsubstituted phenyl, which does not read on the limitation of the instant claims; however, Kim ‘208 does teach that the substituent of the ring A1 of Formula 10-3 can be a substituted or unsubstituted C6 aryl group ([0349]). Kim ‘208 exemplifies diphenyl-substituted phenyl (i.e. the parts enclosed by dashed boxes in the figure below) as the substituent of the ring A1 (see examples including at least the 2nd and 4th compounds on page 564) as shown below.
PNG
media_image2.png
268
668
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kottas ‘600 discloses a complex compound used for an organic light emitting device ([0002]). Kottas ‘600 teaches that 2,6-disubstituted aryl can be advantageous due to increased steric bulk, which decreases the solid state packing of the compound resulting in high quantum efficiency and improved sublimation temperature ([0046]). Kottas ‘600 exemplifies diphenyl-substituted phenyl as the 2,6-disubstituted aryl (see examples including at least Compound 24 in [0049]).
Kottas ‘245 discloses a complex compound used for an organic light emitting device ([0003]). Kottas ‘245 teaches incorporation of a twisted aryl out of plane of the imidazole ring provides less planar compound resulting in improved sublimation and efficiency, and less prone to triplet-triplet annihilation and self-quenching ([0105]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound p669-7 by substituting the unsubstituted phenyl group substituted to the ring A1 with diphenyl-substituted phenyl, as taught by Kim ‘208 and Kottas ‘600 and Kottas ‘245.
The modification provides Compound of Kim ‘208 as modified by Kottas ‘600 and Kottas ‘245.
PNG
media_image3.png
295
602
media_image3.png
Greyscale
New grounds of rejection are applied. The amendment necessitates new grounds of rejection, making this Office Action final.
Applicant’s arguments see page 49-50 of the reply filed 01/05/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 10-11, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim ‘142 set forth in the Office Action of 09/04/2025 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the amended claims are patentable over the combination of Kim ‘142.
The rejections refer to Compounds 52 and 55 of Kim ‘142 (see section 14 of the last Office Action), none of which reads on the limitation of the Formula I of the amended claims. Thus, the rejections are withdrawn.
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 10-14, 16, 21, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 2020/0140471 A1, hereafter Chen).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 10-14, 16, 21, and 23-24, Chen discloses a compound (Formula I) used for an organic light emitting device ([0015]-[0016]) and exemplifies Compound 84106493 having structure of Pt(LA79253)(LB397), wherein LA is
PNG
media_image4.png
179
175
media_image4.png
Greyscale
; R1 is R53; LB is
PNG
media_image5.png
202
217
media_image5.png
Greyscale
; Ar2 is A13; and Ar3 is A6.
The Compound 84106493 has identical structure as Applicant’s embodiment in the instant claim 21 (i.e. the third compound).
PNG
media_image6.png
308
659
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
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 1-2, 4-6, 8, 10-14, 17-18, 20, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2023/0084208 A1, hereafter Kim ‘208) in view of Kottas et al. (US 2012/0292600 A1, hereafter Kottas ‘600) and Kottas et al. (US 2013/0082245 A1, hereafter Kottas ‘245).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 10-14, 17-18, 20, and 23-24, Kim ‘208 discloses an organometallic compound used as the sensitizer of an organic light emitting device and represented by Formula 101, M11(L1)n1(L2)n2, wherein L1 can be a tetradentate ligand of Formula 10-3, n1 can be 1, and n2 can be 0 ([0338]-[0351]). Kim ‘208 exemplifies a compound ([0352], the seventh compound on page 669, hereafter Compound p669-7).
PNG
media_image1.png
318
662
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The phenyl group substituted to the nitrogen atom of the benzimidazole carbene ring at the position corresponding to the ring A1 of Formula 10-3 of Kim ‘208 (i.e. the part enclosed by a dashed circle in the figure above) is an unsubstituted phenyl, which does not read on the limitation of the instant claims; however, Kim ‘208 does teach that the substituent of the ring A1 of Formula 10-3 can be a substituted or unsubstituted C6 aryl group ([0349]). Kim ‘208 exemplifies diphenyl-substituted phenyl (i.e. the parts enclosed by dashed boxes in the figure below) as the substituent of the ring A1 (see examples including at least the 2nd and 4th compounds on page 564) as shown below.
PNG
media_image2.png
268
668
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kottas ‘600 discloses a complex compound used for an organic light emitting device ([0002]). Kottas ‘600 teaches that 2,6-disubstituted aryl can be advantageous due to increased steric bulk, which decreases the solid state packing of the compound resulting in high quantum efficiency and improved sublimation temperature ([0046]). Kottas ‘600 exemplifies diphenyl-substituted phenyl as the 2,6-disubstituted aryl (see examples including at least Compound 24 in [0049]).
Kottas ‘245 discloses a complex compound used for an organic light emitting device ([0003]). Kottas ‘245 teaches incorporation of a twisted aryl out of plane of the imidazole ring provides less planar compound resulting in improved sublimation and efficiency, and less prone to triplet-triplet annihilation and self-quenching ([0105]).
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 p669-7 by substituting the unsubstituted phenyl group substituted to the ring A1 with diphenyl-substituted phenyl, as taught by Kim ‘208 and Kottas ‘600 and Kottas ‘245.
The motivation of doing so would have been to increase steric bulk, decrease the solid state packing of the compound, resulting in high quantum efficiency and improved sublimation temperature, less prone to triplet-triplet annihilation, and less quenching, based on the teaching of Kottas ‘600 and Kottas ‘245.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the exemplified substituents from unsubstituted phenyl to diphenyl-substituted phenyl as the substituent of the ring A1 of Formula 10-3 of Kim ‘208 would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Compound of Kim ‘208 as modified by Kottas ‘600 and Kottas ‘245, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 10-14, and 23-24.
PNG
media_image3.png
295
602
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Kim ‘208 does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising the Compound of Kim ‘208 as modified by Kottas ‘600 and Kottas ‘245; however, Kim ‘208 does teach that the organometallic compound of Kim ‘208 can be used as the sensitizer ([0338]).
Kim ‘208 teaches the structure of an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, an emission layer (H3 as a host, H4 as a host, a sensitizer, and Compound 2 as an emitter), and a cathode (Example 2 in [0492]-[0495], Table 2), wherein the Compound H3 is a carbazole compound,
PNG
media_image7.png
287
248
media_image7.png
Greyscale
.
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 Kim ‘208 as modified by Kottas ‘600 and Kottas ‘245 by incorporating it into the emission layer as a sensitizer, as taught by Kim ‘208.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of sensitizers would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Organic light emitting device of Kim ‘208 as modified by Kottas ‘600 and Kottas ‘245 comprising an anode, an emission layer (H3 as a host, H4 as a host, Compound of Kim ‘208 as modified by Kottas ‘600 and Kottas ‘245 as a sensitizer, and Compound 2 as an emitter), and a cathode, wherein the emission layer is an organic layer, meeting all the limitations of claims 17-18.
Kim ‘208 does not disclose a specific consumer product comprising the Organic light emitting device of Kim ‘208 as modified by Kottas ‘600 and Kottas ‘245; however, Kim ‘208 does teach a consumer product (“display” in [0436]-[0437]) comprising the organic light emitting device of Kim ‘208.
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 Kim ‘208 as modified by Kottas ‘600 and Kottas ‘245 by incorporating it into a consumer product (i.e. display) as taught by Kim ‘208.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of organic light emitting devices in a display would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides a consumer product (i.e. display) comprising the Organic light emitting device as modified by Kottas ‘600 and Kottas ‘245, meeting all the limitations of claim 20.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2023/0084208 A1) in view of Kottas et al. (US 2012/0292600 A1) and Kottas et al. (US 2013/0082245 A1) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 10-14, 17-18, 20, and 23-24 above, further in view of Wu et al. (US 2012/0228583 A1, hereafter Wu).
Regarding claim 9, the Compound of Kim ‘208 as modified by Kottas ‘600 and Kottas ‘245 reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The Compound Kim ‘208 as modified by Kottas ‘600 and Kottas ‘245 has a benzimidazole ring at the position corresponding to ring A1 of Formula 10-3. The fused benzene ring of the benzimidazole does not include any nitrogen atom; however, Kim ‘208 does teach that the ring A1 can be a substituted or unsubstituted C1-C30 heterocyclic group ([0346]).
Wu discloses metal complexes wherein the organic ligand (“imidazole carbene ligand”) having a nitrogen-containing fused ring ([052]).
Wu teaches that a nitrogen-containing heterocyclic ring fused to the imidazole can tune the HOMO/LUMO energy levels and change emission color of the complex ([054]). Wu further teaches that increasing the number of nitrogen atoms in the heterocyclic ring may further increase the charge transfer character of the emission ([055]).
Wu exemplifies pyrazine as the nitrogen-containing heterocyclic ring fused to the imidazole carbene ligand (Formula III in [0066]; and Compound 1 in [0073]).
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 Kim ‘208 as modified by Kottas ‘600 and Kottas ‘245 by substituting the benzimidazole ring at the position corresponding to the ring A1 of Formula 10-3 of Kim ‘208 with a pyrazine-fused imidazole ring, as taught by Kim ‘208 and Wu.
The motivation of doing so would provide the metal complex with increasing charge transfer character and color tunability, as taught by Wu.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the ring A1 in Formula 10-3 of Kim ‘208 would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Compound of Kim ‘208 as modified by Kottas ‘600. Kottas ‘245, and Wu.
PNG
media_image8.png
293
626
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2023/0084208 A1) in view of Kottas et al. (US 2012/0292600 A1) and Kottas et al. (US 2013/0082245 A1) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 10-14, 17-18, 20, and 23-24 above, further in view of Kim et al. (US 2022/0209142 A1, hereafter Kim ‘142).
Regarding claim 16, the Compound of Kim ‘208 as modified by Kottas ‘600 and Kottas ‘245 reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The compound has an unsubstituted terphenyl group substituted to the ring A1 of Formula 10-3 of Kim ‘208, which does not read on the limitation of the claim; however, Kim ‘208 does teach that the substituent of the ring A1 of Formula 10-3 of Kim ‘208 can be a substituted C6-C60 aryl group ([0349]), and the substituent of the substituted aryl group can be deuterium ([0461]-[0462]).
Kim ‘853 discloses deuterated organometallic compound used for an organic light emitting device ([0006]).
Kim ‘853 teaches substitution of hydrogen with deuterium provides lower vibration energy level, smaller vibration mode, decreased van der Waals force, and prevented intermolecular collision such that it provides improved efficiency and thermal stability ([0021]-[0022]).
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 Kim ‘208 as modified by Kottas ‘600 and Kottas ‘245 by substituting the hydrogen atoms with deuterium atoms, as taught by Kim ‘208 and Kim ‘853.
The motivation of doing so would provide lower vibration energy level, smaller vibration mode, decreased van der Waals force, and prevented intermolecular collision such that it provides improved efficiency and thermal stability based on the teaching of Kim ‘853.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of hydrogen with deuterium as the substituents of the substituted C6-C60 aryl in the compound of Kim ‘208 would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Compound of Kim ‘208 as modified by Kottas ‘600, Kottas ‘245, and Kim ‘853, which has identical structure as Compound of Kim ‘208 as modified by Kottas ‘600, Kottas ‘245 except all the hydrogen atoms are substituted by deuterium atoms.
Claims 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2020/0140471 A1).
Regarding claims 17-18 and 20, Chen discloses a compound (Formula I) used for an organic light emitting device ([0015]-[0016]) and exemplifies Compound 84106493 having structure of Pt(LA79253)(LB397), which has identical structure as Applicant’s embodiment in the instant claim 21 (i.e. the third compound) as outlined above.
PNG
media_image6.png
308
659
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Chen does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising the Compound 84106493; however, Chen does teach that the compound of Chen can be used for an organic light emitting device ([0017]).
Chen teaches the structure of an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, an emission layer (a carbazole compound D as a host and the compound of Chen as an emitter), and a cathode ([0259]).
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 84106493 by incorporating it into the emission layer as an emitter, as taught by Chen.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of emitters would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified organic light emitting device of Chen comprising an anode, an emission layer (a carbazole compound D as a host and the Compound 84106493 of Chen as an emitter), and a cathode, wherein the emission layer is an organic layer, meeting all the limitations of claims 17-18.
Chen does not disclose a specific consumer product comprising the Modified organic light emitting device of Chen; however, Chen does teach a consumer product comprising the organic light emitting device of Chen ([0018])
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 Modified organic light emitting device of Chen by incorporating it into a consumer product as taught by Chen.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of organic light emitting devices in a consumer product would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides a consumer product comprising the Modified organic light emitting device of Chen, meeting all the limitations of claim 20.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2020/0140471 A1) in view of Wu et al. (US 2012/0228583 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Chen discloses a compound (Formula I) used for an organic light emitting device ([0015]-[0016]) and exemplifies Compound 84106493 having structure of Pt(LA79253)(LB397), which has identical structure as Applicant’s embodiment in the instant claim 21 (i.e. the third compound) as outlined above.
The Compound 84106493 of Chen has a fused benzene ring at the position corresponding to RD of Formula I of Chen, wherein the benzene ring does not include nitrogen, which does not read on the limitation of the claim; however, Chen does teach that RD can be heteroalkenyl or alkenyl and adjacent RD can be joined to form a ring ([0064]).
Wu discloses metal complexes wherein the organic ligand (“imidazole carbene ligand”) having a nitrogen-containing fused ring ([052]).
Wu teaches that a nitrogen-containing heterocyclic ring fused to the imidazole can tune the HOMO/LUMO energy levels and change emission color of the complex ([054]). Wu further teaches that increasing the number of nitrogen atoms in the heterocyclic ring may further increase the charge transfer character of the emission ([055]).
Wu exemplifies pyrazine as the nitrogen-containing heterocyclic ring fused to the imidazole carbene ligand (Formula III in [0066]; and Compound 1 in [0073]).
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 84106493 of Chen by substituting the fused benzene of the benzimidazole ring at the position corresponding to the RD of Formula I of Chen with a fused pyrazine ring, as taught by Chen and Wu.
The motivation of doing so would provide the metal complex with increasing charge transfer character and color tunability, as taught by Wu.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the fused benzene with fused pyrazine at the position corresponding to RD of Formula I of Chen would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Compound of Chen as modified by Wu.
PNG
media_image9.png
310
648
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-12, 16-18, 20, and 22-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 15, and 18-19 of the US Patent no. 12,497,420 (hereafter Patent ‘420). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed at the same aspects of the same invention.
Regarding claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 10-12, and 22-24, Patent ‘420 discloses a compound comprising a ligand LA of Formula I (claim 1) and exemplifies a compound (claim 15, the third compound in column 466, hereafter Compound c466-3).
PNG
media_image10.png
400
625
media_image10.png
Greyscale
The Compound c466-3 has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula I.
Regarding claim 9, the Compound c466-3 of Patent ‘420 reads on all the features of Formula I of claim 1 as outlined above.
The compound has carbon atom at the position corresponding to X1 of Formula I, which does not read on the limitation of claim 9; however, Patent ‘420 does teach X1 can be N (claim 1) and exemplifies a compound wherein the carbon at X1 is N (see examples in claim 15 including at least the second compound in column 254).
PNG
media_image11.png
354
315
media_image11.png
Greyscale
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 c466-3 of Patent ‘420 by substituting the carbon atom at the position corresponding to X1 of Formula I of Patent ‘420 with N, as taught by Patent ‘420.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). 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 modification provides Modified compound c466-3 (1), which has identical structure as the Compound c466-3 except the carbon atom at the position corresponding to X1 of Formula I is N.
Regarding claim 16, the Compound c466-3 of Patent ‘420 reads on all the features of Formula I of claim 1 as outlined above.
The compound is not at least 30% deuterated; however, Patent ‘420 does teach that the first ligand LA, wherein R1 and RA can be deuterated (claim 1). Patent ‘420 exemplifies deuterated compound (see examples in claim 15 including at least the last compound in column 505).
PNG
media_image12.png
543
474
media_image12.png
Greyscale
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 c466-3 of Patent ‘420 by substituting the substituents at R1 and RA with deuterated substituents, as taught by Patent ‘420.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). 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 modification provides Modified compound c466-3 (2), which has identical structure as the Compound c466-3 except the substituents at the positions corresponding to R1 and RA are fully deuterated.
Regarding claims 17-18 and 20, the Compound c466-3 of Patent ‘420 reads on all the features of Formula I of claim 1 as outlined above.
Patent ‘420 does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising the Compound c466-3; however, Patent ‘420 does teach an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, an organic layer, and a cathode, wherein the organic layer comprises the compound of Patent ‘420 and dicarbazolyl dibenzothiophene as a host (the first compound in claim 18).
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 c466-3 of Patent ‘420 by incorporating it into the organic layer with dicarbazolyl dibenzothiophene compound as a host, as taught by Patent ‘420.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). 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 modification provides Modified organic light emitting device of Patent ‘420 comprising an anode, an organic layer (Compound c466-3 of Patent ‘420, dicarbazolyl dibenzothiophene as a host), and a cathode, meeting all the limitations of claims 17-18.
Patent ‘420 does not disclose a specific consumer product comprising the Modified organic light emitting device of Patent ‘420; however, Patent ‘420 does teach a consumer product comprising the OLED of Patent ‘420 (claim 19).
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 Modified OLED of Patent ‘420 by incorporating it into a consumer product, as taught by Patent ‘420.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). 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 modification provides a consumer product comprising the Modified organic light emitting device of Patent ‘420, meeting all the limitations of claim 20.
Conclusion
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 SEOKMIN JEON whose telephone number is (571)272-4599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm EST.
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.
/SEOKMIN JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786