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.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on October 13, 2025.
Claims 1, 9, 10, and 14 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed October 13, 2025, caused the withdrawal of the provisional rejection of claims 1 – 20 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 20 of copending Application No. 18/311,575 as set forth in the office action filed July 11, 2025.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed October 13, 2025, caused the withdrawal of the provisional rejection of claims 1 – 20 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 20 of copending Application No. 18/311,568 as set forth in the office action filed July 11, 2025.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed October 13, 2025, caused the withdrawal of the provisional rejection of claims 1 – 20 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 20 of copending Application No. 17/824,212 as set forth in the office action filed July 11, 2025.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed October 13, 2025, caused the withdrawal of the provisional rejection of claims 1 – 20 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 20 of copending Application No. 17/713,688 as set forth in the office action filed July 11, 2025.
Applicant's amendments to the claims, filed October 13, 2025, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, - 12, and 15 – 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ‘787 as set forth in the office action filed July 11, 2025.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed October 13, 2025, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1 – 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae as set forth in the office action filed July 11, 2025.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed October 13, 2025, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1 – 13 and 15 – 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen as set forth in the office action filed July 11, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 13, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art could have selected emissive components for the emission layer such that 80% of the luminescence is emitted from the organometallic compounds of Formula 1 as required by claim 19. Applicant submits that the emissive portion from each emissive component in the emission layer could be measured separately, by preparing emission layers using only single components and based on the measurement of individual components, the person having ordinary skill in the art could then determine what proportion of the total emission is from the organometallic compound of Formula 1 by routine experimentation. Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is clear that for single dopant emission layers, it is reasonable to expect that 100% of the emission comes from the particular dopant. However, in cases where there are multiple dopants, such as a sensitizer or a TDAF material, it is not clear that it is possible to determine the percentage of emission directed to each compound. Regarding Applicant’s statement that each component could be measured individually, Examiner notes that the interaction of the materials in combination cannot reasonably be expected to be the same as the behavior of the materials in a single dopant/host layer. Absent evidence otherwise, it is not clear that the emission percentage of each particular compound can be determined via the process described.
Applicant argues that there would have been no motivation to select the combination of substituents required by amended claim 1 from the broad genus of Bae and that it is improper for the office action to rely on the mere fact that the organometallic compound may be encompassed by the generic formula of Bae for the determination of obviousness. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the rejection below, the only difference between compound 160 of Bae and the claimed compound is a substituent on the phenyl group of the benzene ring of the benzimidazole group. Bae doe not restrict the substituents on the phenyl group and teaches substituted phenyl groups in other positions of the benzene ring on other exemplified compounds. 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 similarly substitute the phenyl group of compound 160 and arrive at compounds of the claimed invention.
Applicant argues that the generic formula of Bae encompasses a vast number of different compounds and therefore the size of the genus is extremely large, which does not support the derivation of the subject matter of claim 1 from the genus of Bae. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant similarly sets forth a chemical formula which encompasses a large number of compounds where each variable is selected from many defined possibilities. Applicant does not claim merely a single species, but a large number of compounds according to Formula 1. Bae sets forth a chemical structural formula with disclosed and defined variable groups and Bae is analogous art. Just as applicant sets forth that one of ordinary skill in the art could form compounds from a disclosed, broadly defined chemical formula including compounds not expressly set forth as example compounds, the Office submits one of the same skill in the art would know how to make compounds from a chemical structural formula teaching in Bae.
Applicant argues that the typical, preferred and optimum species within the disclosed genus of Bae are outside the scope of claim 1. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The invention of the prior art is not limited to or defined by only those embodiments disclosed in the Examples. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 424 (CCPA 1971). Additionally, a known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use. In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551,554, 31 USPQ 2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
Applicant argues that the claimed subject matter is not obvious because the particular combination of claimed elements results in unexpectedly beneficial properties as shown in Table 3 of the instant specification, reproduced as Table A in Applicant’s remarks. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As an initial matter, the claims are directed to a compound whereas the data is shown for the use of the compound in a device with a particular host material. Therefore, the data is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. Additionally, the data is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention because the particular ring atoms in the organometallic compound, the particular substituents on the RA group, the particular linking atoms, and the particular substituent in the R30 location shown in two inventive compounds of Table A are much narrower than what is encompassed by the claimed invention. Finally, Examiner notes that there are multiple differences between compounds 2, 10 and C1, including the phenyl substituent, the location of the tert-butyl group and the number of tertbutyl groups off of the phenyl of the imidazole ring. Therefore, it is not possible to ascribe the differences in the performance of the devices to a single component.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 19 requires determining the amount of emission emitted from a specific compound as it relates to the entire amount of light emitted. However, the description provides no examples of any devices wherein the percentages of emission emitted via the particular compounds is determined. As there is no examples where the percentages of emission are determined, it is not clear that Applicant was in possession of the full scope of the claimed invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 19 requires determining the amount of emission emitted from a specific compound as it relates to the entire amount emitted. As Applicant does not describe devices that meet the scope of the claimed range (80% or more emission) or describe any method for determining the percent of emission that comes from a particular compound, the claim fails to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention.
Case law holds that applicant' s specification must be “commensurately enabling [regarding the scope of the claims]” Ex Parte Kung, 17 USPQ2d 1545, 1547 (Bd. Pat. App. Inter. 1990). Otherwise undue experimentation would be involved in determining how to practice and use applicant' s invention. The test for undue experimentation as to whether or not [Claimed Feature] within the scope of the claims can be used [meet the claim requirements] as claimed and whether the claims meet the test is stated in Ex parte Forman, 230 USPQ 546, 547 (Bd. Pat. App. Inter. 1986) and In re Wands, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed.Cir. 1988). Upon applying this test to claim 19, it is believed that undue experimentation would be required because:
(B) Nature of the invention:(C) State of the prior art: (D) The level of one of ordinary skill: (E) The level of predictability in the art:(F) Amount of direction provided: (G) The existence of working examples: (H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure:.
In light of the above factors, it is seen that undue experimentation would be necessary to make and use the invention of claim 19.
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 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae (US20200395560A1).
As per claims 1 – 14, Bae teaches:
An organometallic compound represented by Formula 1
PNG
media_image1.png
282
384
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Bae teaches tetradentate platinum compounds, such as compound 160
PNG
media_image2.png
250
346
media_image2.png
Greyscale
. This compound reads on the claimed invention wherein M1 is a third row transition metal of the Periodic Table of Elements, namely platinum (Pt) as required by claim 2; X10 is C: X40 is N; X11, X12, X13, X20 and X30 are each C; ring A20 is a C6 carbocyclic group, namely a benzene group as required by claim 4, and a group represented by A20(1) in claim 5; ring A30 is a C12 heterocyclic group, namely a carbazole group as required by claim 4, and a group represented by A30(1) in claim 6, wherein X31 is a single bond; ring A40 is a C5 heterocyclic group, namely a pyridine group as required by claim 4 and a group represented by A40(1) in claim 7; T1 is *-O-* and T2 is a single bond; R1 is a C4 alkyl group, namely a tert-butyl group and b1 is an integer of 2 so that the group is represented by Formula 4-9 in claim 11; the entire ring system is represented by A10(1) in claim 3; R10 is hydrogen, R20 and R40 are a tert-butyl group and R30 is a C6 aryl group. This compound reads on Formula 1A of claim 13. While compound 160 does not teach RA is a substituted phenyl group as required by the claim, the compound is of general Formula 1-1 of Bae
PNG
media_image3.png
260
358
media_image3.png
Greyscale
([0014]) and R10 is defined as being selected from a group including a substituted C6 aryl group. Furthermore, Bae teaches compounds such as compound 54,
PNG
media_image4.png
258
344
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, wherein the R10 group is a phenyl group substituted with a tert-butyl group. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the phenyl group of compound 160 to include a tert-butyl group. When modified in this way, the modified compound reads on the claimed formula wherein RA is a substituted phenyl group, namely a phenyl group substituted with a C4 alkyl group as per claim 9, and a group represented by Formula 2-3 in claim 10.)
Bae includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Bae 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, lifespan and color purity ([0200]), 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 10, the only difference between the modified compound above and claimed compound 10
PNG
media_image5.png
160
144
media_image5.png
Greyscale
is that the modified compound contains an extra tert-butyl group on the benzene ring. However, in many of the compounds of Bae, including at least compound 54 above, the benzene ring does not contain a substituent. 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 remove the tert-butyl group of the modified compound and arrive at claimed compound 10.
Bae includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Bae 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, lifespan and color purity ([0200]), 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 15 – 17 and 20, Bae teaches:
An organic light-emitting device comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer arranged between the first electrode and the second electrode and comprising an emission layer, wherein the emission layer comprises the at least one organometallic compound, the emission layer further comprises a host, and an amount of the host in the emission layer is greater than the amount of the at least one organometallic compound in the emission layer, the organic layer further comprises a hole transport region arranged between the first electrode and the emission layer and an electron transport region arranged between the emission layer and the second electrode, the hole transport region comprises a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer, a buffer layer or any combination thereof, and the electron transport region comprises a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, or any combination thereof ([0208 – 0211]: “In one or more embodiments, in the organic light-emitting device, the first electrode is an anode, and the second electrode is a cathode, and the organic layer further includes a hole transport region between the first electrode and the emission layer and an electron transport region between the emission layer and the second electrode, and the hole transport region includes a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer, or any combination thereof, and the electron transport region includes a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, or any combination thereof… the organometallic compound represented by Formula 1 may be included in the emission layer… the emission layer including the organometallic compound represented by Formula 1 may further include a host… The amount of the host in the emission layer may be greater than the amount of the organometallic compound represented by Formula 1.”)
Bae teaches an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer and that the compound is in the organic layer as discussed above. It would have been obvious to use the compound in the organic layer with the device structure of Bae as Bae demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As per claim 18, ‘787 teaches:
Wherein the emission layer emits blue light having a maximum emission wavelength in a range of about 410 to about 470 nm ([0215]: “According to one or more embodiments, the emission layer may emit blue light having the maximum luminescence wavelength of about 410 nm to about 490 nm.”)
As per claim 19, since there is only one dopant material, 100% of the emission comes from the platinum compound and Bae anticipates the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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