DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 3, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on September 3, 2026.
Claims 1, 3, 9 – 14, 17, 18 and 20 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 4, 6, 16, 19 and 26 have been canceled. Claim 2 has been cancelled previously.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7 – 15, 17, 18, 20 – 25, and 27 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references provided in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on September 24, 2026 have been considered. A signed copy of the corresponding 1449 form has been included with this office action.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed September 3, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1, 3 – 5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 16, 18, and 21 – 27 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang 2 as set forth in the office action filed June 3, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed September 3, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1, 3 – 7, 9 – 16, and 21 – 27 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang 3 as set forth in the office action filed June 3, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 3, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argues that the metal complexes possess lower evaporation temperatures and exhibit superior performances in devices, such as improved device lifetime or enhanced device efficiency. Applicant notes that metal complex 91 in the instant specification containing tert-butyl substituents exhibits substantially improved device performance compared with GD3 containing methyl substituents and that the deposition temperature is reduced by 17°C. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Overcoming a rejection based on unexpected results requires at least the combination of three different elements: (i) the results must fairly compare with the closest prior art in an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132, (ii) the claims must be commensurate in scope, and (iii) the results must truly be unexpected. MPEP 716.02. Additionally, the burden rests with Applicant to establish the results are unexpected and significant. MPEP 716.02(b). With regards to the sublimation temperature, the singular compound cited, compound 91, is not commensurate in scope with the wide range of compounds encompassed by the claimed Formula for at least the reasons that compound 91 contains substituents not required by compounds the claimed Formula. Furthermore, Examiner notes that any arguments with respect to the improved device performances are also not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention because claim 1 is directed to a compound, not the use of the compound in a device.
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to claims 1, 3, 5, 7 – 15, 17, 18, 20 – 25, and 27 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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, 3, 5, 7 – 10, 13, 14, 17, 18, 20 – 25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia (US20100244004A1).
As per claims 1, 3, 5, 7 – 10, 13, 14, 17, 18, 20, and 27 Xia teaches:
A metal complex having a general formula of M(La)m(Lb)n(Lc)q wherein La has a structure represented by Formula 1A and Lb has a structure represented by Formula 1Ba
PNG
media_image1.png
220
92
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
176
126
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Xia teaches compounds of Formula I
PNG
media_image3.png
198
298
media_image3.png
Greyscale
([0016]). A specific compound taught by Xia is compound 36
PNG
media_image4.png
224
340
media_image4.png
Greyscale
([0068]), which does not contain a group in the claimed R1 and R2 position. However, the compound contains an alkyl substituent in a different position on the ppy ligand and Xia teaches that R2 and R3 can be selected from alky groups ([0017]) and that specific aryl groups include tert-butyl groups ([0055]). 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 swap the methyl group of compound 4 for a tert-butyl group and to provide it in the claimed R1 and R2 positions. When modified in this way, the modified compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein reads on the claimed Formula wherein M is Ir; m is 2, n is 1 and q is 0; U1 to U6 are CR’; Ru represent hydrogen;; R1 and R2 have a structure represented by Formula 2, wherein the number of carbon atoms in R1 and R2 are 4; R3, R4, and R5 are a C1 alkyl group. The complex has a structure represented by Formula 3 in claim 9
PNG
media_image5.png
210
340
media_image5.png
Greyscale
. As a and b are 0 so that Ar does not exist, Wang 2 meets the limitations of claim 16. Ligand La is represented by La1-1
PNG
media_image6.png
174
60
media_image6.png
Greyscale
in claim 17. Ligand Lb is represented by Lb3-1
PNG
media_image7.png
128
106
media_image7.png
Greyscale
in claim 18. This compound is the same as compound 259 in claim 20.)
Xia includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Xia 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 and lifetime ([Abstract]), 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 21, Xia teaches:
An electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode, wherein at least one layer of the organic layer comprises the metal complex ([0026]: “Additionally, an organic light emitting device is also provided. The device has an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode, where the organic layer comprises a compound having FORMULA I.”)
As per claims 22, 23, and 25 Xia teaches:
Wherein the organic layer comprising the metal complex is an emissive layer, wherein the emissive layer further comprises a host compound ([0081]: “In one aspect, the organic layer is an emissive layer and the compound having FORMULA I is an emitting dopant. The organic layer may further comprise a host.” & [0026]: “Preferably, the host contains a triphenylene moiety and a dibenzothiophene moiety.” As claim 23 requires a first and second host compound but does not require that they are different, This layer is interpreted as the claimed compound composition in claim 25.)
As per claim 24, Xia teaches:
Wherein the metal complex is doped in the host and the weight of the metal complex accounts for 1% to 30% of the total weight of the emissive layer (In Examples 1 – 11 in Table 3, it is shown that the organometallic compound is present in an amount of 7 – 10%.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11, 12 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As per claims 11 and 12, the closest prior art is considered to be Xia. Xia teaches Ir-based dibenzofuran ligands with ppy ancillary ligands. However, Xia does not teach or suggest that the dibenzofuran ligand is substituted with a cyano group, nor does Xia allow for cyano substitutions in the definitions for R4 of Formula I.
As per claim 15, the closest prior art is considered to be Xia. Xia teaches Ir-based dibenzofuran ligands with ppy ancillary ligands. However, Xia does not teach or suggest an aza-substitution on any of the ligands as required by claim 15.
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA N CHANDHOK whose telephone number is (571)272-5780. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 6:30 - 3:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JENNA N CHANDHOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
