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 March 6, 2026.
Claims 1, a3 – 5, 7 – 12, 14, 16 – 20, 23 and 24 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 26 and 27 have been added.
Claim 2 has been cancelled.
Claims 1, and 3 – 27 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Amendments
Applicant's amendments to the claims, filed March 6, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 3 – 5, 7, 10 – 12, 14, 16, 20, 23 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or joint inventor regards as the invention as set forth in the office action filed December 9, 2025.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed March 6, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1 – 8, 10, 13, 16 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang as set forth in the office action filed December 9, 2025. Claim 2 has been cancelled.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed March 6, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4- 8, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nishide as set forth in the office action filed December 9, 2025. Claim 2 has been cancelled.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed March 6, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1 – 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 18 and 21 – 25 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang 2 as set forth in the office action filed December 9, 2025. Claim 2 has been cancelled.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed March 6, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 11, 12, and 21 – 25 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang as set forth in the office action filed December 9, 2025.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed March 6, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1 – 7, 9, 10, 13 – 16 and 21 – 25 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang 3 as set forth in the office action filed December 9, 2025. Claim 2 has been cancelled.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed March 6, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1 – 10, 13, 14, 16 – 18, and 20 – 25 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia as set forth in the office action filed December 9, 2025. Claim 2 has been cancelled.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed March 6, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia and further in view of Wang 2 as set forth in the office action filed December 9, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant notes that the inventive concepts of the present invention are different than the inventive concept in the applications cited in the double patenting rejections. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Double patenting rejections are not based on the inventive concepts but the scope of the claimed invention. As noted below, the claims in the copending applications contain claims directed to compounds that are also encompassed by the formulae in the instant claims. Therefore, the scope of the applications overlap. The double patenting rejections are maintained below.
Applicant notes that metal complexes as claimed in amended claim 1 achieve superior device performance while exhibiting higher thermal stability during the device preparation process. Examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to the thermal stability during processing, Examiner notes that the four Example compounds shown are not representative of the wide range of compounds encompassed by the claimed Formula 1 in claim 1. All the exemplified compounds require an Ir-based complex with an aryl substituent on the dibenzofuran ring, where all the X and U variables are carbon, and R1 is a tert-butyl group. Three of the Example compounds contain a second substitutent, namely an electron-withdrawing group on the dibenzofuran ring, which is either a cyano or a fluorine atom. All of these are much narrower than the wide range of substituents and atoms allowed by Formula 1A and Formula 1Ba, which also allow for compounds without substituents on the dibenzofuran group. Therefore, the claims are not commensurate in scope with the data provided. With respect to the superior device performance, Examiner notes that in addition to the differences in scope between the claimed Formula and the data presented, the claims are directed to a compound, whereas the claimed improved lifetime results are related to the use of the compound in a device, with particular host material, which is not currently claimed. Therefore, the claims are not commensurate in scope with the data provided.
In response to applicant's argument that the prior art references do not recognize the advantages in the technical effects of the specific R2 group in the claimed Formula, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant argues that the prior art does not disclose any specific compounds with tert-butyl substituents and Xia specifically does not teach any compounds with alkyl groups at a position according to R2 in the claimed Formula. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the rejection below, the Formula of the prior art references encompass the claimed substituents. 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)
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, and 3 – 27 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 24 of copending Application No. 18/126645 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because compounds of Formula 1A and Formula 1B in claim 1 in the instant application overlap in scope with compounds of Formula 1 in claim 1 of the ‘645 application as evidenced by compound 333 in claim 19 of the ‘645 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, and 3 – 27 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 29 of copending Application No. 17/889980 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because compounds of Formula 1A and Formula 1B in claim 1 in the instant application overlap in scope with compounds of Formula 1 in claim 1 of the ‘980 application as evidenced by compound 959 in claim 21 of the ‘980 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, and 3 – 27 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3 – 5, 8 – 18, and 20 – 38 of copending Application No. 17/856081 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because compounds of Formula 1A and Formula 1B in claim 1 in the instant application overlap in scope with compounds of Formula 1 in claim 1 of the ‘081 application as evidenced by compound 66 in claim 20 of the ‘081 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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, 8, 10, 13, 14, 16, 18, and 21 – 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang 2 (CN111808143A, using the provided machine translation).
As per claims 1, 3 – 5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 16, 18, 26, and 27, Wang 2 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
(Wang 2 teaches organometallic compounds with ligands represented by LA
PNG
media_image3.png
528
416
media_image3.png
Greyscale
. and LC
PNG
media_image4.png
470
464
media_image4.png
Greyscale
([0010 – 0014]). A specific compound taught by Wang 2 is
PNG
media_image5.png
294
372
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, which differs from the claimed compound in that the atom corresponding to claimed variable Z is a sulfur instead of the oxygen, nitrogen or carbon. However, in the definition for Z in ligand Lc of Wang 2, Z is defined as being oxygen or sulfur ([0016]). Additionally, the substituents on the ppy ligand are outside the claimed definitions. However, Wang uses the same definitions for R1 and R2 ([0018]). 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 swap the sulfur atom in compound M047 with an oxygen atom and to swap the substituents on the ppy ligand. When modified in this way, the modified compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein M is Ir; m is 2, n is 1 and q is 0; La has a structure represented by Formula 1A and Ln has a structure represented by Formula 1Ba; U1 to U6 are CR’; R” is selected from non-substitution; R1 is a unsubstituted cycloalkyl having 10 carbon atoms; R2 has a structure represented by Formula 2, wherein the number of carbon atoms in R2 is 5 and the structure is represented by
PNG
media_image6.png
56
44
media_image6.png
Greyscale
in claim 8. As a and b are 0 so that Ar does not exist, Wang 2 meets the limitations of claim 16. Ligand Lb is represented by Lb3-1
PNG
media_image7.png
128
106
media_image7.png
Greyscale
in claim 18.)
Wang 2 includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Wang 2 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 luminous efficiency and extended lifetime ([0051]), 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, Wang 2 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 ([0043]: “Another objective of this invention is to provide an optoelectronic device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode, and at least one organic layer disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein the organic layer comprises the aforementioned metal complex.”)
As per claims 22, 23, and 25, Wang 2 teaches:
Wherein the organic layer comprising the metal complex is an emissive layer, wherein the emissive layer further comprises a host compound ([0044]: “Preferably, the organic layer includes a light-emitting layer; the light-emitting layer includes a host material and a dopant material; the dopant material contains part or all of the metal complex.” In Example 1, as described in [0127], CBP is used as the host material. This compound contains a carbazole group as required by claim 23. As claim 23 requires a second host compound but does not require that the compounds are different, a second molecule of CBP is interpreted as the claimed second host compound. This layer is interpreted as the claimed compound composition in claim 25.)
As per claim 24, Wang 2 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 Example 1, as described in [0127], the dopant is present in an amount of 10%.)
Claims 1, 3 – 7, 9 – 16 and 21 – 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang 3 (WO2021223634A1, using the provided machine translation).
As per claims 1, 3 – 7, 9, 10, 13 – 16, 26 and 27, Wang 3 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
(Wang 3 teaches compounds of Formula I
PNG
media_image8.png
248
424
media_image8.png
Greyscale
. A specific compound taught by Wang 3 is compound D-12
PNG
media_image9.png
286
404
media_image9.png
Greyscale
, which does not contain the claimed R1 group. However, in the definition for R6, Wang 3 teaches that the position may represent a deuterated alkyl group and Wang 3 teaches compound such as compound D-14
PNG
media_image10.png
246
418
media_image10.png
Greyscale
, where the claimed R1 position has a deuterated ethyl group. 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 add a deuterated alkyl group in the R6 position of D-12 and to choose an alkyl group with more than 1 carbon atom, such as the 4 carbon atoms required by the claim. When modified in this way, the modified compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein M is Ir; m is 1, n is 2 and q is 0; U1 to U6 are CR’; Ru represent hydrogen; R1 is a substituted alkyl having 4 carbon atoms, which can be represented by Formula 2 as required by claim 6; R2 has a structure represented by Formula 2, wherein the number of carbon atoms in R2 is 4; R3, R4, and R5 are C1 alkyl groups; X8 is a nitrogen atom as required by claim 15. The complex has a structure represented by Formula 3 in claim 9
PNG
media_image11.png
210
340
media_image11.png
Greyscale
. As a and b are 0 so that Ar does not exist, Wang 3 meets the limitations of claim 16.)
Wang 3 includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Wang 3 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 luminous efficiency and reduced operating voltage ([0006]), 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 11 and 12, Wang 3 does not teach a compound with a cyano group substituent on the dibenzofuran ring. However, in the definitions for R13 – R17, Wang 3 teaches that the groups can be selected from nitrile group ([0011]). 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 further modify the previously modified compound of Wang 3 above, to include a nitrile group on the dibenzofuran ring, in addition to the CD3 group already present, and arrive at a compound of claims 11 and 12.
Wang 3 includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Wang 3 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 luminous efficiency and reduced operating voltage ([0006]), 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 21 – 23, and 25, Wang 3 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, wherein the organic layer comprising the metal complex is an emissive layer, wherein the emissive layer further comprises a host compound ([0049]: “The present invention also relates to an organic electroluminescent device, comprising a cathode layer, an anode layer, and an organic layer, wherein the organic layer comprises at least one of a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, a light-emitting layer, a hole blocking layer, an electron injection layer, and an electron transport layer, wherein the light-emitting layer of the device contains one or more guest compounds represented by structural formula I and one or more host compounds represented by structural formula II (a, b, or c).” Compound a, b and c include a carbazole group as required by the claims. As claim 23 requires a first and second host compound but does not require that they are different, a second molecule of a compound of formula a, b, and c is interpreted as the claimed second host. This layer is interpreted as the claimed compound composition in claim 25.)
As per claim 24, Wang 3 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 ([0031]: “The mass percentage of the guest compound in the light-emitting layer composition of the organic electroluminescent device of the present invention is 0.1%-50%.”)
Claims 1, 3 – 10, 13, 14, 16 – 18, and 20 – 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia (US20100244004A1).
As per claims 1, 3 – 10, 13, 14, 16 – 18, 20, 26, 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_image12.png
198
298
media_image12.png
Greyscale
([0016]). A specific compound taught by Xia is compound 36
PNG
media_image13.png
224
340
media_image13.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 is a unsubstituted alkyl having 4 carbon atoms, which can be represented by Formula 2 as required by claim 6; R2 has a structure represented by Formula 2, wherein the number of carbon atoms in R2 is 4; R3, R4, and R5 are a C1 alkyl group. The complex has a structure represented by Formula 3 in claim 9
PNG
media_image11.png
210
340
media_image11.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_image14.png
174
60
media_image14.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%.)
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia (US20100244004A1) as applied to claims 1, 3 – 10, 13, 14, 16 – 18, and 20 – 27 above, and further in view of Wang 2 (CN111808143A, using the provided machine translation).
As per claim 19, as shown above, Xia teaches a Ir-ligand containing La1-1 and Lb3-1. Xia does not teach an organometallic compound containing any of the claimed LC ligands. Wang 2 teaches Ir-containing organometallic compounds that contain a mixture of ligands of LA, LB and LC
PNG
media_image15.png
552
452
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
444
450
media_image16.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image17.png
512
494
media_image17.png
Greyscale
([0010 – 0014]). A particular acac ligand taught by want is shown in compound M001
PNG
media_image18.png
146
178
media_image18.png
Greyscale
. This acac ligand corrsponds to claimed ligand LC1
PNG
media_image19.png
94
50
media_image19.png
Greyscale
.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute an acac ligand, such as claimed ligand Lc1 for one of the phenyl-pyridine ligands in the modified compound of Xia and arrive at the claimed compound because Wang 2 establishes that the ligands are functionally equivalent and may be used interchangably in Ir-based organometallic compounds ([0010 – 0014]).
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
Prosecution Insights