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 – 5, 7, 11, 12, 14 – 17, 20, 23 and 26 – 28 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 6, 8 – 10, 21 and 22 have been cancelled.
Claims 30 – 33 have been added.
Claims 18 – 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected metal complex of Formula II, a nonelected metal complex wherein ligand La is represented by Formula 2, a nonelected metal complex wherein ligand A-B is represented by Formula 5, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Election was made with traverse in the reply filed November 4, 2025.
Claims 1 – 5, 7, 11 – 17, 20, 23 – 33 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 2, 3, 5, 12, 14 – 17, 20 and 26 – 28 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 a 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 – 7, 11 – 17, 20, 23 – 26, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai in view of Bae as set forth in the office action filed December 9, 2025. Claim 6 has been cancelled.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed March 6, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 27 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai in view of Bae and further in view of Nishmae 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 is different than the inventive concept of the ‘358 application. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Double patenting rejections are not based on the inventive concepts, but the scope of the claimed invention. Compound 4 in claim 23 of the instant application is the same as compound 223 in the ‘358 application. Therefore, the scope of the applications overlaps. The double patenting rejection is maintained below.
Applicant argues that the claim defines a compound by specifying parameters such as emission spectrum area ratio and that several other granted patents similarly define compounds by parameter characteristics. Applicant notes that compounds falling within the scope of compounds of Formula 3 but outside the AR characteristics defined produce inferior efficiency when used in organic electroluminescent devices. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted previously and again below, the MPEP requires a representative number of species sufficient to show that Applicant was in possession of the claimed genus (see MPEP 2163-II-A-3-a-ii). Insofar as the genus is considered to be compounds with the claimed AR characteristics, Examiner notes that all the compounds in the specification emit light in the range of 528 – 630, which is much narrower than the claimed range of the entire visible light spectrum. Similarly, all of the compounds are either Pt-based or Ir-based, which are much narrower than the claimed “metal with a relative atomic mass greater than 40.” Additionally, it does not appear that Applicant has provided any example compounds with an emission spectrum area ratio AR1. Finally, the emission spectrum area ratio claimed is less than or equal to 0.145, but the 5 specific compounds taught have an area ratio between 0.129 – 0.138 in the green light spectrum, and 0.088 – 0.110 in the red light spectrum. Both of these sets of ratios represent only a portion of the claimed range. It is not clear that Applicant had possession of blue light compounds meeting the claimed AR characteristics, non-Ir/Pt compounds meeting the claimed AR characteristics, compounds with a AR ratio (AR1) in the blue light range less than or equal to 0.145, compounds with an AR ratio (AR2) in the green light range less than 0.129, or compounds with an AR ratio (AR3) in the red light range less than 0.088 or more than 0.110. Therefore, Applicant has not demonstrated possession of the claimed genus as required by the MPEP.
Applicant argues that metal complexes having an emission spectrum area of less than 0.145 and that these metal complexes exhibit higher device efficiency than metal complexes with emission spectrum area ratios greater than 0.145. Applicant points to Tables 5, 7, 9, and 11 as evidence for this claim. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The results shown in the table are not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention for at least the reason that the claims are directed to a compound, not the use of the compound in a device. Examiner also directs Applicant to the discussion in the previous paragraph regarding the differences between range of properties taught in the Table of the specification and the range of properties claimed.
Applicant argues that Tsai does not specifically disclose or teach the emission spectrum area ratio parameter and that Bae teaches the introduction of a cyano group for a different purpose. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the time of invention, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. Furthermore, 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).
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 – 5, 7, 11 – 17, 20, 23 – 33 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3 – 12, 14 – 24, and 36 – 32 of copending Application No. 17/526358 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because compounds within the scope of claim 1 in the instant application overlap in scope with compounds of Formula 1A and Formula 1Ba in claim 1 of the ‘358 application as evidenced by compound 223 in claim 31 of the ‘358 application, which is the same as compound 4 in claim 23 of the instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1 – 5, 7, 11 – 17, 20, 23 – 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claims define an organometallic compound by the emission spectrum area ratio of the metal complex. In Table 1, three representative compounds 1, 12, and 21 that emit in the green light spectrum are compared to comparative compounds GD1, GD2, and GD3 and two representative compounds 41 and 90 that emit in the red light spectrum are compared to comparative compounds RD1 and RD2. All the compounds emit light in the range of 528 – 630, which is much narrower than the claimed range of the entire visible light spectrum. Similarly, all of the compounds are either Pt-based or Ir-based, which are much narrower than the claimed “metal with a relative atomic mass greater than 40.” Additionally, it does not appear that Applicant has provided any example compounds with an emission spectrum area ratio AR1. Finally, the emission spectrum area ratio claimed is less than or equal to 0.145, but the 5 specific compounds taught have an area ratio between 0.129 – 0.138 in the green light spectrum, and 0.088 – 0.110 in the red light spectrum. Both of these sets of ratios represent only a portion of the claimed range. Compounds 1 and 12 are Ir-based organometallic compounds containing a dibenzofuran group that is substituted with an aryl group and a cyano group and a phenyl-pyridine ligand with an alkyl substituent. GD2 and GD3 are Ir-based organometallic compounds containing a dibenzofuran group that are unsubstituted, and only substituted by a fluoro-group on the dibenzofuran group, respectively. All of these compounds fall into a single species of organometallic compounds. Applicant has not provided any guidance as to how to form more materials that would meet the claimed limitations, and it is unclear if there are Ir-based complexes without dibenzofuran groups emitting in the green light spectrum that would meet the claimed limitations, or what modifications to the specific compounds taught would cause a compound to fall within or outside the claimed relationship. Compound 21 and GD1 are tetradentate platinum compounds, where compound 21 contains a dibenzofuran group substituted with a cyano group and compound GD1 contains an alkyl-substituted benzene ring in the same position. Both of these compounds can be defined by a very specific species of organometallic compound. Applicant has not provided any guidance as to how to form more materials that would meet the claimed limitations, and it is unclear if there are Pt-based complexes emitting in the green light range that would meet the claimed limitations, or what modifications to the specific compound taught would cause a compound to fall within or outside the claimed relationship. Compounds 41 and 90 are Ir-based organometallic compounds with a extended polycyclic group, whereas compound RD1 and RD2 contain an aza-naphthyl group. Compounds 41 and 90 fall into a single species of organometallic compounds. Applicant has not provided any guidance as to how to form more materials that would meet the claimed limitations, and it is unclear if there are non-Ir-based complexes emitting in the red light spectrum that would meet the claimed limitations, or what modifications to the specific compound taught would cause a compound to fall within or outside the claimed relationship. Therefore, the specification does not appear to present a representative number of species sufficient to show that Applicant was in possession of the claimed genus as required by the MPEP (see MPEP 2163-II-A-3-a-ii).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
For examination purposes, the claims are not required to include the limitations following the word preferably.
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 – 5, 7, 11 – 17, 20, 23 – 26, and 29 – 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai (US20210054010A1) in view of Bae (US20160233440A1).
As per claims 1 – 5, 7, 11 – 17, 20, 23, and 30 – 32, Tsai teaches compounds of Formula I
PNG
media_image1.png
176
188
media_image1.png
Greyscale
in [0006]. A particular compound Tsai teaches is
PNG
media_image2.png
197
318
media_image2.png
Greyscale
on Page 156. RA as taught by Tsai is an optional substitution ([0006]), therefore the teachings of Tsai encompass a ligand without a CD3 group. Another phenyl pyridine ligand taught by Tsai is ligand LB183
PNG
media_image3.png
190
214
media_image3.png
Greyscale
. Therefore, the teachings of Tsai encompass compounds with other phenyl pyridine ligands. Additionally, RC in Formula I of Tsai lists cyano as an option for RC (Claim 1) and the teachings of Tsai encompass compounds with cyano substitutents on the dibenzofuran ring. In analogous art, Bae teaches cyano group substitutions on organometallic ligands (Abstract). Bae teaches that by supplying a cyano group substitution to the ligand, the organometallic compound may have a deep HOMO energy level creating high triplet energy levels due to an increased band gap ([0185]). This provides a deep emission color ([0185]).
When modified in this way, with the removal of the CD3 group, the substitution of the LB ligand, and the addition of a cyano group, the modified compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein ligand A-B has a structure represented by Formula 3
PNG
media_image4.png
228
168
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, wherein X represents an O atom; X1 to X12 are CRx, wherein the Rx at X9 represents a substituted aryl group having 6 carbon atoms, the Rx at X10 is a cyano group, and the remaining Rx atoms are hydrogen. The metal complex has a structure represented by Formula I in claim 4
PNG
media_image5.png
212
202
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, wherein the metal M is selected from metals having a relative atomic mass greater than 40, namely Ir as required by claim 5; ligand C-D and ligand
PNG
media_image6.png
50
50
media_image6.png
Greyscale
are different monoanionic bidentate ligands than ligand A-B, where Xa is a C and Xb is a N. Both of the ligands C-D and
PNG
media_image6.png
50
50
media_image6.png
Greyscale
are represented by Formula e in claim 11
PNG
media_image7.png
176
90
media_image7.png
Greyscale
, where RA represents a monosubstitution of an alkyl having 5 carbon atoms and RB represented non-substitution; The complex is represented by Formula 6 in claim 12.
PNG
media_image8.png
242
318
media_image8.png
Greyscale
, wherein m is 1, Rc is a monosubstitution of an alkyl having 5 carbon atoms and Rd is non-substitution.; This compound is the same as compound 14
PNG
media_image9.png
152
244
media_image9.png
Greyscale
in claim 23.
Tsai includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Tsai 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 compounds for use in devices with improved efficiency, lifetime and manufacturing (Abstract), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Regarding the claimed maximum emission wavelength of the metal complex at room temperature, the AR2 and/or of the metal complex, as required by claims 1 – 3, and 30, the prior art combination is silent with respect to the claimed properties. However, since the prior art combination teaches substantially the same compound as disclosed by Applicant, the property of maximum emission wavelength of the metal complex at room temperature and the AR2 of the metal complex is considered to naturally flow from the product of the prior art combination (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be present. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims.
As per claim 24, Tsai teaches:
An electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode wherein the organic layer comprises the metal complex of claim 1 ([0094]: “In some embodiments, the OLED comprises an anode, a cathode, and a first organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode. The first organic layer can comprise a compound of formula Ir(L1)x(L2)y(L3)z wherein L1 has Formula I.”)
As per claim 25, Tsai teaches:
Wherein the organic layer is a light-emitting layer and the metal complex is a light-emitting material ([0096]: “In some embodiments, the organic layer may be an emissive layer and the compound as described herein may be an emissive dopant or a non-emissive dopant.”)
As per claims 26, 29, and 33 Tsai teaches:
Wherein the light emitting layer further comprises at least one host compound ([0097 – 0099]: “In some embodiments, the organic layer may further comprise a host… the host may be selected from the HOST group consisting of
PNG
media_image10.png
148
286
media_image10.png
Greyscale
” The combination of the host and the organometallic compound is interpreted as the claimed composition in claim 29. As claim 33 requires at least two host compounds but does not require that the host compounds are different, a second molecule of the same compound is interpreted as the claimed host compound. The compound contains a carbazole group as claimed.)
Tsai 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 Tsai as Tsai demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai (US20210054010A1) in view of Bae (US20160233440A1) as applied to claims 1 – 5, 7, 11 – 17, 20, 23 – 26, and 29 – 33 above, and further in view of Nishmae (US20200102329A1).
As per claims 27 and 28, the prior art combination does not teach:
wherein the electroluminescent device is a bottom-emitting device
Wherein the electroluminescent device is a top-emitting device.
Nishimae teaches that OLEDS can use a transparent anode and substrate to create a bottom-emitting device or the anode can be made of a reflective material to create a top-emitting device ([0173]).
It would have been obvious to use the compound in the organic layer of an electroluminescent device wherein the device is a bottom-emitting device or a top-emitting device as Nishimae demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding the claimed EQE, the prior art combination is silent with respect to the claimed property. However, since the prior art combination teaches substantially the same compound as disclosed by Applicant, the property EQE is considered to naturally flow from the product of the prior art combination (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be present. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims.
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