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 .
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 allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). 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, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/21/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 22 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 22 recites the limitation of La1, La3, etc. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, these ligands will be understood to mean those of claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, and 10-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1 and a2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Choi et al (US 20210122774 A1).
Choi disclose organometallic compounds for OLEDs comprising the formula 1: M(L1)n1 (L2)n2, wherein M is a transition metal, L1 is of the formula 1-1 and L2 is of the formula 1-2:
PNG
media_image1.png
351
362
media_image1.png
Greyscale
in which L1 reads on the claimed Ligand La wherein X2 is N, L2 reads on the claimed Ligand Lb and Lc [008-0014], and wherein in formula 1-1 of Choi’s Formula 1-1, the CY1 ring includes many embodiments that read on the bottom ring in claimed Formula 1, for instance Formula CY1-16 [p8]:
PNG
media_image2.png
182
189
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein when a12 is one or more and R61 is anything other than hydrogen from the list of substituents suitable [0112-0121], R61 reads on a claimed Ry, and the claimed Ry at Y2 is an alkyl joined to form a ring with Rz that is also an alkyl group. The preferred metal is iridium [0122] and R61 includes methyl and deuterated methyl [0112-0121]. The OLED may emit red light and the light emitting layer may include hosts according to the claims [0129, 0174 et seq].
This rejection is made under both 35 USC 102 anticipation and 35 USC 103 obviousness. Examiner holds the opinion that the since every embodiment of the substituent R61 in CY1-16 and similar sub-ligand structures, other than hydrogen, reads on the Markusch group of the claimed Ry of Y1 and Y3, and since methyl would be the most immediately envisaged substituent for the disclosed R61 of Choi, then it would allow the ordinarily skilled artisan to readily envisage the claimed Ry of the Markusch and methyl, therefore the claims are anticipated.
In the alternative, the claims are certainly obvious over the combination of elements disclosed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of Applicant’s invention to have prepared the claimed combination of elements from the disclosure of Choi because each of the claimed elements is disclosed and used in the same capacity, and the skilled artisan would only need to choose between the disclosed options without any modification to the teachings of Choi.
Case law confirms that the mere fact that a reference suggests a multitude of possible combinations does not in and of itself make any one of those combinations less obvious. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 and 22 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.
Claim 22 must also be rewritten to overcome the 112 rejection above. Examiner suggests making claim 11 (the intervening claim) dependent from claim 9, which defines the La ligands of claim 22.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art, Wang et al (CN 110922432 A), discloses an OLED comprising a red compound [Example 1] having the formula:
PNG
media_image3.png
151
228
media_image3.png
Greyscale
This differs from the claims in that it does not have at least one of X1 to X4 being N in the claimed formula 1.
Choi et al (US 20210122774 A1), discussed above, approximates some of the claimed Ligands La of claim 9 with condensed cyclopentyl and cyclohexyl with, for example, sub-ligands such as CY1-16 (compared to claimed La790) and CY1-23 compared to (La824):
PNG
media_image4.png
226
166
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
193
123
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
182
189
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
162
133
media_image6.png
Greyscale
But in CY1-23 the X2 is only O or S, not the claimed C, and it would require excessive hindsight to arrive at ligands like La824 with their 3-ring-fused structure from the disclosuer of CY1-16 and the myriad of options for R61.
Hang et al (WO 2019056515 A1) discloses 3,4,5-trisubstituted phenyl groups in a quinoline-phenyl ligand with 4,6 substitutions on the quinoline, along with 3,5-disubstituted phenyl groups
PNG
media_image7.png
215
171
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
183
157
media_image8.png
Greyscale
but obviously does not contain the second N atom in X1 to X4 in the claimed formula 1.
Cao et al (CN 109053813 A) discloses trisubstituted phenyl groups in a quinoline-phenyl ligand, and dislcoses that the quinoline is equivalent to the aza-quinoline contianing ligands
PNG
media_image9.png
301
404
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
199
665
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Adamovitch et al (US 20190280213 A1) also discloses the emitter of the formula:
PNG
media_image11.png
214
327
media_image11.png
Greyscale
, which differs from the claims in that the claimed Rz group does not include a halogen. The vast majority of examples in Adamovitch are 3,5-disubstituted phenyl groups.
Applicant has shown, however, that the specific combination of the tri-substituted phenyl group, in combination with a quinoxaline (compound 92) significantly improves upon EQE over the di-substituted phenyl groups (compound RD-A) and causes a much farther red shift than the same compounds with tri-substituted phenyl and quinoline (compound RD-B) and a 4-monosubstituted phenyl group and quinoxaline (compound RD-C) [see Tables 2 and 3 of Applicant’s specification].
Previously applied structures of Boudreault et al (US 9484541 B2) and Adamovitch et al (US 20190280213 A1):
PNG
media_image12.png
202
146
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
209
340
media_image13.png
Greyscale
differ from the claims in that the rings formed from an Ry and Rz of claimed formula 1 do not fall within the scope of Ry and Rz joining to form a ring only when Ry and Rz are selected from the specific groups mentioned above, i.e., alkyl, cycloalkyl, heteroalkyl, heterocyclic group, aralkyl, alkoxy, aryloxy, alkylsilyl, arylsilyl, alkylgermanyl, arylgermanyl. The aromatic containing rings on the phenyl group of the main ligand do not fit within that scope.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL M DOLLINGER whose telephone number is (571)270-5464. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6:30pm M-F.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-272-1302. 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.
MICHAEL M. DOLLINGER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1766
/MICHAEL M DOLLINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights