DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
All outstanding objections and rejections, except for those maintained below, are withdrawn in light of applicant's amendment filed on 6/3/2026.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior office action.
The new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant's amendment filed on 6/3/2026. In particular, original Claims 1, 17, and 20 have been amended to recite limitations not previously presented. Furthermore, newly added claims 21 to 29 recite subject matter not previously presented. Thus, the following action is properly made final.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 6 be found allowable, claim 29 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 23 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.
Claim 23 recites the formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
220
258
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
where ligands LA’ and Ly can be:
PNG
media_image2.png
198
154
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image3.png
170
144
media_image3.png
Greyscale
respectively, and where the variables Ru, Rv, Rw, Rz, Rq, Rr, and Rs can all be R1, i.e. hydrogen, which renders the scope of the claim indefinite for the following reasons. Claim 23 depends from claim 1, and claim 1 requires that at least one substituent in Formula 1:
PNG
media_image4.png
344
330
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
corresponds to Formula III:
PNG
media_image5.png
148
212
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
However, in the compound recited in claim 23, all substituents are hydrogen. Accordingly, it is unclear how one can simultaneously obtain the compound recited in claim 23 and still meet the requirements in claim 1, that the compound possesses a substituent corresponding to Formula III.
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-6, 8, 10-11, 17, and 20-29 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-6, 8, 10, 11, and 14-16, 17, and 20 of copending Application No. 18/475,852. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the reasons given below.
Claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/475,852 recites the identical Formula for the compound:
PNG
media_image4.png
344
330
media_image4.png
Greyscale
as recited in instant claim 1, where at least one of R1, R2, RA, RB, RC or RD corresponds to Formula III:
PNG
media_image5.png
148
212
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
as required in instant claim 1.
Furthermore, it is noted that claims 1-6, 8, 10, 11, and 14-16 of copending application recite identical or encompassing subject matter recited in instant claims 1-6, 8, 10-11, and 21-29.
Claim 17 of copending Application No. 18/475,852 recites an organic light emitting device identical to that recited in instant claim 17. Additionally, the organic layer of the device comprises a compound represented by Formula 1:
PNG
media_image4.png
344
330
media_image4.png
Greyscale
as recited in instant claim 17, where at least one of R1, R2, RA, RB, RC or RD corresponds to Formula III:
PNG
media_image5.png
148
212
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
as required in instant claim 17.
Claim 20 of copending Application No. 18/475,852 recites a consumer product comprising an organic light emitting device identical to that recited in instant claim 20. Additionally, the organic layer comprises a compound represented by Formula 1:
PNG
media_image4.png
344
330
media_image4.png
Greyscale
as recited in instant claim 20, where at least one of R1, R2, RA, RB, RC or RD corresponds to Formula III:
PNG
media_image5.png
148
212
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
as required in instant claim 20.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10-11, 17, and 20-29 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-6, 8, 10, 11, and 14-16, 17, and 20 of copending Application No. 18/149,776. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the reasons given below.
Claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/149,776 recites the identical Formula for the compound:
PNG
media_image4.png
344
330
media_image4.png
Greyscale
as recited in instant claim 1, where at least one of R1, R2, RA, RB, RC or RD corresponds to Formula III:
PNG
media_image5.png
148
212
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
as required in instant claim 1.
Furthermore, it is noted that claims 1-6, 8, 10, 11, and 14-16 of copending application recite identical or encompassing subject matter recited in instant claims 1-6, 8, 10-11, and 21-29.
Claim 17 of copending Application No. 18/149,776 recites an organic light emitting device identical to that recited in instant claim 17. Additionally, the organic layer of the device comprises a compound represented by Formula 1:
PNG
media_image4.png
344
330
media_image4.png
Greyscale
as recited in instant claim 17, where at least one of R1, R2, RA, RB, RC or RD corresponds to Formula III:
PNG
media_image5.png
148
212
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
as required in instant claim 17.
Claim 20 of copending Application No. 18/149,776recites a consumer product comprising an organic light emitting device identical to that recited in instant claim 20. Additionally, the organic layer comprises a compound represented by Formula 1:
PNG
media_image4.png
344
330
media_image4.png
Greyscale
as recited in instant claim 20, where at least one of R1, R2, RA, RB, RC or RD corresponds to Formula III:
PNG
media_image5.png
148
212
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
as required in instant claim 20.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In light of the amendments to the claims, the claim objections and 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) rejections of claims 1, 9, 13-17, and 20 are withdrawn. Furthermore, in light of the claim amendments the provisional statutory double patenting rejection and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of the claims over Bae et al are withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) rejection of claim 8, Applicants argue that the pyrrole ring in the structures:
PNG
media_image6.png
566
692
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
is not ring C in Formula I:
PNG
media_image4.png
344
330
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
because Formula I requires that moiety C is bonded to both the metal M and L1, and instead the benzene ring is actually moiety C. Applicants further argue that the carbazole which may be further substituted may be formed by moiety C being a benzene ring and a combination of RC and L2. Applicants’ arguments are found to be persuasive and the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections of claim 8 as set forth in the previous Office Action is withdrawn.
Regarding the double patent rejections set forth in the previous Office Action, given that the provisional double patenting rejection is not the only remaining rejection, the obviousness-type double patenting rejections set forth in the previous Office Action are maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the 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 ALEXANDER C. KOLLIAS whose telephone number is (571)-270-3869. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00AM – 5:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Boyd can be reached on (571)-272-7783. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER C KOLLIAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights