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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 11 March 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is not undue burden. No additional arguments are provided. This is not found persuasive for the reasons set forth in the Office action of 12 January 2026.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 36-37 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11 March 2026.
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.
Claims 24, 26-29, and 32-34 are 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.
Regarding claim 24: Claim 24 recites that “preferably the negatively charged anion has a molecular weight in the range rom 128 to 1000 g/mol.” It is unclear if the range from 128 to 1000 g/mol is required by the claim limitations or not. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is being interpreted to not be required to meet the limitations of the claim.
Regarding claims 26-29 and 32-34: Claims 26-29 and 32-34 are rejected due to their dependence from claim 24.
Claim 25 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 25: The final 17 lines of claim 25 recite limitations following the statement “wherein preferably the compound of formula 3 has one or more of the following features”. It is unclear if one or more of the recited features are required by the claim limitations or not. For the purposes of examination, the limitations are being interpreted to not be required to meet the limitations of the claim.
Claim 29 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 29: Many of the recited negatively charged anions of claim 29 do not meet the limitation that the negatively charged anion have a molecular weight greater than 128 g/mol. It is unclear if these anions meet the claim limitations of claim 29 or not, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the claim is being interpreted such that the anions that do not have a molecular weight greater than 128 g/mol do not read on the claim limitations of claim 29.
Claim 35 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 35: The final 19 lines of claim 35 recite limitations following a statement that each of the limitations is preferable. It is unclear if the limitations are required to meet the limitations of claim 35. For the purposes of examination, the limitations are being interpreted to not be required to meet the limitations of the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 29 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 29: Many of the recited negatively charged anions of claim 29 do not meet the limitation that the negatively charged anion have a molecular weight greater than 128 g/mol. Therefore, the claim fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 24-26 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen (US 2016/0022842 A1) (hereafter “Allen”) in view of Kuramochi et al. (WO 2012/157631 A1) (hereafter “Kuramochi”).
Regarding claims 24-26 and 29: Allen discloses the compound shown below {Fig. 4}.
PNG
media_image1.png
280
480
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Allen does not disclose a compound having a counter ion having a molecular weight greater than 128 g/mol.
However, Allen teaches that counter ions are used to maintain charge neutrality {paragraphs [0006] and [0032]}.
Kuramochi also teaches lanthanide series metal complexes {paragraph [0059]}.
Kuramochi teaches
PNG
media_image2.png
242
246
media_image2.png
Greyscale
as a known counter ion {paragraph [0059]}.
The counter ion of Kuramochi solves a related problem to the counter ion of Allen in the maintenance of charge neutrality.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the counter ion of Kuramochi for the europium complex of Allen described above. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices.
Regarding claims 24-26 and 29-30: Allen discloses the compound shown below {Fig. 4}.
PNG
media_image1.png
280
480
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Allen does not disclose a similar compound to the compound shown above in which the O atoms are instead S atoms.
However, Allen teaches that the O atoms can instead be S atoms {paragraph [0007]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compound of Allen by substitutend S atoms in place of O atoms, based on the teaching of Allen. The substitutions would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices.
Allen does not disclose a compound having a counter ion having a molecular weight greater than 128 g/mol.
However, Allen teaches that counter ions are used to maintain charge neutrality {paragraphs [0006] and [0032]}.
Kuramochi also teaches lanthanide series metal complexes {paragraph [0059]}.
Kuramochi teaches
PNG
media_image2.png
242
246
media_image2.png
Greyscale
as a known counter ion {paragraph [0059]}.
The counter ion of Kuramochi solves a related problem to the counter ion of Allen in the maintenance of charge neutrality.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the counter ion of Kuramochi for the europium complex of Allen described above. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices.
Claim(s) 24-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenks et al. (“Photophysical characterization of a highly luminescent divalent-euopiu-containing azacryptate”, Chemical Communications, (2018), vol. 54, pp. 4545) in view of Kuramochi et al. (WO 2012/157631 A1) (hereafter “Kuramochi”).
Regarding claims 24-31: Jenks discloses the compound shown below {Fig. 4}.
PNG
media_image3.png
216
258
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Jenks does not disclose a similar compound to the compound shown above in which the methyl groups are instead isopropyl groups.
A compound having n-propyl groups in place of methyl groups is a homolog – a compound differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical groups, in the present instance, sp3 carbons, of a similar compound having the methyl groups.
With respect to position isomers, the examiner points to the MPEP which states: A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. “An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties.” In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1991) for an extensive review of the case law pertaining to obviousness based on close structural similarity of chemical compounds. Compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) or homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties.” In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2144.09 I and 2144.09 II.
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compound of Jenks such that n-propyl groups were substituted in place of the methyl groups. A compound comprising n-propyl groups would be a homolog of a similar compound comprising methyl groups. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect that iridium complexes having each respective structure would act in similar manner. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices.
Jenks does not disclose a compound having a counter ion having a molecular weight greater than 128 g/mol.
Kuramochi also teaches lanthanide series metal complexes {paragraph [0059]}.
Kuramochi teaches
PNG
media_image2.png
242
246
media_image2.png
Greyscale
as a known counter ion {paragraph [0059]}.
The counter ion of Kuramochi solves a related problem to the counter ion of Allen in the maintenance of charge neutrality.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the counter ion of Kuramochi in place of the counter ion of the europium complex of Jenks described above. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DYLAN CLAY KERSHNER whose telephone number is (303)297-4257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm (Mountain).
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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 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 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.
/DYLAN C KERSHNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights