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 May 6, 2026.
Claims 1, 4, 15, 22, 25 and 28 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1 – 29 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Amendments
Applicant's amendments to the claims, filed May 6, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claim 22 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 February 20, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed May 6, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 15 – 18, and 20 – 24 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen as set forth in the office action filed February 20, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed May 6, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1 – 9, 13, 14, 19 and 25 – 29 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen as set forth in the office action filed February 20, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed May 6, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen and further in view of Jeong as set forth in the office action filed February 20, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed May 6, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng and Jeong and further in view of Jang as set forth in the office action filed February 20, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the specific features now recited in claims 1, 4, 15, and 28 are not disclosed, taught, or suggested in the cited references. Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the amendments overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) set forth previously, as shown below Chen still renders obvious the claimed invention.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references provided in the Information Disclosure Statement filed May 21, 2026 have been considered. A signed copy of the corresponding 1449 form has been included with this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 15 – 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fleetham (US20240188419A1).
As per claims 15 – 25, Fleetham teaches:
An organometallic compound represented by Formula 1
PNG
media_image1.png
412
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Fleetham teaches compounds including
PNG
media_image2.png
364
280
media_image2.png
Greyscale
on page 260. This compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein M is Pt; X1 to X3 are each C and X4 is N; A bond between X1 and M is a coordinate bond and a bond between X4 and M is a coordinate bond and the remaining bonds with M are covalent; ring CY1 is a C7 heterocyclic group, namely an X1 containing 5-membered ring in which at least one 6-membered ring is condensed, wherein the X1-containing 5-membered ring is an imidazole group as required by claim 16 so that the whole ring is a benzimidazole group as required by claim 17; CY2, CY3 and CY4 are each independently a C6 carbocyclic group, namely a benzene group as required by claim 18; X51 is *-O-* and X52 is *-N(R52a)-*; L1 is a C6 carbocyclic group substituted with at least one R10a, wherein R10a is a C4 alkyl group; b1 is 1; T1 is a C6 carbocyclic group substituted with at least one R10a wherein R10a is deuterium; c1 is an integer of 2; n1 is an integer of 1 and the whole *-(L1)b1-(T1)c1 group is represented by Formula CY1A in claim 23; R42 is a C1 alkyl group substituted with at least one R10a wherein R10a is deuterium; R41 and R44 are each hydrogen; R1 to R3 are all hydrogen and R4 are deuterium substitutions. CY3 is represented by CY3A in claim 19 and Formula 1-2 in claim 25.)
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 – 9, 13, 14, and 26 – 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleetham (US20240188419A1) as applied to claims 15 – 25 above.
As per claims 1, 2, 4 – 7, Fleetham teaches a compound of Formula 1, as shown above. Fleetham does not specifically teach the compound in a device. Fleetham teaches:
A light emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode facing the first electrode, an interlayer between the first electrode and the second electrode and comprising an emission layer ([Abstract]: “Provided is an organic light emitting device (OLED) comprising: an anode; a hole transporting layer; an emissive region; an electron transporting layer; and a cathode.”)
A second compound comprising at least one π electron-deficient nitrogen-containing C1 – C60 cyclic group, a third compound comprising a group represented by Formula 2 below, a fourth compound capable of emitting delayed fluorescence, or any combination thereof (Fleetham teaches that the organic layer can be an emissive layer and the compound can be an emissive dopant and that the emissive layer can further comprise a host ([0446]). Fleetham teaches an example of a suitable host material includes
PNG
media_image3.png
264
230
media_image3.png
Greyscale
([0286]), which contains a π electron-deficient nitrogen-containing C1 – C60 cyclic group, namely a triazine group as required by claim 6 and reads on the claimed second compound. As only one of the second, third and fourth compounds are required, Fleetham meets the claimed limitations. As claim 7 defines the fourth compound but does not require the presence of the fourth compound, Fleetham meets the limitations of claim 7.)
Fleetham 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 Fleetham as Fleetham demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As per claim 3, Fleetham is silent with respect to the property of an absolute value of a different between a phase transition temperature of the organometallic compound and a phase transition of the second compound. However, since the Fleetham teaches substantially the same compound as disclosed by Applicant, the property of an absolute value of a different between a phase transition temperature of the organometallic compound and a phase transition of the second compound are 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 8, Fleetham teaches:
Wherein the emission layer comprises i) the organometallic compound and ii) the second compound, the third compound, the fourth compound or any combination thereof (As shown above, the claim teaches a combination of the organometallic compound and the second compound in the emission layer.)
The emission layer emits blue light (In Table 2, it is shown that the compounds emit light in the range of 460 – 467, which is interpreted as blue light.)
As per claim 9, Fleetham teaches:
Wherein the emission layer emits blue light and a maximum wavelength of the blue light is in a range of 430 nm to 475 nm (In Table 2, it is shown that the compounds emit light in the range of 460 – 467, which is interpreted as blue light.)
An emission full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the blue light is less than or equal to 40 nm. ([0300]: “In some embodiments, the FWHM is 40 nm or less.”)
As per claim 13, Fleetham teaches:
A consumer product comprising the light emitting device ([0105]: “Devices fabricated in accordance with embodiments of the disclosure can be incorporated into a wide variety of consumer products that have one or more of the electronic component modules (or units) incorporated therein.”)
As per claim 14, Fleetham teaches:
Wherein the consumer product is one selected from a flat panel display… ([0105]: “Some examples of such consumer products include a flat panel display…”)
As per claims 26 – 28, Fleetham is silent with respect to the properties of absolute value of a difference of a chemical shift value of R44 and chemical shift value of R41 and the TSM(migration) energy value of the compound. However, since Fleetham teaches substantially the same compound as disclosed by Applicant, the properties of absolute value of a difference of a chemical shift value of R44 and chemical shift value of R41 and the TSM(migration) energy value of the compound are 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.
Claims 1 – 9, and 13 – 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (EP3715353A1).
As per claims 1, 2, 4 – 7, 15 – 18, and 20 – 24, Chen teaches:
A composition comprising an organometallic compound represented by Formula 1
PNG
media_image1.png
412
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Chen teaches compound of Formula I
PNG
media_image4.png
260
314
media_image4.png
Greyscale
([0016]). A specific compound taught by Chen is
PNG
media_image5.png
266
252
media_image5.png
Greyscale
on page 90. While this compound does not contain a substituent in the claimed R4 position, Chen teaches compounds with a biphenyl substituent in the RB position of Chen’s Formula I, such as
PNG
media_image6.png
234
262
media_image6.png
Greyscale
on Page 98. 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 similarly provide a phenyl substituent off of the phenyl substituent on Chen’s compound of Page 90 and arrive at the claimed invention. When modified in this way, the modified compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein M is Pt; X1 to X3 are each C and X4 is N; A bond between X1 and M is a coordinate bond and a bond between X4 and M is a coordinate bond and the remaining bonds with M are covalent; ring CY1 is a C7 heterocyclic group, namely an X1 containing 5-membered ring in which at least one 6-membered ring is condensed, wherein the X1-containing 5-membered ring is an imidazole group as required by claim 16 so that the whole ring is a benzimidazole group as required by claim 17; CY2, CY3 and CY4 are each independently a C6 carbocyclic group, namely a benzene group as required by claim 18; X51 is *-O-* and X52 is a single bond; L1 is a C6 carbocyclic group; b1 is 1; T1 is a C6 carbocyclic group substituted with at least one R10a wherein R10a is deuterium; c1 is an integer of 2; n1 is an integer of 1 and the whole *-(L1)b1-(T1)c1 group is represented by Formula CY1A in claim 23; R42 is a C1 alkyl group substituted with at least one R10a wherein R10a is deuterium; R41 and R44 are each hydrogen; R1 to R3 are all hydrogen; R4 is a phenyl group and a4 is an integer of 1.)
A light emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode facing the first electrode, an interlayer between the first electrode and the second electrode and comprising an emission layer ([0104]: “An organic light emitting device (OLED) containing the compound of the present disclosure is also disclosed. The OLED comprises: an anode; a cathode; and an organic layer, disposed between the anode and the cathode, wherein the organic layer comprises a compound of Formula I.”)
A second compound comprising at least one π electron-deficient nitrogen-containing C1 – C60 cyclic group, a third compound comprising a group represented by Formula 2 below, a fourth compound capable of emitting delayed fluorescence, or any combination thereof (Chen teaches that the organic layer can be an emissive layer and the compound can be an emissive dopant and that the organic layer can further comprise a host ([0106]). Chen teaches an example of a suitable host material includes
PNG
media_image7.png
88
170
media_image7.png
Greyscale
([0106]), which contains a π electron-deficient nitrogen-containing C1 – C60 cyclic group, namely a triazine group as required by claim 6 and reads on the claimed second compound. As only one of the second, third and fourth compounds are required, Chen meets the claimed limitations. As claim 7 defines the fourth compound but does not require the presence of the fourth compound, Chen meets the limitations of claim 7.)
Chen includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Chen 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 phosphorescent emissive compounds that exhibit physical properties that can be tuned, such as sublimation temperature, emission color and device stability (Abstract), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Chen 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 Chen as Chen demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As per claim 3, Chen is silent with respect to the property of an absolute value of a different between a phase transition temperature of the organometallic compound and a phase transition of the second compound. However, since the Chen teaches substantially the same compound as disclosed by Applicant, the property of an absolute value of a different between a phase transition temperature of the organometallic compound and a phase transition of the second compound are 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 8, Chen teaches:
Wherein the emission layer comprises i) the organometallic compound and ii) the second compound, the third compound, the fourth compound or any combination thereof (As shown above, the claim teaches a combination of the organometallic compound and the second compound in the emission layer.)
The emission layer emits blue light (In Table 1, it is shown that the compounds emit light in the range of 452 – 458, which is interpreted as blue light.)
As per claim 9, Chen teaches:
Wherein the emission layer emits blue light and a maximum wavelength of the blue light is in a range of 430 nm to 475 nm (In Table 1, it is shown that the compounds emit light in the range of 452 – 458, which is interpreted as blue light.)
An emission full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the blue light is less than or equal to 40 nm. (In Table 2, the compounds are seen as having a FWHM of 40 or less.)
As per claim 13, Chen teaches:
A consumer product comprising the light emitting device ([0019]: “A consumer product comprising such OLED is also disclosed.”)
As per claim 14, Chen teaches:
Wherein the consumer product is one selected from a flat panel display… ([0031]: “A consumer product comprising an OLED that includes the compound of the present disclosure in the organic layer in the OLED is disclosed. Such consumer products would include any kind of products that include one or more light source(s) and/or one or more of some type of visual displays. Some examples of such consumer products include flat panel displays…”)
As per claims 19, 25, 28 and 29, the compound of Chen above does not contain the carbazole group in the claimed CY3 position. However, Chen teaches sub-species of Formula I include both
PNG
media_image8.png
300
288
media_image8.png
Greyscale
, which includes the compound above, and
PNG
media_image9.png
266
362
media_image9.png
Greyscale
([0098]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to replace the benzene ring in the claimed CY3 position with a carbazole group in the compound of Chen above as Chen teaches both sub-species of the organometallic formulae. When modified in this way, the compound reads on claimed Formula I in the same manner as above except that X52 is a *-N(R21a)-* wherein R51a is a C6 aryl group bonded to R3 to form a condensed ring group as required by condition iii) of claim 19. The compound reads on Formula 1-1 of claim 25.
Chen includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Chen 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 phosphorescent emissive compounds that exhibit physical properties that can be tuned, such as sublimation temperature, emission color and device stability (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 claims 26 – 28, Chen is silent with respect to the properties of absolute value of a difference of a chemical shift value of R44 and chemical shift value of R41 and the TSM(migration) energy value of the compound. However, since the Chen teaches substantially the same compound as disclosed by Applicant, the properties of absolute value of a difference of a chemical shift value of R44 and chemical shift value of R41 and the TSM(migration) energy value of the compound are 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.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (EP3715353A1) as applied to claims 1 – 9, and 13 – 29 above and further in view of Jeong (US20170162796A1).
As per claims 10 and 11, Chen teaches that organic transistors may employ the materials and structures ([0032]). Chen does not specifically teach:
An electronic apparatus comprising the light-emitting device, the electronic apparatus comprising a thin-film transistor, wherein the thin-film transistor comprises a source electrode and a drain electrode and the first electrode of the light-emitting device is electrically connected to at least one selected from the source electrode and the drain electrode of the thin-film transistor
Jeong teaches OLED devices (Abstract). Jeong further teaches the OLEDs may be part of an electronic apparatus comprising a thin-film transistor ([0199]). Jeong teaches the thin film transistor includes a gate electrode, a source electrode, an activation layer and a drain electrode ([0203]). Jeong teaches that the first electrode of the OLED is connected to the drain electrode ([0205]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the OLED of Chen in a thin film transistor device with the structure claimed because Jeong teaches this application and device structure was known as predictably suitable for OLED devices prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (EP3715353A1) and Jeong (US20170162796A1) as applied to claims 1- 11, and 13 – 29 above, and further in view of Jang (US20150188083A1).
As per claim 12, the prior art combination does not teach:
The electronic apparatus further comprising a color filter, a color conversion layer, a touch screen layer, a polarizing layer, or any combination thereof
Jang teaches an organic light emitting display device comprising an organic light emitting diode (Abstract). Jang teaches that these devices include sub-pixels that can comprise a conversion layer to convert white light into red, green and blue light ([0009]). Jang also teaches that the structure can comprise color filters in the respective pixel regions of the substrate (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the claimed color filter or color conversion layer on the OLED of the prior art combination because Jang demonstrates that this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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