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 .
This office action is responsive to the Amendment and Remarks filed 24 June 2026, wherein claim 10 was canceled. Subsequently, claims 1-9 and 11-20 remain pending and presently under consideration in this application.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claims 1, 17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112(pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as forth in paragraphs 6-10 of the previous office action on the merits, is hereby withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments to the same. However, applicants’ amendment to each of claims 1, 17, and 20 introduces new considerations under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112(pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as follows.
Applicant’s amendments have failed to satisfactorily address the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112(pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as set forth in paragraph 11 of the previous office action on the merits.
Applicant’s 24 June 2026 submission of each of claims 7-9, and 12-15 has introduced new considerations under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112(pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 June 2026 in response to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112(pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as set forth in paragraphs 6-10 of the previous office action on the merits, are moot as the aforementioned rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 24 June 2026 in response to the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112(pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as set forth in paragraph 11 of the previous office action on the merits, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claim 5 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the antecedent basis of “monocyclic or polycyclic group comprising 5-membered and/or 6-membered carbocyclic or heterocyclic rings”, i.e., that the cycloalkyl, heterocycloalkyl, and heteroaryl groups may be “monocyclic or polycyclic group comprising 5-membered and/or 6-membered carbocyclic or heterocyclic rings”.
Applicant’s arguments filed 24 June 2026 with respect to the alleged allowability of the claims have been considered but they are not persuasive, in part as applicants’ amendment to each of claims 1, 17, and 20 introduces new considerations under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112(pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as follows, and applicant’s 24 June 2026 submission of each of claims 7-9, and 12-15 has introduced new considerations under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112(pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as follows.
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 1-9 and 11-20 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.
Amended claims 1, 17, and 20 are rejected as being vague and indefinite when they each recite
PNG
media_image1.png
242
227
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought is not clear as the formula has incomplete bonds/missing substituents, and neither “1” nor “2” are defined. Claim fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the ligand LA of Formula I. contained in the compound. Claims 1-9 and 11-16 fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the ligand LA of Formula I in the claimed compound. Claims 17-19 fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the ligand LA of Formula I in the compound contained in the organic layer of the claimed organic light emitting device. Claim 20 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the ligand LA of Formula I in the compound contained in the organic layer of the claimed consumer product.
Amended claims 1, 17, and 20 are rejected as being vague and indefinite when they each recite “wherein R1 and R2 are each independently” (emphasis added) and “wherein any two R1 and R2 may be joined to form a ring” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought is not clear as there is insufficient antecedent basis for the substituents R1 and R2. Claims 1-9 and 11-16 fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the compound. Claims 17-19 fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the compound contained in the organic layer of the claimed organic light emitting device. Claim 20 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the compound contained in the organic layer of the claimed consumer product.
Claims 1, 17 and 20 are rejected as being vague and indefinite when they each recite “wherein M may be coordinated to ligands LB and/or LC“ (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought is not clear. Since the metal M is at least bonded to the ligand LA, the claims fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim that M may also be coordinated to ligands LB and/or LC. Claims 1-9 and 11-16 fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the compound. Claims 17-19 fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the compound contained in the organic layer of the claimed organic light emitting device. Claim 20 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the compound contained in the organic layer of the claimed consumer product.
Claim 5 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “R1 and R2 is independently an alkyl, cycloalkyl, a monocyclic or polycyclic group comprising 5-membered and/or 6-membered carbocyclic or heterocyclic rings” (emphasis added); the antecedent basis of “monocyclic or polycyclic group comprising 5-membered and/or 6-membered carbocyclic or heterocyclic rings” is not clear. Claim 5 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the compound.
Claim 7 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites
PNG
media_image2.png
668
855
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought is not clear as the formulae have incomplete bonds/missing substituents, and neither “1” nor “2A” are defined. Claim 7 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the ligand LA of Formula I contained in the claimed compound. The formulae recited in each of claim 8 and claim 9 also contain incomplete bonds/missing substituents.
Claim 7 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “wherein R1A and R2A are each independently” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought is not clear as there is insufficient antecedent basis for the substituents R1A and R2A therein. Claim 7 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the ligand LA of Formula I contained in the claimed compound.
Claims 11-16 are rejected as being vague and indefinite when they each recite “compound of claim 10” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought is not clear as claim 10 has been canceled.
Claim 12 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites the formulae for the ligands LB and LC. There are incomplete bonds/missing substituents, such as in
PNG
media_image3.png
195
214
media_image3.png
Greyscale
. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “a1” in
PNG
media_image4.png
136
138
media_image4.png
Greyscale
. There is insufficient antecedent basis for each of “5” and “K” in
PNG
media_image5.png
236
151
media_image5.png
Greyscale
. The ambiguity includes, but is not limited to the aforementioned specific examples, and are merely representative of the issues therein. Claim 12 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the ligands LB and LC contained in the claimed compound.
Claim 13 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites the formulae for the ligand LBk. There are incomplete bonds/missing substituents, such as in
PNG
media_image6.png
150
83
media_image6.png
Greyscale
. There is insufficient antecedent basis for each of “K”, “L”, “5”, “N10” and “NB2” in
PNG
media_image7.png
193
243
media_image7.png
Greyscale
. The ambiguity includes, but is not limited to the aforementioned specific examples, and are merely representative of the issues therein. Claim 13 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the ligand LBk contained in the claimed compound.
Claim 13 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites the formula
PNG
media_image8.png
130
90
media_image8.png
Greyscale
(emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought is not clear as the formula has incomplete bonds/missing substituents, and neither “KCD” nor “K” are defined. Claim 13 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the ligand LCj-I of Formula I contained in the claimed compound.
Claim 13 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites the table:
PNG
media_image9.png
108
906
media_image9.png
Greyscale
(emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought is not clear as there is insufficient antecedent basis for each of R201 and R202 therein, and they are not defined. Claim 13 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the ligand LCj-I of Formula I contained in the claimed compound.
Claim 13 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites the structures RD1 to RD246. The scope of the protection sought by, for instance, each of “B2”, “D4”, “K” and KB10 in the following is not clear, nor are they defined:
PNG
media_image10.png
255
815
media_image10.png
Greyscale
The ambiguity includes, but is not limited to the aforementioned specific examples, and are merely representative of the issues therein. Claim 13 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the structures RD1 to RD246 in the ligand LBk contained in the claimed compound.
Claim 14 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites the structures therein, such as, for instance
PNG
media_image11.png
217
844
media_image11.png
Greyscale
(emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought is not clear as the formulae have incomplete bonds/missing substituents, and there is neither sufficient antecedent basis for and or a definition for “K” therein.
Claim 14 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “wherein R1 and R2 are as defined above” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought is not clear as therein is insufficient antecedent basis for the substituents R1 and R2 in the recited formulae. Claim 14 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the compound.
Claim 15 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites the structures of the compounds, such as, for instance
PNG
media_image12.png
229
596
media_image12.png
Greyscale
(emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought is not clear as the formulae have incomplete bonds/missing substituents, and there is neither sufficient antecedent basis for and or a definition for “K” therein.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Geraldina Visconti whose telephone number is (571)272-1334. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00am-4:30pm. 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, Anthony J Zimmer can be reached at (571)270-3591. 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.
GERALDINA VISCONTI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1737
/GERALDINA VISCONTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737
Prosecution Insights