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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the specifies of formula D6
PNG
media_image1.png
333
392
media_image1.png
Greyscale
in the reply filed on 22 June 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: a period is absent from the ultimate line. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected as being vague and indefinite when they each recite “C1 – C30 heterocyclic group” (emphasis added) and “C1 – C60 heterocyclic group” (emphasis added) therein multiple times; the scope of the protection sought is not clear, since each of “C1 – C30” and “C1 – C60” include one carbon atom, and a heterocyclic group requires a minimum of two carbon atoms. Claims 1, 9, 12, 14, and 15 each fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the substituents in the organometallic compound of formula 1. Claims 12, and 14/15 are similarly rejected as being vague and indefinite when they each respectively recite “C1 – C30 heterocyclic group” (emphasis added) and “C1 – C60 heterocyclic group” (emphasis added).
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected as being vague and indefinite when they each recite “with at least one R10a, a C1-C30 heterocyclic group unsubstituted or substituted with at least one R10a, or any combination thereof, wherein * and *′ each indicate a binding site to a neighboring atom” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by, and antecedent basis of, a “neighboring” atom is not clear. Claims 1 and 9 each fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the substituents in the organometallic compound of formula 1. Claims 14 and 15 are similarly rejected as being vague and indefinite when they each recite “* and *′ each indicate a binding site to a neighboring atom, ” (emphasis added). Claims 16 is similarly rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “*, *′, and *″ each indicate a binding site to a neighboring atom”. (emphasis added).
Claim 4 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “wherein the dopant comprises the organometallic compound of formula 1” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by a compound (dopant) comprising a compound (organometallic compound of formula 1) is not clear. Claim 4 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the contents of the claimed light-emitting device, i.e., wherein the dopant is the organometallic compound of formula 1
Rejoinder
The species of formula D6 elected 22 June 2026 is allowable. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(a), the election of species requirement as set forth in the Office action mailed on 23 April 2026, is hereby withdrawn and all species are hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. In view of the withdrawal of the election of species requirement, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the election of species requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0225189, which is the pre-grant publication corresponding to the present application; the following references, which are pertinent to a tetradentate organometallic compound: U.S. Patent No. 10,400,003, U.S. Patent No. 10,937,973; and the following references, which are pertinent to the inventive tetradentate organometallic compound characterized by comprising a fused ring: U.S. Patent No. 12,389,792, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0206319, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2026/0059935, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0227799.
Allowable Subject Matter
The inventive tetradentate organometallic compound of formula 1, as represented by
PNG
media_image2.png
257
396
media_image2.png
Greyscale
is distinguished from the tetradentate organometallic compounds of the prior art by the substituent L2 therein.
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 4, 9, 12, and 14-16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 2, 3, 5-8, 10, 11, 13, and 17-20 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.
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