ORGANIC ELECTROLUMINESCENT MATERIAL AND DEVICE THEREOF

§103 §DOUBLEPATENT

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 . Summary of Claims Claims 1, 3, 6-10, 12-15, 18, and 21-22 are amended and claims 24-27 are new due to Applicant's amendment dated 08/20/2026. Claims 1-27 are pending. Response to Amendment The rejection of claims 1-23 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement as set forth in the previous Office Action is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 08/20/2026. The rejection is withdrawn. The rejection of claims 3, 6-10, 12-14, 16-18, and 21-22 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 as set forth in the previous Office Action is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 08/20/2026. The rejection is withdrawn. The rejection of claims 1-23 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai (US 2020/0091442 A1) in view of Kim (WO 2009/005272 A2) is not overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 08/20/2026. The rejection is maintained. The provisional rejection of claims 1-23 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of co-pending application No. 18/126,645 is not overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 08/20/2026. The rejection is maintained. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments on pages 47-58 of the reply dated 08/20/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-23 as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant's argument –On pgs. 47-50, Applicant argues metal complexes of the instant application provide improved device lifetime due to the specific fused structure of rings A, B, and C. Applicant points to Examples 1-3 (comprising complexes 216, 226, and 255, respectively) and Comparative Examples 1- 4 (comprising GD1, GD2, GD3 and GD4, respectively) for support. Applicant argues on pgs. 53-55 that the complexes of the prior art demonstrate unexpected technical effects over the prior art. PNG media_image1.png 204 301 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 210 305 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 187 274 media_image3.png Greyscale PNG media_image4.png 206 269 media_image4.png Greyscale PNG media_image5.png 187 266 media_image5.png Greyscale PNG media_image6.png 195 300 media_image6.png Greyscale PNG media_image7.png 195 269 media_image7.png Greyscale Examiner's response –Overcoming a rejection based on unexpected results requires at least the combination of three different elements: (i) the results must fairly compare with the closest prior art in an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132, (ii) the claims must be commensurate in scope, and (iii) the results must truly be unexpected. MPEP 716.02. Additionally, the burden rests with Applicant to establish the results are unexpected and significant. MPEP 716.02(b). Comparison with closest prior art Applicant has not made a comparison to the closest prior art. The device examples of the instant specification comprise different materials than the devices of Cai. As seen in the structures above and below, the instant Metal Complexes 216, 226, 255 comprise a different structure than Cai’s Ir(La107)2(Lb1)2. That is, the instant compounds differ from Ir(La107)2(Lb1)2 by more than just the fused substituent obtained from Rings A, B, and C. PNG media_image8.png 300 527 media_image8.png Greyscale Ir(La107)2(Lb1)2 contains an unsubstituted phenyl-pyridine ligand and contains a fluorine substituent in the location corresponding to CRx of X7. In contrast, each of the instant complexes comprise a phenyl-pyridine ligand wherein the pyridine is substituted with t-butyl in the meta-position with respect to the N-Ir bond. Additionally, complexes 216 and 226 comprise a cyano group in the location corresponding to CRx of X7. While complex 255 comprises a fluorine group in the location corresponding to CRx of X7, complex 255 additionally comprises a deuterium substituent on the fused substituent. As no explanation is provided for compounds having these different substituents, it is unclear if a comparison between compounds comprising the same structure as Ir(La107)2(Lb1)2 (wherein the phenyl-pyridine ligand is unsubstituted and wherein the compound contains a fluorine substituent in the location corresponding to CRx of X7) that also contains a fused substituent obtained from Rings A, B, and C (rather than the phenyl group) would obtain the same results discussed by Applicant. Accordingly, a comparison is not being made to the closest prior art. Where the comparison is not identical with the reference disclosure, deviations therefrom should be explained, and if not explained should be noted and evaluated, and if significant, explanation should be required. MPEP 716.02(e). Commensurate in Scope The data shown in Tables 2-3 is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention for at least the reasons that the data is shown for the use of a compound in the emitting layer of a device, whereas claims 1-18 and 24-27 are directed to a compound. The improved properties of device lifetime are shown when the compound is used in an emitting layer of an OLED (and with other particular compounds present in the same layer, such as the host compounds H1 and H2). None of these limitations are required by claims 1-18 and 24-27. No evidence has been provided to show that the unexpected results would be present for the use of the compound in other layers (or with other compounds present in the same layer). Additionally, as the claims claim a broad fused substituent obtained from Rings A, B, and C, but the compounds discussed (complexes 216, 226, and 255) only show one specific example of the fused substituent (i.e., a phenanthrene), the claims are not commensurate in scope. For example, Kim teaches fluorenyl substituents which is within the scope of the fused substituent obtained from Rings A, B, and C, as discussed below and in the previous rejection. As there are no results comprising fluorenyl substituents, it is unclear if the same results discussed by Applicant would be present. Additionally, as discussed in the new grounds of rejection below with respect to claim 24, the newly cited reference Park (US 2022/0209139 A1) recites a substituent including five fused rings such as the substituent PNG media_image9.png 122 141 media_image9.png Greyscale shown in compound 1 (see pg. 7). As discussed below, this substituent is within the scope of the claimed fused substituent obtained from Rings A, B, and C. As there are no results comprising the substituent of Park, it is unclear if the same results discussed by Applicant would be present. Unexpected Results It should be noted that to show evidence of improved properties specifically due to the fused substituent obtained from Rings A, B, and C, only a comparison between Metal Complex 216 and GD1 and GD2 may be used, given that the only difference between these compounds are the fused substituent. Additionally, as GD2 comprises a phenyl group rather than a fused substituent, GD2 is the closest compound to Cai’s Ir(La107)2(Lb1)2 . As discussed above, Example 1 comprises Metal Complex 216, and Comparative Example 2 comprises GD2. In Table 2, Example 1 obtains a lifetime (LT97) of 2.20 h and Comparative Example 2 obtains a lifetime of 2 h (see instant pg. 49). That is, Example 1 obtains a 10% improvement in lifetime in comparison to Comparative Example 2. However, inventive Example 2 obtains a lifetime of 2.5 h (see instant pg. 49). Thus the variability of lifetime between inventive examples is 14%. This variability illustrates the degree to which one of ordinary skill in the art could expect device lifetime to differ simply by altering the dopant material therein. Given that the degree of improvement shown by Example 1 in comparison to Comparative Example 2 (10%) is less than the degree of variability between inventive devices (14%), it is unclear whether the improvement shown by the inventive devices is unexpected. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that devices comprising compounds having different structures would not result in identical properties. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect some degree of difference in device lifetime between the devices of Example 1 and Comparative Example 2. Thus, in light of the variability between the instant devices and the degree of improvement shown between Example 1 and Comparative Example 2, and given that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect some difference in lifetime between devices comprising compounds having different structure, it is unclear whether the degree of improvement shown by the data in the instant specification is truly unexpected. Applicant's argument –On pgs. 50-51, Applicant argues the cited references of Cai and Kim fail to teach or suggest a metal complex of the claimed Formula 1. Particularly, Applicant argues Cai’s focus is completely different from that of the present application and a person skilled in the art would have no motivation to make structural modifications based on the teachings of Cai. Examiner's response –As discussed below and in the previous rejection, Cai is directed a metal complex for use as a luminescent material in an emissive layer of an electroluminescent device (see Cai, abstract) and Kim is directed to organometallic compounds for use as dopants in a light emitting layer of an organic light emitting device (see Kim, abstract). Similarly, the instant application is directed to a metal complex for use in an emissive layer of an organic electroluminescent device (see claim 20). Accordingly, Cai, Kim, and the instant application are all directed to the same art. While Cai does not specifically teach a fused substituent obtained from Rings A, B, and C provides devices with improved results, it is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by Applicant. See MPEP 2144 IV. As discussed below and in the previous rejection, Kim teaches a bulky fluorenyl substituent on organometallic ligands suppresses intermolecular interactions, which results in improved luminous efficiency and electrical characteristics (¶ [0186]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the compound of Cai with a bulky fluorenyl substituent of Kim to obtain the benefits discussed by Kim. Applicant's argument –On pgs. 51-55, Applicant argues the core nucleus structure of Kim’s metal complexes are entirely different from the instantly claimed complexes. Particularly, Applicant argues the claimed ligand of Formula 1 contains a specific fused-ring structure formed by Rings A, C, and C wherein Ring C is attached to another fused-ring structure via a single bond. Applicant further argues that the benefits discussed by Kim are not proven, and Kim only exemplifies device performance for homoleptic complexes of types 1a’, 1b’, and 1c’ (and provides no data for comparative compounds) so the technical effect provided by the fluorene moiety cannot be known. Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have no motivation to incorporate a substituent of Kim into the complex of Cai, and such a combination is only achieved through improper hindsight reasoning. Examiner's response—As discussed below and in the previous rejection, Kim is not used to teach the entire structure of the ligand represented by Formula 1. Rather, Kim is only used to teach the specific fused-ring structure formed by Rings A, C, and C. As discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the compound of Cai (which contains a fused-ring structure) with a bulky fluorenyl substituent of Kim to obtain the benefits discussed by Kim, and thus arrive at the claimed ligand of Formula 1. Additionally, it is not required for prior art to prove their discussed benefits by comparing inventive compounds with comparative compounds. Kim teaches the bulky fluorenyl substituents suppress intermolecular interactions, resulting in improved luminous efficiency and electrical characteristics (¶ [0186]). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect a compound comprising the bulky fluorenyl substituents of Kim to obtain the benefits discussed by Kim. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. As discussed above and outlined below, the rejections take into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the Applicant's disclosure. Applicant's argument –On pgs. 55-57, Applicant argues the inventive concept and technical focus of the instant application is entirely different from that of application 18/126,645 and thus the provisional rejection of claims 1-23 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting should be withdrawn. Examiner's response –A provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection can only be overcome by filing a terminal disclaimer or showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference claims. See MPEP 804.I.1. As discussed below and in the previous rejection, the co-pending reference application 18/126,645 claims subject matter not patentably distinct from the claimed invention. Additionally, as a terminal disclaimer has not been filed, the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection has not been overcome and is therefore maintained. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claims 1-23 and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai et al. (US 2020/0091442 A1) in view of Kim et al. (WO 2009/005272 A2). Regarding claims 1-12, 15-23, and 25-27, Cai teaches a metal complex of Formula 2 (Cai) (shown below, ¶ [0103]) wherein: PNG media_image10.png 315 584 media_image10.png Greyscale R1, R3, R4, Ra, and Rb, can each independently be hydrogen, a substituted or unsubstituted alkyl, a substituted or unsubstituted aryl, or a substituted or unsubstituted heteroaryl (¶ [0105]); and the substituted or unsubstituted aryl group can be preferably selected as a fluorenyl group (¶ [0058]); and metal complexes, such as those of Formula 2 (Cai), bearing a fluorine atom on the dibenzo-moiety of the pyridyl-dibenzo ligand provide longer device lifetimes, better thermal stability, and higher luminous efficiency (¶ [0011]). Cai discloses the following compound represented by Formula 2 (Cai): Compound Ir(La107)(Lb1)2 (¶ [0171], see structure below). PNG media_image8.png 300 527 media_image8.png Greyscale Cai also teaches the application of compound Ir(La107)(Lb1)2 in organic electroluminescent devices (see Table 1,Example 6: (Ir(La107)(Lb1)2), ¶ [0191]) wherein the devices comprise: an anode (¶ [0190]); and a cathode (¶ [0190]); and an organic layer disposed between the anode and cathode wherein at least one layer of the organic layer comprises a metal complex (¶ [0190]); and the layer comprising the metal complex is a light-emitting layer (¶ [0190]); and the light emitting layer further comprises two host compounds (Compounds EB and HB; see ¶ [0192] and Table 1, Example 6); and the weight of the metal complex is 8% of the total weight of the light emitting layer (see Table 1, Example 6). Cai, however, does not teach or exemplify a metal complex that meets all of the limitations per claim 1, specifically wherein at least one of X1 to X8 of ligand La is selected as a carbon atom and joined to the group PNG media_image11.png 238 373 media_image11.png Greyscale . Kim teaches organometallic compounds and organic light emitting display devices comprising the organometallic compounds as dopants in the light emitting layer with improved luminous efficiency ([Abstract]). Kim teaches that incorporation of bulky fluorenyl substituents on the ligands of the organometallic compounds improves solubility, which renders the complexes more amenable to wet deposition processes during organic light emitting device fabrication ([0022]). These wet depositions processes (such as spin coating, inkjet printing, or casting) allow for easier manufacturing of organic light emitting devices ([0019]). Additionally, Kim teaches that the bulky fluorenyl substituents on the organometallic ligands suppress intermolecular interactions which results in improved luminous efficiency and electrical characteristics ([0186]). Kim specifically teaches the following iridium-containing organometallic compound 1f ([0163]-[0166], structure shown below). PNG media_image12.png 477 360 media_image12.png Greyscale Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substituted the phenyl group of compound Ir(La107)(Lb1)2 of Cai with a fluorenyl group, based on the teaching of Kim. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve solubility of the organometallic complex and suppress intermolecular interactions, as taught by Kim. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substituted the phenyl group of compound Ir(La107)(Lb1)2 of Cai with a fluorenyl group, because it would have been choosing among the preferable substituents for the substituted or unsubstituted aryl group, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the dopant in the light emitting layer of the organic electroluminescent device of Cai and possessing the benefits taught by Cai. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Formula 2 of Cai having the benefits taught by Cai in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E). The compound of Cai, as modified by Kim, is shown below. PNG media_image13.png 432 732 media_image13.png Greyscale Per claim 1, compound Cai (Kim modification) reads on all the limitations wherein: Cy is an unsubstituted heteroaromatic ring with 6 ring atoms joined to metal M by a nitrogen-metal bond; and M is iridium (Ir); and X1 is a carbon atom joined to the pyridyl group; and X2 is a carbon atom forming a metal-carbon bond; and X is an oxygen atom; and X8 is a carbon atom joined to the fluorenyl group; and ring A is a carbocyclic ring with 5 ring atoms, and rings B and C are carbocyclic rings with 6 ring atoms; and Y is a carbon atom joined to the dibenzofuryl group; and X3-X6 are carbon atoms with hydrogen atoms as substituents; and X7 is a carbon atom with a fluorine substituent; and RA, RB, and RC are all hydrogen atoms. Per claim 2, compound Cai (Kim modification) reads on the limitation wherein: Cy is PNG media_image14.png 127 133 media_image14.png Greyscale ; and R are all hydrogen atoms; and # represents the nitrogen-metal bond PNG media_image15.png 24 49 media_image15.png Greyscale represents the carbon-carbon bond between the pyridyl group and X1. Per claim 3, compound Cai (Kim modification) reads on all the limitation wherein: the metal complex has the general of M(La)m(Lb)n(Lc)q; and ligand La is as previously defined and m is an integer equal to 1; and ligand Lb is represented by PNG media_image16.png 231 131 media_image16.png Greyscale , Ra and Rb are hydrogen atoms, and n is an integer equal to 2; and ligand Lc is not required to be present (q is equal to zero). Per claims 4 and 25-26, compound Cai (Kim modification) reads on all the limitations of Formula 2 of the instant application wherein: Y1-Y4 are carbon atoms with hydrogen substituents; and R1-R8 are all hydrogen atoms; and X3-X6 are carbon atoms with hydrogen atoms as substituents; and X7 is a carbon atom with a fluorine substituent; and X8 is a carbon atom joined to the fluorenyl group; and ring A is a carbocyclic ring with 5 ring atoms, and rings B and C are carbocyclic rings with 6 ring atoms; and Y is a carbon atom joined to the dibenzofuryl group; and RA, RB, and RC are all hydrogen atoms; and m is an integer equal to 1. Per claim 5, compound Cai (Kim modification) reads on the limitation wherein X is an oxygen atom. Per claim 6, compound Cai (Kim modification) reads on the limitation wherein: X3-X6 are carbon atoms with hydrogen atoms as substituents; and X7 is a carbon atom with a fluorine substituent; and X8 is a carbon atom joined to the carbon atom Y of the fluorenyl group. Per claim 7, compound Cai (Kim modification) reads on the limitation wherein: ring A is a carbocyclic ring with 5 ring atoms, and rings B and C are carbocyclic rings with 6 ring atoms. Per claim 8, compound Cai (Kim modification) reads on the limitation wherein X8 is a carbon atom joined to the carbon atom Y of the fluorenyl group Per claim 9, compound Cai (Kim modification) reads on the limitation wherein X7 is a carbon atom with a fluorine substituent. Per claim 10, compound Cai (Kim modification) reads on the limitation wherein RA, RB, and RC are all hydrogen atoms Per claim 11, compound Cai (Kim modification) reads on the limitation wherein: PNG media_image17.png 209 229 media_image17.png Greyscale is represented by PNG media_image18.png 100 139 media_image18.png Greyscale ; and * represents the position where the fluorenyl group is joined to the dibenzofuryl group of ligand La. Per claim 12, compound Cai (Kim modification) reads on the limitation wherein Y1-Y4 are carbon atoms with hydrogen substituents. Per claim 15, compound Cai (Kim modification) reads on the limitation wherein ligand La is identical to La244 (structure shown below). PNG media_image19.png 210 233 media_image19.png Greyscale Per claim 16, compound Cai (Kim modification) reads on the limitation wherein ligand Lb is identical to Lb1 (structure shown below). PNG media_image20.png 188 79 media_image20.png Greyscale Per claim 17, Compound Cai (Kim Modification) reads on the limitation wherein the ligand Lc is not required to be present as claim 3, which claim 17 depends upon, allows for q to be zero in M(La)m(Lb)n(Lc)q. Per claims 18 and 27, compound Cai (Kim modification) reads on the limitation wherein the metal complex has the structure IrLa(Lb)2 and La is represented by La244 and Lb is represented by Lb1. Per claim 19, the organic electroluminescent device comprising compound Cai (Kim modification) reads on all the limitations wherein the device comprises: an anode (¶ [0190]); and a cathode (¶ [0190]); and an organic layer disposed between the anode and cathode wherein at least one layer of the organic layer comprises a metal complex (¶ [0190]). Per claim 20, the organic electroluminescent device comprising compound Cai (Kim modification) reads on the limitation wherein the device comprises the metal complex in an emissive layer (¶ [0190]). Per claim 21, the organic electroluminescent device comprising compound Cai (Kim modification) reads on the limitation wherein the emissive layer comprises two host compounds (Compounds EB and HB; see ¶ [0192] and Table 1, Example 6). Per claim 22, the organic electroluminescent device comprising compound Cai (Kim modification) reads on the limitation wherein the weight of the metal complex accounts for 8% of the total weight of the emissive layer (see Table 1, Example 6). Per claim 23, the organic electroluminescent device comprising compound Cai (Kim modification) reads on the limitation wherein the emissive layer is a compound composition comprising a metal complex, as per claim 1. Regarding claims 13-14, the compound Cai (Kim modification) fails to read on the limitations wherein at least one of R1 to R8 are substituted or unsubstituted alkyl groups. However, as shown by Formula 2 (Cai), Cai teaches that Ra and Rb of the phenyl-pyridine ancillary ligands may be substituted (¶ [0105]). Cai further discloses that the ancillary ligand Lb may be selected as one of the following substituted phenyl-pyridine ligands (Lb88, see ¶ [0108] and structure below). PNG media_image21.png 306 310 media_image21.png Greyscale Therefore, given Formula 2 (Cai) and teachings of Cai, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the unsubstituted phenyl-pyridine ancillary ligands on the compound of Compound Cai (Kim Modification) with ancillary ligand Lb88, because Cai teaches that the ancillary ligand may be preferably selected as Lb88. This substitution is depicted below with Compound Cai 2 (Kim Modification). PNG media_image22.png 467 797 media_image22.png Greyscale This substitution would have been one preferred element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified Compound Cai 2 (Kim Modification) would be useful as a metal complex dopant material in the light-emitting layer of an organic electroluminescent device of Cai and possess the benefits taught by Cai (longer device lifetimes, better thermal stability, and higher luminous efficiency, ¶ [0011]). See MPEP 2143.I.(B). Per claim 13, Compound Cai 2 (Kim Modification) reads on the limitation wherein: R6 is a substituted alkyl group; and R7 is an unsubstituted alkyl group; and R8 is a deuterium atom; and the total number of carbon atoms in R1 to R4 and/or R5 to R8 is equal to 4. Per claim 14, Compound Cai 2 (Kim Modification) reads on the limitation wherein: R6 is a substituted alkyl group; and R7 is an unsubstituted alkyl group. Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai (US 2020/0091442 A1) in view of Park (US 2022/0209139 A1). Regarding claim 24, Cai teaches a metal complex of Formula 1 which provides device with longer lifetime, better thermal stability, and higher luminous efficiency, wherein examples of the metal complex include Compound Ir(La107)(Lb1)2 (¶ [0012]-[0013] and [0171]). Formula 1: PNG media_image23.png 143 148 media_image23.png Greyscale PNG media_image8.png 300 527 media_image8.png Greyscale Ir(La107)(Lb1)2 fails to read on the claimed Formula 1 as it does not comprise a condensed ring substituent. However, Cai does teach X1 to X7 may be CR wherein R may be a substituted or unsubstituted heteroaryl group having 6 to 30 carbon atoms (¶ [0018]-[0019]). Park teaches an organic light emitting device comprising an organic metal compound, wherein introducing various substituents to each of the ligands of the organic metal compound may make it possible to control the color purity, emission peaks of the organic metal compound, and luminescent color (abstract; ¶ [0040] and [0102]). Park teaches the organic metal compound includes a ligand having a fused aromatic ring or hetero aromatic ring with at least 5 rings and thus has a rigid chemical conformation (¶ [0057]). The rigid chemical conformation and adjustable luminescent colors can lower a device’s driving voltage and improve its luminous efficiency and luminous lifespan (¶ [0145]). Park teaches examples of the organic metal compound comprising a fused aromatic ring or hetero aromatic ring with at least 5 rings including compound 1 (pg. 7). 1: PNG media_image24.png 240 305 media_image24.png Greyscale Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a fused aromatic ring or hetero aromatic ring with at least 5 rings on a ligand of Ir(La107)(Lb1)2, particularly the substituent as shown in Park’s compound 1, based on the teaching of Park. The motivation for doing so would have been to control the color purity, the emission peaks, and luminescent color, and provide a device with lowered driving voltage and improved luminous efficiency and lifespan, as taught by Park. In particular, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the substituent in the location of Cai’s X6, because Cai teaches X6 may be CR wherein R may be a substituted or unsubstituted heteroaryl group having 6 to 30 carbon atoms, and because it would have been choosing a specific location on Ir(La107)(Lb1)2 in which to place the substituent, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound represented by Cai’s Formula 1 and possessing the benefits taught by Cai and Park. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Cai’s Formula 1 having the benefits taught by Cai and Park in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E). The modified Ir(La107)(Lb1)2 of Cai in view of Park is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Formula 1. modified Ir(La107)(Lb1)2: PNG media_image25.png 473 526 media_image25.png Greyscale 1: PNG media_image26.png 281 245 media_image26.png Greyscale The modified Ir(La107)(Lb1)2 reads on the claimed Formula 1 wherein: M is Ir; Ring Cy is an unsubstituted heteroaromatic ring having 6 ring atoms; X is O; Y is C; X1 to X8 are each CRx; Rings A and C are each a heterocyclic ring having 5 ring atoms and ring B is a carbocyclic ring having 6 ring atoms (benzene) (claim 24); Rx is a combination of hydrogen, halogen, and an unsubstituted aryl having 6 carbon atoms, RA and RC are each an alkenyl having 2 carbon atoms, and RB is hydrogen; and Adjacent RA join to form a ring and adjacent RC join to form a ring. 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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1-26 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of copending Application No. 18/126,645 (hereinafter, App. ‘654). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because App. ‘654 discloses ligand La856 in claim 17 (see structure below) which is a species of the genus of Formula 1 of the PNG media_image27.png 276 284 media_image27.png Greyscale instant application wherein: Cy is represented by a 4-fluoro-pyridyl group; and X1 is a carbon atom joined to the 4-fluoro-pyridyl group; and X2 is a carbon atom forming a metal-carbon bond; and X is an oxygen atom; and X8 is a carbon atom joined to the phenanthryl group (representing rings A, B, and C); and Y is a carbon atom joined to the dibenzofuryl group; and X3-X7 are carbon atoms with hydrogen atoms as substituents; and RA, RB, and RC are all hydrogen atoms. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the instant claims and the copending application claims are obvious variants of each other as they are overlapping in scope. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. 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. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRAELYN R WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5pm. 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. /BRAELYN R WATSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786