DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
All outstanding objections and rejections, except for those maintained below, are withdrawn in light of applicant's amendment filed on 8/19/2026.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior office action.
The new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant's amendment filed on 8/19/2026. In particular, the scope of original Claim 21 has been narrowed, cancelling provision (iii), and newly added claim 38 recites subject matter not previously presented. Thus, the following action is properly made final.
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 29-32 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 29 recites that ligand LA is selected from ligands such as:
PNG
media_image1.png
224
372
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
which renders the scope of the clam indefinite for the following reasons. Claim 29 depends from claim 21, and claim 21 requires either: provision (i) ring A is a 7- to 10-mmebered heterocyclic ring, or provision (ii) ligand LA comprises Formula II:
PNG
media_image2.png
186
126
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
In Claim 29, ligand LA corresponds to Formula I in claim 21:
PNG
media_image3.png
202
102
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
and therefore, these ligands cannot satisfy provision (ii). However, in the above ligands, ring A is either a 5- or 6-membered heterocyclic ring which is outside the scope of provision (i) recited in claim 21. Accordingly, it is unclear how one can simultaneously obtain the ligands recited in claim 29 and still meet the requirement of provision (i) recited in claim 21.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-28, 33-35, 37-38, and 40-42 are allowable over the “closest” prior art Mashima et al (WO 2007/058255, cited on IDS filed on 3/30/2023, see English language translation attached previous Office Action and Kim et al (US 2019/0280222, cited on IDS filed on 3/30/2023) for the following reasons:
Mashima et al discloses organic light emitting devices comprising the following compound ([0121] – Example 3 – Compound 1):
PNG
media_image4.png
357
280
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
However, the reference does not disclose or suggest a compound comprising a ligand represented by Formula I or II:
PNG
media_image5.png
222
128
media_image5.png
Greyscale
or
PNG
media_image6.png
222
160
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
where ring A is a monocyclic 7- to 10-membered heterocyclic ring as required by claims 21 and 37. Furthermore, the reference does not disclose or suggest an organic light emitting device where the claimed compound is a sensitizer, and the device further comprises an acceptor, where the acceptor is a fluorescent emitter, or a delayed fluorescent emitter as required by claim 38.
Kim et al discloses organic light emitting devices comprising compounds such as (Page 13 – Compounds 10 and 12):
PNG
media_image7.png
389
341
media_image7.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image8.png
354
406
media_image8.png
Greyscale
However, the reference does not disclose or suggest a compound comprising a ligand represented by Formula I or II:
PNG
media_image5.png
222
128
media_image5.png
Greyscale
or
PNG
media_image6.png
222
160
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
where ring A is a monocyclic 7- to 10-membered heterocyclic ring as required by claims 21 and 37. Furthermore, the reference does not disclose or suggest an organic light emitting device where the claimed compound is a sensitizer, and the device further comprises an acceptor, where the acceptor is a fluorescent emitter, or a delayed fluorescent emitter as required by claim 38.
In light of the above, it is clear that Mashima et al and Kim, either alone or combination, do not disclose or suggest the compound a required by claim 21, or the organic light emitting device as required by claims 37 and 38.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/19/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection set forth above.
In light of the amendments to the claims, the 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections set forth in the previous Office are withdrawn. Furthermore, in light of a properly filed terminal disclaimer, filed on 8/19/2026, the obviousness-type double patenting rejections set forth in the previous Office Action are withdrawn.
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 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 ALEXANDER C. KOLLIAS whose telephone number is (571)-270-3869. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00AM – 5:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Boyd can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER C KOLLIAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights