CTNF 18/149,776 CTNF 84688 DETAILED ACTION 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the phrase “selected form” which appears to be a typographical error of “selected from” . Appropriate correction is required. 07-29-01 AIA Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the phrase “at least one of R 1 and R 2 is hydrogen”. Applicant are advised to amend this phrase to recite “at least one of R 1 or R 2 is hydrogen” . Appropriate correction is required. 07-29-01 AIA Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the phrase “at least one of R 3 , R 4 , and R 5 comprises deuterium”. Applicant are advised to amend this phrase to recite “at least one of R 3 , R 4 , or R 5 comprises deuterium” . Appropriate correction is required. 07-29-01 AIA Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 8 recites the phrase “wherein the compound has the structures”. Applicants are advised to amend this phrase to recite “wherein the compound has the structure” . Appropriate correction is required. 07-29-01 AIA Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 17 recites the phrase “selected form” which appears to be a typographical error of “selected from” . Appropriate correction is required. 07-29-01 AIA Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 17 recites the phrase “at least one of R 3 , R 4 , and R 5 comprises deuterium”. Applicant are advised to amend this phrase to recite “at least one of R 3 , R 4 , or R 5 comprises deuterium” . Appropriate correction is required. 07-29-01 AIA Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 17 recites the phrase “at least one of R 1 and R 2 is hydrogen”. Applicant are advised to amend this phrase to recite “at least one of R 1 or R 2 is hydrogen” . Appropriate correction is required. 07-29-01 AIA Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 19 recites illegible host compounds, see Page 240 of claims. Applicants are advised to amend the claim providing legible versions of these compounds . Appropriate correction is required. 07-29-01 AIA Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 17 recites the phrase “selected form” which appears to be a typographical error of “selected from” . Appropriate correction is required. 07-29-01 AIA Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 20 recites the phrase “at least one of R 3 , R 4 , and R 5 comprises deuterium”. Applicant are advised to amend this phrase to recite “at least one of R 3 , R 4 , or R 5 comprises deuterium” . Appropriate correction is required. 07-29-01 AIA Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 20 recites the phrase “at least one of R 1 and R 2 is hydrogen”. Applicant are advised to amend this phrase to recite “at least one of R 1 or R 2 is hydrogen” . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 AIA Claim s 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites the formula: PNG media_image1.png 344 330 media_image1.png Greyscale ; however, the claim does not recite or define what atoms/elements or chemical species are encompassed by the variable M, thereby rendering the scope of the claim indefinite. In the interests of compact prosecution, pending rectification/clarification of the above, in the rejections set forth below, M will be considered to be either Pt or Pd. Claim 8 recites structures such as: PNG media_image2.png 566 692 media_image2.png Greyscale , which render the scope of the claim indefinite for the following reasons. Claim 8, depends from claim 1, and claim 1 requires that in Formula I: PNG media_image1.png 344 330 media_image1.png Greyscale , ring C is a 5- or 6-membered carbocyclic or heterocyclic ring, and this ring is bonded to rings B and C, and M. However, in the above compounds in claim 8, while ring C is a 5-membered ring bonded to ring D, ring C is not bonded to M and ring B as required by Formula I in claim 1. Accordingly, it is unclear how one obtains the structures recited in claim 8 and still meets the requirements of Formula I in claim 1 that ring C is a 5- or 6-membered carbocyclic or heterocyclic ring and this ring is bonded to M and rings B and C. Claim 9 recites formulas for substituent R* as: PNG media_image3.png 322 906 media_image3.png Greyscale , which renders the scope of the claim indefinite for the following reasons. Claim 9 depends from claim 7, and claim 7 requires that at least one R* has a structure of Formula II, i.e. PNG media_image4.png 34 160 media_image4.png Greyscale , where Q is Si, Si N or B, see claim 1. Claim 1 requires that when Q is C, R 3 and R 4 and R 5 are alkyl, heteroaryl, cycloalkyl, heterocycloalkyl, or combinations thereof. However, in the structures for R * recited above, R 3 to R 5 do not correspond to any of the substituents recited in claim 1, and therefore, is unclear how one obtains the above structures for R * recited in claim 9, and still meet the requirements of Formula II recited in claim 1. Claim 13 recites that at least one of X 16’ ’ to X 19’ is N which renders the scope of the claim indefinite for the following reasons. Claim 13 depends from claim 3, and claim 3 recites the following formula: PNG media_image5.png 336 298 media_image5.png Greyscale . However, the above formula does not recite the variables X 16’ to X 19’ . Accordingly, it is unclear what X 16’ to X 19’ in claim 13 are referring to. Claim 14 recites the formula: PNG media_image6.png 326 368 media_image6.png Greyscale , where L y corresponds to formulas such as: PNG media_image7.png 222 206 media_image7.png Greyscale PNG media_image8.png 210 196 media_image8.png Greyscale PNG media_image9.png 200 214 media_image9.png Greyscale . The above recited L y ’s render the scope of the claim indefinite for the following reasons. Claim 14, depends from claim 1, and claim 1 requires that in Formula I: PNG media_image1.png 344 330 media_image1.png Greyscale , ring C is a 5- or 6-membered carbocyclic or heterocyclic ring and that ring C is bonded to rings B and C, and M. However, in the above formulas in claim 14, while ring C is a 5-membered ring bonded to ring D, ring C is not bonded to M and ring B as required by Formula I in claim 1. Accordingly, it is unclear how one obtains the compounds recited in claim 14, and still meets the requirements of Formula I in claim 1 where ring C is a 5- or 6-membered carbocyclic or heterocyclic ring and that ring C is bonded to M and to rings B and C. Claim 15 recites structures the formula: PNG media_image6.png 326 368 media_image6.png Greyscale , where Ly corresponds to formulas such as: PNG media_image10.png 182 212 media_image10.png Greyscale , PNG media_image11.png 246 218 media_image11.png Greyscale PNG media_image12.png 196 208 media_image12.png Greyscale which render the scope of the claim indefinite for the following reasons. Claim 15, depends from claim 1, and claim 1 requires that in Formula I: PNG media_image1.png 344 330 media_image1.png Greyscale , where ring C is a 5- or 6-membered carbocyclic or heterocyclic ring and that ring C is bonded to rings B and C, and M. However, in the above formulas in claim 15, while ring C is a 5-membered ring bonded to ring D, ring C is not bonded to M and ring B as required by Formula I in claim 1. Accordingly, it is unclear how one obtains the compounds recited in claim 15, and still meets the requirements of Formula I in claim 1 where ring C is a 5- or 6-membered carbocyclic or heterocyclic ring and that ring C is bonded to M and to rings B and C. Claim 16 recites compounds such as: PNG media_image13.png 318 376 media_image13.png Greyscale PNG media_image14.png 328 366 media_image14.png Greyscale , which render the scope of the claim indefinite for the following reasons. Claim 16, depends from claim 1, and claim 1 requires that in Formula I: PNG media_image1.png 344 330 media_image1.png Greyscale , ring C is a 5- or 6-membered carbocyclic or heterocyclic ring and this ring is bonded to both rings B and C, and M. However, in the above formulas in claim 16, while ring C is a 5-membered ring bonded to ring D, it is not bonded to M and ring B as required by Formula I in claim 1. Accordingly, it is unclear how one obtains the compounds recited in claim 16, and still meets the requirements of Formula I in claim 1 where ring C is a 5- or 6-membered carbocyclic or heterocyclic ring and where this ring is bonded to M and rings B and C. Claim 17 recites the formula: PNG media_image1.png 344 330 media_image1.png Greyscale ; however, the claim does not recite or define what atoms/elements or chemical species are encompassed by the variable M, thereby rendering the scope of the claim indefinite. In the interests of compact prosecution, pending rectification/clarification of the above, in the rejections set forth below, M will be considered to be either Pt or Pd. Claim 20 recites the formula: PNG media_image1.png 344 330 media_image1.png Greyscale ; however, the claim does not recite or define what atoms/elements or chemical species are encompassed by the variable M, thereby rendering the scope of the claim indefinite. In the interests of compact prosecution, pending rectification/clarification of the above, in the rejections set forth below, M will be considered to be either Pt or Pd. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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 of this title, 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae et al (US 2022/0106345, cited on IDS filed on 4/7/2026) . Regarding claim 1, Bae et al discloses the following compound (Page 118 – Compound 416): PNG media_image15.png 585 516 media_image15.png Greyscale . This compound corresponds to the compound represented by formula I: PNG media_image1.png 344 330 media_image1.png Greyscale , where: ring B is a 6-membered carbocyclic ring; ring D is a 6-membered heterocyclic ring; Z 1 is C; Z 3 is N; L 1 is O; L 2 is a direct bond; One (1) R D corresponds to R * *, where R * is represented by Formula IV: PNG media_image16.png 152 252 media_image16.png Greyscale . Two (2) groups R A are alkenyl groups that join to form a ring; R B is hydrogen; R C is hydrogen; R D is a deuterium substituted alkyl; R 1 and R 2 are hydrogen; R E represents two (2) tert-butyl alkyl substituents, i.e. alkyls; R H represents deuterium and alkyl substituents; and X 1 to X 5 , X 8 to X 16 are C; As discussed above, the substituent: PNG media_image17.png 196 188 media_image17.png Greyscale , corresponds to Formula IV: PNG media_image16.png 152 252 media_image16.png Greyscale , where four (4) R H substituents correspond to deuterium and one (1) R H substituent is an alkyl, thereby satisfying proviso (a) of the claims, i.e. where R * is Formula IV, at least one R H is a substituent that is not hydrogen or deuterium, and at least one R H is deuterium. Furthermore, the compound satisfies provision (ii) of the claims, i.e. at least one or R 1 or R 2 is hydrogen and the group R * comprises at least then (10) carbon atoms. In the compound disclosed by the reference ring C is not a 5- or 6-membered carbocyclic or heterocyclic ring as required by the present claims. However, the compound disclosed by the reference is but one embodiment and attention is directed to Formula 1-1 ([0014]): PNG media_image18.png 272 368 media_image18.png Greyscale , where ring A 20 can be a C 5-30 carbocyclic ring ([0019]). This ring is exemplified in a benzene ring in Compounds 299 and 300 (Page 98): PNG media_image19.png 208 228 media_image19.png Greyscale PNG media_image20.png 240 250 media_image20.png Greyscale . Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses an embodiment where ring C in Formula I of the claims is a 6-carbocyclic ring where X 6 , X 7 and Z 2 are C. While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed compound nor can the claimed compound be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed compound and the compound disclosed by the reference, absent a showing of criticality for the presently claimed compound, it is urged that it would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the compound which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. Regarding claim 2, Bae et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, two (2) substituents R A are alkenyl groups that join to form a ring. R B is hydrogen; R C is hydrogen; R D is a deuterium substituted alkyl. R 1 and R 2 are hydrogen. R E represents two (2) tert-butyl alkyl substituents. R H represents deuterium and alkyl substituents. Regrading claim 3, Bae et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the compound disclosed by the reference does not correspond to Formula IA of the claims: PNG media_image21.png 334 298 media_image21.png Greyscale , i.e. the compound possesses a benzimidazole group and not an imidazole group as required by the claim. However, the reference discloses the following general formula for the compound ([0081] - Formula I-1A): PNG media_image22.png 340 370 media_image22.png Greyscale , A 10 can be ([0064] and Page 4 – A10-1): PNG media_image23.png 130 150 media_image23.png Greyscale . Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses the formula recited in the present claim. Regarding claim 4, Bae et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, L 1 is O. Regrading claim 5, Bae et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. In the compound disclosed by the reference: PNG media_image15.png 585 516 media_image15.png Greyscale , L 2 is a direct bond and not BR, NR, PR or CR as required by the present claim. However, the reference discloses the following general formula for the compound ([0081] – Formula I-1A): PNG media_image22.png 340 370 media_image22.png Greyscale , where T 2 can be B(R 3 ), where R 3 is hydrogen ([0021] and [0029]). Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses an embodiment where L 2 in Formula I is BR, where R is hydrogen. Regrading claim 6, Bae et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. In the compound disclosed by the reference: PNG media_image15.png 585 516 media_image15.png Greyscale , R 1 or R 2 does not comprise the group R * as required by the present claims. However, the reference discloses the following general formula for the compound ([0081] - Formula I-1A): PNG media_image22.png 340 370 media_image22.png Greyscale , where E 1 can be Si(Q 3 )(Q 4 )(Q 5 ), where Q 3 is deuterium ([0042]), and Q 3 and Q 4 are C 1-60 alkyl groups ([0042]). That is, E 1 corresponds R 1 or R 2 , where R 1 or R 2 is represented by Formula II: PNG media_image4.png 34 160 media_image4.png Greyscale , where Q is Si, R 3 is deuterium, and R 4 and R 5 are alkyl groups. Regrading claim 7, Bae et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. In the compound disclosed by the reference: PNG media_image15.png 585 516 media_image15.png Greyscale , R 1 or R 2 do not correspond to Formula II as required by the present claims, i.e. at least one group R * has the structure of Formula II.. However, the reference discloses the following general formula for the compound ([0081] - Formula I-1A): PNG media_image22.png 340 370 media_image22.png Greyscale , where E 1 can be Si(Q 3 )(Q 4 )(Q 5 ), where Q 3 is deuterium ([0042]), and Q 3 and Q 4 are C 1-60 alkyl groups ([0042]). That is, E 1 corresponds R 1 or R 2 , where R 1 or R 2 is represented by Formula II: PNG media_image4.png 34 160 media_image4.png Greyscale , where Q is Si, R 3 is deuterium, and R 4 and R 5 are alkyl groups. Regrading claim 9, Bae et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses that E1 can be N(Q1)(Q2), where Q1 and Q2 are -CD3 ([0144]-[0146]), corresponding to: PNG media_image24.png 72 92 media_image24.png Greyscale , of the claims. Regrading claim 10, Bae et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, X 1 to X 16 are C. Regrading claim 11, Bae et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, X 1 to X 16 are C, and therefore, one or X 1 to X 20 is not N as required by the present claims. However, the reference discloses the following general formula for the compound ([0081] - Formula I-1A): PNG media_image22.png 340 370 media_image22.png Greyscale , where ring A 10 can be ([0064] and Page 5 – A10-19) PNG media_image25.png 112 174 media_image25.png Greyscale , i.e. X 11 in recited Formula I can be N. Regrading claim 12, Bae et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, X 4’ to X 7’ are C. Regrading claim 13, Bae et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, X 15’ ’ is not N as required by the present claims. However, the reference discloses the following general formula for the compound ([0081] - Formula I-1A): PNG media_image22.png 340 370 media_image22.png Greyscale , where ring A 10 can be ([0064] and Page 5 – A10-19) PNG media_image25.png 112 174 media_image25.png Greyscale , i.e. X 15’ ’ is N. Regrading claim 14, Bae et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, it is noted that in the general formula ([0081] - Formula I-1A): PNG media_image22.png 340 370 media_image22.png Greyscale , E 2 can be H and R 40 can be H. E 1 can be N(Q 1 )(Q 2 ), where Q 1 and Q 2 are -CD 3 ([0144]-[0146]), corresponding to: PNG media_image24.png 72 92 media_image24.png Greyscale , of the claims. Accordingly, the reference discloses a compound with the formula: PNG media_image6.png 326 368 media_image6.png Greyscale , where L A’ corresponds to: PNG media_image26.png 282 258 media_image26.png Greyscale , where R 1 , R A , and R B are H; and R 2 is PNG media_image24.png 72 92 media_image24.png Greyscale . Ligand L y is: PNG media_image27.png 284 186 media_image27.png Greyscale , where R F is: PNG media_image28.png 72 44 media_image28.png Greyscale Regrading claim 15, Bae et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, it is noted that in the general formula ([0081] - Formula I-1A): PNG media_image22.png 340 370 media_image22.png Greyscale , E 2 can be H and R 40 can be H. E 1 can be N(Q 1 )(Q 2 ), where Q 1 and Q 2 are -CD 3 ([0144]-[0146]), corresponding to: PNG media_image24.png 72 92 media_image24.png Greyscale , of the claims. Accordingly, the reference discloses a compound with the formula: PNG media_image6.png 326 368 media_image6.png Greyscale , where L A’ corresponds to: PNG media_image29.png 152 146 media_image29.png Greyscale , where R W and R V are H (recited as R1); and R U is PNG media_image24.png 72 92 media_image24.png Greyscale (recited as R178). Ligand L y -28 is: PNG media_image30.png 176 138 media_image30.png Greyscale , where Rr is: PNG media_image28.png 72 44 media_image28.png Greyscale i.e. recited as R10; and Rs and Rt’ are H (recited as R1). Regarding claim 17, Bae et al discloses an organic light emitting device comprising first and second electrodes, i.e. an anode and a cathode ([0043]), and an organic layer disposed between the electrode ([0043]). The organic layer comprising the following compound ([0043] and Page 118 – Compound 416): PNG media_image15.png 585 516 media_image15.png Greyscale . This compound corresponds to the compound represented by formula I: PNG media_image1.png 344 330 media_image1.png Greyscale , where: ring B is a 6-membered carbocyclic ring; ring D is a 6-membered heterocyclic ring; Z 1 is C; Z 3 is N; L 1 is O; L 2 is a direct bond; One (1) R D corresponds to R * *, where R * is represented by Formula IV: PNG media_image16.png 152 252 media_image16.png Greyscale . Two (2) groups R A are alkenyl groups that join to form a ring; R B is hydrogen; R C is hydrogen; R D is a deuterium substituted alkyl; R 1 and R 2 are hydrogen; R E represents two (2) tert-butyl alkyl substituents, i.e. alkyls; R H represents deuterium and alkyl substituents; and X 1 to X 5 , X 8 to X 16 are C; As discussed above, the substituent: PNG media_image17.png 196 188 media_image17.png Greyscale , corresponds to Formula IV: PNG media_image16.png 152 252 media_image16.png Greyscale , where four (4) R H substituents correspond to deuterium and one (1) R H substituent is an alkyl, thereby satisfying proviso (a) of the claims, i.e. where R * is Formula IV, at least one R H is a substituent that is not hydrogen or deuterium, and at least one R H is deuterium. Furthermore, the compound satisfies provision (ii) of the claims, i.e. at least one or R 1 or R 2 is hydrogen and the group R * comprises at least then (10) carbon atoms. In the compound disclosed by the reference, ring C is not a 5- or 6-membered carbocyclic or heterocyclic ring as required by the present claims. However, the compound disclosed by the reference is but one embodiment and attention is directed to Formula 1-1 ([0014]): PNG media_image18.png 272 368 media_image18.png Greyscale , where ring A 20 can be a C 5-30 carbocyclic ring ([0019]). This ring is exemplified in a benzene ring in Compounds 299 and 300 (Page 98): PNG media_image19.png 208 228 media_image19.png Greyscale PNG media_image20.png 240 250 media_image20.png Greyscale . Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses an embodiment where ring C in Formula I of the claims is a 6-carbocyclic ring where X 6 , X 7 and Z 2 are C. While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed compound nor can the claimed compound be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed compound and the compound disclosed by the reference, absent a showing of criticality for the presently claimed compound, it is urged that it would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the compound which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. Regarding claim 20, Bae et al discloses an organic light emitting device, i.e. a consumer product, comprising first and second electrodes, i.e. an anode and a cathode ([0043]), and an organic layer disposed between the electrode ([0043]). The organic layer comprising the following compound ([0043] and Page 118 – Compound 416): PNG media_image15.png 585 516 media_image15.png Greyscale . This compound corresponds to the compound represented by formula I: PNG media_image1.png 344 330 media_image1.png Greyscale , where: ring B is a 6-membered carbocyclic ring; ring D is a 6-membered heterocyclic ring; Z 1 is C; Z 3 is N; L 1 is O; L 2 is a direct bond; One (1) R D corresponds to R * *, where R * is represented by Formula IV: PNG media_image16.png 152 252 media_image16.png Greyscale . Two (2) groups R A are alkenyl groups that join to form a ring; R B is hydrogen; R C is hydrogen; R D is a deuterium substituted alkyl; R 1 and R 2 are hydrogen; R E represents two (2) tert-butyl alkyl substituents, i.e. alkyls; R H represents deuterium and alkyl substituents; and X 1 to X 5 , X 8 to X 16 are C; As discussed above, the substituent: PNG media_image17.png 196 188 media_image17.png Greyscale , corresponds to Formula IV: PNG media_image16.png 152 252 media_image16.png Greyscale , where four (4) R H substituents correspond to deuterium and one (1) R H substituent is an alkyl, thereby satisfying proviso (a) of the claims, i.e. where R * is Formula IV, at least one R H is a substituent that is not hydrogen or deuterium, and at least one R H is deuterium. Furthermore, the compound satisfies provision (ii) of the claims, i.e. at least one or R 1 or R 2 is hydrogen and the group R * comprises at least then (10) carbon atoms. In the compound disclosed by the reference, ring C is not a 5- or 6-membered carbocyclic or heterocyclic ring as required by the present claims. However, the compound disclosed by the reference is but one embodiment and attention is directed to Formula 1-1 ([0014]): PNG media_image18.png 272 368 media_image18.png Greyscale , where ring A 20 can be a C 5-30 carbocyclic ring ([0019]). This ring is exemplified in a benzene ring in Compounds 299 and 300 (Page 98): PNG media_image19.png 208 228 media_image19.png Greyscale PNG media_image20.png 240 250 media_image20.png Greyscale . Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses an embodiment where ring C in Formula I of the claims is a 6-carbocyclic ring where X 6 , X 7 and Z 2 are C. While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed compound nor can the claimed compound be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed compound and the compound disclosed by the reference, absent a showing of criticality for the presently claimed compound, it is urged that it would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the compound which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. Regrading claim 18, Bae et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the organic layer, i.e. the emitter layer, can comprise a host such as ([0266]-[0267] - CBP) PNG media_image31.png 122 262 media_image31.png Greyscale , i.e. a compound comprising a carbazole moiety . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae et al (US 2022/0106345) as applied to claims 1-18 and 20 above, and in view of Ma et al (US 2010/0237334) . The discussion with respect to Bae et al as set forth in Paragraph 27 above is incorporated here by reference. Regarding claim 19, Bae et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. While the reference discloses that the emitter layer comprises a host material, the reference does not disclose the particular hosts recited in the present claims. Ma et al discloses an OLED comprising an anode, cathode, and an organic light emitting layer between the anode and cathode (Abstract and [0098]). The light emitting layer comprises a triphenylene compound (Abstract and [0045] – Compound 1’), e.g. PNG media_image32.png 162 177 media_image32.png Greyscale . The reference discloses that triphenylene containing benzothiophenes are excellent host materials for OLEDs as well as improved stability ([0104]). Given that both Bae et al and Ma et al are drawn to organic electroluminescent devices comprising an emitter layer formed from a host and a dopant, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the triphenylene host as taught by Ma et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize such hosts in the device disclosed by Bae et al with a reasonable expectation of success . Double Patenting 08-27-aia Claims 1-15 and 17-20 are directed to the same invention as that of claims 1-15 and 17-20 of commonly assigned co-pending application 17/899,649. Under 35 U.S.C. 101, more than one patent may not be issued on the same invention. The USPTO may not institute a derivation proceeding in the absence of a timely filed petition. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office normally will not institute a derivation proceeding between applications or a patent and an application having common ownership (see 37 CFR 42.411). The applicant should amend or cancel claims such that the reference and the instant application no longer contain claims directed to the same invention. 08-30 AIA A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co. , 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert , 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957). A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101. 08-33 AIA 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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b). 08-35 AIA Claim s 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim s 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/475,852 . Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the reasons given below. Claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/475,852 recites the identical compound as recited in instant claim 1. The only difference between claim 1 of the instant application and that recited in the co-pending application is that claim 1 of the co-pending application recites that M in Formula I is Pd or Pt, while claim 1 of the instant application does not recite any metals encompassed by M. Furthermore, it is noted that claims 1-16 of copending application recite identical or encompassing subject matter recited in instant claims 1-16. Claim 17 of copending Application No. 18/475,852 recites an organic light emitting device identical to that recited in instant claim 17. Additionally, the organic layer of the device comprises a compound represented by Formula 1, identical to that recited in instant claim 17. The only difference between claim 17 of the instant application and that recited in the co-pending application is that claim 17 of the co-pending application recites that M in Formula I is Pd or Pt, while claim 17 of the instant application does not recite any metals encompassed by M. Furthermore, it is noted that claims 18-19 of copending application recite identical subject matter recited in instant claims 18-19.. Claim 17 of copending Application No. 18/475,852 recites a consumer product comprising an organic light emitting device identical to that recited in instant claim 20. Additionally, the organic layer comprises a compound represented by Formula 1, identical to that recited in instant claim 20. The only difference between claim 20 of the instant application and that recited in the co-pending application is that claim 20 of the co-pending application recites that M in Formula I is Pd or Pt, while claim 20 of the instant application does not recite any metals encompassed by M . This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented. 08-35 AIA Claim 16 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 16 of copending Application No. 17/899,649 . Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the reasons given below. Claim 16 of copending application 17/899,649 recites specific compounds which overlap with the compounds recited in instant claim 16 . This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented. Conclusion 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 Application/Control Number: 18/149,776 Page 2 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/149,776 Page 4 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/149,776 Page 5 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/149,776 Page 6 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/149,776 Page 7 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/149,776 Page 9 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/149,776 Page 10 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/149,776 Page 11 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/149,776 Page 12 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/149,776 Page 13 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/149,776 Page 14 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/149,776 Page 15 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/149,776 Page 16 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/149,776 Page 17 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/149,776 Page 18 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/149,776 Page 19 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/149,776 Page 20 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/149,776 Page 21 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/149,776 Page 22 Art Unit: 1786
Prosecution Insights