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
Claims 8 and 16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/29/2026.
Applicant’s election of the following species in the reply filed on 06/29/2026 is acknowledged, the election was made without traverse:
PNG
media_image1.png
267
646
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A search was performed and the elected species is found to be allowable.
Under MPEP 803.02, the search was expanded to find an examinable species.
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 3-5 and 8 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 3-5 and 8 define variables such as Y, Q and R variables but these are not included in the base claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
It appears as though Applicant meant for claims 3-5 to depend from claim 2, and for claim 8 to depend from claim 7 which include these variables.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 10-14, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Palmer et al (US 20220352477 A1).
The applied reference has a common Applicant and joint inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Palmer discloses OLEDs and consumer products thereof having a boron containing ligand of an organometallic complex having iridium or platinum core:
PNG
media_image2.png
269
516
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
184
354
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[p377, p152] as well as the claimed hosts as well as the claimed LB and LC ligands [0119 p168, 0081 p67, p346 claim 12].
Claim(s) 1,6,10-14 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Dyatkin et al (KR 20210142080 A).
Page number and figure citations refer to the KR document, while paragraph numbers refer to the Espacenet Translation, attached.
Dyatkin discloses various ligands for iridium and platinum complexes in an OLED with the claimed layer stack [abstract, p202,Fig. 2, 0028, p16 et seq, p39 et seq] comprising a B-N containing ligand with structures such as:
PNG
media_image4.png
155
183
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein the ring labeled A includes two aromatic bonds, which read on the claimed “at least two double bonds in at least one Lewis structural drawing”. A specific example shows an iridium complex with the two aromatic bonds in a fist ring:
PNG
media_image5.png
182
285
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[p164]
wherein the two C-C bonds in the first ring atom A are aromatic bonds, and so can be “double bonds in at least one Lewis structural drawing”. The organometallic compounds include the Lb and Lc ligands of the claims [p16 et seq, p39 et seq]. The OLEDs also include the host of claim 19 such as:
PNG
media_image6.png
97
159
media_image6.png
Greyscale
[p194, p210, 0418].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2,7,9 and 15 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.
Similarly, claims 3-5 would be allowable if also rewritten to overcome the 112b rejections above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art, Dyatkin et al (KR 20210142080 A) and Palmer et al (US 20220352477 A1), disclose compound of the exemplary structures below, respectively:
PNG
media_image5.png
182
285
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
269
516
media_image2.png
Greyscale
having a first B atom with three single bonds directly bonded to an N atom in a first 6-membered ring, denoted ring A above. However, the first ring structure does not read on the specific rings of the claims, exemplified by the structures in claim:
PNG
media_image7.png
143
191
media_image7.png
Greyscale
wherein the first 6-membered ring is not aromatic, by cycloalkyl with two double bonds and a ring C atom double bonded to the Y group.
Other close prior art includes:
CN 114456213 A discloses compounds with a first B and a first N that is a part of a 6-membered ring:
PNG
media_image8.png
168
145
media_image8.png
Greyscale
but the six-membered ring which contains the first N atom also includes another B atom, which is excluded from the first six-membered ring of the claims by the language “and B is not a ring atom of the first 6-membered ring”.
US 20210050532 A1 discloses a structure comprising B-N in condensed rings, but not one in which the first N atom is a part of 6-membered ring:
PNG
media_image9.png
242
263
media_image9.png
Greyscale
CN 116903679 A discloses a structure of the claims, but is not available as prior art under 35 USC 102:
PNG
media_image10.png
290
491
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Ko et al (Org. Lett. 2014, 16, 616-619), submitted by Applicant, discloses B-N benzoquinolines as ligands for metal compounds, but the B atoms do not form exactly three single bonds.
Hamze et al (US 12187751 B2) is represented of references that contain a first B atom and a first N atom, however the B atom contains four bonds that are Sp3 hybridized, rather than the three single bonds the claims:
.
PNG
media_image11.png
193
220
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL M DOLLINGER whose telephone number is (571)270-5464. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6:30pm M-F.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-272-1302. 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.
MICHAEL M. DOLLINGER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1766
/MICHAEL M DOLLINGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights