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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 03/29/2023 and 03/29/2023 were filed after the mailing date of the instant application on 03/29/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The letters, numbers, and/or bonds in the chemical structure given in paragraph [0116] are illegible due to poor resolution. Please correct these structures so all letters, numbers, and/or bonds are clearly visible. See the example below.
PNG
media_image1.png
230
684
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Please note that this example is non-limiting and there may be other structures that require correction. Please check all formulae to make sure they are clear. Applicant may wish to make these structures clearer by increasing the size of the structure and/or font, or by making the bond lines thicker.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The letters, numbers, and/or bonds in the chemical structure given in claim 18 are illegible due to poor resolution. Please correct these structures so all letters, numbers, and/or bonds are clearly visible. See the example below.
PNG
media_image1.png
230
684
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Please note that this example is non-limiting and there may be other structures that require correction. Please check all formulae to make sure they are clear. Applicant may wish to make these structures clearer by increasing the size of the structure and/or font, or by making the bond lines thicker.
Appropriate correction is required.
Election/Restrictions
In a requirement for election of species dated 05/15/2026, Applicant was required to choose from
A compound comprising ligand LA of Formula I, wherein LA is coordinated to a metal, M, and M is selected as,
Species I: iridium
Species II: platinum
Species III: a metal other than iridium and platinum.
Applicant’s election without traverse of
PNG
media_image2.png
198
258
media_image2.png
Greyscale
in the reply filed on 06/16/2026 is acknowledged. Examiner is interpreting this as electing Species I, wherein M is iridium.
Claim 15 is 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 dated 06/16/2026.
Species I, drawn to claims 1-14 and 16-20, is examined herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to independent claims 1 and 16, the claims require a ligand LA of Formula I, wherein C1 and C2 are carbon atoms and a moiety of Formula II is bonded to one of C1 and C2 by the two dashed lines in Formula II. This introduces uncertainty into the claim because it is unclear how the moiety of Formula II, comprising two bond locations, can bond to only one of C1 and C2, which themselves only have a single open valence.
In continuing examination, this limitation is being interpreted as, “a moiety of Formula II is bonded to [[one of]] C1 and C2 by the two dashed lines in Formula II”.
With respect to claims 6-8, the claims comprises embodiments of ligand LA which do not comprise a moiety of Formula II bonded to C1 and C2. See for example below.
PNG
media_image3.png
354
374
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Please note that these examples are non-limiting and additional embodiments outside the scope of parent claim 1 are present.
In continuing examination, only embodiments which fall within the scope of parent claim 1 are being examined.
With respect to claims 10 and 13, the claims contain embodiments of ligand LA wherein iridium is not further coordinated to at least one ligand LC.
In continuing examination, only chemical formula comprising at least one ligand LC are being examined.
With respect to claim 13, the claim contains reference to specific ligands LA, which are not defined in the instant claim nor in any parent claim. It is unclear what is being claimed.
In continuing examination, the claim is being interpreted as dependent from claim 8, which appears to have the missing ligand definitions.
With respect to claim 14, the claim contains compounds which do not comprise a moiety of Formula II bonded to C1 and C2. See for example below.
PNG
media_image4.png
254
266
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Please note that this example is non-limiting and additional embodiments outside the scope of parent claim 1 are present.
In continuing examination, only embodiments which fall within the scope of parent claim 1 are being examined.
With respect to claim 18, the claim contains compounds which do not comprise any of the chemical moieties set forth in parent claim 17. See for example the compounds below.
PNG
media_image5.png
134
320
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In continuing examination claim 18, only embodiments which fall within the scope of parent claim 17 are being examined.
Claims 2-5, 9, 11-12, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected by virtue of dependency.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 6-8, 10, 13-14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
With respect to claims 6-8, the claims comprises embodiments of ligand LA which do not comprise a moiety of Formula II bonded to C1 and C2. See for example below.
PNG
media_image3.png
354
374
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Please note that these examples are non-limiting and additional embodiments outside the scope of parent claim 1 are present.
With respect to claims 10 and 13, the claims contain embodiments of ligand LA wherein iridium is not further coordinated to at least one ligand LC.
With respect to claim 13, the claim contains reference to specific ligands LA which are not defined in the present claim nor are they defined in any parent claim.
With respect to claim 14, the claim contains compounds which do not comprise a moiety of Formula II bonded to C1 and C2. See for example below.
PNG
media_image4.png
254
266
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Please note that this example is non-limiting and additional embodiments outside the scope of parent claim 1 are present.
With respect to claim 18, the claim contains compounds which do not comprise any of the chemical moieties set forth in parent claim 17. See for example the compounds below.
PNG
media_image5.png
134
320
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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.
Claims 1-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su et al. (US 2018/0097185 A1).
With respect to claims 1-5, 9-11, Su discloses ligand LA of Formula I (paragraph 0064), which may be represented by ligand LA711 (page 141).
PNG
media_image6.png
394
358
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The ligand is present in a compound with the formula Ir(LA)2(LC) wherein LC is an acetylacetonate ligand with the structure of LC2, pictured below (paragraphs 0097 and 0099).
PNG
media_image7.png
242
152
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Ligand LA711, pictured and discussed above, is derived from Formula I, which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image8.png
358
518
media_image8.png
Greyscale
This formula demonstrates that Su is non-limiting with respect to the bond locations between ring A and ring B and metal M.
In this respect, Su also teaches a compound analogous to instant Formula I, wherein the moiety of Formula II is located at a position analogous to instant C1 and C2 (see also the compounds on page 180 which demonstrate this bond location).
Such a modification produces a compound of Formula Ir(LA)2(LC) with the structure below.
PNG
media_image9.png
530
534
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Su includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Su being a lack of the aforementioned ligand and bonding combination being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known ligand from each of the finite lists of possible ligands and the finite list of possible bonding patterns to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a ligand containing a fused heterocyclic ligand which an extended conjugation (paragraph 0063), resulting in much narrower FWHM (paragraph 0163), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
This compound meets the requirements of instant Formula I when Y1 is bonded to C1, and C2 is bonded to the other dashed line in Formula II, ring A is a 6-membered heterocyclic (pyridine) ring, K is a direct bond, Z1 is a nitrogen atom and Z2 is a carbon atom, X1-X4 are carbon atoms, Y1 and Y2 are sulfur atoms, RA is a monosubstituted aryl (phenyl) group, and RB and RC represent no substitution, LA is coordinated to an iridium atom, and the iridium atom is further coordinated to at a ligand with the structure below.
PNG
media_image10.png
388
224
media_image10.png
Greyscale
In this structure, W1 and W2 are each a carbon atom, R1, R2, R4, and R5 are each a C2 alkyl (ethyl) group, and all other R groups are hydrogen atoms or not present.
With respect to claim 6, Su teaches the compound of claim 1, and the ligand LA has the structure of the third embodiment on the first row of the claim.
With respect to claim 7, Su teaches the compound of claim 1, and the ligand LA has the structure of the fourth embodiment on the first row of the claim.
With respect to claim 8, Su teaches the compound of claim 1, and the ligand has the structure of instant LA77-397-S-S.
With respect to claims 12, Su teaches the compound of claim 9, and LB is not present.
With respect to claim 13, Su teaches the compound of claim 8, and the compound has the formula of Ir(LA77-397-S-S)(LC17—I).
With respect to claim 14, Su teaches the compound of claim 1, as discussed above.
Su also teaches that A4 is CR (paragraph 0020), wherein R is alkyl (paragraph 0027), such as 1-methylethyl (paragraph 0051, line 4).
Such a modification produces the first compound on the fourth row of page 175 of the instant claims (dated 03/29/2023).
Su includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Su being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known ligand from each of the finite lists of possible ligands and the finite list of possible bonding patterns to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a ligand containing a fused heterocyclic ligand which an extended conjugation (paragraph 0063), resulting in much narrower FWHM (paragraph 0163), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 16, Su discloses an OLED device comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer between the anode and cathode, and the organic layer includes a compound with a first ligand LA having Formula I, (paragraph 0114), which may be represented by ligand LA711 (page 141).
PNG
media_image6.png
394
358
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The ligand is present in a compound with the formula Ir(LA)2(LC) wherein LC is an acetylacetonate ligand with the structure of LC2, pictured below (paragraphs 0097 and 0099).
PNG
media_image7.png
242
152
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Ligand LA711, pictured and discussed above, is derived from Formula I, which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image8.png
358
518
media_image8.png
Greyscale
This formula demonstrates that Su is non-limiting with respect to the bond locations between ring A and ring B and metal M.
In this respect, Su also teaches a compound analogous to instant Formula I, wherein the moiety of Formula II is located at a position analogous to instant C1 and C2 (see also the compounds on page 180 which demonstrate this bond location).
Such a modification produces a compound of Formula Ir(LA)2(LC) with the structure below.
PNG
media_image9.png
530
534
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Su includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Su being a lack of the aforementioned ligand and bonding combination being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known ligand from each of the finite lists of possible ligands and the finite list of possible bonding patterns to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a ligand containing a fused heterocyclic ligand which an extended conjugation (paragraph 0063), resulting in much narrower FWHM (paragraph 0163), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
This compound meets the requirements of instant Formula I when Y1 is bonded to C1, and C2 is bonded to the other dashed line in Formula II, ring A is a 6-membered heterocyclic (pyridine) ring, K is a direct bond, Z1 is a nitrogen atom and Z2 is a carbon atom, X1-X4 are carbon atoms, Y1 and Y2 are sulfur atoms, RA is a monosubstituted aryl (phenyl) group, and RB and RC represent no substitution, LA is coordinated to an iridium atom, and the iridium atom is further coordinated to at a ligand with the structure below.
PNG
media_image10.png
388
224
media_image10.png
Greyscale
In this structure, W1 and W2 are each a carbon atom, R1, R2, R4, and R5 are each a C2 alkyl (ethyl) group, and all other R groups are hydrogen atoms or not present.
With respect to claims 17 and 18, Su teaches the OLED of claim 16, and Su also teaches the organic layer may further comprise a host compound comprising a dibenzothiophene moiety (paragraph 0119), such as the one pictured below.
PNG
media_image11.png
292
554
media_image11.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the host material of Su as the host material in the device of Su, as taught by Su.
With respect to claim 19, Su teaches the OLED of claim 18, and Su also teaches that the device may comprise an additional emitter such as a compound that produces emission via phosphorescence, fluorescence, or thermally activated delayed fluorescence (paragraph 0139).
Examiner is interpreting this compound to meet the requirements of the instant claim as it falls completely within the limitations of the independent claim. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and it has been held that when the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112.01(II)), and the compound of Su reads on the claims.
Su is silent to the compound being able to function in a sensitizer capacity. However, this is considered to be a property of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when the organometallic compound is used in the organic layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the claimed property described in the instant claims. Therefore, the claims are considered to be obvious over Su, and the burden shifts to applicant to show that there is an unobvious difference between the claimed composition and the composition in the prior art. See MPEP 2112 (V). In addition, the presently claimed properties are considered to be present once the work of Su was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
With respect to claim 20, Su teaches the compound of claim 1, and Su also teaches a consumer product comprising an OLED device comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer, and the organic layer comprises the compound (paragraph 0116).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the OLED device in a consumer product with the claimed structure, as taught by Su.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL SIMBANA whose telephone number is (571)272-2657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 A.M. - 4:30 P.M..
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.
/RACHEL SIMBANA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights