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 .
This action is responsive to applicant’s amendment filed 2/24/2026.
Claims 2, 5, 14-27 are pending.
The previous rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-10 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al (CN 103694277) is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment.
The previous rejection of claims 2, 5, 14-21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al (US2017/0288154) is maintained in view of applicant’s amendment.
The previous rejection of claims 11-13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al (US2017/0288154) in view of by Li et al (CN 103694277) is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 2, 5, 14-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al (US2017/0288154).
Regarding claims 2 and 5, Seo discloses an organometallic complex of chemical formula G2, exemplified by formula 300 and formula 118 below. The formulas as in claims 2 and 5 differs from the formulas described in Seo in that the ligand including pyridine coordinate to iridium instead of quinoline. However, Seo discloses that the first heteroaromatic ring included in the first ligand over which the HOMO is likely to be distributed include a pyridine ring, a quinoline ring, an isoquinoline ring, an imidazole ring, a benzimidazole ring, and the like (para 0100 and 102). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the invention to coordinate various known ligands for the purpose of obtaining a light emitting element having improved carrier-injection and carrier-transport properties with respect to both electrons and holes (para 0114). A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to replace the pyridine ring with a quinoline ring in the formula (118) of Seo with a reasonable expectation of obtaining an organometallic complex that can be used in an EL layer of a light-emitting element to decrease drive voltage and increase efficiency (para 0469).
PNG
media_image1.png
203
353
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
213
322
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
198
305
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Seo does not disclose a half width and a peak wavelength of an emission spectrum of the organometallic complex. However, the organometallic complex of prior art is identical that set forth by applicant. Therefore, the organometallic complex of prior art would possess the same properties as claimed. A person having an ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the organometallic complex of Seo to have the claimed half width and peak wavelength of an emission spectrum.
Regarding claims 16-21, Seo discloses a light emitting device, wherein the organic light emitting device comprises a cathode, one anode and a light emitting layer between the cathode and the anode and the light-emitting layer contains organometallic complex of claim 2 or 5 (Fig. 1A and 1B, para 0096).
Regarding claim 22, Seo discloses a light-emitting apparatus comprising: the light-emitting device according to claim 16; and at least one of a transistor and a substrate (Figs. 3A to 3C, and para 00187-0203).
Regarding claim 23, Seo discloses an electronic device comprising: the light-emitting apparatus according to claim 22; and at least one of a microphone, a camera, a button for operation, an external connection portion, and a speaker (Figs. 5A, 5B, 5C, 5D, 5D′-1, and 5D′-2 and FIGS. 6A to 6C, para 0217).
Regarding claim 24, Seo discloses lighting device comprising the light-emitting device according to claim 16, and a housing (para 0218).
Regarding claim 25, Seo discloses a light-emitting apparatus comprising: the light-emitting device according to claim 19; and at least one of a transistor and a substrate (Figs. 3A to 3C, and para 00187-0203).
Regarding claim 26, Seo discloses an electronic device comprising: the light-emitting apparatus according to claim 25; and at least one of a microphone, a camera, a button for operation, an external connection portion, and a speaker (Figs. 5A, 5B, 5C, 5D, 5D′-1, and 5D′-2 and FIGS. 6A to 6C, para 0217).
Regarding claim 27, Seo discloses a lighting device comprising the light-emitting device according to claim 19, and a housing (para 0218).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant disagrees with the examiner’s rejection because the claimed invention has an unexpected result and improved properties and advantages not expressly disclosed in Seo and therefore would not have been predictably expected by simple replacement of the skeleton structure. Specifically, applicant argues that synthesis of the claimed formulation shows unexpected result and substantially improved yields.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s remarks/arguments. The law held that whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980). The result of one compound (formula in claim 5) was not commensurate in scope with the claims because there was "no adequate basis for reasonably concluding that the great number and variety of compositions included in the generic claim 1 would behave in the same manner as the tested compound. Furthermore, the claims are directed to compounds while the unexpected results are directed to the method of producing the compound (yield of the compound). Therefore, there was no basis for judging the improved properties and advantages as applicant argued. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In re Marosi 710 F.2d 799,218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Seo discloses that the first heteroaromatic ring included in the first ligand over which the HOMO is likely to be distributed include a pyridine ring, a quinoline ring, an isoquinoline ring, an imidazole ring, a benzimidazole ring, and the like (para 0100 and 102). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the invention to coordinate various known ligands for the purpose of obtaining a light emitting element having improved carrier-injection and carrier-transport properties with respect to both electrons and holes (para 0114). A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to replace the pyridine ring with a quinoline ring in the formula (118) of Seo with a reasonable expectation of obtaining an organometallic complex that can be used in an EL layer of a light-emitting element to decrease drive voltage and increase efficiency (para 0469). “Obviousness does not require absolute predictability of success.” Id. at 903, 7 USPQ2d at 1681.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAIDUNG D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5455. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 10a-3p.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 571-272-2817. 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.
/HAIDUNG D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
5/20/2026
Prosecution Insights