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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on September 9, 2026.
Claim 1 has been amended and is hereby entered.
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Amendments
Applicant's amendments to the claims, filed September 9, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1 – 5, 8 – 12, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cho as set forth in the office action filed June 9, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed September 9, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1 – 4, 6, 8 – 12, and 15 – 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ma as set forth in the office action filed June 9, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed September 9, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 6, 7, 13, 15 – 17, 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho as set forth in the office action filed June 9, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed September 9, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Cho does not anticipate the claims as amended. Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the claim amendments appear to have overcome the anticipatory rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), as shown below, an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 can still be made in light of the teachings of Cho.
Applicant argues that there is no motivation to combine Rayabarapu with Lee because combining them would result in the nitrogen and carbon atoms of Rayabarapu being replaced with the oxygen atoms of Lee. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Rayabarapu teaches the benefits of adding a germanium substituent to a phenyl pyridine ligand. The general formula of Rayabarapu is generic with regards to the non-germanium substituted ligands, therefore there does not appear to be support for the argument that that the benefits of the substitution of the germanium substitution as taught by Rayabarapu would be limited to compounds with acetylacetonate ligands, as submitted by Applicant.
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to claims 1 – 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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 – 13, and 15 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (US20160111644A1).
As per claims 1 – 5, 7 – 13, Cho teaches:
An organometallic compound represented by Formula 1
PNG
media_image1.png
66
176
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, wherein L1 is a ligand represented by Formula 1A
PNG
media_image2.png
336
230
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and L2 is a ligand represented by Formula 1B
PNG
media_image3.png
396
266
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Cho teaches compounds of Formula I, which ligands represented by Formula 1A and Formula 1B
PNG
media_image4.png
30
320
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
176
308
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
218
314
media_image6.png
Greyscale
A specific compound taught by Cho is
PNG
media_image7.png
258
320
media_image7.png
Greyscale
([0283]). While this compound does not contain the specifically claimed pattern of nitrogen and carbon atoms coordinated to the Ir-based core, in Formula 1A, Cho teaches that Y1 and Y4 can each be selected from C or N ([0016]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to swap the nitrogen and carbon atoms on the left-handed ligand of compound PD-16 and arrive at a compound of the claimed invention. When modified in this way, the modified compound PD-16 reads on the claimed Formula wherein M is iridium; X2 and X4 are C; X1 and X3 are N; Y1 is O; rings CY1 is a C5 heterocyclic group, namely a pyrimidine ring as required by claim 4, CY1 is represented by Formula 1-9
PNG
media_image8.png
174
98
media_image8.png
Greyscale
in claim 5; CY2 and CY4 is a C6 carbocyclic group, namely a benzene ring as required by claim 4, wherein ring CY4 is represented by Formula 4-1
PNG
media_image9.png
168
112
media_image9.png
Greyscale
in claim 7; Z1 is -Si(Q1)(Q2)(Q3), wherein Q1 to Q3 are all CH3 as required by claim 12; a1 is 1 and a2 is 0 so that Z2 does not exist; R1 is an unsubstituted C1 alkyl group; b1 is 1; R2 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl group; b2 is 1; the remaining R groups are hydrogen. The compound reads on Formula 1B-1
PNG
media_image10.png
280
160
media_image10.png
Greyscale
in claim 11 and Formula 5-2 in claim 13
PNG
media_image11.png
328
426
media_image11.png
Greyscale
.)
Cho includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Cho being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. 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 substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of higher efficiency and longer lifespan ([0348]), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
As per claim 6, Cho teaches that R16 can be selected from Si(Q1)(Q2)(Q3) ([0020]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify compound PD-16 above to include a silyl group on the benzene ring of the ppy ligand and arrive at the claimed compound wherein ring CY2 is represented by Formula 2-17
PNG
media_image12.png
174
114
media_image12.png
Greyscale
..
Cho includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Cho being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. 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 substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of higher efficiency and longer lifespan ([0348]), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
As per claims 15, 16, and 19, Cho teaches:
An organic light-emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode, and an organic layer arranged between the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein the organic layer comprises an emission layer, wherein the first electrode is an anode, the second electrode is a cathode, the organic layer further comprises a hole transport region arranged between the first electrode and the emission layer, and an electron transport region arranged between the emission layer and the second electrode, the hole transport region comprises a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer, a buffer layer, or a combination thereof, and the electron transport region comprises a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, or a combination thereof, wherein the emission layer comprises the at least one organometallic compound (Abstract: “An organic light-emitting device includes: a first electrode; a second electrode; an emission layer between the first electrode and the second electrode; and a hole transport region between the first electrode and the emission layer, wherein the emission layer includes an organometallic compound represented by Formula 1.”)
As per claim 17, Cho teaches:
Wherein the emission layer further comprises a host ([0200]: “The emission layer may include a host and a dopant.”)
An amount of the host is greater than an amount of the at least one organometallic compound, based on weight ([0284]: “An amount of the dopant in the emission layer may be in a range of about 0.01 to about 15 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the host, but is not limited thereto.”)
As per claim 18, Cho is silent with respect to the emissive wavelength of the emission layer. However, since Cho teaches the same dopant structure as disclosed by the Applicant, the property of emissive wavelength of the emissive layer is considered to be inherent (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP 2112.
As per claim 20, Cho teaches:
An electronic apparatus, comprising the organic light-emitting device (As an OLED is an electronic apparatus, Cho teaches the claimed limitations.)
Claims 1 – 5, and 7 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rayabarapu (US20120061654A1) in view of Lee (US20130334521A1).
An organometallic compound represented by Formula 1
PNG
media_image1.png
66
176
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, wherein L1 is a ligand represented by Formula 1A
PNG
media_image2.png
336
230
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and L2 is a ligand represented by Formula 1B
PNG
media_image3.png
396
266
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Rayabarapu teaches compounds with a ligand represented by Formula I
PNG
media_image13.png
132
226
media_image13.png
Greyscale
([0015]). A particular compound taught by Rayabarapu is compound 1
PNG
media_image14.png
216
296
media_image14.png
Greyscale
, which does not have the claimed germyl or silyl substituent on the phenyl pyridine ring.
Lee teaches compounds of Formula 1
PNG
media_image15.png
190
290
media_image15.png
Greyscale
([0031]), wherein at least one substituent R1 to R4 is represented by Formula 2
PNG
media_image16.png
72
254
media_image16.png
Greyscale
([0033 – 0036]) and the A-B ligand is a bidentate ligand coordinated with iridium ([0035]). A specific compound taught by Lee is
PNG
media_image17.png
218
240
media_image17.png
Greyscale
([0045]). Lee teaches that when a germanium substituent is added to a phenyl pyridine ligand, intramolecular interaction of the compound is inhibited, allowing the compound to be effectively used in solution processing, resulting in improvements in light-emitting efficiency when processed into a light-emitting diode (Abstract)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify compound 1 of Rayabarapu above to include a germanium substituent, motivated by the desire to predictably inhibit intramolecular interaction of the compound and allowing the compound to be effectively used in solution processing, resulting in improvements in light-emitting efficiency when processed into a light-emitting diode as taught by Lee (Abstract).
When modified in this way, compound 1 of Rayabarapu reads on the claimed Formula wherein M1 is a transition metal, namely Ir; n1 is an integer of 2; n2 is an integer of 1; X1 and X3 are N; X2 and X4 are C; Y1 is O; ring CY1 is a C5 heterocyclic group, namely a pyridine group as represented by claim 4, specifically a group represented by Formula 1-9 in claim 5
PNG
media_image18.png
164
110
media_image18.png
Greyscale
; ring CY2 and CY4 are both C6 carbocyclic groups, namely a benzene ring as required by claim 4, ring CY4 is represented by Formula 4-1 in claim 7
PNG
media_image19.png
178
132
media_image19.png
Greyscale
; Z1 is Ge(Q1) (Q2) (Q3), wherein Q1 to Q3 are all CH3 and a1 is 1; a2 is 0 so that Z2 does not exist; all the R groups are hydrogen. L2 is represented by Formula 1B-1
PNG
media_image20.png
272
170
media_image20.png
Greyscale
in claim 11 and Formula 5-2
PNG
media_image21.png
332
414
media_image21.png
Greyscale
in claim 13. This compound is the same as compound 1
PNG
media_image22.png
162
132
media_image22.png
Greyscale
in claim 14.
As per claims 15, 16, and 19, Rayabarapu teaches:
An organic light-emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode, and an organic layer arranged between the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein the organic layer comprises an emission layer, wherein the first electrode is an anode, the second electrode is a cathode, the organic layer further comprises a hole transport region arranged between the first electrode and the emission layer, and an electron transport region arranged between the emission layer and the second electrode, the hole transport region comprises a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer, a buffer layer, or a combination thereof, and the electron transport region comprises a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, or a combination thereof ([0038]: “Device 100 may include a substrate 110, an anode 115, a hole injection layer 120, a hole transport layer 125, an electron blocking layer 130, an emissive layer 135, a hole blocking layer 140, an electron transport layer 145, an electron injection layer 150, a protective layer 155, and a cathode 160.”)
Wherein the emission layer comprises the at least one organometallic compound ([0047]: “Preferably, these compounds may be used as an emitting dopant in the emissive layer.”)
As per claim 17, Rayabarapu teaches:
Wherein the emission layer further comprises a host ([0076]: “In one aspect, the organic emissive layer is an emissive layer and the compound is an emitting dopant. The organic layer may further comprise a host.”)
An amount of the host is greater than an amount of the at least one organometallic compound, based on weight (In Table 2, the specific Examples taught by Rayabarapu all show the dopant material as a minority component in the emission layer.)
As per claim 20, Rayabarapu teaches:
An electronic apparatus, comprising the organic light-emitting device ([0044]: “Devices fabricated in accordance with embodiments of the invention may be incorporated into a wide variety of consumer products, including flat panel displays, computer monitors, televisions, billboards, lights for interior or exterior illumination and/or signaling, heads up displays, fully transparent displays, flexible displays, laser printers, telephones, cell phones, personal digital assistants (PDAs), laptop computers, digital cameras, camcorders, viewfinders, micro-displays, vehicles, a large area wall, theater or stadium screen, or a sign.”)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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 JENNA N CHANDHOK whose telephone number is (571)272-5780. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 6:30 - 3:30.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached on (571) 270-7692. 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.
/JENNA N CHANDHOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights