ORGANIC ELECTROLUMINESCENT MATERIALS AND DEVICES

§103 §112

DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . All outstanding objections and rejections, except for those maintained below, are withdrawn in light of applicant's amendment filed on 8/12/2026. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior office action. The new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant's amendment filed on 8/12/2026. In particular, original Claims 1, 17, and 20 have been amended to recite limitations not previously presented. Thus, the following action is properly made final. . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1-3, 6-8, 10-18, and 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites provision (iii) as “each of R1 and R2 has a molecular weight greater than 56 g/mol”. However, Paragraph [0063] of the Specification as originally filed discloses that “R1 has a molecular weight (MW) greater than 56 g/mol and R2 has a molecular weight greater than that of R1”. Furthermore, a fair reading of the Specification does not reveal support for the limitation that both R1 and R2 have molecular weights greater than 56 g/mol as recited in the present claims. That is, while there is support in the Specification as originally filed that R1 has a molecular weight of greater than 56 g/mol and R2 has a molecular weight greater than R1, there is no support in the Specification as originally filed for an embodiment where R1 and R2 both have the same molecular weight, where the molecular weight is greater than 56 g/mol as encompassed by the present claims. Claim 17 recites provision (iii) as “each of R1 and R2 has a molecular weight greater than 56 g/mol”. However, Paragraph [0063] of the Specification as originally filed discloses that “R1 has a molecular weight (MW) greater than 56 g/mol and R2 has a molecular weight greater than that of R1”. Furthermore, a fair reading of the Specification does not reveal support for the limitation that both R1 and R2 have molecular weights greater than 56 g/mol as recited in the present claims. That is, while there is support in the Specification as originally filed that R1 has a molecular weight of greater than 56 g/mol and R2 has a molecular weight greater than R1, there is no support in the Specification as originally filed for an embodiment where R1 and R2 both have the same molecular weight, where the molecular weight is greater than 56 g/mol as encompassed by the present claims. Claim 20 recites provision (iii) as “each of R1 and R2 has a molecular weight greater than 56 g/mol”. However, Paragraph [0063] of the Specification as originally filed discloses that “R1 has a molecular weight (MW) greater than 56 g/mol and R2 has a molecular weight greater than that of R1”. Furthermore, a fair reading of the Specification does not reveal support for the limitation that both R1 and R2 have molecular weights greater than 56 g/mol as recited in the present claims. That is, while there is support in the Specification as originally filed that R1 has a molecular weight of greater than 56 g/mol and R2 has a molecular weight greater than R1, there is no support in the Specification as originally filed for an embodiment where R1 and R2 both have the same molecular weight, where the molecular weight is greater than 56 g/mol as encompassed by the present claims.. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claims 1-3, 6-8, 10-15, 17-18, 20, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae et al (US 2022/0106345). Regarding claim 1, Bae et al discloses the following compound (Page 63 – Compound 85): PNG media_image1.png 358 436 media_image1.png Greyscale . This compound corresponds to the compound represented by formula I: PNG media_image2.png 336 318 media_image2.png Greyscale , where: M is Pt; ring B is a 6-membered carbocyclic ring; ring D is a 6-membered heterocyclic ring; Z1 is C; Z3 is N; X1 to X5, X8 to X16 are C; L1 is O; L2 is a direct bond; RA represents two (2) C2 alkenyls that join to form a ring; RB and RC are hydrogen; RD is a combination of phenyl, i.e. aryl, and alkyl. 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_image3.png 272 368 media_image3.png Greyscale , where ring A20 can be a C5-30 carbocyclic ring ([0019]). This ring is exemplified in a benzene ring in Compounds 299 and 300 (Page 98): PNG media_image4.png 208 228 media_image4.png Greyscale PNG media_image5.png 240 250 media_image5.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 X6, X7 and Z2 are C. It is noted that R1 is isopropyl and R2 is hydrogen, and therefore, R1 and R2 do not meet provision (iii) of the claims, i.e. each of R1 and R2 has a molecular weight greater than 56 g/mol. However, in Formula 1-1-A ([0081]): PNG media_image6.png 390 416 media_image6.png Greyscale , E1 is not limited to isopropyl and hydrogen, but rather, can represent substituents such as n-butyl and sec-butyl ([0096]). Both of these substituents have a molecular weight of 57 g/mol, within the recited range of 56 g/mol or more. Although the compound comprises: PNG media_image7.png 222 156 media_image7.png Greyscale , R1 and R2 are n-butyl and sec-butyl, respectively, the compound is not required to meet provisions (1) to (3) recited in the present claim. Finally, R1 and R2 are different as required by the present claims. 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 RA are alkenyl groups that join to form a ring; R1 is n-butyl; R2 is sec-butyl; RA represents two (2) C2 alkenyls that join to form a ring; RB and RC are hydrogen; and RD is a combination of phenyl and methyl, i.e. aryl, and alkyl. Regarding 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_image8.png 334 298 media_image8.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_image9.png 340 370 media_image9.png Greyscale , where A10 can be ([0064] and Page 4 – A10-1): PNG media_image10.png 130 150 media_image10.png Greyscale . Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses the formula recited in the present claim. Regarding claim 6, Bae et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the reference discloses the following compound: PNG media_image1.png 358 436 media_image1.png Greyscale , which corresponds to the recited formula: PNG media_image11.png 332 392 media_image11.png Greyscale . Regarding claim 8, Bae et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, X1 to X11 are C. Regarding claim 10, Bae et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, X4’ to X7’ are C. Regarding claim 11, Bae et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, X15’’ 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_image9.png 340 370 media_image9.png Greyscale , where ring A10 can be ([0064] and Page 5 – A10-19) PNG media_image12.png 112 174 media_image12.png Greyscale , i.e. X15’’ is N. Regarding claim 12, Bae et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Z3 is N. Regarding claim 13, Bae et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, L1 is O. Regarding claim 14, Bae et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. In the compound disclosed by the reference: PNG media_image1.png 358 436 media_image1.png Greyscale , L2 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_image9.png 340 370 media_image9.png Greyscale , where T2 can be N[(L2)a2-(R3)b3], where L2 is a single bond; and R3 is hydrogen ([0021]-[0022] and [0029]). Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses an embodiment where L2 in Formula I is NR, where R is hydrogen. Regarding claim 15, Bae et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. In the compound disclosed by the reference: PNG media_image1.png 358 436 media_image1.png Greyscale , R1 and R2 are n-butyl and sec-butyl, respectively, and not deuterated as required by the present claims. However, the reference discloses the following general formula for the compound ([0081] – Formula I-1A): PNG media_image9.png 340 370 media_image9.png Greyscale , where E1 can be n-butyl and sec-butyl substituted with deuterium ([0097]). Regarding claim 23, Bae et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, R1 and R2 have molecular weight of 57 g/mol, within the recited range of greater than 56 g/mol. 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 63 – Compound 85): PNG media_image1.png 358 436 media_image1.png Greyscale . This compound corresponds to the compound represented by formula I: PNG media_image2.png 336 318 media_image2.png Greyscale , where: M is Pt; ring B is a 6-membered carbocyclic ring; ring D is a 6-membered heterocyclic ring; Z1 is C; Z3 is N; X1 to X5, X8 to X16 are C; L1 is O; L2 is a direct bond; RA represents two (2) C2 alkenyls that join to form a ring; RB and RC are hydrogen; RD is a combination of phenyl, i.e. aryl, and alkyl. 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_image3.png 272 368 media_image3.png Greyscale , where ring A20 can be a C5-30 carbocyclic ring ([0019]). This ring is exemplified in a benzene ring in Compounds 299 and 300 (Page 98): PNG media_image4.png 208 228 media_image4.png Greyscale PNG media_image5.png 240 250 media_image5.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 X6, X7 and Z2 are C. It is noted that R1 is isopropyl and R2 is hydrogen, and therefore, R1 and R2 do not meet provision (iii) of the claims, i.e. each of R1 and R2 has a molecular weight greater than 56 g/mol. However, in Formula 1-1-A ([0081]): PNG media_image6.png 390 416 media_image6.png Greyscale , E1 is not limited to isopropyl and hydrogen, but rather, can represent substituents such as n-butyl and sec-butyl ([0096]). Both of these substituents have a molecular weight of 57 g/mol, within the recited range of 56 g/mol or more. Although the compound comprises: PNG media_image7.png 222 156 media_image7.png Greyscale , R1 and R2 are n-butyl and sec-butyl, respectively, the compound is not required to meet provisions (1) to (3) recited in the present claim. Finally, R1 and R2 are different as required by the present claims. 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 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_image13.png 122 262 media_image13.png Greyscale , i.e. a compound comprising a carbazole moiety. 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 63 – Compound 85): PNG media_image1.png 358 436 media_image1.png Greyscale . This compound corresponds to the compound represented by formula I: PNG media_image2.png 336 318 media_image2.png Greyscale , where: M is Pt; ring B is a 6-membered carbocyclic ring; ring D is a 6-membered heterocyclic ring; Z1 is C; Z3 is N; X1 to X5, X8 to X16 are C; L1 is O; L2 is a direct bond; RA represents two (2) C2 alkenyls that join to form a ring; RB and RC are hydrogen; RD is a combination of phenyl, i.e. aryl, and alkyl. 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_image3.png 272 368 media_image3.png Greyscale , where ring A20 can be a C5-30 carbocyclic ring ([0019]). This ring is exemplified in a benzene ring in Compounds 299 and 300 (Page 98): PNG media_image4.png 208 228 media_image4.png Greyscale PNG media_image5.png 240 250 media_image5.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 X6, X7 and Z2 are C. It is noted that R1 is isopropyl and R2 is hydrogen, and therefore, R1 and R2 do not meet provision (iii) of the claims, i.e. each of R1 and R2 has a molecular weight greater than 56 g/mol. However, in Formula 1-1-A ([0081]): PNG media_image6.png 390 416 media_image6.png Greyscale , E1 is not limited to isopropyl and hydrogen, but rather, can represent substituents such as n-butyl and sec-butyl ([0096]). Both of these substituents have a molecular weight of 57 g/mol, within the recited range of 56 g/mol or more. Although the compound comprises: PNG media_image7.png 222 156 media_image7.png Greyscale , R1 and R2 are n-butyl and sec-butyl, respectively, the compound is not required to meet provisions (1) to (3) recited in the present claim. Finally, R1 and R2 are different as required by the present claims. 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. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 8/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In light of amendments to the claims, the claim objections and statutory double patenting rejections set forth in the previous Office Action are withdrawn. In light of the Applicants’ persuasive arguments, the 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) rejections set forth in the previous Office Action are withdrawn. Finally, in light of the properly filed terminal disclaimer, filed on 8/12/2024, the obviousness-type double patenting rejections set forth in the previous Office Action are withdrawn. Applicants argue that Bae et al does not disclose the compound as recited in the as-amended claims. However, as discussed in the rejections above, the reference discloses that in Formula 1-1-A ([0081]): PNG media_image6.png 390 416 media_image6.png Greyscale , where E1 encompasses substituents such as n-butyl and sec-butyl ([0096]). These substituents have a molecular weight of 57 g/mol, within the recited range of 56 g/mol or more. 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 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 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