DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is responsive to the amendment received May 26, 2026. Claims 2, 10, 17, and 18 are canceled claims. Claims 21-24 were added. Claims 1, 14, 15, and 19 were amended. Claims 1, 3-9, 11-16, and 19-24 are pending.
Applicant previously elected without traverse a compound having ligand LA having the formula 1C wherein:
PNG
media_image1.png
178
328
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
184
340
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 5, 6, 8, 9, and 13 were previously withdrawn as non-elected species (noting that with respect to claim 9 there is no 1C formula configuration where the X4 is bonding to B ring and with respect to claim 13 no additional linkages to other ligands was listed in the election). Now claim 14 is amended to recite LB and LC ligands and is considered to be outside the scope of the selected species having no other ligand linkages. Accordingly, claim 14 is currently withdrawn. In addition, new claims 21, 23, and 24 are considered outside the elected species under consideration as the bonding limitation was not identified as part of the previously elected species. Accordingly, claims 21, 23, and 24 are also currently withdrawn. Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 11, 12, and 15-16, 19, 20, and 22 are considered to read upon the elected species and are under consideration.
The instant application is a continuation of 16/113,587, now patent no. US 11,778,897. Again note that the currently considered species is not presently rejected over the patent on the grounds of obviousness double patenting, because the parent application/patent claims all of variables X1 to X6 are C.
The previous rejection of claim 14 under 35 USC (b) is withdrawn due to the amendment of claim 14.
The rejection of claim 18 under 35 USC 112(d) is withdrawn due to the cancellation of claim 18.
All previous rejections over now cancelled claims are withdrawn due to the cancellations.
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, 3, 4, 7, 11, 12, 15, 16, 19, and 22 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.
Each independent claim 1, 15, and 19 now recites as one of the provisos “i) R’ and/or R is present and one of said R’ or R that is present is joined or fused with RB to form a ring”. The recited joining of R’ and/or R with RB is not clearly understood, because R and R’ are not described or listed earlier in the claim as the term “substituent”. While an earlier limitation recites “wherein any two substituents are optionally joined or fused into a ring”, only variables RA, RB, RC, and RD are explicitly described as “substituent” earlier in the claim. Because R and R’ are defined “independently selected from…” earlier in the claim, the new limitation requiring bonding of R and/or R’ to RB is unclear and indefinite as R and R’ are not earlier in the claim defined with the possibility of further bonding to form a ring with RB.
Clarification and/or correction are required.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 11, 12, 15, 16, 19, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boudreault et al. (US 2016/0260913 A1; listed on 06/30/2023 I.D.S.).
Boudreault et al. teaches ligands for metal complexes for an organic light emitting device (see abstract). A ligand L is included of Formula 1 (see par. 16):
PNG
media_image3.png
136
120
media_image3.png
Greyscale
where the R is the following formula II:
PNG
media_image4.png
106
212
media_image4.png
Greyscale
two adjacent * are where the formula II ring fuses to the B ring.
With respect to the elected instant species and instant claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 15, 19, and 22, Boudreault et al. X may be NR’ per instant Y, instant B ring is the Boudreault et al. ring where Y is carbon, the N of the B ring is the instant X3, the bonding line of the B ring corresponds to instant X4 as a carbon, the Boudreault ring A corresponds to instant B as a benzene ring where R2 of Boudreault combine to form a ring and Z is carbon (see par. 16). A terminal ring in the above Boudreault et al. X-containing group (formula II) is benzene ring corresponding to instant C as benzene. The Boudreault X-containing ring may be fused to the Boudreault B ring such that the configuration is the same as the bonding pattern of instant Formula 1C, although this configuration does not appear to be shown in an example embodiment. Metal M may include iridium (see par. 63).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, (i.e., Ir(LA)3), there may be three of the ligand LA in the complex (per applicant’s election of no optional linkage to other ligands). The ligand is only “optionally linked” with other ligands according to Boudreault (see par. 46) and the ligand(s) may complex to a Ir (III) iridium metal atom (par. 16, 47).
Regarding the device of claims 15 and 16, the complex is used in a device (see claim 21, page 171) in an emissive layer as dopant or non-emissive dopant (see claim 23, page 171). Regarding claim 19, the complex in a device may be a consumer product (see par. 4-6, 31). Regarding claim 20, a formulation including the complex may be formed (see par. 18).
While a metal complex compound the same as the elected species is not shown in an example embodiment in Boudreault et al., given the teachings of the reference, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form an iridium metal complex having a ligand according to definitions for Boudreault et al. Formulas I and II as described above wherein the resultant complex would also meet the limitations of the instant claims. One would expect to achieve a functional light emitting complex for use in a device, consumer product, or formulation within the teachings of Boudreault et al. with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s claim amendment limited the metals and added provisos to the independent claims. The office notes that Ir as the metal and provision ii) were already features of the elected species under consideration. It is not seen how the amendment is considered to overcome the previous art rejection. Applicant argues on page 74 of 75 “Based on these amendments, a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the present application, would have found no teaching or suggestion to have found it obvious to arrive at the instantly-claimed subject matter.” Applicant's arguments amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. A prior art rejection over Boudreault et al. (US 2016/0260913 A1) is respectfully maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Dawn Garrett whose telephone number is (571)272-1523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday (Eastern Time).
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.
/DAWN L GARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights