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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s election without traverse of a species taught as Inventive example in [045] of the instant specification in the reply filed on Jun 16, 2026 is acknowledged. Thus, claim 16 is withdrawn from consideration.
The elected species is allowable and thus, the examiner elects another species taught by Choi et al. (US 2021/0355148 A, Nov. 18, 2021) falling within scope of a first ligand LA of Formula I of claim 1 for further examination.
CLAIM OBJECTION
The recited “RW of Formula II of claim 1 should be “RW”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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:
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 8-10, 13-15 and 19 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.
Claims 8-10 and 1315 recite “LIST 1 defined herein”, “LIST 2 defined herein”, “LIST 3 defined herein”, “LIST 4 defined herein”, “LIST 5 defined herein”, “LIST 6 defined herein”, “LIST 98 defined herein”, “LIST 9 defined herein”, “LIST 10 defined herein”, and “LIST11 defined herein”, “HOST Group 1 defined herein”, respectively, but fail to recite the LISTs and HOST Group i. Also, the recited variables would lack antecedent bases. Thus claims 8-10, 13-15 and 19 are indefinite.
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 1-7, 11,12, 14, 17, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2021/0355148 A, Nov. 18, 2021).
Choi et al. teach organometallic compounds having Formula 1 comprising a formula CY1 in [0007]. Choi et al. teach compounds 28 and 30-39 having TMS moiety meeting the recited RA being heteroaryl which is further substituted various groups substantially falling within scope of the recited first ligand LA of formula I of claim 1.
The claim 1 further further recites a proviso (a) at least one of X1 to X6 is N when M is Ir for Formula I over Choi et al.
Choi et al. teach and thus that the formula CY1 includes a formula CY1-1 in the [0007]. Choi et al. teach that X11 and/or X12 of the formula CY 1-1 is N in [0011] and thus utilization of pyrimidine moiety in lieu of pyridine moiety for the compounds 28 and 30-39 would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention to utilize absent showing otherwise. See In re Mills, 477 F.2d 649, 176 USPQ 196 (CCPA), In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976): Reference must be considered for all that it discloses and must not be limited to preferred embodiments or working examples. MPEP 2123.
Regarding claims 2-7, the compounds 28 and 30-39 would meet the recited limitations.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, the compounds 28 and 30-39 would meet the recited Ir(LA)2(LB) and Ir(LA)2(LB).
Regarding claim 14, although claim is indefinite absent LIST 8, acetylacetonate moieties taught for compounds 28 and 30-39 having TMS moiety would meet the recited LCj-I.
Regarding claim 17, see claim 16 of Choi et al.
Regarding claim 18, see [0476] teaching H52 (Host) taught in [0477] of Choi et al.
Regarding claim 20, an electronic apparatus taught in claim 20 of Choi et al. would meet the recited consumer product since the electronic apparatus would encompass well known cellphones and TVs having an OLED screen for example.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-15 and 17-20 are directed to the same invention as that of claim 1-15 and 17-20 of commonly assigned application No.18/347,793. Under 35 U.S.C. 101, more than one patent may not be issued on the same invention.
The USPTO may not institute a derivation proceeding in the absence of a timely filed petition. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office normally will not institute a derivation proceeding between applications or a patent and an application having common ownership (see 37 CFR 42.411). The applicant should amend or cancel claims such that the reference and the instant application no longer contain claims directed to the same invention.
EXAMINER’S COMMENT
A copy of KR 10-2021-0141385 (Nov. 23, 2021) listed in PTO-1449 (the copy is found in a parent 17/959,326) is not complete and thus a complete copy with English translation is enclosed. KR teaches a compound 11 ([0421]) having a directly bonded TMS and a compound 27 ([0483]) having a directly bonded GeR1R2R3 and the examiner does not see any motivation to introduce the instantly recited L (i.e., organic linker) of claim 1.
CN 113214326 A (Aug. 6, 2021) teaches various acetoacetyl moieties recited in the instant claim 14 in at pages 28-31.
US 2016/0141526 A1 would be available for the generic Formula I of claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAE H YOON whose telephone number is (571)272-1128. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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, Robert Jones can be reached at (571)270-7733. 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.
/TAE H YOON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights