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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 16 has not been further treated on the merits.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: there is a superfluous period at the end of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 7, 9, 10, 15, 17 and 20-21 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The provisos in Claims 1 and 17 appear to be arbitrary. There is no discussion in the specification i) the concepts of two polycyclic fused ring systems in the macrocycle and “at most one nitrogen atom”, ii) a tricyclic fused ring system excluding carbazole, or iii) two benzimidazoles or benzothiazoles. Applicant cites as support the specification as filed [0083, 0093, 0106] which are just long lists of structural formulae, and while there may be species within that fall within the claimed genera, that does not support the entirety of the genera.
Regarding claim 21, Examiner does not find support for condition c) in either claim 7 or 10, cited by Applicant as support. Claim 10 is a long list of structures that do not meet condition c), and there is no discussion in claim 7 of the fused ring systems formed by the substituents.
All other claims depend from one of the above claims.
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, 7, 9, 10 17 and 20-21 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.
The proviso ii) states “at least one W is a tricyclic or more fused ring system” but if W is a tricyclic or more fused ring system then it cannot be the cyclic structure of four or more aromatic moieties. Examiner assumes that applicant intended “W comprises at least one tricyclic or more fused ring system”. Clarification of the claim language is required.
All other claims depend from one of the above claims and do not remedy the deficiency.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The structure on p17 of 63 of the claims of 2/2/2026 below does not have four or more aromatic ring moieties, as required by claim 1, but rather three:
PNG
media_image1.png
176
178
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 02/02/2026, with respect to Edelbach et al (J. Am. Chem. Soc., Vol. 120, No. 12, 1998) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 10/01/2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 02/02/2026, with respect to Zeng et al (US 20180155381 A1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 10/01/2025 has been withdrawn.
The compound of Zeng cited has includes a carbazole group, excluded by claim 1 and 17, and does not read on Ligand La of claim 20.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 02/02/2026, with respect to Chen et al (US 20220162246 A1 and US 20220115607 A1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 10/01/2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 2/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the Intermediate 1 of Ji has only three aromatic moieties and does not read on the claims. This argument is not convincing. The rejection does not rely on Intermediate 1, but just cites it to show that the intermediate compounds of the interlocked compounds are not interlocked, So the compound cited:
PNG
media_image2.png
220
497
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[col 101]
will have a non-interlocked intermediate compound.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Ji et al (US 10862046 B2) discloses interlocked compounds with pendant W groups:
PNG
media_image2.png
220
497
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[col 101].
While the above compound is interlocked, there is an intermediate compound that is not interlocked [see Example col 227 Intermediate 1] and reads on the claims that require only a compound.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6, 15 and 22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 10 would also be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 112d above by deleting the above cited compound.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art does not disclose a pendant cyclic group like W that is not a part of an interlocked compound. Ji et al (US 10862046 B2) discloses interlocked compounds with pendant W groups:
PNG
media_image2.png
220
497
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
Given that the purpose of the cyclic structure is to form an interlocked compound [abstract, claim 1, col 229 lines 53-67], it would not have been obvious to the skilled artisan to prepare the non-interlocked compound. While one could say that the intermediate compound of the Ir complex discloses the non-interlocked compound of the claims, the W group would contain 10 aromatic moieties, more than the maximum 7 of claim 4.
Zeng et al (US 20180155381 A1) and Chen et al (US 20220162246 A1 and US 20220115607 A1) do not disclose the pendant W group of the claim 4, but rather the bidentate W group of other claims.
Other pendant cyclic groups like those in Macinnis et al (US 20220109120 A1) contain central atoms like Boron as well as linking heteroatoms, and therefore are not a group like W that is consisting of aromatic moieties joined to each other by direct bonds.
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 MICHAEL M DOLLINGER whose telephone number is (571)270-5464. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6:30pm M-F.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-272-1302. 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.
MICHAEL M. DOLLINGER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1766
/MICHAEL M DOLLINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766