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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amendments to the claims overcome the 112a rejections. However, claims 1 and 17 are their dependents are subject to new 112a rejections over the newly added limitations, see below.
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, rather it just cites it to show that the intermediate compounds of the interlocked compounds are not interlocked, So the compound cited:
PNG
media_image1.png
220
497
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[col 101]
has a non-interlocked intermediate compound. This compound a has a pendant W group having 11 aromatic moieties joined to each other by direct bonds.
Relevant Prior Art References
Zeng et al (US 20180155381 A1) discloses a compound for OLED materials including LA272:
PNG
media_image2.png
284
257
media_image2.png
Greyscale
See the Non-Final Rejection of 10/01/2025 page 6.
The compound of Zeng cited includes a carbazole group, and so is excluded from claims 1 and 17 by the proviso iii), and does not read on Ligand La of claim 20.
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 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. Applicant alleges that claims 7 and 8 support the claimed amendments, but those claims only include generic W groups with 4 to 7 aromatic moieties (claim 7), and specific embodiments of the aromatic moieties (claim 8). There is no discussion of a i) generic polycyclic aromatic moieties, ii) linking of certain moieties by a carbon-carbon bond, iii) a carbazole not being coordinated to the metal M, or iv) two of the moieties being benzimidazole or benzothiazole.
While there may be species within that fall within the claimed genera, that does not support the entirety of the genera. The limited examples of compounds described in the
claims and written description does not provide a representative number of species sufficient to show that Applicant was in possession of the claimed genera (see MPEP 2163-II-A-3-a-ii).
All other claims depend from one of the above claims.
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_image1.png
220
497
media_image1.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, 10, 15 and 21-22 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 4 and it’s dependents, the closest prior art does not disclose a pendant cyclic group like W that includes 7 or fewer aromatic moieties each joined by a single bond. Ji et al (US 10862046 B2) discloses interlocked compounds with pendant W groups:
PNG
media_image1.png
220
497
media_image1.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 11 aromatic moieties, more than the maximum 7 of claim 4. It would require excessive hindsight to arrive at the claimed structures.
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.
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
Prosecution Insights