DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of species (A1) M is Ir or Os and (B2) ligand LA is Formula II or Formula VI, in the reply filed on 12/17/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 16 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group.
With respect to the instant claim 15, a search of the prior art did not show the elected species. As none of the claims were specifically drawn to applicant's elected species in combination with the limitations of claim 15 in independent form, no claims have been indicated as allowable. However, claim written in independent form which requires all the limitations of claim 15 as well as being limited to the elected species along with any dependent claims which require all the limitation of claim 15 as well as being limited to the elected species would be allowable.
Claim 15 is 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 as well as being limited to the elected species. This objection to the claims is only with respect to Applicant’s elected species.
It is noted that the potential allowability of claim 15 has not be determined with respect to species beyond Applicant's elected species, i.e. potential examinable species that could found once the search is expanded beyond Applicant's elected species.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 05/27/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of Application 17/687,895 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 05/27/2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 8 and 19 have been canceled.
Claims 21-22 have been added.
Claims 1-7, 9-18, and 20-22 are pending.
Claim 16 has been withdrawn.
Claims 1, 9, and 14-15 have been amended.
The cancellation of claims 8 and 19 obviates the rejections of claims 8 and 19 set forth in the last Office Action.
The amendment of claim 9 has overcome the objection of claim 9 set forth in the last Office Action. The objection has been withdrawn.
The amendments of claim 14 has overcome the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the last Office Action. The rejection has been withdrawn.
The approved terminal disclaimer obviates the provisional rejections of claims 1-7, 9-15, 17, and 20 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 15, 17, and 20 of copending Application No. 17/687,895 (reference application, hereafter Application ‘895) set forth in the last Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see pages 75-79 of the reply filed 05/27/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1-14, 17-18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo et al. (US 2019/0062357 A1, hereafter Yoo) in view of Kim et al. (US 2008/0194853 A1, hereafter Kim) set forth in the Office Action of 01/28/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that Yoo’s compounds cannot meet any of conditions (a) to (f).
Respectfully, the Examiner does not agree.
The previous rejections refer to the Compound of Yoo as modified by Kim (1) (see section 24 of the last Office Action).
PNG
media_image1.png
451
328
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This compound still reads on the limitation of the instant claims because the left ligand has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula VI of the instant claims, wherein in the proviso (f) is true: the combination of moiety B and RB comprises G72
PNG
media_image2.png
135
89
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
For at least this reason, the argument is not found to be persuasive. The rejections are maintained.
Additionally, new grounds of rejection are applied using a new teaching reference by Boudreault (US 2018/0097187 A1).
Boudreault discloses a compound comprising a ligand LA of Formula I ([0015]) and used as the emitter of an organic light emitting device ([0002]). The ligand LA of Boudreault comprises a substituted naphthalene ring at the position corresponding to the fused ring including R1 to R3 and the ring B of the Formula I of Boudreault. Boudreault exemplifies t-butyl substituted naphthalene as the fused ring including R1 to R3 and the ring B of the Formula I of Boudreault (Compound 3393 in [0197]; and see the part enclosed by a dashed circle in the figure below).
PNG
media_image3.png
387
586
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Boudreault teaches the ligand including a t-butyl naphthalene ring allows to obtain only one isomer of the final complex, and provides better efficiency, red shift, and narrow emission ([0054]-[0055], Table 2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compound of Yoo by incorporating a t-butyl group at the position corresponding to the R1 of Formula 2 of Yoo (i.e. substituting the naphthalene ring at the position corresponding to the A1 of Formula 2 of Yoo with the t-butyl naphthalene ring of the Compound 3393 of Boudreault), as taught by Yoo and Boudreault.
The amendment necessitates new grounds of rejections, making this Office Action final.
Examiner’s Note
It is informed that in claim 9 some of the claimed ligands including at least LAi-56, LAi-57, LAi-58, LAi-71 and LAi-72, wherein RE is not deuterium; and G is not a ring substituted by deuterium, would be potentially rejected under 112(d) when the non-elected species are examined in the future.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 9 and 14 are 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.
Regarding claim 9, some of ligands LA claimed in claim 9 are not encompassed by the compound of claim 1. Currently claim 9 is dependent from claim 1. Therefore, claim 9 fails to include all the limitations of the claims upon which they depend.
For example, the ligand LA563-44, wherein RE is R19, and G is G18 is appeared not to be encompassed by Formula VI, and the ligand LA2273-44, wherein RE is R1, and G is G72 is appeared not to be encompassed by Formula VI.
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.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is rejected due to the dependency from the rejected claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-14, 17-18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo et al. (US 2019/0062357 A1, hereafter Yoo) in view of Kim et al. (US 2008/0194853 A1, hereafter Kim).
Regarding claims 1-7, 9-14, 17-18 and 20, Yoo discloses a metal complex comprising a ligand represented by Formula 2 and used for an organic light emitting device ([0001], [0007]-[0008]). Yoo exemplifies Compound 2 ([0119]) and organic light emitting devices (Examples 2 (or 11) in [0356]-[0359], Table 1) comprising an anode (ITO), an emissive layer (the Compound 2 (or 11) of Yoo as a dopant and a carbazole compound H-1 as a host), and a cathode (Al), wherein the maximum emission wavelength is 824 nm for Example 2 and 846.5 for Example 11.
PNG
media_image4.png
301
613
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The Compound 2 of Yoo each has similar structure as Applicant’s Formula VI of the instant claims. The only difference is that each of the compounds of Yoo is not substituted by at least one deuterium; however, Yoo does teach that the substituents at the positions corresponding to R1 and R2 of Formula 2 of Yoo can be can be deuterium ([0017]).
Kim discloses an deuterated iridium complex used for an organic light emitting device ([0001]).
Kim teaches that substitution of hydrogen with deuterium provides lower zero point energy, lower vibration energy level, smaller vibration mode, decreased van der Waals force, reduced intermolecular collision by vibration, improved efficiency, and increased thermal stability ([0021]-[0022]).
Kim exemplifies an Ir complex comprising an organic ligand wherein the hydrogen directly substituted to the aromatic rings of the organic ligand are replaced by deuterium (Example 2 in [0045]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified each of the Compound 2 of Yoo by substituting the hydrogen atoms at the positions corresponding to R1 and R2 of Formula 2 of Yoo (i.e. the hydrogen atoms directly substituted to the aromatic rings A1 and A2 of Formula 2) with deuterium, as taught by Yoo and Kim.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide lower zero point energy, lower vibration energy level, smaller vibration mode, decreased van der Waals force, reduced intermolecular collision by vibration, improved efficiency, and increased thermal stability based on the teaching of Kim.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of hydrogen with deuterium at the positions corresponding to R1 and R2 of Formula 2 of Yoo would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
PNG
media_image5.png
364
494
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Compound of Yoo as modified by Kim, wherein the left ligand has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula VI of the instant claims; and (f) the combination of moiety B and RB comprises G72
PNG
media_image2.png
135
89
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
The Compound of Yoo as modified by Kim reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach that the compound emits light with a peak maximum wavelength >= 700 nm at room temperature.
It is reasonable to presume that each of the Compound of Yoo as modified by Kim emits light with a peak maximum wavelength >= 700 nm at room temperature.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
Applicant discloses the compound of the instant invention represented by Formula VI is capable of emitting light with a peak maximum wavelength >= 700 nm at room temperature ([0006], [0053]). The Compound of Yoo as modified by Kim have identical structure as the Formula VI.
Furthermore, Yoo teaches that the OLED device wherein the Compound 2 of Yoo is the emitter emits light having peak wavelength of 824 nm (Example 2 in Table 1).
Therefore, each of the Compound of Yoo as modified by Kim emits light with a peak maximum wavelength >= 700 nm at room temperature.
The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once the Compound of Yoo as modified by Kim is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977). Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though the rejection is based on Section 103 instead of 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
The Compound of Yoo as modified by Kim reads on all the limitations of claims 1-7 and 9-14.
The modification also provides Organic light emitting device of Yoo as modified by Kim comprising an anode (ITO), an emissive layer (Compound of Yoo as modified by Kim as a dopant and a carbazole compound H-1 as a host), and a cathode (Al), meeting all the limitations of claims 17-18.
Yoo in view of Kim does not disclose a specific display device comprising the Organic light emitting device of Yoo as modified by Kim however, Yoo does teach that the organic light emitting device can be included in a display device ([0314]-[0315]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Organic light emitting device of Yoo as modified by Kim by incorporating it into a display device, as taught by Yoo and Kim.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of an OLED in a display device would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides a consumer product (i.e. display device) comprising the Organic light emitting device of Yoo as modified by Kim, meeting all the limitations of claim 20.
Regarding claim 21, the Compound of Yoo as modified by Kim reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
In the compound, the methyl group at the position corresponding to R2 of Formula 2 of Yoo (or more specifically R13 of Formula 2-1 of Yoo in [0080]) is not an ethyl group; however, Yoo does teach that R2 can be a substituted or unsubstituted C1-C60 alkyl group ([0017]). Yoo exemplifies ethyl as the C1-C60 alkyl group ([0319]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound of Yoo as modified by Kim by substituting the methyl group at the position corresponding to R2 of Formula 2 of Yoo with ethyl, as taught by Yoo.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of exemplified alkyl substituents from methyl to ethyl would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Furthermore, a compound having the structure of methyl is a homolog – a compound differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical groups, in the present instance, CH2, of a compound in which the structure is ethyl.
With respect to homologs, the examiner points to the MPEP which states: A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. “An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties.” In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1991) for an extensive review of the case law pertaining to obviousness based on close structural similarity of chemical compounds. Compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) or homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties.” In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2144.09 I and 2144.09 II.
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound of Yoo as modified by Kim such that the methyl group at the position corresponding to R2 of Formula 1 of Yoo is substituted by ethyl. This would lead to a compound in which the methyl group at the position corresponding to R2 of Formula 1 of Yoo is ethyl. A compound comprising ethyl would be a homolog of a compound comprising methyl, otherwise same structure. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the compounds of Yoo as modified by Kim wherein the substituent at the position corresponding to R2 are methyl and ethyl having each respective structure would act in similar manner.
The modification provides Compound of Yoo as modified by Kim (2) which has identical structure as the Compound of Yoo as modified by Kim except that the methyl group at the position corresponding to R2 of Formula 1 of Yoo is ethyl.
Claims 1-7, 9-14, 17-18, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo et al. (US 2019/0062357 A1) in view of Boudreault et al. (US 2018/0097187, hereafter Boudreault) and Kim et al. (US 2008/0194853 A1).
Regarding claims 1-7, 9-14, 17-18, 20, and 22, Yoo discloses a metal complex comprising a ligand represented by Formula 2 and used for an organic light emitting device ([0001], [0007]-[0008]). Yoo exemplifies Compound 2 ([0119]) and organic light emitting devices (Examples 2 (or 11) in [0356]-[0359], Table 1) comprising an anode (ITO), an emissive layer (the Compound 2 (or 11) of Yoo as a dopant and a carbazole compound H-1 as a host), and a cathode (Al), wherein the maximum emission wavelength is 824 nm for Example 2 and 846.5 for Example 11.
PNG
media_image4.png
301
613
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In the Compound 2 of Yoo, the substituent at the position corresponding to R1 of Formula 2 of Yoo is not a t-butyl group; however, Yoo does teach R1 of Formula 2 of Yoo can be a substituted or unsubstituted C1-C60 alkyl group ([0017]) and exemplifies a t-butyl group as the C1-C60 alkyl group ([0319]).
Boudreault discloses a compound comprising a ligand LA of Formula I ([0015]) and used as the emitter of an organic light emitting device ([0002]). The ligand LA of Boudreault comprises a substituted naphthalene ring at the position corresponding to the fused ring including R1 to R3 and the ring B of the Formula I of Boudreault. Boudreault exemplifies t-butyl substituted naphthalene as the fused ring including R1 to R3 and the ring B of the Formula I of Boudreault (Compound 3393 in [0197]; and see the part enclosed by a dashed circle in the figure below).
PNG
media_image3.png
387
586
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Boudreault teaches the ligand including a t-butyl naphthalene ring allows to obtain only one isomer of the final complex, and provides better efficiency, red shift, and narrow emission ([0054]-[0055], Table 2).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound 2 of Yoo by incorporating a t-butyl group at the position corresponding to the R1 of Formula 2 of Yoo (i.e. substituting the naphthalene ring at the position corresponding to the A1 of Formula 2 of Yoo with the t-butyl naphthalene ring of the Compound 3393 of Boudreault), as taught by Yoo and Boudreault.
The motivation of doing so would have been to obtain only one isomer of the final complex, and provide better efficiency, red shift, and narrow emission, based on the teaching of Boudreault.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the exemplified substituent groups from hydrogen to t-butyl at the position corresponding to R1 of Formula 2 of Yoo would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
PNG
media_image6.png
289
610
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In the Compound of Yoo as modified by Boudreault has similar structure as Applicant’s Formula VI of the instant claims. The only difference is that each of the compounds of Yoo is not substituted by at least one deuterium; however, Yoo does teach that the substituents at the positions corresponding to R1 and R2 of Formula 2 of Yoo can be can be deuterium ([0017]).
Kim discloses an deuterated iridium complex used for an organic light emitting device ([0001]).
Kim teaches that substitution of hydrogen with deuterium provides lower zero point energy, lower vibration energy level, smaller vibration mode, decreased van der Waals force, reduced intermolecular collision by vibration, improved efficiency, and increased thermal stability ([0021]-[0022]).
Kim exemplifies an Ir complex comprising an organic ligand wherein the hydrogen directly substituted to the aromatic rings of the organic ligand are replaced by deuterium (Example 2 in [0045]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified each of the Compound of Yoo as modified by Boudreault by substituting the hydrogen atoms at the positions corresponding to R1 and R2 of Formula 2 of Yoo (i.e. the hydrogen atoms directly substituted to the aromatic rings A1 and A2 of Formula 2) with deuterium, as taught by Yoo and Kim.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide lower zero point energy, lower vibration energy level, smaller vibration mode, decreased van der Waals force, reduced intermolecular collision by vibration, improved efficiency, and increased thermal stability based on the teaching of Kim.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of hydrogen with deuterium at the positions corresponding to R1 and R2 of Formula 2 of Yoo would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
PNG
media_image7.png
332
576
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Compound of Yoo as modified by Boudreault and Kim, wherein the left ligand has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula VI of the instant claims; and (f) the combination of moiety B and RB comprises G75
PNG
media_image8.png
139
110
media_image8.png
Greyscale
.
The Compound of Yoo as modified by Boudreault and Kim reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach that the compound emits light with a peak maximum wavelength >= 700 nm at room temperature.
It is reasonable to presume that each of the Compound of Yoo as modified by Boudreault and Kim emits light with a peak maximum wavelength >= 700 nm at room temperature.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
Applicant discloses the compound of the instant invention represented by Formula VI is capable of emitting light with a peak maximum wavelength >= 700 nm at room temperature ([0006], [0053]). The Compound of Yoo as modified by Boudreault and Kim have identical structure as the Formula VI.
Furthermore, Yoo teaches that the OLED device wherein Compound 2 of Yoo which has similar structure as the Compound of Yoo as modified by Boudreault emits light having a peak wavelength of 824 nm (Example 2 in Table 1).
Therefore, each of the Compound of Yoo as modified by Boudreault and Kim emits light with a peak maximum wavelength >= 700 nm at room temperature.
The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once the Compound of Yoo as modified by Boudreault and Kim is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977). Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though the rejection is based on Section 103 instead of 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
The Compound of Yoo as modified by Boudreault and Kim reads on all the limitations of claims 1-7, 9-14, and 22.
The modification also provides Organic light emitting device of Yoo as modified by Boudreault and Kim comprising an anode (ITO), an emissive layer (Compound of Yoo as modified by Boudreault and Kim as a dopant and a carbazole compound H-1 as a host), and a cathode (Al), meeting all the limitations of claims 17-18.
Yoo in view of Kim does not disclose a specific display device comprising the Organic light emitting device of Yoo as modified by Boudreault and Kim however, Yoo does teach that the organic light emitting device can be included in a display device ([0314]-[0315]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Organic light emitting device of Yoo as modified by Boudreault and Kim by incorporating it into a display device, as taught by Yoo and Kim.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of an OLED in a display device would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides a consumer product (i.e. display device) comprising the Organic light emitting device of Yoo as modified by Boudreault and Kim, meeting all the limitations of claim 20.
Regarding claim 21, the Compound of Yoo as modified by Boudreault and Kim reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
In the compound, the methyl group at the position corresponding to R2 of Formula 2 of Yoo (or more specifically R13 of Formula 2-1 of Yoo in [0080]) is not an ethyl group; however, Yoo does teach that R2 can be a substituted or unsubstituted C1-C60 alkyl group ([0017]). Yoo exemplifies ethyl as the C1-C60 alkyl group ([0319]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound of Yoo as modified by Boudreault and Kim by substituting the methyl group at the position corresponding to R2 of Formula 2 of Yoo with ethyl, as taught by Yoo.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of exemplified alkyl substituents from methyl to ethyl would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Furthermore, a compound having the structure of methyl is a homolog – a compound differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical groups, in the present instance, CH2, of a compound in which the structure is ethyl.
With respect to homologs, the examiner points to the MPEP which states: A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. “An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties.” In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1991) for an extensive review of the case law pertaining to obviousness based on close structural similarity of chemical compounds. Compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) or homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties.” In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2144.09 I and 2144.09 II.
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound of Yoo as modified by Boudreault and Kim such that the methyl group at the position corresponding to R2 of Formula 1 of Yoo is substituted by ethyl. This would lead to a compound in which the methyl group at the position corresponding to R2 of Formula 1 of Yoo is ethyl. A compound comprising ethyl would be a homolog of a compound comprising methyl, otherwise same structure. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the compounds of Yoo as modified by Boudreault and Kim wherein the substituent at the position corresponding to R2 are methyl and ethyl having each respective structure would act in similar manner.
The modification provides Compound of Yoo as modified by Boudreault and Kim (2) which has identical structure as the Compound of Yoo as modified by Boudreault and Kim except that the methyl group at the position corresponding to R2 of Formula 1 of Yoo is ethyl.
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 SEOKMIN JEON whose telephone number is (571)272-4599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm EST.
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, 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.
/SEOKMIN JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights