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
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to. The limitation “-S-, SO or SO2 or an aromatic” should be amended to “-S-, SO, SO2, or an aromatic”.
Claim 1 is objected to. The limitation “via a bridge by a single bond or a bridge” should be amended to “via a single bond or a bridge”.
Claim 25 is objected to. The limitation “to which the two R” as found on line 2 should be amended to “to which the at least two R”. Additionally, the limitation “where the two R” as found on line 3 should be amended to “to which the at least two R”.
Claim 27 is objected to. The limitation “where the compounds have at least one fused ring” should be amended to “where the compounds have at least one additional fused ring” as all of the compounds recited in claim 27 already comprise at least one fused ring. Additionally, the limitation “and the symbol o represented the sites of attachment” should be amended to “and the symbol o represents the sites of attachment of the at least one additional fused ring” for utmost clarity.
Claim 28 is objected to. The limitation “where the compounds have at least one fused ring” should be amended to “where the compounds have at least one additional fused ring” as all of the compounds recited in claim 28 already comprise at least one fused ring. Additionally, the limitation “and the symbol o represented the sites of attachment” should be amended to “and the symbol o represents the sites of attachment of the at least one additional fused ring” for utmost clarity.
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.
Claims 18-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Independent claim 1 recites the limitation regarding variable Ar that it may form a ring system with at least one X3, Ar, R group or a further group. Claim 1 also recites the limitation regarding variables R, Ra, Rb, Rc, and Rd the limitation that it may also together or with a further group form a ring system. The limitations “or a further group” and “or with a further group” lacks proper antecedent basis and indefiniteness. Specifically, the claim recites “a further group” and “or with a further group” but there is no antecedent group previously recited in the claim, making it unclear what “a further group” or “or with a further group” refers to or what the structure of the group is. These terms are vague, ambiguous, and not understandable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Claims 19-34 are included in this rejection as they are dependent on claim 18.
Claims 18-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Independent claim 1 recites the limitation regarding variable R1 that it may form a ring system with a further part of the compound. The limitation “with a further part of the compound” is indefinite. Specifically, the limitation “a further part of the compound” is vague, ambiguous, and not understandable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Claims 19-34 are included in this rejection as they are dependent on claim 18.
Claims 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Independent claim 1 recites the limitation regarding variable Re that two Re radicals may also together or with a further group form a ring system. The limitations “or with a further group” lacks proper antecedent basis and indefiniteness. Specifically, the claim recites “or with a further group” but there is no antecedent group previously recited in the claim, making it unclear what “or with a further group” refers to or what the structure of the group is. This term is vague, ambiguous, and not understandable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Claims 20-23 are included in this rejection as they are dependent on claim 19.
Claims 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 25 recites the limitation “where R1 has the definition set out above”. This limitation is indefinite since this limitation does not specifically point to where the definition of R1 is presented. For purposes of further examination, it will be interpreted that R1 has the definition set out in claim 1, and Applicants should amend this portion of the claim accordingly.
Claim 25 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Independent claim 1 recites the limitation regarding variable Rf that two Rf radicals or one Rf radical and one R1 radical ,ay form a ring system with a further group. The limitation “with a further group” lacks proper antecedent basis and indefiniteness. Specifically, the claim recites “with a further group” but there is no antecedent group previously recited in the claim, making it unclear what “or with a further group” refers to or what the structure of the group is. Additionally, this term is vague, ambiguous, and not understandable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 25 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. A broad limitation together with a narrow limitation that falls within the broad limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 25 recites the broad recitation at least one further compound, and the claim also recites the limitation that the at least one further compound is preferably a solvent, which is the narrower statement of the limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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.
Claim 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) 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. Each of claims 25 and 26, which are directly dependent from claim 18 recite variable Re. However, variable Re is not recited in independent claim 19, meaning that claims 25 and 26 do not further limit claim 18. For purposes of further examination, each of claims 25 and 26 will be interpreted as being dependent from claim 19 which does recite Re. Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims complies with the statutory requirements. It is suggested that Applicants amend claims 25 and 26 to be dependent from claim 19.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 18, 19, 22-24, 28, and 30-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kuwabara et al. (US 2021/0273165). Kuwabara et al. has a foreign application priority data of 2/13/20, which is prior to Applicants (unperfected) foreign priority date of 6/29/20 and qualifies as prior art under 102(a)(2). Additionally, all of the subject matter disclosed in US 2021/0273165 is taught in the foreign priority document.
Claim 18: Kuwabara et al. teaches organic compounds comprising a nitrogen-containing compound represented by Formula 1 (abstract). Specific compounds which adhere to formula 1 are taught in paragraph 0121. Included in the compounds taught in paragraph 0121 is compound 44 which has the structure
PNG
media_image1.png
130
150
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. As applied to claim 18, compound 44 has Z1 equal to B, W2 equal to CR, R equal to phenyl, W1 equal to N, all X1, X3, and X4 groups are equal to CRa with all Ra equal to hydrogen atoms, X2 is equal to CRb with Rb equal to N(R1)2 with R1 equal to phenyl, and Y is equal to N(Ar) with Ar equal to phenyl.
Claim 19: Compound 44 above also anticipates Formula (IIa) of claim 19 with Z2 equal to N, R equal to phenyl, all X5 groups equal to CRe with all Re equal to hydrogen atoms, and all other variables being described in claim 18 above.
Claim 22: In compound 44 Z1 is B and Z2 is N, thereby anticipating claim 22.
Claim 23: While Kuwabara et al. does not teach that both Z1 and Z2 are B as recited in claim 23, claim 23 serves to further limit embodiments where the compounds of claim 19 are represented by Formulae (IIa) or (IIe). However, Kuwabara et al. teaches compounds which satisfy different formulae recited in claim 23. One such compound is compound 79 which has the structure
PNG
media_image2.png
104
126
media_image2.png
Greyscale
. As applied to claim 18, compound 79 has Z1 equal to B, W2 equal to CR, R equal to phenyl, W1 equal to N, all X1, X2, X3, and X4 groups are equal to CRa with all Ra equal to hydrogen atoms, and Y is equal to O. Compound 79 also anticipates Formula (IId) of claim 19 with Ya equal to O and R equal to phenyl. Therefore, Kuwabara et al. may be properly relied upon to reject claim 23.
Claim 24: Compound 44 above also anticipates Formula (IIIa) of claim 24 with p equal to zero, all Ra, Rb, Rc, and Rd equal to hydrogen atoms, and all other variables being described in claim 18 above.
Claim 28: For claim 28, compound 143 of Kuwabara et al. is relied upon. Compound 143, which has the structure
PNG
media_image3.png
112
208
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 29) anticipates formula (I) of claim 18. As applied to formula (I), compound 143 has Z1 equal to B, Y equal to O, X2 equal to N(Ph)2 W2 equal to C-Ph, W1 equal to N, all X1 and X4 groups equal to CH, two X3 groups equal to CH and two X3 groups are joined together to form a fused ring. Additionally, compound 143 anticipates Formula (VI-1) of claim 28 with Rb equal to N(Ph)2, R equal to phenyl, all Ra and Rd equal to hydrogen atoms, p equal to zero, the two carbon atoms with the o symbol is a group comprising a fused ring and the two Rc groups are hydrogen atoms.
Claim 30: Kuwabara et al. teaches preparing compound 44 in paragraph 0152. In the final reaction step to produce compound 44, the crude reaction mixture inherently comprises the reaction solvent 1,2-dichlorobenzene (ODCB), which anticipates a formulation of claim 30.
Claim 31: Kuwabara et al. teaches that compound 44 is employed as a dopant in an organic electroluminescent device. Paragraph 0184 teaches that the dopants exemplified and the host material mCBP are co-deposited in a 1:99 ratio to afford an emission layer. Prior to deposition, there would inherently be a mixture of compound 44 and the host material mCBP, which anticipates claim 31.
Claim 32: Kuwabara et al. teaches that preparing compound 44 requires the step of reacting compound E with BBr3 to afford compound 44. This is a coupling reaction where each B-Br bond is replaced with a B-C bond, thereby anticipating claim 32.
Claims 33 and 34: Device example 3 of Kuwabara et al. requires a method of incorporating compound 44 in an electronic device and the device prepared in device example 3 anticipates claim 34.
Comment on Patentability
While all claims stand rejected, claims 20, 21, and 25-28 are free of any prior art rejections. The teachings of Kuwabara et al. do not render obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the compounds taught therein to arrive at the structural limitations of claims 20, 21, and 25-28. Only through the use of improper hindsight reconstruction could such modifications be made.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT S LOEWE whose telephone number is (571)270-3298. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8 AM to 5 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski, can be reached at telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Robert S Loewe/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766