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
Specification
The specification is objected to for failing to provide antecedent basis for claims 15-20.
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 1-25 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 that X3 to X5 are, at each occurrence identically or differently, selected from C, CRx, or N, and any adjacent to two of X3 to X5 are C and joined to Y and Y2, respectively. However, X4 can only be equal to C as there are no structural embodiments where X4 is not part of the ring system comprising Y, T1, and T2. Applicants can overcome this rejection by reciting that X3 and X5 are selected from C, CRx, or N and X4 is C. Claims 2-25 are included with this rejection as they are dependent from claim 1.
Claims 2, 5-14, 17, 19, 20, and 24 are 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 range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or 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, each of claims 2, 5-15, 17, 19, 20, and 24 recites broad recitations, and each of these claims also recites narrower claim limitations using “preferably” and in some claims “more preferably”. These claims are 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. Applicants can overcome these rejections by removing all of the preferable and more preferable language from these claims and by removing the specific Markush groups or elements under the preferred or more preferred sections of these claims. Should Applicants wish, they may add the more specific preferable and more preferable embodiments from these claims as new dependent claims.
Comment on Patentability
While all claims stand rejected, there are no outstanding prior art rejections against any of the instantly filed claims. The instantly filed claims are drawn to a metal complex comprising a ligand La a of Formula 1. The structural limitations of ligand La are novel and unobvious over the prior art. Hotta et al. (US 2025/0280726) which has a foreign application priority date prior to Applicants (unperfected) foreign application priority date, represents a closely related reference which teaches ligands of general formula (2) (paragraphs 0010-0014). While close in structure to the instantly claimed ligands of Formula 1, the compounds taught by Hotta et al. are mutually exclusive from those instantly claimed as the ring system CY1 in formula (2) of Hotta et al. does not comprise a 5-membered ring as required by the instant claims. Tsuji et al. (US 2022/0306666) is another closely related prior art reference. Tsuji et al. teaches compounds of formula 2 (paragraph 0008). While close in structure to the instantly claimed ligands of Formula 1, the compounds taught by Tsuji et al. do not include a 5-membered ring system as required by the instant claims.
Relevant Art Cited
Additional prior art documents which are relevant to Applicants invention can be found on the attached PTO-892 form.
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
Prosecution Insights