DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
All outstanding objections and rejections, except for those maintained below, are withdrawn in light of applicant's amendment filed on 6/19/2026.
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 new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant's amendment filed on 6/19/2026. In particular, original Claims 1, 14, and 18 have been amended to recite limitations not previously presented. Furthermore, newly added claims 21 and 22 recite subject matter not presented and the time of the previous Action. Thus, the following action is properly made final.
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 1-2, 4-15, and 18-22 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “at least one of the remaining R2 to R4 comprises at least two carbon atoms”. It is noted that in claim 1, R2 to R4 are defined as alkyl, cycloalkyl, heteroalkyl, and cycloheteroalkyl, and the instant Specification defines “alkyl”, “cycloalkyl” and “heteroalkyl” as follows: Paragraph [0043] defines “alkyl” as 1 to 15 carbon atoms; Paragraph [0044] defines “cycloalkyl” having 3 to 12 ring carbon atoms; and Paragraph [0045] defines “heteroalkyl” as referring to an alkyl having at least one carbon replaced by a heteroatom. Thus, while there is support in the Specification as originally filed for specific ranges for the number of carbon atoms for alkyl, cycloalkyl, etc. substituents, there is no support in the Specification as originally filed for the range of “at least two carbon atoms” as recited in the present claims. That is, the phrase “at least two carbons atoms” not only encompasses the ranges of carbon atoms disclosed in the instant Specification, but also a number of carbon atoms outside the range disclosed in the instant Specification, i.e. 20, 25, etc.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “at least one of the remaining R2 to R4 comprises at least two carbon atoms”. It is noted that in claim 14 defines R2 to R4 as alkyl, cycloalkyl, heteroalkyl, and cycloheteroalkyl, and the instant Specification defines “alkyl”, “cycloalkyl” and “heteroalkyl” as follows: Paragraph [0043] defines “alkyl” as 1 to 15 carbon atoms; Paragraph [0044] defines “cycloalkyl” having 3 to 12 ring carbon atoms; and Paragraph [0045] defines “heteroalkyl” as referring to an alkyl having at least one carbon replaced by a heteroatom. Thus, while there is support in the Specification as originally filed for specific ranges for the number of carbon atoms for alkyl, cycloalkyl, etc. substituents, there is no support in the Specification as originally filed for the range of “at least two carbon atoms” as recited in the present claims. That is, the phrase “at least two carbons atoms” not only encompasses the ranges of carbon atoms disclosed in the instant Specification, but also a number of carbon atoms outside the range disclosed in the instant Specification, i.e. 20, 25, etc.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “at least one of the remaining R2 to R4 comprises at least two carbon atoms”. It is noted that claim 18 defines R2 to R4 as alkyl, cycloalkyl, heteroalkyl, and cycloheteroalkyl, and the instant Specification defines “alkyl”, “cycloalkyl” and “heteroalkyl” as follows: Paragraph [0043] defines “alkyl” as 1 to 15 carbon atoms; Paragraph [0044] defines “cycloalkyl” having 3 to 12 ring carbon atoms; and Paragraph [0045] defines “heteroalkyl” as referring to an alkyl having at least one carbon replaced by a heteroatom. Thus, while there is support in the Specification as originally filed for specific ranges for the number of carbon atoms for alkyl, cycloalkyl, etc. substituents, there is no support in the Specification as originally filed for the range of “at least two carbon atoms” as recited in the present claims. That is, the phrase “at least two carbons atoms” not only encompasses the ranges of carbon atoms disclosed in the instant Specification, but also a number of carbon atoms outside the range disclosed in the instant Specification, i.e. 20, 25, etc.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “at least one of the remaining R2 to R4 comprises at least two carbon atoms”. It is noted that in the claim 1, from which claim 22 depends defines R2 to R4 as being alkyl, cycloalkyl, heteroalkyl, and cycloheteroalkyl, and the instant Specification defines “alkyl”, “cycloalkyl” and “heteroalkyl” as follows: Paragraph [0043] defines “alkyl” as 1 to 15 carbon atoms; Paragraph [0044] defines “cycloalkyl” having 3 to 12 ring carbon atoms; and Paragraph [0045] defines “heteroalkyl” as referring to an alkyl having at least one carbon replaced by a heteroatom. Thus, while there is support in the Specification as originally filed for specific ranges for the number of carbon atoms for alkyl, cycloalkyl, etc. substituents, there is no support in the Specification as originally filed for the range of “at least two carbon atoms” as recited in the present claims. That is, the phrase “at least two carbons atoms” not only encompasses the ranges of carbon atoms disclosed in the instant Specification, but also a number of carbon atoms outside the range disclosed in the instant Specification, i.e. 20, 25, etc.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 14-15, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al (US 2016/0093814).
Regarding claim 1, Hwang et al discloses an organometallic complex with the formula ([0053]):
M(L1)n1(L2)n2,
where ligand L1 is ([0012] – Formula 2A):
PNG
media_image1.png
218
132
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Specific examples of this ligand include ([0123] and Page 16 – Formula 2-61):
PNG
media_image2.png
198
164
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
where Z1a is a C6 aryl group ([0125] and [0019]); Z2 is hydrogen ([0019]); and Z1b can be an C1-60 alkyl ([0019]). As an example of the alkyl group, attention is directed to the following compound (Page 47 – Compound 159):
PNG
media_image3.png
282
328
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
Additionally, the reference discloses that the alkyl can be substituted with a C1-60 alkyls ([0024]-[0025]), i.e. the substituent above can be substituted with a tert-butyl group (Page 37 – 94) to obtain the substituent:
PNG
media_image4.png
429
741
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
From the discussion above, the reference discloses recited ligand L1 with the formula:
PNG
media_image5.png
182
186
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
where:
Y1 to Y11 are C; and
Rc and Rb are hydrogen.
Ra corresponds to recited Formula I:
PNG
media_image4.png
429
741
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
where:
R1 and R5 are H;
R2 and R3 are C1 alkyls; and
R4 is tert-butyl, i.e. an alkyl having a tertiary carbon atom.
Given that ligand L1 is:
PNG
media_image5.png
182
186
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
and therefore, does not comprise the structure:
PNG
media_image6.png
172
136
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
ligand L1 is not required to meet provisions (i) to (iii) of the claims.
Given that the reference discloses a phosphorescent emitter utilized in organic light emitting devices, it is clear that the disclosed compound is capable of functioning as a phosphorescent emitter in an organic light emitting device at room temperature as recited present claim.
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed compound nor can the claimed compound be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed compound and the compound disclosed by the reference, absent a showing of criticality for the presently claimed compound, it is urged that it would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the compound which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Hwang et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Given that the reference discloses a phosphorescent emitter utilized in organic light emitting devices, it is clear that the disclosed compound is capable of emitting light from a triplet excited state to a group singlet state at room temperature as recited in the present claim.
Regarding claim 4, Hwang et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses that in the formula M(L1)n1(L2)n2 is Ir (Abstract).
Regarding claim 5, Hwang et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, R1 is hydrogen.
Regarding claim 7, Hwang et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses that in the formula M(L1)n1(L2)n2, where n1 and n2 are independently 1 or 2, where n1 + n2 is two (2) or three (3) ([0022]). Ligand L2 is ([0012] – Formula 2B):
PNG
media_image7.png
250
178
media_image7.png
Greyscale
.
A specific example of this ligand is ([0137] – Formula 2B-1):
PNG
media_image8.png
260
166
media_image8.png
Greyscale
,
where R1 to R3 are C1-10 alkyl groups ([0016]-[0017]); and R12 is C2-20 alkyl group ([0097]-0098]).
Accordingly, the reference discloses a compound with the formula:
M(L1)x(L2)y(L3)a,
where x is 1 to 2; y is 2 or 1; and z is zero (0).
Ligand L2 corresponds to:
PNG
media_image9.png
196
84
media_image9.png
Greyscale
,
where Y1 to Y8 are C; Ra is a di-substitution representing silyl and an alkyl; and Rb is hydrogen.
Regarding claim 8, Hwang et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the reference discloses a compound with the formula Ir(L1)2(L2).
Regarding claim 9, Hwang et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the reference discloses a compound where ligand L1 corresponds to LAtype17:
PNG
media_image10.png
84
102
media_image10.png
Greyscale
,
where R2 is hydrogen; R1 corresponds to R represented by Formula I of the claims; and G is an aromatic ring.
Regarding claim 10, Hwang et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the reference discloses R corresponding to RA1:
PNG
media_image11.png
56
88
media_image11.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 19, Hwang et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Given that the reference discloses a compound, it is clear that the reference discloses a formulation as recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 14, Hwang et al discloses an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, a cathode, and a light emitting layer, i.e. an organic layer, disposed between the anode and cathode ([0167] and [0172]-[0173]. The light emitting layer comprises an organometallic complex with the formula:
M(L1)n1(L2)n2,
where ligand L1 is ([0012] – Formula 2A):
PNG
media_image1.png
218
132
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Specific examples of this ligand include ([0123] and Page 16 – Formula 2-61):
PNG
media_image2.png
198
164
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
where Z1a is a C6 aryl group ([0125] and [0019]); Z2 is hydrogen ([0019]); and Z1b can be an C1-60 alkyl ([0019]). As an example of the alkyl group, attention is directed to the following compound (Page 47 – Compound 159):
PNG
media_image3.png
282
328
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
Additionally, the reference discloses that the alkyl can be substituted with a C1-60 alkyls ([0024]-[0025]), i.e. the substituent above can be substituted with a tert-butyl group (Page 37 – 94) to obtain the substituent:
PNG
media_image4.png
429
741
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
From the discussion above, the reference discloses recited ligand L1 with the formula:
PNG
media_image5.png
182
186
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
where:
Y1 to Y11 are C; and
Rc and Rb are hydrogen.
Ra corresponds to recited Formula I:
PNG
media_image4.png
429
741
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
where:
R1 and R5 are H;
R2 and R3 are C1 alkyls; and
R4 is tert-butyl, i.e. an alkyl having a tertiary carbon atom.
Given that ligand L1 is:
PNG
media_image5.png
182
186
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
and therefore, does not comprise the structure:
PNG
media_image6.png
172
136
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
ligand L1 is not required to meet provisions (i) to (iii) of the claims.
Given that the reference discloses a phosphorescent emitter utilized in organic light emitting devices, it is clear that the disclosed compound is capable of functioning as a phosphorescent emitter in an organic light emitting device at room temperature as recited present claim.
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed compound nor can the claimed compound be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed compound and the compound disclosed by the reference, absent a showing of criticality for the presently claimed compound, it is urged that it would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the compound which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 15, Hwang et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the organic layer is a light emitting layer. Additionally, the compound is a dopant and emitting blue, green or greenish blue light ([0031] and [0161]). It is clear that the compound disclosed by the reference is an emissive dopant as recited by the present claims.
Regarding claim 18, Hwang et al discloses an organic light emitting device, i.e. a consumer product, comprising an anode, a cathode, and a light emitting layer, i.e. an organic layer, disposed between the anode and cathode ([0167] and [0172]-[0173]. The light emitting layer comprises an organometallic complex with the formula:
M(L1)n1(L2)n2,
where ligand L1 is ([0012] – Formula 2A):
PNG
media_image1.png
218
132
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Specific examples of this ligand include ([0123] and Page 16 – Formula 2-61):
PNG
media_image2.png
198
164
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
where Z1a is a C6 aryl group ([0125] and [0019]); Z2 is hydrogen ([0019]); and Z1b can be an C1-60 alkyl ([0019]). As an example of the alkyl group, attention is directed to the following compound (Page 47 – Compound 159):
PNG
media_image3.png
282
328
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
Additionally, the reference discloses that the alkyl can be substituted with a C1-60 alkyls ([0024]-[0025]), i.e. the substituent above can be substituted with a tert-butyl group (Page 37 – 94) to obtain the substituent:
PNG
media_image4.png
429
741
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
From the discussion above, the reference discloses recited ligand L1 with the formula:
PNG
media_image5.png
182
186
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
where:
Y1 to Y11 are C; and
Rc and Rb are hydrogen.
Ra corresponds to recited Formula I:
PNG
media_image4.png
429
741
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
where:
R1 and R5 are H;
R2 and R3 are C1 alkyls; and
R4 is tert-butyl, i.e. an alkyl having a tertiary carbon atom.
Given that ligand L1 is:
PNG
media_image5.png
182
186
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
and therefore, does not comprise the structure:
PNG
media_image6.png
172
136
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
ligand L1 is not required to meet provisions (i) to (iii) of the claims.
Given that the reference discloses a phosphorescent emitter utilized in organic light emitting devices, it is clear that the disclosed compound is capable of functioning as a phosphorescent emitter in an organic light emitting device at room temperature as recited present claim.
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed compound nor can the claimed compound be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed compound and the compound disclosed by the reference, absent a showing of criticality for the presently claimed compound, it is urged that it would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the compound which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hwang et al (US 2016/0093814) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 14-15, and 18-19 above, and in view of Ma et al (US 2010/0237334).
The discussion with respect to Hwang et al as set forth in Paragraph 12 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 17, Hwang et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. While the reference discloses that the emitter layer comprises a matrix material, the reference does not disclose the particular hosts recited in the present claims.
Ma et al discloses an OLED comprising an anode, cathode, and an organic light emitting layer between the anode and cathode (Abstract and [0098]). The light emitting layer comprises a triphenylene compound (Abstract and [0045] – Compound 1’), e.g.
PNG
media_image12.png
162
177
media_image12.png
Greyscale
.
The reference discloses that triphenylene containing benzothiophenes are excellent host materials for OLEDs ([0104]).
Given that both Hwang et al and Ma et al are drawn to organic electroluminescent devices comprising an emitter layer formed from a host and a dopant, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the triphenylene host as taught by Ma et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize such hosts in the device disclosed by Hwang et al with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al (US 2016/0093814) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 14-15, and 18-19 above, and in view of Lewis (see pages of Hawley’s Condensed Chemical Dictionary attached to previous Office Action).
The discussion with respect to Hwang et al as set forth in Paragraph 12 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 20, Hwang et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. The reference does not explicitly disclose that the compound is a monomer. However, as evidenced by Lewis a monomer is a molecule or compound usually containing compound of relatively low molecular weight and simple structure that is capable of conversion to polymers with itself or other similar molecules or compounds. In light of the definition in Lewis of the term “monomer”, it is the Examiner’s position that compound disclosed by Hwang et al is a monomer capable of being converted to a polymer.
Claims 1, 6, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kottas et al (US 2013/0026452) in view of Walters et al (US 7,279,704).
Regarding claim 1, Kottas et al discloses the following metal coordination complex (Page7 – Compound 314):
PNG
media_image13.png
417
455
media_image13.png
Greyscale
.
This metal coordination complex comprises ligand L1 represented by:
PNG
media_image14.png
260
222
media_image14.png
Greyscale
,
where:
Y1 to Y10 are C;
Y’ is O;
Ra represents a di-substitution, where one Ra is methyl and the other Ra is an iso-butyl group;
Ra is an alkyl group bonded to Y2, meeting provision (i) of the claims; and
Rc is hydrogen.
Rb is hydrogen, and therefore, does not correspond to substituent R:
PNG
media_image15.png
140
148
media_image15.png
Greyscale
,
as required by the present claims. However, the ligand disclosed by the reference is but one embodiment and attention is directed to the formula ([0015]):
PNG
media_image16.png
264
408
media_image16.png
Greyscale
,
where Ra can be combination of an alkyl and cycloalkyl ([0015]). Paragraph [0039] incorporates by reference Cols. 31-32 of U.S 7,279,704 (Walters et al) for the definition of alkyl and cycloalkyl. Col. 31 Lines 65-67 and Col. 32 Lines 1-5 of Walters et al defines “alkyl” as including iso-butyl, while Col. 32 Lines 7-13 define “cycloalkyl” as including cyclohexyl. Accordingly, the combination of isobutyl and cyclohexyl yield the substituent R:
PNG
media_image17.png
228
254
media_image17.png
Greyscale
,
where
R1 and R5 are hydrogen;
R2 and R3 are alkyls; and
R4 is a cycloalkyl.
Given that the reference discloses a phosphorescent emitter utilized in organic light emitting devices, it is clear that the disclosed compound is capable of functioning as a phosphorescent emitter in an organic light emitting device at room temperature as recited present claim.
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed compound nor can the claimed compound be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed compound and the compound disclosed by the reference, absent a showing of criticality for the presently claimed compound, it is urged that it would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the compound which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 6, Kottas et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses that in the formula:
PNG
media_image16.png
264
408
media_image16.png
Greyscale
,
R1 and R2 can be linked, i.e. R1 and R2 correspond to Ra in the recited formula:
PNG
media_image14.png
260
222
media_image14.png
Greyscale
,
and are joined to fuse together to form a ring ([0015]).
Regarding claim 21, Kottas et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, in the compound:
PNG
media_image13.png
417
455
media_image13.png
Greyscale
,
Ra is an alkyl bonded to Y2.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that Hwang does not meet any of provisions (i) to (iii) recited in the as-amended claims. However, it is significant to note that as set forth in the previous Office Action and maintained in the rejections above, the reference discloses the ligand corresponding to L1 as:
PNG
media_image5.png
182
186
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
and therefore, given that this ligand does not comprise the structure:
PNG
media_image6.png
172
136
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
ligand L1 is not required to meet provisions (i) to (iii) of the claims.
With respect to provision (iii) in the as-amended claims, Applicants argue that the previous Office Action relied on picking and choosing to reach a compound that bears no resemblance to the original compound. However, firstly is noted that as discussed above, provisions (i) to (iii) require the presence of the ligand:
PNG
media_image6.png
172
136
media_image6.png
Greyscale
;
however, neither the previous nor current rejections rely on the above ligand as ligand L1. Rather, the rejections rely on the ligand:
PNG
media_image5.png
182
186
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
as ligand L1. Accordingly, the compound disclosed by the reference is not required to meet any of provisions (i) to (iii).
Secondly, regarding Applicants’ arguments that the compound bears no resemblance to the original compound, it is noted that as set forth in the previous Office Action and maintained in the rejections above the reference discloses the following compound with an iso-butyl substituent:
PNG
media_image3.png
282
328
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
and Paragraphs [0024]-[0025] discloses that the alkyl can be substituted with a C1-60 alkyls, i.e. the substituent above can be substituted with a tert-butyl group (Page 37 – 94) to obtain the substituent:
PNG
media_image4.png
429
741
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
Accordingly, it is the Office’s position that obtained ligand is within the scope of the disclosure in Hwang et al, and absent evidence to the contrary, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any of the substituents disclosed by the reference including the particular R substituent recited in the present claims with a reasonable expectation of success.
Applicants point to MPEP 2141.02(II) as argue that a patent [claim] composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.. However, as discussed above, it is the Office’s position that the obtained ligand is within the scope of the disclosure in Hwang et al, and absent evidence to the contrary, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any of the substituents disclosed by the reference including the particular R substituent recited in the present claims with a reasonable expectation of success.
Furthermore it noted that the species claim is anticipated (rendered obvious) no matter how many other species are additionally named (Ex parte A 17 USPQ2d 1716 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990)) and a prior art’s disclosure of possible combinations renders all combinations obvious (See Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (holding that the prior art’s disclosure of over 1200 possible combinations rendered all possible formulations obvious)) See Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (holding that the prior art’s disclosure of over 1200 possible combinations rendered all possible formulations obvious).
Applicants point to MPEP 2144.08 and In re Baird and argue that the instant rejection fails to consider the compound as a whole and the rejection use hindsight reconstruction to pick and choose among isolated disclosures in the prior art to deprecate the claimed invention. However, it is the Office’s position that the instant rejection considers the compound as a whole, given that the rejection utilized teachings within the reference itself to arrive at the instantly claimed ligand. Furthermore, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicants argue that the initial disclosure of the compound:
PNG
media_image3.png
282
328
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
requires the following modifications: (1) select to specifically modify the b-carbon center of the boxed alkyl group; (2) modify the hydrogen atom at the b-carbon center to tert-butyl; and (3) select to modify at least one of the two remaining methyl groups to include at least one additional carbon atom. However, as set forth in the rejections above, one need only modify the isobutyl to possess a tert-butyl substituent to obtain the substituent:
PNG
media_image4.png
429
741
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
and utilize this substituent in the ligand:
PNG
media_image2.png
198
164
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
Applicants argue that none of 388 compounds disclosed by Hwang et al include a b-carbon center having both a tertiary carbon group and an alkyl group having at least two carbon atoms because the modification proceeds directly contrary to the teaching of the reference and the required modification render the hypothesized compounds unrecognizable to the structure of Hwang et al.. However, it is significant to note that as set forth in the rejections above Hwang is not required to meet any of provisions (i) to (iii) given that the ligand is:
PNG
media_image2.png
198
164
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
and not:
PNG
media_image6.png
172
136
media_image6.png
Greyscale
.
Furthermore, as discussed in the rejections above, the substituent R is:
PNG
media_image4.png
429
741
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
which is not excluded by the present claims. Finally, it is noted that while the reference does not exemplify a compound comprising the above R substituent, the general teachings of the reference allow for alkyls to be substituted with alkyl groups. To that end it is noted that “applicant must look to the whole reference for what it teaches. Applicant cannot merely rely on the examples and argue that the reference did not teach others.” In re Courtright, 377 F.2d 647, 153 USPQ 735,739 (CCPA 1967).
Applicants argue that the rejection relies on arbitrary picking and choosing isolated substituents and compounds without relying on any actual teaching, which is in direct
conflict with the requirements of In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1075. However, firstly, from the discussion above, it is the Office’s position that rejection does rely on the teachings of the reference itself. Secondly, it is the Office’s position that obtained ligand is within the scope of the disclosure in Hwang et al, and absent evidence to the contrary, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any of the substituents disclosed by the reference including the particular R substituent recited in the present claims with a reasonable expectation of success
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER C. KOLLIAS whose telephone number is (571)-270-3869. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00AM – 5:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Boyd can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER C KOLLIAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights