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 .
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/CN2022/091828 (05/10/2022)
and claims foreign priority to CHINA 202110702684.X (06/24/2021)
CHINA 202210251081.7 (03/15/2022).
Applicant has filed a certified copy of the foreign priority document – however the Examiner requires a certified English translation as per 37 C.F.R. 1.55 to perfect the priority claim. See MPEP 706.02.
Drawings
The drawings filed 11/17/2023 are objected to for not conforming to the requirements of 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1) (“View numbers must be preceded by the abbreviation “FIG.” Where only a single view is used in an application to illustrate the claimed invention, it must not be numbered and the abbreviation “FIG.” must not appear.”). MPEP 608.02.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 6/1/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that unity of invention exists in the claims as amended. This is not found persuasive because the claims are not a contribution over the art as detailed in the following rejections.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Applicant also elected the following species of compound 13:
PNG
media_image1.png
193
218
media_image1.png
Greyscale
determined to read on claims 1-10.
As detailed in the following rejections, the generic claim encompassing the elected species was not found patentable. Therefore, the provisional election of species is given effect, the examination is restricted to the elected species only, and claims not reading on the elected species are held withdrawn. MPEP 803.02; Ex parte Ohsaka, 2 USPQ2d 1460, 1461 (Bd. Pat. App. lnt. 1987).
Should applicant, in response to this rejection of the Markush-type claim, overcome the rejection through amendment, the amended Markush-type claim will be reexamined to the extent necessary to determine patentability of the Markush-type claim. See MPEP 803.02.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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 at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant amended the claim 1 to require “Ar5 and the Ar1 or A6 and Ar2 are connected” without pointing to support for the new limitation.
As per MPEP 2163 II A: With respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims. See, e.g., Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing MPEP § 2163.04 which provides that a "simple statement such as ‘applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation ‘___’ in the application as filed’ may be sufficient where the claim is a new or amended claim, the support for the limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where the limitation is supported."); see also MPEP §§ 714.02 and 2163.06 ("Applicant should ... specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure."); and MPEP § 2163.04 ("If applicant amends the claims and points out where and/or how the originally filed disclosure supports the amendment(s), and the examiner finds that the disclosure does not reasonably convey that the inventor had possession of the subject matter of the amendment at the time of the filing of the application, the examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims."). The inquiry into whether the description requirement is met is a question of fact that must be determined on a case-by-case basis. AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co., KG v. Janssen Biotech, Inc., 759 F.3d 1285, 1297, 111 USPQ2d 1780, 1788 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Whether a patent claim is supported by an adequate written description is a question of fact."); In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA 1972) ("Precisely how close [to the claimed invention] the description must come to comply with Sec. 112 must be left to case-by-case development."); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 262, 191 USPQ at 96 (inquiry is primarily factual and depends on the nature of the invention and the amount of knowledge imparted to those skilled in the art by the disclosure).
The examiner could not locate support for such a new limitation, nor does there appear to be a written description of the limitation in the application as filed. See Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, 83 USPQ2d 1373, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (holding that "[MPEP] § 2163.04 (I)(B) as written is a lawful formulation of the prima facie standard for a lack of written description rejection."). There is no literal support for the added limitation and one of skill in the art would not recognize that Applicant possessed the claim scope. Thus, claim 1 and those that depend therefrom are rejected.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The claims are to a scope of compounds of Formula (I) with highly variable groups Ar1 to Ar6 which are further substituted by a vast scope of alternative substituents. The instant disclosure does not contain sufficient information regarding the subject matter of the claims as to enable one skilled in the pertinent art to make and use the claimed invention upon consideration of the factors set forth in In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1998), as follows. See also MPEP § 2164.01(a) and § 2164.04.
The breadth of the claims – scope of compounds of Formula (I) with highly variable groups Ar1 to Ar6 which are further substituted by a vast scope of alternative substituents having in excess of billions of species.
The nature of the invention – the nature of the claimed invention are compounds that are electroluminescent.
The state of the prior art – the prior art of OLED is a developing field with gradual improvements in performance from fluorescent to phosphorescent and thermally activated delayed fluorescent materials which encounter problems of strong charge transfer characteristics and large spectrum half-wave width not conducive to high color purity.
The level of one of ordinary skill – the level of skill in the art is high as evidenced by Shin et al. (KR20220031512A, published 2022-03-11; English equivalent US20240018164).
The level of predictability in the art – the art is highly unpredictable due to the complex nature of the electronic and optical properties of the molecules when incorporated into a electroluminescent device. The particular art is also unpredictable because there is no known or articulated rationale for how a given compound’s structure is correlated with the utility. Furthermore, as shown in the instant specification, small changes in structure of less significance than the variation among species within Formula (I) results in poorly performing comparative structures – i.e. Table 1.
The amount of direction provided by the inventor – the primary guidance of the claimed scope provided by the inventor is the synthesis of the following two Examples 13 and 41:
PNG
media_image2.png
131
176
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
166
212
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and tested for utility. No other specific examples within the scope of the claims are described in the specification regarding how to make or use the claimed invention. There is no apparent correlation between the structure of the compounds within the claims and those tested. This lack of supporting data and explanation would cause one of skill in the art to question whether the examples support enablement of the claims.
The existence of working examples – there are two working examples of the claimed compounds demonstrating utility as indicated above.
The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure – given the high level of unpredictability in the art, the lack of working examples, and the limited guidance provided in the examples, there would be a tremendous amount of experimentation required before one of skill in the art could make and use the full scope of the claimed invention, including synthesis and testing to determine whether a given species within the scope of billions of compounds are actually useful.
In view of the specification and evidence of record, one of skill in the art would be required to perform an undue amount of experimentation to test each of the compounds of the claims select candidates for further development, synthesize the complex heterocyclic structure perform testing to determine utility. Thus, one of skill in the art would be required to start ab initio and develop any compound within the scope of the claims. Such a level of experimentation is undue. Weighing the above factors by a preponderance of the evidence results in the conclusion that the claims are not enabled for full scope of Formula (I).
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.
(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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shin et al. (KR20220031512A, published 2022-03-11; citations to English equivalent US20240018164).
Shin teaches compound 173 (claim 3):
PNG
media_image4.png
324
405
media_image4.png
Greyscale
which anticipates the claims.
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Conclusion
No claims allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT H HAVLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9066. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 6pm.
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, Kortney Klinkel can be reached at (571) 270-5293. 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.
/ROBERT H HAVLIN/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1626
Prosecution Insights