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 .
Claim of Foreign Priority
Applicant’s claim of foreign priority and certified copies of foreign priority documents are acknowledged by the Office.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, corresponding to claims 1-12 and 17-20, in the reply filed on May 7, 2026, is acknowledged. Applicant further elected compound 3. Claims 13-16 are withdrawn.
The elected species is free of the prior art. The examiner applies rejections below.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 13-16 are withdrawn. Claims 1-12 and 17-20 are examined.
Objection to the Specification
The compounds shown on page 66 of the Specification are blurry and illegible. Correction is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (Scope of Enablement)
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 1-12 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for most of those compounds set forth in the instant Specification are not considered enabled for breadth of compounds of Formula (I). The Specification does not teach a POSA how to prepare any claimed compound. The Specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to arrive at the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. Each compound within the Scope of Formula (I) of claim 1 is not enabled. For example, claim 1 provides for Ar1 to be an aromatic or heteroaromatic group substituted with anything and having 6 to 40 ring atoms. Further, R1 to R5 at each occurrence can be an alkyl having 20 carbons, an aromatic or heteroaromatic having 5 to 40 ring atoms, and more. Formula (I) includes tens of thousands or more compounds.
The standard for determining whether the Specification meets the enablement requirement was cast in the Supreme Court decision of Mineral Separation v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261 (1916) which postured the question: is the experimentation needed to practice the invention undue or unreasonable? As recognized by the court in In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1988), that is still the standard to be applied, determined by consideration of the Wands factors (MPEP 2164.01(A)); namely, nature of the invention, breadth of the claims, guidance of the specification, the existence of working examples, state of the art, predictability of the art and the amount of experimentation necessary. All of the Wands factors have been considered, with the most relevant factors discussed below
Nature of the Invention: As stated in MPEP 2164.05(a), “[t]he initial inquiry” for determining whether the Specification is enabling “is into the nature of the invention, i.e., the subject matter to which the claimed invention pertains.”
In the instant case, the claimed invention pertains to compounds of Formula (I), which are alleged by the provide a more efficient host material for organic light-emitting diodes and providing specific advantages in the form of luminous efficiency, among others.
The State of the Prior Art and the Relative Skill of those in the Art: As stated in MPEP 2164.05(a), “[t]he state of the prior art is what one skilled in the art would have known, at the time the application was filed, about the subject matter to which the claimed invention pertains” and, as stated in MPEP 2164.05(b), “[t]he relative skill of those in the art refers to the skill of those in the art in relation to the subject matter to which the claimed invention pertains at the time the application was filed.”
As discussed above, the instantly claimed invention pertains to compounds of Formula (I), which are alleged by the Specification to provide a more efficient host material for organic light-emitting diodes and providing specific advantages in the form of luminous efficiency, among others. At the time the instant application was filed, it would have been known by those of ordinary skill in the art that - compounds, in the vast majority of cases, demonstrate a remarkably high correlation between their structure, specificity and ability to produce an advantageous host efficiency effect in for use with organic optoelectronic materials. At the same time, it would have also been generally assumed that two compounds with similar chemical properties would exhibit similar OLED host material properties. Thus, given a series of compounds that are shown to exert an activity of interest (or given a target of interest), the ordinarily skilled artisan would have expected that a limited genus of related compounds (e.g., compounds exhibiting near equal molecular shapes and volumes, approximately the same distribution of electrons, and similar physical properties such as hydrophobicity) would interact as described by the Specification.
Accordingly, at the time the invention was made, the relative skill of those in the art tasked with identifying compounds exerting an activity of interest would have been high, as the ordinarily skilled artisan would have had, at minimum, a Ph.D. and experience with screening techniques including computer assisted virtual screening techniques such as structure-based design methods. Deciding which technique to use would have been determined by the skilled artisan’s knowledge regarding the compound and target of interest. Conversely, structure based drug design relies on knowledge of the three dimensional structure of the target of interest (e.g., emitter and host) to derive new compounds that will, in theory, interact with the target of interest to elicit the activity of interest. In either case, the compounds derived from these techniques (applied alone or in combination) are then subjected to testing for validation.
The Level of Predictability in the Art: Once a compound has been identified by a structure based drug design method as potentially providing an efficiency as an OLED host material or emitter, it must be evaluated. However, as discussed by Anderson (Chem and Biol 10:787-797, 2003), “it is important to consider that the ranking assigned by the scoring function is not always indicative of a true binding constant, since a model interaction is inherently an approximation. Usually, several molecules which scored well during the docking run are evaluated in further tests since even the top scoring molecule could fail in vitro assays… Finally, leads are brought into the wet lab for biochemical evaluation” (Page 794, Column 1). By that point, as noted by Thiel (Nature Biotechnol 2:513-519, 2004), “libraries are small and hit rates are on the order of one in ten” (Page 517, Column 2). This low level of predictability is not surprising considering that even minor structural changes can, and frequently will, drastically alter or eradicate a parent compound’s ability to modulate the activity of a OLED system. Host materials can alter color purity, luminous efficiency, and stability. See Spec. p1. Indeed, modifying even a single atom in a compound can dramatically change the compound’s overall structure, which can impact, to different degrees, the above variables.
Despite providing the synthesis of only 19 similarly structured compounds, the variability claimed in Formula (I) is extremely broad. Ar1 can be any substituted 5 to 40 ring aromatic or heteroaromatic, wherein each R1 to R5 can be vast combinations of anything with carbon chains to additional 5 to 40 member rings. Such variability is not nearly represented by the mere 19 compounds taught by the Specification. Synthesis of such breadth is similarly not provided. Thus, the claimed breadth of compounds is not reasonably in proportion to the compounds of Formula (I) shown in the Specification to have a specific advantageous level of efficiency as a host material in OLED systems.
The examiner cites: Tavgeniene et al., “High-performance OLED host materials: Photophysical properties and device optimization of carbazole-benzocarbazole derivatives,” Dyes and Pigments 242 (2025) 112965.
Tavgeniene teaches host material compounds synthesized with an ethyl or butyl substitution can drastically alter the efficiency and stability of a OLED host system compound. See p2, 1st par. A goal was to enhanced thermal stability and charge mobility. The ethyl substituted compound was shown to possess “higher electrochemical stability under oxidative conditions, which is favorable for its application as a stable host material in OLEDs.” See p2, last par. Moreover, the distinction of an ethyl versus a butyl was set forth in Table 3. Many values were substantially difference despite the structural distinction of a single carbon of an alkyl chain. See Table 3 @ p.6.
Thus, minor structural incorporations, including those that pale in comparison to the breadth of changes claimed, can practically alter the efficiency of OLED system host materials.
The Amount of Direction Provided by the Inventor / Existence of Working Examples: The amount of direction provided by the Applicant is considered to be determined by the Specification and the working examples. In the instant case, the Specification discloses synthesis of 19 examples of relatively similarly structured compounds wherein each formula includes nitrogen atoms and most do not include any of a number of moieties that are claimed in Formula (I). The incorporation of CN, Cl, Br, alkyl chains of up to 20 carbon atoms, substituents of any form including vast heterocyclic moieties are not provided in Examples and certainly not to a degree that sufficiently supports the enabled of the claimed breadth.
Further, there is no example that uses many of these. For example, of the compounds shown on pages 16-25 of the Specification there is no use of Br, Cl, CN, alky chains of any length other than methyl. Further, the only hetero atoms used other than nitrogen are oxygen and sulfur, which are only used in a 5 membered ring in the same position. Each example provided includes only ring structures and substituents include methyl groups. Additionally, each structure has a total of 5 nitrogen atoms with the exception of few examples. Any structure with an oxygen or sulfur atom includes such atom in a single instance. Overall, the variability in structure is limited.
Scope or Breadth of the Claims: As stated in MPEP 2164.01(c), “when a compound or composition claim is not limited by a recited use, any enabled use that would reasonably correlate with the entire scope of that claim is sufficient to preclude a rejection for nonenablement based on how to use” (emphasis added). Thus, as stated in MPEP 2164.08, “[t]he focus of the examination inquiry is whether everything within the scope of the claim is enabled” (emphasis added). Indeed, the Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that “the specification must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without ‘undue experimentation’.” In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (emphasis added).
At the same time, however, it is also recognized that not everything necessary to practice the invention need be disclosed. Nor is it necessary that an Applicant test all the embodiments of his invention. In re Angstadt, 537 F.2d 498 (CCPA 1976) (emphasis added). In fact, as stated by the court in In re Buchner, 929 F.2d 660 (Fed. Cir. 1991), a patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art.
Accordingly, for purposes of enablement, the relevant concern is whether the scope of enablement provided to one skilled in the art by the disclosure is commensurate in scope with the protection sought by the claims. Thus, while “a patent application is entitled to claim his invention generically” it is necessary that “he provide a disclosure sufficient to enable one skilled in the art to carry out the invention commensurate with the scope of his claims". Amgen, Inc., v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (Fed. Cir. 1991). As noted by the court in In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833 (CCPA 1970), the scope of enablement must bear a “reasonable correlation” to the scope of the claims. See also Ak Steel Corp. v. Sollac, 344 F.3d 1234 (Fed. Cir. 2003) and In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232 (CCPA 1971). As stated in MPEP 2164.08, resolution of this concern requires two stages of inquiry: “[t]he first is to determine how broad the claim is with respect to the disclosure. The entire claim must be considered. The second inquiry is to determine if one skilled in the art is enabled to make and use the entire scope of the claim without undue experimentation”.
As to the first inquiry, as discussed above, the claims are drawn to compounds of Formula (I), which are alleged by the Specification to serve as host materials in OLED systems to improve color purity, luminous efficiency, and stability. As such, the claim is extremely broad with respect to the disclosure. The second inquiry is discussed in detail below.
Amount of Experimentation Necessary: In view of all of the foregoing, at the time the invention was made, it would have required undue experimentation to practice the entire scope of the invention as claimed. As discussed above, the claims are drawn to compounds of Formula (I), which are alleged by the Specification to serve as host materials in OLED systems to improve color purity, luminous efficiency, and stability. Since identifying any compound which is capable of modulating the activity of a an OLED system with different component structures is extremely complex, the nature of the instant invention considered to be one of extreme complexity. Although the relative skill of those in the art to which the invention pertains is high, the state of the art and unpredictability within the art is such that even the most talented artisan (armed with screening techniques including computer assisted virtual screening techniques such as ligand-based and structure-based design methods) could not reasonably predict which of the structural changes and embodiments of compounds encompassed by Formula (I) would exert the alleged activity based on the limited disclosure shown in the Specification with regard to efficacy and structural variability of claimed compounds. Although the skilled artisan would have known that certain chemical modifications to the disclosed compounds may predictably provide structurally related compounds having similarly activity, the skilled artisan would have also known that even minor structural changes can, and frequently will, drastically alter or eradicate a parent compound’s ability to modulate the activity of a specific receptor or enzyme.
Thus, in order to identify usable compounds of Formula (I), the skilled artisan (at minimum) would have to carry out structure based drug design methods using the 19 disclosed compounds as a starting point and, assuming the structure of the other components in an OLED system were known, combine the findings with data derived from structure based drug design methods to arrive at a small library of “lead” compounds believed to possess the activity of interest. The skilled artisan would then synthesize lead compounds that are within Formula (I) for in vitro testing. At this point, however, even "the top scoring molecule could fail in vitro assays” (Page 794, Column 1) and “hit rates are on the order of one in ten” (Page 517, Column 2). Given the vast breadth of claimed compounds, it is highly unpredictable which compounds within the subgenus of compounds of Formula (I) identified by rational drug design based on the instant disclosure would, in fact, be usable. Whether the other compounds of Formula (I) (i.e., those not identified by rational drug design based on the instant disclosure) would be usable is even less predictable. As such, the only way to ascertain which of the conditions among the many that can be treated with specific claimed compounds would require undue experimentation. That is, the only way one skilled in the art is enabled to use the entire scope of the claim based on the instant disclosure entails undue experimentation.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant should narrow the scope of the claims such that they bear a reasonable correlation with the disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (Written Description)
Claims 1-12 and 17-20 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. Following reasons apply:
Claims 1-12 and 17-20 are directed to host materials in OLED systems usable to improve color purity, luminous efficiency, and stability. In this particular case, these are alleged to result in the non-obviousness of the instant claims.
The instant Specification synthesizes 6 compounds and tests these compounds an assay. Specific concentrations of each of these dissimilarly structured compounds is used. The claims are directed to Formula (I-A) through Formula (I-E), which includes thousands of permutations. The Specification does not described how to make any compound. The only compounds tested are the 19 specific compounds shown in Table 2 of the Specification. See pp 67-68.
The Specification also merely shows compounds on page 16-25. The claimed invention is not fully described in the specification with respect to other compounds that could work. For example, each compound shown in the Specification appears to have substantially overlap not required by the claims and it is not clear which other specific embodiments were actually contemplated at the time of filing. The written description requirement implements the principle that a patent must describe the technology that is sought to be patented; the requirement serves both to satisfy the inventor's obligation to disclose the technologic knowledge upon which the patent is based, and to demonstrate that the patentee was in possession of claimed invention.
Applicant must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention, and demonstrate that by disclosure in the specification of the patent.
To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Moba, B.V. v. Diamond Automation, Inc., 325 F.3d 1306, 1319, 66 USPQ2d 1429, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Written description requirement, serves both to satisfy the inventor's obligation to disclose the technologic knowledge upon which the patent is based, and to demonstrate that the patentee was in possession of the invention that is claimed. A patentee can lawfully claim only what he has invented and described, and if he claims more his patent is void.
See MPEP § 2163.01 for general principles governing compliance with the written description requirement applications. 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 require that the “specification shall contain a written description of the invention The written description requirement has several policy objectives. “[T]he ‘essential goal’ of the description of the invention requirement is to clearly convey the information that an applicant has invented the subject matter which is claimed.” In re Barker, 559 F.2d 588, 592 n.4, 194 USPQ 470, 473 n.4 (CCPA 1977). Another objective is to convey to the public what the applicant claims as the invention. See Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d 1559, 1566, 43 USPQ2d 1398, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1089 (1998). "The ‘written description’ requirement implements the principle that a patent must describe the technology that is sought to be patented; the requirement serves both to satisfy the inventor’s obligation to disclose the technologic knowledge upon which the patent is based, and to demonstrate that the patentee was in possession of the invention that is claimed." Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357, 76 USPQ2d 1078, 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Further, the written description requirement promotes the progress of the useful arts by ensuring that patentees adequately describe their inventions in their patent specifications in exchange for the right to exclude others from practicing the invention for the duration of the patent’s term.
Genentech Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S (CA FC) 42 USPQ2d 1001, states that “a patent is not a hunting license. It is not a reward for search, but compensation for its successful conclusion" and "patent protection is granted in return for an enabling disclosure of an invention, not for vague intimations of general ideas that may or may not be workable".
Whenever the issue of written description arises, the fundamental factual inquiry is whether the specification conveys with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, applicant was in possession of the invention as now claimed. See, e.g., Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991). An applicant shows possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention. Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997). MPEP 2163.02).
Whether the written description requirement is satisfied is a fact-based inquiry that will depend on the nature of the claimed invention and the knowledge of one skilled in the art at the time an invention is made and a patent application is filed. The written description requirement is not satisfied by the appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim. . A description of what a material does, rather than of what it is, usually does not suffice." Enzo, 323 F.3d at 968 (citing Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568); see Rochester, 358 F.3d at 926 ("[G]eneralized language may not suffice if it does not convey the detailed identity of an invention.").
The function of description requirement is to ensure that the inventor had possession, as of filing date of the application relied on, the specific subject matter claimed by him. See Genentech, 108 F 3d 1361, 1365 (Fed. Cir. at 1366, 78, 1999).
Written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Moba, B.V. v. Diamond Automation, Inc., 325 F.3d 1306, 1319, 66 USPQ2d 1429, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d at 1563, 19 USPQ2d at 1116.
However, a showing of possession alone does not cure the lack of a written description. Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 969-70, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 2002). For example, it is now well accepted that a satisfactory description may be found in originally-filed claims or any other portion of the originally-filed specification. See In re Koller, 613 F.2d 819, 204 USPQ 702 (CCPA 1980); In re Gardner, 475 F.2d 1389, 177 USPQ 396 (CCPA 1973); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). However, that does not mean that all originally-filed claims have adequate written support. The specification must still be examined to assess whether an originally-filed claim has adequate written support.
Regardless whether a compound is claimed per se or a method is claimed that entails the use of the compound, the inventor cannot lay claim to that subject matter unless he can provide a description of the compound sufficient to distinguish infringing compounds from non-infringing compounds, or infringing methods from non-infringing methods. Where the specification provides only constructive examples in lieu of working examples, it must still "describe the claimed subject matter in terms that establish that the applicant was in possession of the claimed invention, including all of the elements and limitations.
It is suggested to amend the claims to represent the embodiments in the Specification that were possessed at the time of filing.
As such, no claim is allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARED D BARSKY whose telephone number is (571)272-2795. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-5 M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amy Clark can be reached on 571-272-1310. 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.
/JARED BARSKY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1628
Prosecution Insights