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
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/30/2026 has been entered.
As filed, claims 1 and 22-24 are pending; claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15-21, and 25-31 are withdrawn; and claims 2, 5, 8, 11, and 14 are cancelled.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 1/4/2022. These drawings are acceptable.
Response to Amendments/Remarks
Applicant’s amendments/remarks, filed 3/30/2026, with respect to claims 1, 2, and 22-24, have been fully considered and are entered. The status for each rejection in the previous Office Action is set out below.
The improper Markush grouping rejection of claims 1 and 22-24 is withdrawn per amendments.
The § 102(a)(2) rejection of claims 1, 2, and 22-24 by Lim is withdrawn per 102(b)(2)(C) exception stated in the previous office action (i.e. advisory action mailed on 3/27/2026) and cancellation of claim 2.
The provisional, nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) rejection of claims 1, 2, and 22-24 by co-pending application No. 17/688,051 is withdrawn per amendment and cancellation of claim 2.
Election/Restrictions
Because the Markush-type claim (i.e. claim 1) is determined to be free of prior art, claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 15-21 are rejoined and examined herein. Accordingly, the election of species requirement is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 7 and 13, the claims recite the phrase, “X31 is N, B, SiRb, GeRd, CRf, Si, Ge, or C”. The definition of “Si”, “Ge”, and “C” in the abovementioned phrase is missing a substituent and thus, the scope of the substituent is unclear. With such ambiguity, the metes and bounds of instant variable X31 is unclear, which rendered the claim indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 fourth paragraph
The following is a quotation of the fourth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112:
Subject to the following paragraph [concerning multiple dependent claims], 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 (emphasis added).
Claims 7, 13, and 21 are rejected under the fourth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 and under 37 CFR § 1.75(c), as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of a previous claim. Applicant is required to cancel the claim(s), or amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, or rewrite the claim(s) in independent form.
Regarding claims 7 and 13, the claims are dependent upon claim 1. The subject matter in claim 1 is drawn to a compound of instant formula (1). The subject matter in claims 7 and 13 is drawn to a limited embodiment of instant formula (1).
The scope of claims 7 and 13 is broader than scope of claim 1 because claims 7 and 13 include substituents that are outside of Rbb/Rcc for “Si”, Rdd/Ree for “Ge”, and Rff/Rgg for “C” of instant variable X31. Because the scope of claims 7 and 13 is broader than claim 1, the claims failed to further limit the subject matter thereof, and fail to comply with the formal requirements set forth in the fourth paragraph of 35 U.S.C § 112.
The Examiner suggests that the claims be amended in a manner such that the scope of claims 7 and 13 is commensurate with the scope of claim 1.
Regarding claim 21, the claim is dependent upon claim 1. The subject matter in claim 1 is drawn to a compound of instant formula (1). The subject matter in claim 21 is drawn to a limited embodiment of instant formula (1).
The scope of claim 21 is broader than scope of claim 1 because claim 21 includes species that are outside of instant variable Ar3 (e.g. C3 to C30 heteroaryl group of Ar3’ is outside the scope of C2 to C30 heterocyclic group of Ar3 according to paragraph 0190 of the instant specification). Because the scope of claim 21 is broader than claim 1, the claim failed to further limit the subject matter thereof, and fail to comply with the formal requirements set forth in the fourth paragraph of 35 U.S.C § 112.
The Examiner suggests that the claims be amended in a manner such that the scope of claim 21 is commensurate with the scope of claim 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
308
586
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(paragraph 0190 of the instant specification)
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 18, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the phrase, “wherein the p-type semiconductor compound of Chemical Formula 1 is represented by one of Chemical Formula 2A, Chemical Formula 2B, . . . .”.
Such expression can be clarified by reciting -- wherein the p-type semiconductor compound of Chemical Formula 1 is selected from one of Chemical Formula 2A, Chemical Formula 2B, . . . . --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the phrase, “and at least one pair of Rbb and Rcc, Rdd and Ree, or Rff and Rgg, is linked to each other to provide a ring structure” for instant variable X3.
Such expression can be clarified by reciting – and bb and Rcc, Rdd and Ree, or Rff and Rgg, is linked to each other to provide a ring structure --.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites the phrase, “wherein the spiro structure is a moiety of moieties (1) to 10 represented by Chemical Formula 3: [Chemical Formula 3]”.
Such expression can be clarified by reciting -- wherein the spiro structure is a moiety of moieties (1) to 10
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites the phrase, “wherein, in Chemical Formula 3, Xa and Xb are”.
Such expression can be clarified by reciting -- wherein, a and Xb are --.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites the phrase, “and at least one pair of Rbb and Rcc or Rdd and Ree is linked to each other to provide a ring structure” for instant variable X3.
Such expression can be clarified by reciting – and bb and Rcc or Rdd and Ree is linked to each other to provide a ring structure --.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites the phrase, “one or more CH present in an aromatic ring of the moieties (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), or (9) of Chemical Formula 3 is optionally replaced by N”.
Such expression can be clarified by reciting – one or more CH present in an aromatic ring of the moieties (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), or (9)
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites the phrase, “The composition of claim 18, wherein in Chemical Formula 3, one or more CH present in the aromatic ring of the moieties (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), or (9) of Chemical Formula 3 is replaced by N --.
Such expression can be clarified by reciting – The composition of claim 18, wherein
Claims 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 12, 15-17, 19, and 22-24 are objected to as being dependent upon an objected base claim, but would be allowable if the objection of the base claim is corrected.
Conclusion
Claims 7, 13, and 21 are rejected.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 12, 15-20, and 22-24 are objected.
Claims 25-31 are withdrawn.
Claims 2, 5, 8, 11, and 14 are cancelled.
Telephone Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PO-CHIH CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7243. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am to 6:00 pm.
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, Clinton Brooks can be reached at (571)270-7682. 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.
/PO-CHIH CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1621
Prosecution Insights