CTFR 17/591,643 CTFR 86803 DETAILED ACTION This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Amendment filed 03/24/26. 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Response to Amendment The rejection of Claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasukawa et al. (JP 2009-021336 A) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 11/24/25 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments. The rejection of Claims 15, 17, 21, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasukawa et al. (JP 2009-021336 A) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 11/24/25 is NOT withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s arguments. Specification 07-29 AIA The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The Specification filed 08/16/24 recites the structures of compounds on the following pages: 26-34 (in the table), 50-55 (in the table in the lighter fonts), 58-61 (in the table in the lighter fonts), and 65-68 (in the table in the lighter fonts) which are all graphically unclear due to their low resolutions and small sizes; the identity of the individual atoms are often barely legible. They need to be replaced by structures which are clearly legible and of sufficient size, with all bonds and atoms that are clearly drawn (i.e., with solid lines) . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 17 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims recite the structures which are all graphically unclear due to their low resolutions. They need to be replaced by structures comprising bonds, atoms, and labels which are clearly drawn (i.e., with solid lines) . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 15, 17, 21, 23, and 24 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. 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, Claim 15 recites the broad recitations for R 1 on the carbazole group to be possibly “an aromatic ring system having 6 to 18 aromatic rings atoms” and for R 2 to be “an aromatic ring system having 6 to 18 aromatic ring atoms or a heteroaromatic rings system having 6 to 13 aromatic ring atoms,” and the claim also recites for R 1 on the carbazole group if it is such an aromatic ring system to be “selected from phenyl, biphenyl or terphenyl” and for R 2 “that either both R 2 are selected from phenyl, biphenyl or terphenyl, or one R 2 is selected from phenyl, biphenyl or terphenyl and the other R 2 is selected from dibenzofuran or dibenzothiophene,” which are narrower statements of the range/limitations. The claim(s) 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. Allowable Subject Matter 9. Claims 25-28 are allowed. Furthermore, Claim 18 is currently objected to due to minor informalities as set forth above but would allowable if amended to overcome the objection. The closest prior art is provided by Shin et al. (WO 2012/036482 A1), which discloses compounds of the following form: PNG media_image1.png 340 280 media_image1.png Greyscale ([13]) where X 1-2 = N or CR’ ([16]) and Z is the following: PNG media_image2.png 164 832 media_image2.png Greyscale ([19]-[22]) where Y = O or S (among others) ([23]). An embodiment is disclosed: PNG media_image3.png 306 156 media_image3.png Greyscale (page 21). However, it is the position of the Office that neither Shin et al. singly nor in further combination with any other prior art discloses any of the compounds as recited in Claim 25, particularly in regards to the substitution position of the -L-HetAr group on the core heterocyclic group (comprising Y 1 ) of Applicant’s formula (1a). Response to Arguments 10. Applicant’s arguments on pages 8 and 9 with respect to the deficiencies of the previously cited prior art have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as set forth above. Conclusion 07-40 AIA 11. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action. 12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY L YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1137. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 6am-3pm. 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, Jennifer A Boyd can be reached at 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 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. /JAY YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786 Application/Control Number: 17/591,643 Page 2 Art Unit: 1786
Prosecution Insights