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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 27, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on February 27, 2026.
Claims 14, 18 – 20 and 26 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 14 – 30 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed February 27, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 14, 16, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ‘526 as set forth in the office action filed October 31, 2025.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed February 27, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 19, 25, 27, 28 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee 2 in view of ‘526 as set forth in the office action filed October 31, 2025.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed February 27, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 14, 15, 19, 20 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thirion as set forth in the office action filed October 31, 2025.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed February 27, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 19, 25, and 28 – 30 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Thirion as set forth in the office action filed October 31, 2025.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed February 27, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 14 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘479 as set forth in the office action filed October 31, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 14 – 30 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 14 – 30 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 14, 19 and 20 have been amended to recite that “wherein if Z5, Z7, and Z8 are all N and R6 represents a moiety of Formula IIIb, then compound comprises exactly one triazine.” Applicant does not point to any particular place in the instant specification for support for the claim amendment. While Examiner can find descriptions of triazine groups as options for heteroaryl groups, Examiner cannot find any support for a particular number of triazines in the compound. Therefore, the claim amendments do not appear to be supported by the specification as originally filed and appear to constitute new matter.
Additionally, claims 14, 19, and 20 have been amended to recite that “wherein when R6 is -CN, then the compound does not comprise a 5,9-diaza-13b-boranaphtho[3,2,1-de]anthracene group.” Applicant does not point to any particular place in the instant specification for support for the claim amendment. In [0057] of the specification as published, the instant application specifically refers to similar structures 5,9-dioxa-13b-boranaphtho[3,2,1-de]anthracene (with two oxygen atoms) and aza-(5,9-dioxa-13b-boranaphtho[3,2,1-de]anthracene), (with a nitrogen atom and two oxygen atoms). However, both of these structures require two oxygen atoms, and are therefore different from the diaza group recited in the claims, which contain no oxygen atoms and two nitrogen atoms. Therefore, the claim amendments do not appear to be supported by the specification as originally filed and appear to constitute new matter.
Claims 15 – 18, and 21 – 30 are rejected as being dependent on claims 14, 19, and 20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 14 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘479 (CN108264479A, using the previously provided machine translation).
As per claims 14 and 21, ‘479 teaches:
A compound of Formula III
PNG
media_image1.png
174
238
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(‘479 teaches compound
PNG
media_image2.png
144
234
media_image2.png
Greyscale
on page 7. The cycloalkyl on the compound are taught as substituents that may be selected from the group including alkyl boryl groups, such as
PNG
media_image3.png
78
80
media_image3.png
Greyscale
([0016]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the compound above to replace the cyclohexyl groups with alkyl boryl groups. Additionally, the diaza group is taught to contain nitrogen atoms in alternative positions, such as shown in compound
PNG
media_image4.png
172
220
media_image4.png
Greyscale
on page10. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to swap the nitrogen and carbon atoms of the diazine group. When modified in this way, the compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein Z5 and Z7 are both N; Z8 is C and R7 is hydrogen; Ring A is a multicyclic fused ring system comprising two 5-membered heterocyclic rings and three 6-membered carbocyclic rings, namely a carbazole group as required by claim 21; R6 is a moiety of Formula IIIb wherein Ring B is a multicyclic fused ring system comprising one 5-membered heterocyclic rings and two 6-membered carbocyclic rings; RA and RB are both a combination of boryl and alkyl groups. As Ring A does not comprise boron, but Formula III comprises boron, ‘479 meets the claimed limitations. As at least one of Z7 and Z8 are carbon, Thirion meets limitation (1).
‘479 includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and ‘479 being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of electroluminescence devices with longer service life (Abstract), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA N CHANDHOK whose telephone number is (571)272-5780. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 6:30 - 3:30.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. 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.
/JENNA N CHANDHOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789