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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 16 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/07/2025.
The image of the elected compound in the Response to Election is somewhat blurry, but it appears as though the compound below from claim 15 is the elected compound:
PNG
media_image1.png
149
226
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
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 1-14, 17-18 and 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 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. The new provisos of Claims 1, 17 and 20 do not find support in the specification. The proviso are so specific that they amount to negative limitations of a small number of compounds. While claims may include negative limitations to exclude a component or compound, that component or compound must be disclosed in the specification. None of the new provisos are mentioned in Applicant’s specification; they are clearly just attempts to exclude the disclosures of the applied references. Applicant has not cited any support in the specification, nor given any explanation of why the concept of each proviso would be understood by the ordinarily skilled artisan to be a readily envisaged subset of the claimed invention.
The other claims are rejected because they depend, directly or indirectly, from one of the above indefinitely claims and do not remedy the deficiency.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 11-14, 17-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia et al (US 20110215710 A1).
Xia discloses OLEDs having an organic as well as a consumer product [abstract, 0133, 0238] comprising a compound which comprises a ligand that reads on the claimed Formula 1 [0026 Formula VI] including specific examples below:
PNG
media_image2.png
223
367
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
233
377
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[p7; compounds 10,13; Ligands on p3] wherein in the above Compounds 26 and 29 the right-hand-side (RHS) ligand reads on LB7 of claim 14. The organic layer further comprises a host having a triphenylene structure [0137].
While the specific compounds above are excluded from the amended claims because the first proviso requires that each of X1 to X4 is C. However, the proviso only applies when RA group is Formula II and is para to Z1. Xia discloses, however, that the (benzo)oxazole substituent may be attached at any position on the pyridine ligand above, see the general Formula IV:
PNG
media_image4.png
183
214
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[p2].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of Applicant’s invention to have used the meta or ortho substituted position isomers of Compounds 26 and 29 of Xia because Xia also teaches that the substituent G ring may be attached to the ring A of the ligand at any position.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 3/30/2026, with respect to Nakayama et al (US 20110084601 A1), Arai (JP 2013197323 A), Xu et al (CN 102659773 A), Park et al (US 20220209140 A1), Wang et al (CN 111995999 A) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of 12/29/2025 have been withdrawn.
None of the above references read on the claimed provisos.
Applicant's arguments filed 3/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Xia et al (US 20110215710 A1) does not read on the first proviso of the claims. This argument is not convincing. The proviso only applies to one position isomer Formula 2 substituent, and Xia teaches all the position isomers, see the amended rejection above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 and 21 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: All of the references discussed above disclose the furanyl functional group of the claims (specifically X1-X4 in claim 1 are all C) as one among many options, and do not distinguish it above any of the others. Li et al (CN 105602548 A) discloses the generic formula:
PNG
media_image5.png
230
237
media_image5.png
Greyscale
but you will notice that the X is a required linking group, and the claimed Formula I excludes this with the proviso that RA and RB are not joined to form a ring. Alleyne et al (WO 2010027583 A1) teaches thiophene functional ligands used in OLEDs:
PNG
media_image6.png
98
274
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Neither of these references, alone or together, would motivate the skilled artisan to make any of the compounds of claim 15. It would require excessive hindsight on the part of the office to arrive at the claimed compounds from the above references.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL M DOLLINGER whose telephone number is (571)270-5464. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6:30pm M-F.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-272-1302. 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.
MICHAEL M. DOLLINGER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1766
/MICHAEL M DOLLINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights