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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 6 March 2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 1-5, 7-8, and 10-13 have been amended.
Claims 6, 9 are cancelled.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, and 10-20 are pending.
The amendment to claim 1 has overcome the rejection of claims 1-8, 14-17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (WO 2022050710 A1—US 20240018164 A1 used as an English language equivalent) (hereafter “Shin”) in view of Hatakeyama (US 2015/0236274 A1) (hereafter “Hatakeyama”) set forth in the last Office action as well as the rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (WO 2022050710 A1—US 20240018164 A1 used as an English language equivalent) (hereafter “Shin”) in view of Hatakeyama (US 2015/0236274 A1) (hereafter “Hatakeyama”), and further in view of So et al. (US 2014/0077172 A1) (hereinafter “So”) and Xia et al. (US 2014/0131665 A1) (hereafter “Xia”) set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn.
The amendment to claim 1 has overcome the rejections of claims 1-8, 14-18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (WO 2022050710 A1—US 20240018164 A1 used as an English language equivalent) (hereafter “Shin”) in view of Hatakeyama (US 2015/0236274 A1) (hereafter “Hatakeyama”) set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-8, 14-17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (WO 2022050710 A1—US 20240018164 A1 used as an English language equivalent) (hereafter “Shin”) in view of Hatakeyama (US 2015/0236274 A1) (hereafter “Hatakeyama”) set forth in the last Office action as well as the rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (WO 2022050710 A1—US 20240018164 A1 used as an English language equivalent) (hereafter “Shin”) in view of Hatakeyama (US 2015/0236274 A1) (hereafter “Hatakeyama”), and further in view of So et al. (US 2014/0077172 A1) (hereinafter “So”) and Xia et al. (US 2014/0131665 A1) (hereafter “Xia”) set forth in the last Office action have been considered but are moot because the rejections have been withdrawn as being overcome by amendment as described above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1-8, 14-18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (WO 2022050710 A1—US 20240018164 A1 used as an English language equivalent) (hereafter “Shin”) in view of Hatakeyama (US 2015/0236274 A1) (hereafter “Hatakeyama”) set forth in the last Office action have been considered but are moot because the rejections have been withdrawn as being overcome by amendment as described above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-5, 7-8, and 10-20 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 claim 1: Claim 1 recites definitions for variables Ar1, Ar3, and R50. However, these substituent variables do not appear in the structural formulas of claim 1. It is unclear what these substituent variables are referring to, rendering the claim indefinite.
For purposes of examination, the claim is being interpreted such that the variables Ar1, Ar3, and R50 are not present.
Regarding claims 2 and 10-20: Claims 2 and 10-20 are rejected due to their dependence from claim 1.
Regarding claim 3: Claim 3 is rejected due to its dependence from claim 1.
Additionally, Claim 3 recites definitions for variables Ar1 and Ar3. However, these substituent variables do not appear in the structural formulas of claim 1. It is unclear what these substituent variables are referring to, rendering the claim indefinite.
For purposes of examination, the claim is being interpreted such that the variables Ar1 and Ar3 are not present.
Regarding claim 4: Claim 4 is rejected due to its dependence from claim 1.
Additionally, Claim 4 recites definitions for variables Ar1 and Ar3. However, these substituent variables do not appear in the structural formulas of claim 1. It is unclear what these substituent variables are referring to, rendering the claim indefinite.
For purposes of examination, the claim is being interpreted such that the variables Ar1 and Ar3 are not present.
Regarding claim 5: Claim 5 is rejected due to its dependence from claim 1.
Additionally, Claim 5 recites definitions for variables Ar1 and Ar3. However, these substituent variables do not appear in the structural formulas of claim 1. It is unclear what these substituent variables are referring to, rendering the claim indefinite.
For purposes of examination, the claim is being interpreted such that the variables Ar1 and Ar3 are not present.
Regarding claim 7: Claim 7 is rejected due to its dependence from claim 1.
Claim 7 recites definitions for variable R50. However, this substituent variable does not appear in the structural formulas of claim 1. It is unclear what this substituent variable is referring to, rendering the claim indefinite.
For purposes of examination, the claim is being interpreted such that the variable R50 is not present.
Regarding claim 8: Claim 8 is rejected due to its dependence from claim 1.
Claim 8 recites definitions for variable R50. However, this substituent variable does not appear in the structural formulas of claim 1. It is unclear what this substituent variable is referring to, rendering the claim indefinite.
For purposes of examination, the claim is being interpreted such that the variable R50 is not present.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2 and 10-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 3-5 and 7-8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As outlined in the Office action of 18 December 2025, Shin et al. (WO 2022050710 A1—US 20240018164 A1 used as an English language equivalent) (hereafter “Shin”) is the closest prior art. However, Shin does not teach the bridging group comprising the instant *-Ar11-Ar12-X1-Ar2-* or *-Ar31-Ar32-X2-Ar4-*. Neither does the prior art teach modifying Shin such that the compounds of Shin would comprise the instant *-Ar11-Ar12-X1-Ar2-* or *-Ar31-Ar32-X2-Ar4-*.
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 DYLAN CLAY KERSHNER whose telephone number is (303)297-4257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm (Mountain).
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 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.
/DYLAN C KERSHNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights