DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is responsive to the amendment received February 20, 2026 and remarks filed January 27, 2026. Claims 1, 12, 15, 18, and 20 were amended. Claim 16 is canceled and claim 21 was added. Claims 1-15 and 17-21 are pending. The amended specification (received January 27, 2026) is acknowledged.
The objection to claim 15 set forth in the last office action is withdrawn in view of the claim amendment.
The rejection of claim 12 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or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention is withdrawn due to the amendment of the specification and explanation in the remarks filed on January 27, 2026.
The rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends is withdrawn due to the cancellation of claim 16.
The rejection of claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 14, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ito et al. (US 2013/0306958) is withdrawn due to the claim amendment.
The rejection of claims 9 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (US 2013/0306958 A1) is withdrawn due to the claim amendment.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-10, 14, 15, 17, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimae et al. (US 2019/0006601 A1; cited by examiner on 01/26/2026 PTO-892 form).
Regarding instant Formula I, Nishimae et al. teaches compounds for an electroluminescent device according to Formula I:
PNG
media_image1.png
168
360
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
In the formula, Y may be NR11, O, or S (see par. 14) per instant Y1, each X1 to X10 is a C(R1 to R10) or N (see par. 14) where each of the R1 to R11 are H or a substituent group (see par. 14). The formula corresponds to instant Formula 1 were each of rings A1, A2 and A4 are 6 membered rings. The Formula above may meet the instant Formula I proviso as Y may be other than O and also X7 may be nitrogen if Y is O. With respect to claim 2, the R1 to R10 may be substituent groups (see par. 14, 15). With respect to claim 3, the structure of the above Formula is of instant 1A. Regarding claims 7 and 8, any of above X1 to X3 or X4 to X6 may contain “CR” groups (see par. 14). Regarding claim 9, any of above X1 to X3 or X4 to X6 may contain N as a definition to result in a heterocyclic ring (see par. 14). Regarding claim 10, Y corresponding to Y1 may be O (see par. 14). Regarding devices of claims 14 and 18, the compounds for an electronic device such as OLEDs (see par. 11-13) in a light emitting layer (see par. 368). Regarding claims 15 and 20, the Formula (1) compound for the emitting layer may be used with further host material (see par. 368, 269) such as carbazole derivatives (see par. 321-342). Regarding claim 17, the emitting layer comprises at least one emitter (see par. 216) and with respect to an intended function of the formula 1 compound, the compound is considered to meet the required structural requirements. MPEP 2112.01 sets forth “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).” Regarding claim 19, the material is for an electronic device such as a OLED, which is consider to include a flat display (see par. 11-13, 165-171, 174).
Given the teachings of the reference, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to form compounds of the reference as described above, wherein the resultant compound for a device structure would also meet the limitations of the instant claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6, 11-13, and 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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.
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 Dawn Garrett whose telephone number is (571)272-1523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday (Eastern Time).
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.
/DAWN L GARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights