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 .
Claims 20-40 are pending in this application.
The following application has been reassigned to a new examiner. In view of the transfer of this application and a review of the previous office action, the following new grounds of rejection are made herein.
This action is in response to applicants' amendment dated November 6, 2025. Claims 20-32 and 35-37 have been amended and claims 39 and 40 are newly added.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments filed November 6, 2025 have been fully considered with the following effect:
The applicant's amendments and arguments are sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), anticipation rejection, labeled paragraph 8) in the last office action, which is hereby withdrawn.
The applicant's amendments and arguments are sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 103, obviousness rejection, labeled paragraph 10) in the last office action, which is hereby withdrawn.
In view of the amendment dated November 6, 2025, the following new grounds of rejection apply:
Election/Restrictions
Claims 33, 34 and 38 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 3, 2025.
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 35-37, 39 and 40 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 amendment adding claims 39 and 40 where the compounds of formula (1’) are being claimed is not described in the specification with respect to the compounds of the instant invention. There is no indication of the sub-genus “formula (1’)”.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office action.
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 22, 26, 27 and 40 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The following reasons apply:
Claim 22 is vague and indefinite in that it is not known what is meant by “(2-1) to (4-2)” in the third line of the claim, is a range which does not particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicants regard as the invention, i.e., it fails to indicate that which is embraced by the range. The definitions of each individual variable must be clearly set forth herein.
Claim 26 is vague and indefinite in that it is not known what is meant by “(2-1-1) to (4-2-2)” in the third line of the claim, is a range which does not particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicants regard as the invention, i.e., it fails to indicate that which is embraced by the range. The definitions of each individual variable must be clearly set forth herein.
Claim 27 is vague and indefinite in that it is not known what is meant by “(2-1-1-1) to (4-2-2-4)” in the third line of the claim, is a range which does not particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicants regard as the invention, i.e., it fails to indicate that which is embraced by the range. The definitions of each individual variable must be clearly set forth herein.
Claim 40 is vague and indefinite in that it is dependent upon itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 20-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Cha et al., U.S. Patent 10,862,045. Cha teaches the organic electroluminescent device where there is the presence of one or more layers of a hole injection layer, an electron blocking layer, a hole transport layer, and a layer which injects and transports holes simultaneously, and one or more layers, i.e. two of the hole-transporting layers comprise a compound of formula (1) where each Z is CH; Z1 is CH or bound to the N of the carbazole moiety; Z3 is CH or bound to the N of the carbazole moiety; Z4 is CH or bound to the N of the carbazole moiety; A is
PNG
media_image1.png
85
78
media_image1.png
Greyscale
; one RA is methyl and the other RA is methyl; one Ar1 is phenyl and the other Ar1 is
PNG
media_image2.png
100
100
media_image2.png
Greyscale
; n is 0; as set forth in compounds 17, 18, 19, 20, 93, etc.
Claim(s) 20-30 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Shimizu et al., JP 2018127409. Shimizu teaches the organic electroluminescent device where there is the presence of a plurality of hole-transporting layers such as a hole-injecting layer and a hole-transporting layer may be provided between the anode and the light-emitting layer, i.e. two, three or four hole-transporting layers comprise a compound of formula (1) where each Z is CH; Z1 is CH; Z4 is CH or bound to the N of the carbazole moiety; A is
PNG
media_image1.png
85
78
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image3.png
120
155
media_image3.png
Greyscale
; one RA is phenyl and the other RA is phenyl; one Ar1 is phenyl and the other Ar1 is naphthyl, benzothiophenyl, phenznthrene, triphenylene, biphenyl, triphenyl, fluorenyl, carbazolyl-phenyl, carbazolyl-biphenyl, etc.; n is 0; as set forth in compounds A121-A240, etc.
Claim Objections
Claim 31 is 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDA L COLEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0665. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6 (flex).
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, Jeffrey H. Murray can be reached at 571-272-9023. 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.
/BRENDA L COLEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1624
Prosecution Insights