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 March 13, 2026. Claims 1-3 and 5 were amended. Claims 1-5 are pending.
The rejection of claim 5 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or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention is withdrawn due to the amendment of claim 5.
The rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hatakeyama et al. (US 2014/0005399 A1)(listed on 02/23/2023 I.D.S.) as set forth in the last office action is withdrawn due to the amendment of claim 1.
The rejection of claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (US 2014/0005399 A1) as specifically set forth in the last office action is withdrawn due to the amendment of parent claims 1 and 2.
The rejection of claims 3 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (US 2014/0005399 A1) ) as specifically set forth in the last office action is withdrawn due to the amendment of claim 3.
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 2 and 4 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.
Claim 2 defines Q6 and Q8 variables, but the variables are no longer shown in a chemical structure. Accordingly, the intended meaning of Q6 and Q8 is not understood. Clarification and/or correction are required. Claim 4 is included in the rejection as claim 4 depends from claim 2.
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)(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.
Claims 1, 2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2020/0176684 A1).
Lee et al. discloses compounds for an organic electroluminescent device (see abstract). At least the following specific compound TA-04 is taught (see top of page 9):
PNG
media_image1.png
220
274
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
The above TA-04 is considered to comprise core (A) of claim 1. With respect to claim 2, TA-04 is considered to be within instant formula (V) where Q7 is no bond, Q5 is B, Q3 and Q4 are NR12, and a1, a, b, c, and d are each zero. Regarding claim 4, an example device was made using TA-04 (see Table 2, and par. 143-144) where electrodes were provided corresponding to instant first and second “electrical contact”.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (US 2014/0005399 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Hatakeyama et al. teaches II’-1 where X may be B (par. 25) and Rs may bond together (see par. 27-28) per at least instant formula IV of dependent claim 2:
PNG
media_image2.png
152
302
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
With respect to claim 4, Hatakeyama et al. teaches compounds of the reference are used in forming a device such as an organic light emitting element (see par. 1 and claims 9 and 10 on page 77). The material is placed between a positive and a negative electrode (see par. 166). While a specific example compound per instant claims 1 and 2 does not appear to be shown, given the teachings of the reference, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed a compound within formula(s) defined by Hatakeyama discussed above for use within a functional layer of a light emitting device structure wherein the resultant compound(s) and device structure would also meet the limitations of the instant claims. One would expect to achieve an operational device within the disclosure of Hatakeyama with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
With respect to claim 3, Hatakeyama et al. teaches at least formula III’-1 (par. 33):
PNG
media_image3.png
176
348
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
where X may be B (see par. 34) and adjacent Rs may form a further ring (see par. 36) per instant formula VIII. With respect to claim 5, Hatakeyama et al. teaches compounds of the reference are used in forming a device such as an organic light emitting element (see par. 1 and claims 9 and 10 on page 77). The material is placed between a positive and a negative electrode (see par. 166). While a specific example compound per instant claim 3 does not appear to be shown, given the teachings of the reference, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed a compound within formula(s) defined by Hatakeyama for use in a functional layer of a light emitting device structure wherein the resultant compound(s) and device structure would also meet the limitations of the instant claims. One would expect to achieve an operational device within the disclosure of Hatakeyama with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
While instant compound claims 1 and 3 have been amended to remove particular formulas from the claims, the office submits Hatakeyama et al. continues to teach formulas that render claimed compounds obvious as described in the above rejection.
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