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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 05/22/2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 10-11 have been canceled.
Claim 16 has been added.
Claims 1-9 and 12-16 are pending.
Claims 1-3, 12-13, and 15 have been amended.
The amendment of claim s 12-13 and 15 have overcome the objections of claims 12-13 and 15 set forth in the last Office Action.
The amendments of claims 1-3, 12-13, and 15 have overcome the rejections of claims 1-3, 6-8, and 12-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (US 2021/0408386 A1, hereafter Song) in view of Hatakeyama et al. (US 2019/0393419 A1, hereafter Hatakeyama). The rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see page 11-14 of the reply filed 05/22/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1-3, 6-8, and 12-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (US 2021/0408386 A1, hereafter Song) in view of Hatakeyama et al. (US 2019/0393419 A1, hereafter Hatakeyama) set forth in the Office Action of 02/26/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that Song even in view of Hatakeyama fails to provide the organic molecule recited in amended claim 1.
The rejections refer to the Compound of Song as modified by Hatakeyama, the Compound of Song as modified by Hatakeyama (3) and (4) (sections 17, 43, and 58 of the last Office Action). None of them reads on the limitation of Formula I of the amended claims. Thus the rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments see page 14-16 of the reply filed 05/22/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1-9 and 12-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2021/0053998 A1, hereafter Kim) in view of Hatakeyama et al. (US 2019/0393419 A1) set forth in the Office Action of 02/26/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that Kim even in view of Hatakeyama fails to provide the organic molecule recited in amended claim (page 16).
Respectfully, the Examiner does not agree.
First, the transitional term "comprising", which is synonymous with "including," "containing," or "characterized by," is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps. See MPEP 2111.03 I. The claim requires the claimed organic molecule to comprise a structure of formula I.
The rejection refers to Compound of Kim as modified by Hatakeyama (section 71 of the last Office Action).
PNG
media_image1.png
375
779
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Compound of Kim as modified by Hatakeyama reads on all the features of the organic molecule of the instant claims because the Compound of Kim as modified by Hatakeyama comprises the structure of Applicant’s Formula I.
The structural formula of the Compound of Kim as modified by Hatakeyama is not same as Applicant’s Formula I of the amended claim 1; however, it reads on all the limitation of the organic molecule claimed in the claim 1, because the claim 1 does not require the organic molecule to be represented by Formula I but requires the organic molecule to comprise the structure of Formula I (emphasis added).
Applicant may argues that there are hydrogen atoms at the positions of every unsubstituted carbon of Applicant’s Formula I. However, claims are interpreted in the broadest reasonable manner (BRI) in light of specification. In the Formula I, the carbon atom having no substituent in the Applicant’s Formula I can be interpreted as an unsubstituted carbon, not a hydrogen-substituted carbon, unless there is a specific definition provided in the specification, and it appears that there is no such definition. Thus, the Compound of Kim as modified by Hatakeyama reads on all the limitation of the organic molecule claimed in the instant claims.
For the purpose of overcoming the rejections, Applicant may be suggested to use a language such as an organic molecule represented by Formula I. It is further informed that similar issues are shown in claims 5-9 and 16. Those claims should be amended similarly to overcome the rejections.
Secondly, there is a second set of rejections referring to the Compound of Kim as modified by Hatakeyama (3) which has the same structure as Applicant’s Formula I (see section 84 of the last Office Action).
PNG
media_image2.png
296
756
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Both Compound of Kim as modified by Hatakeyama and Compound of Kim as modified by Hatakeyama (3) still read on all the limitation of Applicant’s Formula I of the amended claims.
For at least this reason, the argument is not found to be persuasive. The rejections are maintained.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 16, Applicant recites “… which consists of an organic molecule organic molecule comprising …”. One of duplicates should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 7-9 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 7, claim 7 claims Formula Ic having a mesityl structure of
PNG
media_image3.png
86
102
media_image3.png
Greyscale
at the position corresponding to the phenyl ring substituted by RVI to RX of Formula I. The mesityl structure is not encompassed by the phenyl ring substituted by RVI to RX of Formula I. It is unclear what is the limitation of the structure of Formula Ic at the position corresponding to the phenyl ring substituted by RVI to RX of Formula I.
For the purpose of prosecution, the Examiner interprets the limitation to mean that the structure of the mesityl group is replaced by the structure
PNG
media_image4.png
121
120
media_image4.png
Greyscale
of Formula I of claim 1 (i.e. the limitation of the mesityl structure is replaced by the structure at the equivalent position of the Formula I of claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 claims Formula Id having a biphenyl structure of
PNG
media_image5.png
107
148
media_image5.png
Greyscale
at the position corresponding to the phenyl ring substituted by RVI to RX of Formula I. The biphenyl structure is not encompassed by the phenyl ring substituted by RVI to RX of Formula I. It is unclear what is the limitation of the structure of Formula Id at the position corresponding to the phenyl ring substituted by RVI to RX of Formula I.
For the purpose of prosecution, the Examiner interprets the limitation to mean that the structure of the biphenyl group is replaced by the structure
PNG
media_image4.png
121
120
media_image4.png
Greyscale
of Formula I of claim 1 (i.e. the limitation of the biphenyl structure is replaced by the structure at the equivalent position of the Formula I of claim 1).
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 claims Formula Ie having a cyclohexyl phenyl structure of
PNG
media_image6.png
105
147
media_image6.png
Greyscale
at the position corresponding to the phenyl ring substituted by RVI to RX of Formula I. The cyclohexyl phenyl structure is not encompassed by the phenyl ring substituted by RVI to RX of Formula I. It is unclear what is the limitation of the structure of Formula Ie at the position corresponding to the phenyl ring substituted by RVI to RX of Formula I.
For the purpose of prosecution, the Examiner interprets the limitation to mean that the structure of the cyclohexyl phenyl group is replaced by the structure
PNG
media_image4.png
121
120
media_image4.png
Greyscale
of Formula I of claim 1 (i.e. the limitation of the cyclohexyl phenyl structure is replaced by the structure at the equivalent position of the Formula I of claim 1).
Claims 7-9 are rejected 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.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 claims Formula Ic having a mesityl structure of
PNG
media_image3.png
86
102
media_image3.png
Greyscale
at the position corresponding to the phenyl ring substituted by RVI to RX of Formula I. The mesityl structure is not encompassed by the phenyl ring substituted by RVI to RX of Formula I. Currently claim 7 is dependent from claim 1. Therefore, claim 7 fails to include all the limitations of the claims upon which they depend.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 claims Formula Id having a biphenyl structure of
PNG
media_image5.png
107
148
media_image5.png
Greyscale
at the position corresponding to the phenyl ring substituted by RVI to RX of Formula I. The biphenyl structure is not encompassed by the phenyl ring substituted by RVI to RX of Formula I. Currently claim 8 is dependent from claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 fails to include all the limitations of the claims upon which they depend.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 claims Formula Ie having a cyclohexyl phenyl structure of
PNG
media_image6.png
105
147
media_image6.png
Greyscale
at the position corresponding to the phenyl ring substituted by RVI to RX of Formula I. The cyclohexyl phenyl structure is not encompassed by the phenyl ring substituted by RVI to RX of Formula I. Therefore, claim 9 fails to include all the limitations of the claims upon which they depend.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-9 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2021/0053998 A1, hereafter Kim) in view of Hatakeyama et al. (US 2019/0393419 A1).
Regarding claims 1-9 and 12-15, Kim discloses an organic light emitting diode comprising a light emitting layer containing a polycyclic compound of Formula 1 and an anthracene compound of Formula 2 ([0014]).
PNG
media_image7.png
442
739
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Kim exemplifies an organic light emitting diode comprising a substrate, an anode (ITO), a light emitting layer (Compound 1-216 as an emitter and Compound 1-216 as a host), a cathode, wherein the light emitting layer is produced by vacuum evaporation (“vacuum-deposited”, Example 27 in [0286]-[0289] and Table 1).
The Compound 1-126 has similar structure as Applicant’s Formula I. The only difference is that the isopropyl groups at the positions corresponding to R2 and R3 are required to be each a mesityl group; however, Kim does teach that R1 to R3 can be a substituted or unsubstituted C5-C30 aryl group ([0020]) and exemplify a mesityl group as the substituted C5-C30 aryl group (see examples including at least Compound 1-11 in [0093]).
PNG
media_image8.png
294
428
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Hatakeyama discloses a B,N-containing polycyclic compound used for an organic light emitting device ([0001]).
Hatakeyama teaches that a group having large steric hindrance provides adjustability of an emission wavelength and selectivity in synthesis ([0136]). Hatakeyama exemplifies a mesityl group,
PNG
media_image9.png
113
132
media_image9.png
Greyscale
as the group having large steric hindrance ([0136]-[0137]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound 1-216 of the organic light emitting diode of Kim by substituting the isopropyl groups with mesityl groups, as taught by Kim and Hatakeyama.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provides high steric hindrance, adjustability of the emission wavelength, and the selectivity in synthesis, based on the teaching of Hatakeyama.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the substituents at the position corresponding to R2 or R3 with a mesityl group would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Organic light emitting diode of Kim as modified by Hatakeyama comprising a substrate, an anode (ITO), a light emitting layer (Compound of Kim as modified by Hatakeyama as an emitter and Compound 1-216 as a host), a cathode, wherein the light emitting layer is produced by a vacuum evaporation method; the light emitting layer materials are a composition; the organic light emitting diode is an optoelectronic device.
PNG
media_image1.png
375
779
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In the device of Kim, the Compound of Kim as modified by Hatakeyama reads on all the features of the organic molecule claimed in the instant claims because the Compound of Kim as modified by Hatakeyama comprises the structure of Applicant’s Formula I. It should be noted that the Compound of Kim as modified by Hatakeyama is not same as the formula I; however, the compound reads on the claimed organic molecule, because the claim does not require the molecule to be represented by formula I but require to comprise the structure of formula I (emphasis added).
The Compound of Kim as modified by Hatakeyama reads on all the limitations of claims 1-5 and 7-9.
The Organic light emitting diode of Kim as modified by Hatakeyama reads on all the limitations of claims 12-15.
Regarding claims 1-5, 7-9, and 12-15, Kim discloses an organic light emitting diode comprising a light emitting layer containing a polycyclic compound of Formula 1 and an anthracene compound of Formula 2 ([0014]). Kim exemplifies Compound 1-1 as the Formula 1 ([0093]).
PNG
media_image10.png
303
621
media_image10.png
Greyscale
The Compound 1-1 does not have mesityl groups at the positions corresponding to R2 and R3 of the Formula 1 of Kim; however, Kim does teach that R1 to R3 can be a substituted or unsubstituted C5-C30 aryl group ([0020]) and exemplify a mesityl group as the substituted C5-C30 aryl group (see examples including at least Compound 1-11 in [0093]). Kim also exemplifies the substitution positions 3 and 3’ to substitute the substituents R2 and R3 (see examples including at least Compound 1-159 in [0093]).
Hatakeyama discloses a B,N-containing polycyclic compound used for an organic light emitting device ([0001]).
Hatakeyama teaches that a group having large steric hindrance provides adjustability of an emission wavelength and selectivity in synthesis ([0136]). Hatakeyama exemplifies a mesityl group,
PNG
media_image9.png
113
132
media_image9.png
Greyscale
as the group having large steric hindrance ([0136]-[0137]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound 1-1 of Kim by substituting mesityl groups at the positions 3 and 3’ in the figure above corresponding to the R2 and R3 of Formula 1 of Kim, as taught by Kim and Hatakeyama.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provides high steric hindrance, adjustability of the emission wavelength, and the selectivity in synthesis, based on the teaching of Hatakeyama.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the substituents at the positions corresponding to R2 or R3 with a mesityl group would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Compound of Kim as modified by Hatakeyama (2).
PNG
media_image11.png
237
716
media_image11.png
Greyscale
The Compound of Kim as modified by Hatakeyama (2) has similar structure as Applicant’s Formula Ib of the instant claim 6; the only difference is that the unsubstituted phenyl at the positions corresponding to R4 of Formula 1 of Kim are required to be di-t-butyl phenyl; however, Kim does teach that the R4 of Formula 1 can be a substituted or unsubstituted C5-C30 aryl group ([0075]) and exemplify a di-t-butyl phenyl group (see examples including at least Compound 1-223 in [0093]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound of Kim as modified by Hatakeyama (2) by substituting the unsubstituted phenyl at the positions corresponding to R4 of Formula 1 of Kim with di-t-butyl phenyl groups, as taught by Kim and Hatakeyama.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of phenyl at the positions corresponding to R4 with di-t-butyl phenyl would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
PNG
media_image2.png
296
756
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Compound of Kim as modified by Hatakeyama (3), meeting on all the limitations of claims 1-5 and 7-9.
Kim in view of Hatakeyama does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising the Compound of Kim as modified by Hatakeyama (3); however, Kim does teach that the compound of Formula 1 of Kim can be included in the light emitting layer of an organic light emitting device ([0014]).
Kim teaches the structure of an organic light emitting diode comprising a substrate, an anode (ITO), a light emitting layer (Compound of Kim as an emitter and Compound 1-216 as a host), a cathode, wherein the light emitting layer is produced by vacuum evaporation (“vacuum-deposited”, Example 27 in [0286]-[0289] and Table 1).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound of Kim as modified by Hatakeyama (3) by incorporating it into the light emitting layer of an organic light emitting device, as taught by Kim and Hatakeyama.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the compound of Formula 1 of Kim in the device of Kim would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Organic light emitting diode of Kim as modified by Hatakeyama (2) comprising a substrate, an anode (ITO), a light emitting layer (Compound of Kim as modified by Hatakeyama (3) as an emitter and Compound 1-216 of Kim as a host), a cathode, wherein the light emitting layer is produced by a vacuum evaporation method; the light emitting layer materials are a composition; the organic light emitting diode is an optoelectronic device, meeting all the limitations of claims 12-15.
Regarding claim 6, the Compound of Kim as modified by Hatakeyama reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The Compound of Kim as modified by Hatakeyama has similar structure as Applicant’s Formula Ib of the instant claim 6; the only difference is that the di-t-butyl phenyl at the position corresponding to R4 of Formula 1 of Kim is required to be a terphenyl; however, Kim does teach that the R4 of Formula 1 can be a substituted or unsubstituted C5-C30 aryl group ([0075]) and exemplify a terphenyl group at the position R4 (see examples including at least Compound 1-19 in [0093]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound of Kim as modified by Hatakeyama by substituting the di-t-butyl phenyl at the position corresponding to R4 of Formula 1 of Kim with a terphenyl group, as taught by Kim and Hatakeyama.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The di-t-butyl phenyl at the positions corresponding to R4 with terphenyl would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Compound of Kim as modified by Hatakeyama (4).
PNG
media_image12.png
352
698
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, the Compound of Kim as modified by Hatakeyama (3) reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The Compound of Kim as modified by Hatakeyama (3) has similar structure as Applicant’s Formula Ib of the instant claim 6; the only difference is that the di-t-butyl phenyl at the position corresponding to R4 of Formula 1 of Kim is required to be a terphenyl; however, Kim does teach that the R4 of Formula 1 can be a substituted or unsubstituted C5-C30 aryl group ([0075]) and exemplify a terphenyl group at the position R4 (see examples including at least Compound 1-19 in [0093]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound of Kim as modified by Hatakeyama by substituting the di-t-butyl phenyl at the position corresponding to R4 of Formula 1 of Kim with a terphenyl group, as taught by Kim and Hatakeyama.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The di-t-butyl phenyl at the positions corresponding to R4 with terphenyl would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Compound of Kim as modified by Hatakeyama (5).
PNG
media_image13.png
325
756
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al. (US 2020/0176679 A1, hereafter Jeong) in view of Hatakeyama et al. (US 2019/0393419 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Jeong discloses a polycyclic compound of Formula 1 ([0046]-[0048]) and exemplifies Compound 318 ([0059]).
PNG
media_image14.png
349
664
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Jeong does not disclose a specific organic light emitting diode comprising the Compound 318 of Jeong; however, Jeong does teach an organic light emitting diode comprising a light emitting layer, wherein the light emitting layer can contain the compound of Formula 1 of Jeong alone ([0063]).
Jeong teaches the structure of the organic light emitting diode comprising an anode, a light emitting layer, and a cathode ([0064]). Jeong further teaches that the anode can be formed by coating an anode material on a substrate such as glass ([0067]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound 318 of Jeong by incorporating the compound alone into the light emitting layer of an organic light emitting diode having a structure of a substrate, an anode, a light emitting layer, and a cathode as taught by Jeong.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the light emitting layer materials of Jeong in the device of Jeong would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified organic light emitting device of Jeong comprising a substrate, an anode, a light emitting layer containing Compound 318 of Jeong alone, and a cathode.
The Compound 318 of Jeong has similar structure as Applicant’s Formula I. The only difference is that the phenyl groups at the positions corresponding to R5 and R10 are required to be each a mesityl group; however, Jeong does teach that R5 and R10 can be a substituted or unsubstituted phenyl group ([0055]).
Hatakeyama discloses a B,N-containing polycyclic compound used for an organic light emitting device ([0001]).
Hatakeyama teaches that a group having large steric hindrance provides adjustability of an emission wavelength and selectivity in synthesis ([0136]). Hatakeyama exemplifies a mesityl group,
PNG
media_image9.png
113
132
media_image9.png
Greyscale
as the group having large steric hindrance ([0136]-[0137]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound 318 of Jeong of the Modified organic light emitting diode of Jeong by substituting the unsubstituted phenyl group at the positions corresponding to R5 and R10 of Formula 1 of Jeong with mesityl groups, as taught by Kim and Hatakeyama.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provides high steric hindrance, adjustability of the emission wavelength, and the selectivity in synthesis, based on the teaching of Hatakeyama.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the substituents at the position corresponding to R5 or R10 with a mesityl group would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Organic light emitting device of Jeong as modified by Hatakeyama comprising a substrate, an anode, a light emitting layer containing Compound of Jeong as modified by Hatakeyama alone, and a cathode, wherein the organic light emitting diode is an optoelectronic device.
PNG
media_image15.png
334
670
media_image15.png
Greyscale
In the device of Jeong as modified by Hatakeyama, the Compound of Jeong as modified by Hatakeyama reads on all the features of the organic molecule claimed in the instant claims because the Compound of Jeong as modified by Hatakeyama comprises the structure of Applicant’s Formula I. It should be noted that the Compound of Jeong as modified by Hatakeyama is not same as the formula I; however, the compound reads on the claimed organic molecule, because the claim does not require the molecule to be represented by formula I but require to comprise the structure of formula I (emphasis added).
The Organic light emitting diode of Jeong as modified by Hatakeyama reads on all the limitations of claim 16.
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 SEOKMIN JEON whose telephone number is (571)272-4599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm EST.
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.
/SEOKMIN JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights