DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Amendment filed 06/19/26.
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 rejection of Claim 5 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 as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 03/06/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claim 8 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 as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 03/06/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claim 10 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 as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 03/06/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Oh et al. (US 2023/0121704 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 03/06/26 is overcome by the cancellation of the claim.
The rejection of Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 9, and 11-14 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Oh et al. (US 2023/0121704 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 03/06/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
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.
Claim 15 is 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.
The claim recites a compound of general formula (15) which recites the substituent group -N(Ar8)(Ar9) which renders the exact scope of the claim indefinite as Ar8-9 are nowhere defined.
Correction is required.
Claims 1-6 and 8-15 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 1, which the other claims are dependent upon, and Claims 6 and 11 recite the group “F-substituted p-methylphenyl” for R4 which renders the exact scope of the claims indefinite as it is not clear the exact substituent position of the fluorine (F) on the p-methylphenyl group. The Office has interpreted that the fluorine can lie anywhere (including in the methyl group to form -CFH2) of the p-methylphenyl group for the purpose of this Examination.
Correction is required.
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.
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.
13. Claims 1-4, 8, 9, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (US 2023/0121704 A1).
Oh et al. discloses compounds of the following form:
PNG
media_image1.png
282
366
media_image1.png
Greyscale
([0008]) where X1-2 = independently N(R5), O, S, or Se (only) ([0009]). An embodiment is disclosed:
PNG
media_image2.png
380
438
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 41) such that Ar1 = unsubstituted heteroaromatic group with 12 carbon atoms (N-carbazolyl), Z = S, Ar4 = unsubstituted aromatic group with 6 carbon atoms (benzene), Ar2-3 = substituted aromatic group with 6 carbon atoms (substituted phenyl), and Ar5 = substituted aromatic group with 6 carbon atoms (substituted benzene) of Applicant’s general formulae (1), (2) and (8); Ar6-7 = substituted aromatic group with 6 carbon atoms (substituted phenyl) of Applicant’s general formula (14). However, Oh et al. does not explicitly disclose an embodiment that fully reads on Applicant’s formula (1). Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to modify Compound 149 as disclosed by Oh et al. (above) such that X = Y = O. The motivation is provided by the fact that the modification merely involves an exchange of one atomic linking group (Se) for a functional equivalent (O) selected from a highly finite list as identified by Oh et al. as viable linking groups for X1-2 and belonging to the same group (i.e., of the same electronic valency) and thus can be expected to have highly similar chemical and physical properties, thus rendering the production predictable with a reasonable expectation of success.
Oh et al. further discloses an organic electroluminescent (EL) device (light-emitting component) for the construction of displays comprising a pair of electrodes and interposed therein: hole-transporting region, light-emitting layer, and electron-transporting region (Figs. 1 and 3); its inventive compounds serve as dopant material which is combined with host material in the light-emitting layer ([0023]-[0025], [0150], [0153]). The amount of host material is in excess relative to the amount of dopant material, including at a 99:1 ratio ([0323]).
Response to Arguments
14. Applicant’s arguments (pages 22-27) with respect to the deficiencies of the previously cited prior art have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as set forth above.
Conclusion
15. 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.
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY L YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1137. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 6am-3pm.
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 A 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.
/JAY YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights