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 .
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.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on February 16, 2026.
Applicant’s amendment to the specification, filed February 16, 2026, is hereby entered.
Claims 16 and 20 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1 – 15 have been cancelled previously.
Claims 16 – 33 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Amendments
Applicant's amendments to the claims, filed February 16, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 16 – 20, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xia as set forth in the office action filed November 26, 2025.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed February 16, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 21, 22, and 25 – 33 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia as set forth in the office action filed November 26, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 16 – 33 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references provided in the Information Disclosure Statements filed January 5, 2026, February 6, 2026, and March 9, 2026 have been considered. Signed copies of the corresponding 1449 forms have been included with this office action.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 16 – 33 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 3, 5 – 9, and 16 – 26 of U.S. Patent No. 12,466,994. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because compounds within the scope of Formula I in the instant application overlap in scope with compounds within the scope of Formula I in claim 1 of the ‘324 patent, as evidenced by Formula II in claim 3 of the ‘994 patent.
Claims 16 – 33 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16 – 33 of copending Application No. 17/996926 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because compounds within the scope of Formula I in the instant application overlap in scope with compounds within the scope of Formula IIIe-0 in claim 1 of the ‘926 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 16 – 33 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16 – 33 of copending Application No. 17/997024 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because compounds within the scope of Formula I in the instant application overlap in scope with compounds within the scope of Formula I in claim 1 of the ‘024 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 16 – 33 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 22 of copending Application No. 18/001661 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because compounds within the scope of Formula I in the instant application overlap in scope with compounds within the scope of Formula I in claim 1 of the ‘661 application as evidenced by formula (V) in claim 6 of the ‘661 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 16 – 33 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 13 of copending Application No. 18/022606 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because compounds within the scope of Formula I in the instant application overlap in scope with compounds within the scope of Formula I in claim 1 of the ‘606 application as evidenced by the compounds on page 172 in claim 11 of the ‘606 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 16 – 33 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 17 of copending Application No. 18/022736 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because compounds within the scope of Formula I in the instant application overlap in scope with compounds within the scope of Formula I in claim 1 of the ‘736 application as evidenced by the compounds on page 499 in claim 9 of the ‘736 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 16 – 33 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 17 of copending Application No. 18/251978 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because compounds within the scope of Formula I in the instant application overlap in scope with compounds within the scope of Formula III in claim 3 of the ‘978 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 16 – 33 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16 – 35 of copending Application No. 18/284518 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because compounds within the scope of Formula I in the instant application overlap in scope with compounds within the scope of Formula I in claim 1 of the ‘518 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 16 – 33 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 15 of copending Application No. 18/550101 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because compounds within the scope of Formula I in the instant application overlap in scope with compounds within the scope of Formula I in claim 1 of the ‘101 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 16 – 33 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16 – 35 of copending Application No. 18/554618 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because compounds within the scope of Formula I in the instant application overlap in scope with compounds within the scope of Formula I in claim 1 of the ‘618 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 16 – 33 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 15 of copending Application No. 18/555850 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because compounds within the scope of Formula I in the instant application overlap in scope with compounds within the scope of Formula I in claim 1 of the ‘850 application as evidenced by Formula IIa-21 in claim 6 of the ‘850.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 16 – 33 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 15 of copending Application No. 18/556342 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because compounds within the scope of Formula I in the instant application overlap in scope with compounds within the scope of Formula I in claim 1 of the ‘342 application as evidenced by Formula IIIa in claim 6 of the ‘342.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 16 – 33 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16 – 40 of copending Application No. 18/556863 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because compounds within the scope of Formula I in the instant application overlap in scope with compounds within the scope of Formula I in claim 16 of the ‘863 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 16 – 33 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16 – 35 of copending Application No. 18/556859 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because compounds within the scope of Formula I in the instant application overlap in scope with compounds within the scope of Formula I in claim 16 of the ‘859 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 16 – 33 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16 – 35 of copending Application No. 18/556874 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because compounds within the scope of Formula I in the instant application overlap in scope with compounds within the scope of Formula I in claim 16 of the ‘874 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 16 – 33 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16 – 35 of copending Application No. 18/729878 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because compounds within the scope of Formula I in the instant application overlap in scope with compounds within the scope of Formula I in claim 16 of the ‘878 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 16 – 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Duck (WO2020135953A1, cited previously).
As per claims 16 – 21, and 23, Duck teaches:
An organic molecule, comprising a structure represented by Formula I
PNG
media_image1.png
242
220
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Duck teaches compounds of Formula I
PNG
media_image2.png
294
230
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Page 1). A particular compound taught by Duck is compound 1 on page 37
PNG
media_image3.png
180
136
media_image3.png
Greyscale
. This compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein n is 1; X is NR3 wherein R3 is a C6 aryl group, Rd and Re form a mono-cyclic aromatic ring system, RV is a C6 aryl group as required by claim 21 and the remaining R atoms are all hydrogen. The compound is represented by Formula III in claim 18 and Formula III-2 in claim 20.)
Duck is eligible as prior art under 102(a)(2) based on its earlier effectively filed date and could be used in a rejection against the claimed as currently presented. However, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Claims 16 – 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hayano (US20210202861A1).
As per claims 16 – 19, 21, 23, and 24, Hayano teaches:
An organic molecule, comprising a structure represented by Formula I
PNG
media_image1.png
242
220
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Hayano teaches compounds of Formula I
PNG
media_image4.png
136
270
media_image4.png
Greyscale
([0008]). A particular compound taught by Hayano is compound B-11 on page 14
PNG
media_image5.png
246
280
media_image5.png
Greyscale
. This compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein n is 1; X is O; Rd and Re form a mono-cyclic aromatic ring system as do the two bottom Ra groups, and RV and RIV. Specifically, RV is a C6 aryl which forms a polycyclic heteroaromatic fused ring system with RIV as required by claim 21. The remaining R atoms are hydrogen. The compound is represented by Formula III in claim 18 and Formula III-2 in claim 20.)
As per claims 20 and 22, another compound taught by Hayano is compound B-2 on page 27
PNG
media_image6.png
238
294
media_image6.png
Greyscale
, which contains a nitrogen atom in the six-membered boron ring and reads on Formula III-2 of claim 20 and RV forms a heteroaromatic fused ring system with one or more substituents as required by claim 22.
Hayano is eligible as prior art under 102(a)(2) based on its earlier effectively filed date and could be used in a rejection against the claimed as currently presented. However, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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 25 – 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duck (WO2020135953A1, cited previously) as applied to claims 16 – 21 and 23 above.
As per claims 25, 26, 28 and 31, Duck does not specifically teach the use of compound 1 in a device. Duck teaches:
An optoelectronic device comprising the organic molecule as a luminescent emitter, wherein the optoelectronic device is selected from the group consisting of organic light-emitting diodes (Page 1, Paragraph 2: “The invention relates to organic light-emitting molecules and their use in organic light-emitting diodes.”)
Duck teaches an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer and that the compound is in the emission layer as discussed above. It would have been obvious to use the compound in the organic layer with the device structure of Duck as Duck demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As per claims 27 and 32, Duck teaches:
A composition comprising (a) the organic molecule as an emitter, (b) and emitter and/or host material, which differs from the organic molecule, (c) optionally a dye and/or solvent (Page 20, Paragraph 4: “In one embodiment, the light-emitting layer comprises not only the organic molecules according to the invention, but also a host material whose triplet (T1) and singlet (S1) energy levels are energetically higher thant he triplet (T1) and singlet (S1) energy levels of the organic molecule.” As the dye and solvent are optional, they are not required to be taught by the prior art reference.)
As per claim 29, Duck teaches:
The optoelectronic device comprising a substrate, an anode, and a cathode, wherein the anode or the cathode is disposed on the substrate, and a light-emitting layer between the anode and the cathode, and comprising the organic molecule (Claim 14: “Optoelectronic device according to claim 13, comprising a substrate, an anode, and a cathode, wherein the anode or the cathode is disposed on the substrate and a light emitting layer, which is arranged between the anode and the cathode and which comprises the organic molecule or the composition.”)
As per claims 30 and 33 Duck teaches,
A method for producing an optoelectronic device, the method comprising depositing the composition by a vacuum evaporation method or from a solution (Page 30, Last Paragraph: “Vapor deposition processes, for example, comprise thermal (co)evaporation, chemical vapor deposition and physical vapor deposition”)
Claims 25 – 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayano (US20210202861A1) as applied to claims 16 – 24 above.
As per claims 25, 26, 28 and 31, Hayano does not specifically teach the use of compound B-11 in a device. Hayano teaches:
An optoelectronic device comprising the organic molecule as a luminescent emitter, wherein the optoelectronic device is selected from the group consisting of organic light-emitting diodes (Abstract: “An organic electroluminescence device includes a first electrode, a hole transport region disposed on the first electrode, an emission layer disposed on the hole transport region, an electron transport region disposed on the emission layer, and a second electrode disposed on the electron transport region. The emission layer includes a polycyclic compound represented by Formula 1 to thereby achieve high luminous efficiency.”)
Hayano teaches an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer and that the compound is in the emission layer as discussed above. It would have been obvious to use the compound in the organic layer with the device structure of Hayano as Hayano demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As per claims 27 and 32, Hayano teaches:
A composition comprising (a) the organic molecule as an emitter, (b) and emitter and/or host material, which differs from the organic molecule, (c) optionally a dye and/or solvent ([0135]: “In an embodiment, the emission layer EML includes a host and a dopant, the host may be a host for delayed fluorescence emission, and the dopant may be a dopant for delayed fluorescence emission. In some embodiments, the polycyclic compound of an embodiment represented by Formula 1 may be included as a dopant material of the emission layer EML.” As the dye and solvent are optional, they are not required to be taught by the prior art reference.)
As per claim 29, Hayano teaches:
The optoelectronic device comprising a substrate, an anode, and a cathode, wherein the anode or the cathode is disposed on the substrate, and a light-emitting layer between the anode and the cathode, and comprising the organic molecule (Abstract: “An organic electroluminescence device includes a first electrode, a hole transport region disposed on the first electrode, an emission layer disposed on the hole transport region, an electron transport region disposed on the emission layer, and a second electrode disposed on the electron transport region. The emission layer includes a polycyclic compound represented by Formula 1 to thereby achieve high luminous efficiency.”)
As per claims 30 and 33 Hayano teaches,
A method for producing an optoelectronic device, the method comprising depositing the composition by a vacuum evaporation method or from a solution (In [0052], Hayano teaches that the layers may be formed via vacuum deposition.)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA N CHANDHOK whose telephone number is (571)272-5780. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 6:30 - 3:30.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached on (571) 270-7692. 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.
/JENNA N CHANDHOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789