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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 2 – 12 and 15 – 20 are pending.
Claims 2 – 9 and 11 are rejected.
Claim 12 is objected.
Claims 10 and 15 – 20 are withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 2 – 12 and 17 – 18 (claim 1 is cancelled), in the reply filed on November 18, 2025 is acknowledged. Applicant further specifically elect the compound CPD001:
PNG
media_image1.png
232
440
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
The compound CPD001 reads on the structure of formula (1)
PNG
media_image2.png
516
696
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, wherein:
PNG
media_image3.png
160
708
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The compound CPD001 reads on the structure of formula (10) (claim 6):
PNG
media_image4.png
316
576
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, wherein:
j is 2, and X is C(R0)2, wherein each R0 is hydrogen,
each R, Ra, Rb, Rc, Rd, Re, Rf, Rg and Rh is hydrogen,
Ar1 is biphenyl, and
Ar2 is fluorenyl.
Examination: Claims 2 – 9 and 11 – 12 reads on Applicant’s elected species. The elected species appears allowable over the prior art. In accordance with MPEP §803.02, the search has been extended to include the scope, wherein:
R2 and R7 are each unsubstituted C10 cycloalkyl (adamantyl),
Ar1 is a substituted C6 aryl (phenyl), and
Ar2 is a substituted fluorenyl.
Claims 10 and 15 – 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Priority
PNG
media_image5.png
106
388
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. However, the filing dates of the priority documents are not perfected unless Applicant has filed both, a certified copy of each document and an English language translation (if the document is not in English) (see, 37 CFR 1.55(g)(3)). Thus, the claims are examined with an effective filing date of June 11, 2022 (the filing date of the PCT Application).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 10, 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 6 – 7 and 11 – 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2: Each definition of the variables L and Ar2 recites the limitations "selected from… or …”. Emphasis added. See, e.g., page 3, lines 1-4. The limitations are grammatically incorrect because they do not recite proper Markush group language. In order to overcome the objections, Applicant may amend the limitations as follows:
Page 3, lines 1-2: “L is independent selected from… C6-C30 arylene, [[or]] and substituted or unsubstituted C2-C30 heteroarylene”, and
Page 3, lines 3-4: “…Ar2 is selected from… C6-C30 arylene, [[or]] and substituted or unsubstituted C2-C30 heteroarylene”.
Claim 6: The definition of the variables R, R0, and Ra-Rh recites the limitation "selected from… C3-C6 cycloalkyl, C6-C10 aryl”. See, e.g., page 5, lines 6-10. The limitation is grammatically incorrect because it does not recite proper conjunction “and”. In order to overcome the objections, Applicant may amend the limitations as follows: “R, R0, and Ra-Rh are independently selected from… C3-C6 cycloalkyl, and C6-C10 aryl”.
Claim 7: The definition of the variables R, R0, and Ra-Rh recites the limitation "selected from… C1-C6 alkyl, C3-C6 cycloalkyl”. See, lines 4-6 of the claim. The limitation is grammatically incorrect because it does not recite proper conjunction “and”. In order to overcome the objections, Applicant may amend the limitations as follows: “the R, R0, and Ra-Rh are independently selected from… C1-C6 alkyl, and C3-C6 cycloalkyl”.
Claim 11: Each definitions of the variables Ar1 and Ar2 recites the limitations "selected from… or …”. Emphasis added. See, lines 2 – 7 of the claim. The limitations are grammatically incorrect because they do not recite proper Markush group language. In order to overcome the objections, Applicant may amend the limitations as follows:
Lines 2 – 4 of the claim: “… Ar1 is selected from substituted or unsubstituted phenyl… substituted or unsubstituted naphthyl, [[or]] and substituted or unsubstituted fluorenyl”, and
Lines 4 – 7 of the claim: “… Ar2 is selected from substituted or unsubstituted phenyl… substituted or unsubstituted dibenzofuranyl, [[or]] and substituted or unsubstituted carbazolyl”.
Claim 12 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.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4 – 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the R2 and the R7 are the same or different”. See, lines 2 – 3 of the claim. Claim 4 is dependent upon the spiro compound according to claim 3. Claim 3 claims the limitation “R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, and R7 are substituted or unsubstituted C3-C20 cycloalkyl, or substituted or unsubstituted C3-C20 heterocyclic alkyl”. it is expected that the variables R2 and R7 can be the same or different groups. Thus, claim 4 is in improper dependent form because it does not further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Dependent claim 5 also does not remedy the issue present in claim 4 and is also considered improper.
In order to overcome the rejection, Applicant may cancel the claims, or amend claim 4 as follows:
The limitation “the R2 and the R7 are the same
The limitation “the R2 and the R7 are
to place the claims in proper dependent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 2 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhao et al. CN 112442023 A (publ. March 5, 2021), as disclosed in the IDS dated February 10, 2023.
Zhao et al. teach a compound II-150:
PNG
media_image6.png
454
524
media_image6.png
Greyscale
. See, e.g., page 45, paragraph [0106].
The prior art anticipates the instant claims as presented below:
Claim 2, directed to a spiro compound having a structure as shown in formula (1):
PNG
media_image2.png
516
696
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, wherein:
m=0, n=4, k=3 and p=1,
L is a single bond,
Ar1 is a C6 aryl (phenyl) substituted with fluorenyl,
Ar2 is fluorenyl substituted with two C6 aryl (phenyl),
R1, R3 – R6, and R8 – R10 are each hydrogen, and
R2 and R7 are each unsubstituted C10 cycloalkyl (adamantyl).
Claims 3 – 5, wherein the structure is of formula (2):
PNG
media_image7.png
274
484
media_image7.png
Greyscale
, wherein:
R2 and R7 are different (claim 4), and
L is a single bond (claim 5).
Claims 6 – 9 and 11, wherein the structure is of formula (10):
PNG
media_image4.png
316
576
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, wherein:
j is 3, and X is C(R0)2,
one R0, one R, one of Ra or Rb, and one of Rc or Rd are connected to each other to form a ring structure,
one R0, one R, one of Re or Rf, and one of Rg or Rh are connected to each other to form a ring structure,
the other R0 s, Ra, Rb, Rc, Rd, Re, Rf, Rg and Rh are each hydrogen,
Ar1 is a C6 aryl (phenyl) substituted with fluorenyl, and
Ar2 is fluorenyl substituted with two C6 aryl (phenyl).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sagar Patel whose telephone number is (571)272-1317. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9am to 5pm 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, Amy L. Clark can be reached at (571) 272-1310. 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.
/Sagar Patel/Examiner, Art Unit 1626
/KAMAL A SAEED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1626
Prosecution Insights