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 .
Current Status
This action is responsive to the amended claims of 05/14/2026. Claims 2-14 and 16-23 are pending and have been examined on the merits.
Election/Restrictions
The amendments of 05/14/2026 have overcome the previous prior art rejections. Thus, the Markush search has been extended to the Formula X(1) (claims 2-9). No prior art was found.
The Markush search has been further extended to the following species of Formula Y(1):
PNG
media_image1.png
280
230
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image2.png
283
271
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, and
PNG
media_image3.png
229
219
media_image3.png
Greyscale
. These species read on claims 10-14.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
The effective filing date remains 10/01/2021.
Response to Arguments
Examiner acknowledges receipt of and has reviewed the amendments and remarks of 05/14/2026; no new matter is found.
The objections to claim 1 and dependent claims 21-23 are withdrawn since claim 1 has been canceled.
Note, Applicant has addressed the issues pointed out in the previously withdrawn claims, in ¶15 of the previous action.
The 112(b) rejection of claim 1 and dependent claims 21-23 is withdrawn since claim 1 has been canceled. Further, in the remaining claims, Applicant has stated that * denote points of attachment.
The two 102(a)(1) rejections of claims 1 and 21-23 over MORINAKA (¶22-23) are withdrawn. Claim 1 has been canceled.
The two 102(a)(1) rejections of claims 1 and 21-23 over HAN (¶24-25) are withdrawn. Claim 1 has been canceled.
Response to Amendment
Claim Objections
Claims 11 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11, in line 4, please add a space between “and” and “B”:
PNG
media_image4.png
50
265
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
Claim 13, on Pg. 16, please strike the “and” before the structure Y(B-10) and replace the semicolon after the structure Y(B-10) with a comma. This way the listing of structures for Y(B-1) to Y(B-28) is a continuous list.
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 2-14 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 recites:
“Ar1 represents: an aryl group having 6 to 30 carbon atoms, optionally substituted with one or more selected from the group consisting of an alkyl group having 1 to 12 carbon atoms, a cycloalkyl group having 3 to 20 carbon atoms, a cyano group, a diarylboryl group, and a phosphine oxide group, or a pyridyl group optionally substituted with a methyl group or a phenyl group;” and
“Ar2 represents: an aryl group having 6 to 30 carbon atoms, optionally substituted with one or more selected from the group consisting of an alkyl group having 1 to 12 carbon atoms, a cycloalkyl group having 3 to 20 carbon atoms, a cyano group, a diarylboryl group, and a phosphine oxide group, or a pyridyl group optionally substituted with a methyl group or a phenyl group.”
For each of Ar1 and Ar2, it is unclear if the “pyridyl group optionally substituted with a methyl group or a phenyl group” is a direct Ar1/Ar2 moiety OR if this is a substituent on the aryl group having 6 to 30 carbon atoms. Since only commas are used to separate all of the moieties listed, the status of the pyridyl group is unclear. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim are undefined rendering the claim indefinite. Dependent claims 3-9 are similarly rejected since they do not rectify the issue.
To overcome: if the pyridyl group is meant to be a direct Ar1/Ar2 moiety, consider:
1) using a semicolon after both instances of “a phosphine oxide group”, or
2) amending as “or Ar1 represents a pyridyl group optionally substituted with a methyl group or a phenyl group” and “or Ar2 represents a pyridyl group optionally substituted with a methyl group or a phenyl group”.
Claim 10 recites “B represents: an aryl group having 6 to 20 carbon atoms, optionally substituted with one or more selected from the group consisting of an alkyl group having 1 to 12 carbon atoms, a cycloalkyl group having 3 to 20 carbon atoms, a cyano group, a diarylboryl group, and a phosphine oxide group, or a heteroaryl group having 4 to 30 carbon atoms and an oxygen or sulfur atom.” Similar to the logic in ¶18, it is unclear if the “heteroaryl group” recited in the last two lines is a direct B moiety or a substituent on the aryl group having 6 to 20 carbon atoms; again, only commas are used to separate all of the listed moieties. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim are undefined rendering the claim indefinite. Dependent claims 11-14 are similarly rejected since they do not rectify the issue.
Claim 10 recites “Ar1 and Ar2 each independently represent: an aryl group having 6 to 26 carbon atoms, optionally substituted with one or more selected from the group consisting of an alkyl group having 1 to 12 carbon atoms, a cycloalkyl group having 3 to 20 carbon atoms, a cyano group, a diarylboryl group, and a phosphine oxide group, or a pyridinyl group optionally substituted with a methyl group or a phenyl group”. Similar to the logic in ¶18, it is unclear if the “pyridinyl group” recited in the last two lines is a direct Ar1/Ar2 moiety or a substituent on the aryl group having 6 to 26 carbon atoms; again, only commas are used to separate all of the listed moieties. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim are undefined rendering the claim indefinite. Dependent claims 11-14 are similarly rejected since they do not rectify the issue.
Claim 10 recites
PNG
media_image5.png
286
172
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, specifically the variable Ln. The text of the claim does not recite a variable Ln, only variables L and n. As shown in the structure of Y(1), Ln appears to be a single variable, not (L)n wherein L is modified by n. Thus, the variable Ln is not defined and the variables L and n from the text are not found in the structure Y(1). Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim are undefined rendering the claim indefinite. Dependent claims 11-14 are similarly rejected since they do not rectify the issue.
To overcome: please replace the variable Ln in structure Y(1) with (L)n.
Claim 13 recites B is chosen from formulas “Y(B-1) to Y(B-28)” in line 3. However, the claim only provides structures for formulas Y(B-1) to Y(B-10) and Y(B-14) to Y(B-28). No structure is provided for Y(B-11), Y(B-12), or Y(B-13). Thus, it is unclear what B is when it is one of these formulas. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are undefined rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claim 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by KANG (US 2022/0123223; effectively filed 28 Sept. 2021). The priority document is cited as “PD” below.
Regarding claims 10-13, KANG teaches compound H2-85
PNG
media_image1.png
280
230
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Pg. 48; PD Pg. 49 ¶142) wherein A is phenyl formula Y(A-1), B is phenyl formula Y(B-1), n is 0, L is absent, Ar1 is phenyl, and Ar2 is an aryl group having 14 carbon atoms (phenanthrenyl).
Regarding claims 10-12, KANG teaches compound H2-110
PNG
media_image2.png
283
271
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Pg. 52; PD Pg. 50 ¶147) wherein A is phenyl, B is naphthalenyl, n is 0, L is absent, Ar1 is phenyl, and Ar2 is an aryl group having 14 carbon atoms (phenanthrenyl). Note, the assignments of A and B may also be switched.
Claims 10-11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by MA (WO 2022/100194; effectively filed 20 Aug. 2021). No priority document is cited, the effectively filed date is the international filing date of MA.
MA teaches compound 104
PNG
media_image3.png
229
219
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Pg. 49) wherein A is phenanthrenyl group, B is dibenzofuranyl group, n is 0, L is absent, Ar1 is phenyl, and Ar2 is phenyl.
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Conclusion
Claims 16-23 are allowable.
Claims 2-14 are rejected.
This is a statement of reasons for finding of allowable subject matter:
The close art and reasons for finding of allowable subject matter in claims 16-20 are the same as those previously stated in the Non-Final Rejection of 02/18/2026 on Pg. 15 ¶27. As of the amendments of 05/14/2026, claims 21-23 now depend from claim 16. Thus, claims 16-23 are free of the prior art.
The close art for claims 2-9 is YOON (WO 2020/050624). YOON teaches compounds such as
PNG
media_image6.png
298
350
media_image6.png
Greyscale
which overlap with the instant Formula X(1) wherein A and B are X(A-1) and X(B-1). However, the Ar1 and Ar2 groups of YOON do not overlap with the instant Ar1 and Ar2 groups. The instant Ar1 and Ar2 groups can only be aryl groups of 6-30 carbons or a pyridyl group. YOON does not teach compounds having Ar groups falling within the instant limitations. Thus, YOON does not teach nor suggest the instant compounds.
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 SARA ELIZABETH BELL whose telephone number is (703)756-5372. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:30.
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, Andrew Kosar can be reached at 571-272-0913. 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.
/S.E.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1625
/JOHN S KENYON/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1625
Prosecution Insights