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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the following species characterized by comprising a first structure of formula III and a second structure of formula II in the reply filed on 2 March 2026, is acknowledged:
PNG
media_image1.png
263
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
The Examiner notes that the elected species does not appear to satisfy the conditions recited in claim 1, i.e., “wherein at least one of RA, RB, RC, and RD comprises a second chemical structure selected from Formula II-VI” (emphasis added).
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 1-20 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 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “wherein RA, RB, RC, and RD each independently represent mono to the maximum amount of substitution, or no substitution” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by “no substitution” is not clear, particularly in light of the substituent definitions which follow that phrase. Claim 1 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the substituents RA, RB, RC, and RD in the claimed compound of formula I. Claim 18 is also rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “wherein RA, RB, RC, and RD each independently represent mono to the maximum amount of substitution, or no substitution” (emphasis added), as it fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the substituents RA, RB, RC, and RD in the compound of formula I contained in the organic layer of the claimed organic light emitting device. Similarly, claim 20 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “wherein RA, RB, RC, and RD each independently represent mono to the maximum amount of substitution, or no substitution” (emphasis added), as it fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the substituents RA, RB, RC, and RD in the compound of formula I contained in the organic layer of the organic light emitting device contained in the claimed consumer product.
Claims 1, 18 and 20 are rejected as being vague and indefinite when they each recite “wherein RA, RB, RC, and RD are each independently selected from the group consisting of hydrogen, deuterium, halogen, alkyl, cycloalkyl, heteroalkyl, heterocycloalkyl, boryl, arylalkyl, alkoxy, aryloxy, amino, silyl, germyl, alkenyl, cycloalkenyl, heteroalkenyl, alkynyl, aryl, heteroaryl, acyl, carboxylic acid, ether, ester, nitrile, isonitrile, sulfanyl, sulfinyl, sulfonyl, phosphino, selenyl, and combinations thereof”; the scope of the protection sought is not clear in light of the additional recitations that “at least one of RA, RB, RC, and RD comprises a first chemical structure selected from Formula II-VI” and “at least one of RA, RB, RC, and RD comprises a second chemical structure selected from Formula II-VI”. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, each of claims 1, 18 and 20 recites the broad recitation that “RA, RB, RC, and RD are each independently selected from the group consisting of hydrogen, deuterium, halogen, alkyl, cycloalkyl, heteroalkyl, heterocycloalkyl, boryl, arylalkyl, alkoxy, aryloxy, amino, silyl, germyl, alkenyl, cycloalkenyl, heteroalkenyl, alkynyl, aryl, heteroaryl, acyl, carboxylic acid, ether, ester, nitrile, isonitrile, sulfanyl, sulfinyl, sulfonyl, phosphino, selenyl, and combinations thereof”, and each of the claims also recites that “at least one of RA, RB, RC, and RD comprises a first chemical structure selected from Formula II-VI” and “at least one of RA, RB, RC, and RD comprises a second chemical structure selected from Formula II-VI”. which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 1, 18, and 20 are rejected as being vague and indefinite when they each recite “wherein Y1, Y2, and Y3 are each independently selected from O, S, Se, NR, BR, BRR′, PR, CR, C═O, C═S, C═NR, C═CRR′, CRR′, SO, SO2, SiRR′, GeRR′, and P(O)R, wherein Y2 and Y3 are identical”; the scope of the protection sought is not clear. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 1, 18, and 20 each recite the broad recitation that “Y1, Y2, and Y3 are each independently selected from O, S, Se, NR, BR, BRR′, PR, CR, C═O, C═S, C═NR, C═CRR′, CRR′, SO, SO2, SiRR′, GeRR′, and P(O)R”, and the claims also each recite that “Y2 and Y3 are identical”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 1, 18, and 20 are rejected as being vague and indefinite when they recite “wherein R, R′, R1, R2, R3, RE, RF, RG, RH, RI, RJ, RK, and RL each independently represent mono to the maximum amount of substitution, or no substitution” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by “no substitution” is not clear, particularly in light of the substituent definitions which follow that phrase. Claims 1, 18 and 20 each fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the substituents R, R′, R1, R2, R3, RE, RF, RG, RH, RI, RJ, RK, and RL.
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.
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.
(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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kwong et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,109,799).
Kwong et al. discloses a compound, the corresponding use thereof said compound in an organic light-emitting device, and the corresponding use thereof said organic light-emitting device in a consumer product, characterized in that said compound is inclusive of the compound of the present formula I, as generally represented therein by
PNG
media_image2.png
170
287
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
220
248
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(column 4, line 8+; claim 2), and more specifically as represented by the specific formulae on pages 11-79 therein, as well as in claim 8. The compound represented by
PNG
media_image4.png
302
300
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(column 254, line 20) is characterized in that least one of RA, RB, RC, and RD comprises a two chemical structures of Formula III.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action, AND limited to the elected species would be allowable.
In fact, claims rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action, AND limited to the compound of formula I
PNG
media_image5.png
331
466
media_image5.png
Greyscale
characterized in that at least one of RA, RB, RC, and RD is represented by -L1-SiR1R2R3, would be allowable.
Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0192730, which is the pre-grant publication corresponding to the present application, and related applications: U.S. Patent Application Publication Nos. 2023/0329089, 2023/0192714, 2023/0192665, 2023/0192738, 2023/0192739, 2023/0200211, 2023/0200212, and 2023/0286989.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Geraldina Visconti whose telephone number is (571)272-1334. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Mark F Huff can be reached at 571-272-1385. 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.
GERALDINA VISCONTI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1737
/GERALDINA VISCONTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737
Prosecution Insights