CTNF 18/062,149 CTNF 91937 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. Election/Restrictions 08-25-01 AIA Applicant’s election without traverse of 1) X5 as N; X1 to X4 and X6 to X8 as C; 2) each of L1 to L4 are direct bonds; and 3) M is Ir in the reply filed on 27 February 2026 is acknowledged. 08-06 AIA Claim 16 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 27 February 2026 . Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: 6 of the final 7 compounds have poor resolution and are difficult to read . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-15 and 17-20 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. Regarding claims 1, 17, and 20: Formulas II and III of claims 1, 17, and 20 each comprise a ring E that appears differently than the ring E of Formula I of claims 1, 17, and 20. While it is clear that the rings E of Formulas II and III is ring E of Formula I, the structure of the rings E of Formulas II and III are unclear. Specifically, it is unclear if the rings E of Formulas II and III can be substituted, or if the rings E of Formulas II and III can have the same options for rings A, B, C, and D as well as the same options for variables L 1 to L 4 and X 1 to X 8 , rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the claim is being interpreted such that the rings E of Formulas II and III have all of the same options as the ring E of Formula I. Regarding claims 2-15 and 18-19: Claims 2-15 and 18-19 are rejected due to their dependence from claims 1 or 17. 07-34-01 Claim 5 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. Regarding claim 5: Each of the structural formulas of claim 5 comprise a ring E that appears differently than the ring E of Formula I of claim 1, from which claim 5 depends. While it is clear that the rings E of claim 5 is ring E of Formula I of claim 1, the structure of the rings E of claim 5 is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear if the rings E of claim 5 can be substituted, or if the rings E of claim 5 can have the same options for rings A, B, C, and D as well as the same options for variables L 1 to L 4 and X 1 to X 8 , rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the claim is being interpreted such that the rings E of claim 5 have all of the same options as the ring E of Formula I of claim 1. 07-34-01 Claim 6 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. Regarding claim 6: Each of the structural formulas of claim 6 comprise a ring E that appears differently than the ring E of Formula I of claim 1, from which claim 6 depends. While it is clear that the rings E of claim 6 is ring E of Formula I of claim 1, the structure of the rings E of claim 6 is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear if the rings E of claim 6 can be substituted, or if the rings E of claim 6 can have the same options for rings A, B, C, and D as well as the same options for variables L 1 to L 4 and X 1 to X 8 , rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the claim is being interpreted such that the rings E of claim 6 have all of the same options as the ring E of Formula I of claim 1. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-4, 8, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Thompson et al. (US 2023/0115552 A1) (hereafter “Thompson”) . 07-15-02-aia The applied reference has a common assignee and joint inventors with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This 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. Regarding claims 1-4, 8, and 11-13: Thompson discloses the compound shown below {p. 84} . PNG media_image1.png 468 892 media_image1.png Greyscale The compound above differs from the structure PNG media_image2.png 196 116 media_image2.png Greyscale , because the imidazole of the compound PNG media_image2.png 196 116 media_image2.png Greyscale is unsubstituted except for the ring E. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson et al. (US 2023/0115552 A1) (hereafter “Thompson”) . The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 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); 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 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. See generally MPEP § 717.02. Regarding claims 17-20: Thompson discloses all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Claims 17 and 20 differ from claim 1 in that the compound is comprised in an organic light emitting device that is comprised in a consumer device. Thompson does not disclose a specific device comprising the compound of Thompson disclosed above. However, Thompson teaches that the compounds of Thompson are useful as emissive dopants in the light emitting layer of an organic light emitting device {paragraph [0105]} . Thompson additionally teaches a consumer device comprising an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, a cathode an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode {paragraphs [0103]-[0120]} . The organic layer comprises an emissive layer {paragraphs [0103]-[0120]} . The emissive layer additionally comprises a host material that is selected from the same list as the current claim 19, which consists of compounds comprising the functional groups of the current claim 18 {paragraph [0108]} . At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compound of Thompson described above by using it as the light emitting dopant in the emissive layer comprising one of the host materials of Thompson of the consumer device comprising the organic light emitting device of Thompson described above, based on the teaching of Thompson. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DYLAN CLAY KERSHNER whose telephone number is (303)297-4257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm (Mountain). 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 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. /DYLAN C KERSHNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/062,149 Page 2 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/062,149 Page 4 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/062,149 Page 5 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/062,149 Page 6 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/062,149 Page 7 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/062,149 Page 8 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/062,149 Page 9 Art Unit: 1786
Prosecution Insights