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 .
Summary of Claims
Claims 1 and 9 are amended. Claim 1–20 are pending.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claims 9–20 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of Application No. 17/343,650 as set forth in the previous Office Action is not overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 06/08/2026. The rejection is maintained.
The rejection of claims 9–20 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of Application No. 17/362,764 as set forth in the previous Office Action is not overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 06/08/2026. The rejection is maintained.
The rejection of claims 1–5 and 9–20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oh et al. (CN 112552190 A, hereinafter “Oh”) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 06/08/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1–4 and 9–20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li (CN 107936955 A, hereinafter “Li”) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 06/08/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 6–8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh in further view of Jin et al. (US 2017/0308212 A1, hereinafter “Jin”) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 06/08/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on page 22 of the reply dated 06/08/2026 with respect to the rejection of 9-20 as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument – Applicant argues that the nonstatutory double patenting rejections should be withdrawn since the final claim scope of the claims in the present application has not been determined and also because claim 9 has been amended.
Examiner's response – Although it is true that the final claim scope of the claims of the present application has not been determined yet, as it stands the double patenting rejections still read on amended claim 9. Therefore, the double patenting rejections are maintained and are reproduced below.
Applicant’s arguments on page 23–24 of the reply dated 06/08/2026 with respect to the rejection of 1–20 as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument – Applicant has amended independent claims 1 and 9 to recite “wherein when at least one of Ar1, Ar2, L1, or L2 is represented by a fluorenyl group, then R3 is hydrogen.” Applicant argues that this amendment overcomes Oh’s compound 8 since R3 is represented by a tert-butyl group. Applicant further argues that Jin relies upon Oh’s disclosure which allegedly no longer reads on amended claim 1. Therefore claims 1 and 9 including all claims dependent therefrom should be allowable over Oh.
Examiner's response – The Examiner agrees that the amendment overcomes the rejection using Oh’s Compound 8 as an embodiment. However, Oh teaches other compound which read on Applicant’s amended claims 1 and 9, as discussed below.
Applicant’s arguments on page 24–26 of the reply dated 06/08/2026 with respect to the rejection of 1–4 and 9–20 as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument – Applicant has amended independent claims 1 and 9 to recite “wherein when R16 is a group represented by Formula 2, then R3 is not a pyridyl group.” Applicant argues that this amendment overcomes Li’s compound C-6 since it relies on a pyridine group. Applicant then argues that the teaching of Li would not lead one of ordinary skill in the art to replace R3 with a different group. Therefore claims 1 and 9 including all claims dependent therefrom should be allowable over Li.
Examiner's response – The Examiner agrees that the amendment overcomes the rejection using Li’s compound C-6 as an embodiment. However, Li provides teachings that leads to one of ordinary skill in the art to change R3 to a group that is different from a pyridine group, as discussed below.
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 1–5, 9–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oh et al. (CN 112552190 A, provided in Applicants’ IDS filed on 12/22/2025, hereafter Oh) and evidenced by Ogita et al. (US 2011/0248246 A1, hereinafter “Ogita”). An English translation of Oh was provided in the office action dated 03/09/2026.
Regarding Claims 1 and 9, Oh teaches the organic light-emitting device of Example 4 which comprises an anode, a cathode, an interlayer comprising an emission layer, and Compound 4 ([0107] and [0156] – [0162]). Compound 4 reads on Applicants’ Formula 1 and Formula 2 (shown below),
PNG
media_image1.png
470
335
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
190
239
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
287
221
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein:
R13 is represented by Formula 2,
R3 is a C4 alkyl group (tert-butyl),
R1–R2, R4–R12, R14–R18 are each hydrogen,
L3 is a single bond,
L1 and L2 are each an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group (phenylene),
a1–a3 are each 1,
Ar1 and Ar2 are each an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group (phenyl),
b1–b2 are each 1.
Regarding Claim 2, the organic light-emitting device of Example 4 comprises a hole injection layer and a hole transport layer as the hole transport region. Furthermore, Example 4 comprises an electron transport layer and an electron injection layer as the electron transport region [0156] – [0162].
Regarding Claims 3 and 4, the organic light-emitting device of Example 4 comprises Compound 4 in the hole transport layer [0156] – [0162].
Regarding Claim 5, the organic light-emitting device of Example 4 emits blue light [0156] – [0162]. Additionally, the dopant used in Example 4 (Compound BD) will have a maximum emission wavelength of about 450 nm as evidenced by Ogita.
Compound BD, taught by Oh, and Blue Dopant 1, taught by Ogita, are nearly identical and therefore will inherently have the same maximum emission wavelength. The maximum emission wavelength of Blue Dopant 1 is about 450 nm as shown by Figure 10B below. Therefore, Compound BD will have the same maximum emission wavelength absent of evidence otherwise.
PNG
media_image4.png
285
250
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
386
176
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
302
498
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 10 and 11, for Compound 4, L3 is a single bond, while L1 and L2 are each a benzene group represented by Applicants’ Formula 4-1 (shown below).
PNG
media_image7.png
148
163
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
287
221
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 12, a1-–a3 are each 1 for Compound 4.
Regarding Claims 13 and 14, for Compound 4, Ar1 and Ar2 are each a phenyl group represented by Applicants’ Formula 5-1 (shown below). Z31 and Z32 are each hydrogen, e5 is 5, e4 is 4, and e3 is 3.
PNG
media_image8.png
135
115
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
287
221
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 15, b1 and b2 are each 1 for Compound 4.
Regarding Claim 16, for Compound 4, *-(L1)a1-(Ar1)b1 and *-(L2)a2-(Ar2)b2 are each represented by Applicants’ Formula 7-4 (shown below). Y61 is C(R61)(R62) wherein R61–R62 are each an unsubstituted C1 alkyl group (methyl).
PNG
media_image9.png
308
150
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
287
221
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 17–19, R13 is represented by Formula 2, while R3 is a C4 alkyl group (tert-butyl) for Compound 4. R1–R2, R4–R12, R14–R18 are each hydrogen.
Regarding Claim 20, Compound 4 is represented by Applicants’ Formula 1A-5 (shown below).
PNG
media_image10.png
203
143
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
287
221
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. 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 6–8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (CN 112552190 A) in further view of Jin et al. (US 2017/0308212 A1, hereafter Jin).
Regarding Claims 6-–8, Oh teaches the organic light-emitting device of Example 4, as described above, comprising Compound 4. Oh further teaches using the organic compounds taught by Oh will enable organic light-emitting diodes with improved drive voltage, luminous efficiency, brightness, and extended lifetime [pg. 1, Invention Content].
However, Oh does not teach an electronic apparatus including a light-emitting device and a thin-film transistor, wherein the first electrode of the light-emitting device is electrically connected to the source electrode or the drain electrode of the thin-film transistor. They also do not teach an electronic apparatus comprising a color filter, a polarizing film, or a touch screen.
Jin teaches a display device comprising an organic light-emitting device wherein the anode is electrically connected to the drain electrode of a thin-film transistor [0061]. Jin further teaches the display device is integrated with a touch screen in an exemplary embodiment [0016]. Additionally, Jin teaches the use of a polarizing film disposed on the cover substrate to prevent reflection of external light [0048].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the organic light-emitting device taught by Oh in the display device taught by Jin, based on the teaching of Oh and Jin. One would be motivated to use the organic light-emitting device taught by Oh in the display device since the light-emitting device has an improved drive voltage, luminous efficiency, brightness, and extended lifetime, as taught by Oh.
Per Claim 6, the display device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation since it is an electronic apparatus comprising an organic light-emitting device and a thin-film transistor.
Per Claim 7, the display device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation since it comprises an organic light-emitting device wherein the anode is electrically connected to the drain electrode of a thin-film transistor [0061].
Per Claim 8, the display device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation since it comprises a polarizing film [0048] and a touch screen [0016].
Claims 1–4 and 9–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN 107936955 A, provided in Applicants’ IDS filed on 12/22/2025, hereafter Li). An English translation of Li was provided in the office action dated 03/09/2026.
Regarding Claims 1–4 and 9–20, Li teaches the organic light-emitting device of Example 15 comprising an anode, a cathode, an interlayer comprising an emission layer, and Compound C-6 [0146] – [0158]. Compound C-6 reads on Applicants’ Formula 1 and Formula 2 (shown below),
PNG
media_image1.png
470
335
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
190
239
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
209
304
media_image11.png
Greyscale
wherein:
R16 is represented by Formula 2,
R3 is an unsubstituted C5 heterocyclic group (pyridine),
R1–R2, R4–R15, R17–R18 are each hydrogen,
L1–L3 are each a single bond,
a1–a3 are each 1,
Ar1 is an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group (phenyl),
Ar2 is a C12 heterocyclic group (carbazole) substituted with a C6 carbocyclic group (phenyl),
b1–b2 are each 1.
However, Compound C-6 does not read on Applicant’s Formula 1 since R3 is a pyridine.
Compound C-6 is represented by Li’s Equation (1) [0007] (shown below), wherein Y is a pyridine. Li teaches Y may be pyrimidine [pg. 2 of the English translation]. Additionally, Li discloses Compound E-16 wherein Y is a pyrimidine (shown below) [0022]. Li further teaches organic electroluminescent devices comprising compounds of Equation (1) in the hole transport layer result in a high current efficiency and a low driving voltage [pg. 27 of the English translation].
PNG
media_image12.png
206
293
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
252
289
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Li, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute pyridine with pyrimidine in Compound C-6, because Li teaches the variable may preferably be selected as pyrimidine. The substitution would have been one preferred element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as a hole transport compound in the hole transport layer of the organic electroluminescent device of Li and possess the benefits taught by Li. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the modified version of Compound C-6 in the organic electroluminescent device of Example 15, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Li according to known methods to yield predictable results of a organic electroluminescent device with a high current efficiency and a low driving voltage, as taught by Li. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Per Claims 1 and 9, the organic electroluminescent device comprising the modified version of Compound C-6 (hereinafter “Modified C-6”) reads on Applicant’s limitation since Modified C-6 reads on Applicants’ Formula 1 and Formula 2 (shown below),
PNG
media_image1.png
470
335
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
190
239
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
284
410
media_image14.png
Greyscale
wherein:
R16 is represented by Formula 2,
R3 is an unsubstituted C4 heterocyclic group (pyrimidine),
R1–R2, R4–R15, R17–R18 are each hydrogen,
L1–L3 are each a single bond,
a1–a3 are each 1,
Ar1 is an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group (phenyl),
Ar2 is a C12 heterocyclic group (carbazole) substituted with a C6 carbocyclic group (phenyl),
b1–b2 are each 1.
Per Claim 2, the organic light-emitting device based on Example 15 comprises a hole transport layer as the hole transport region. Furthermore, Example 15 comprises an electron transport layer and an electron injection layer as the electron transport region [0146] – [0158].
Per Claims 3 and 4, the organic light-emitting device based on Example 15 comprises Modified C-6 in the hole transport layer [0146] – [0158].
Per Claims 10 and 11, L1–L3 are each a single bond for Modified C-6.
Per Claim 12, a1-–a3 are each 1 for Modified C-6.
Per Claims 13 and 14, for Modified C-6, Ar2 is a carbazolyl group represented by Applicants’ Formula 5-14, while Ar1 is a phenyl group represented by Applicants’ Formula 5-1 (shown below). Y31 is N(Z35), wherein Z35 is an unsubstituted C6 Carbocyclic group (phenyl). Z31 and Z32 are each hydrogen, e5 is 5, e4 is 4, and e3 is 3.
PNG
media_image15.png
159
206
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
135
115
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
284
410
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Per Claim 15, b1 and b2 are each 1 for Modified C-6.
Per Claim 16, for Modified C-6, *-(L1)a1-(Ar1)b1 is represented by Applicants’ Formula 7-1, while *-(L2)a2-(Ar2)b2 is represented by Applicants’ Formula 7-8 (shown below). Y61 is N(R61) wherein R61 is an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group (phenyl).
PNG
media_image16.png
193
122
media_image16.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image17.png
157
252
media_image17.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
284
410
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Per Claims 17–19, R16 is represented by Formula 2, while R3 is an unsubstituted C4 heterocyclic group (pyrimidine) for Modified C-6. R1–R2, R4–R15, R17–R18 are each hydrogen.
Per Claim 20, Modified C-6 is represented by Applicants’ Formula 1A-9 (shown below).
PNG
media_image18.png
205
159
media_image18.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
284
410
media_image14.png
Greyscale
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 9–20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of copending Application No. 17/343,650 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 20 of ‘650 recites a species which reads on the instant applications claims 9–20.
Regarding Claim 9, ‘650 recites Compound 63 which reads on the instant application’s Formula 1 and Formula 2 (shown below),
PNG
media_image1.png
470
335
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
190
239
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image19.png
257
298
media_image19.png
Greyscale
wherein:
R13 is represented by Formula 2,
R3 is a C6 carbocyclic group (phenyl),
R1–R2, R4–R12, R14–R18 are each hydrogen,
L1–L3 are each a single bond,
a1–a3 are each 1,
Ar1 is an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group (phenyl),
Ar2 is a C12 heterocyclic group (carbazole) substituted with a C6 carbocyclic group (phenyl),
b1–b2 are each 1.
Regarding Claims 10 and 11, L1–L3 are each a single bond for Compound 63.
Regarding Claim 12, a1-–a3 are each 1 for Compound 63.
Regarding Claims 13 and 14, for Compound 63, Ar2 is a carbazolyl group represented by Applicants’ Formula 5-14, while Ar1 is a phenyl group represented by Applicants’ Formula 5-1 (shown below). Y31 is N(Z35), wherein Z35 is an unsubstituted C6 Carbocyclic group (phenyl). Z31 and Z32 are each hydrogen, e5 is 5, e4 is 4, and e3 is 3.
PNG
media_image15.png
159
206
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
135
115
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image19.png
257
298
media_image19.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 15, b1 and b2 are each 1 for Compound 63.
Regarding Claim 16, for Compound 63, *-(L1)a1-(Ar1)b1 is represented by Applicants’ Formula 7-1, while *-(L2)a2-(Ar2)b2 is represented by Applicants’ Formula 7-8 (shown below). Y61 is N(R61) wherein R61 is an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group (phenyl).
PNG
media_image16.png
193
122
media_image16.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image17.png
157
252
media_image17.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image19.png
257
298
media_image19.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 17–19, R13 is represented by Formula 2, while R3 is a C6 carbocyclic group (phenyl) for Compound 63. R1–R2, R4–R12, R14–R18 are each hydrogen.
Regarding Claim 20, Compound 63 is represented by Applicants’ Formula 1A-5 (shown below).
PNG
media_image10.png
203
143
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image19.png
257
298
media_image19.png
Greyscale
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 9–20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of copending Application No. 17/362,764 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 20 of ‘764 recites a species which reads on the instant applications claims 9–20.
Regarding Claim 9, ‘764 recites Compound 1 which reads on the instant application’s Formula 1 and Formula 2 (shown below),
PNG
media_image1.png
470
335
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
190
239
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image20.png
308
283
media_image20.png
Greyscale
wherein:
R16 is represented by Formula 2,
R7–R10 are each deuterium,
R1–R6, R11–R15, R17–R18 are each hydrogen,
L1–L3 are each a single bond,
a1–a3 are each 1,
Ar1 is an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group (phenyl),
Ar2 is a C12 heterocyclic group (carbazole) substituted with a C6 carbocyclic group (phenyl),
b1–b2 are each 1.
Regarding Claims 10 and 11, L1–L3 are each a single bond for Compound 1.
Regarding Claim 12, a1-–a3 are each 1 for Compound 1.
Regarding Claims 13 and 14, for Compound 1, Ar2 is a carbazolyl group represented by Applicants’ Formula 5-14, while Ar1 is a phenyl group represented by Applicants’ Formula 5-1 (shown below). Y31 is N(Z35), wherein Z35 is an unsubstituted C6 Carbocyclic group (phenyl). Z31 and Z32 are each hydrogen, e5 is 5, e4 is 4, and e3 is 3.
PNG
media_image15.png
159
206
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
135
115
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image20.png
308
283
media_image20.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 15, b1 and b2 are each 1 for Compound 1.
Regarding Claim 16, for Compound 1, *-(L1)a1-(Ar1)b1 is represented by Applicants’ Formula 7-1, while *-(L2)a2-(Ar2)b2 is represented by Applicants’ Formula 7-8 (shown below). Y61 is N(R61) wherein R61 is an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group (phenyl).
PNG
media_image16.png
193
122
media_image16.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image17.png
157
252
media_image17.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image20.png
308
283
media_image20.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 17–19, R16 is represented by Formula 2, R7–R10 are each deuterium for Compound 1. R1–R6, R11–R15, R17–R18 are each hydrogen.
Regarding Claim 20, Compound 1 is represented by Applicants’ Formula 1A-11 (shown below).
PNG
media_image21.png
227
146
media_image21.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image20.png
308
283
media_image20.png
Greyscale
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yang et al. (CN 111454161 A) teaches compounds that read on Applicants’ independent claim 1, such as Compound 4 (shown below) [0252]. An English translation of Yang was provided in the Office Action dated 03/09/2026.
PNG
media_image22.png
254
181
media_image22.png
Greyscale
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 JAMES RICHARD FORTWENGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-5433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am - 5 pm.
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 at (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.
/J.R.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights