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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities: some of the subscript designations, as well as single bond vs double bonds are not clearly distinguishable. Appropriate correction is required.
Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
In chemical patent abstracts for compounds or compositions, the general nature of the compound or composition should be given as well as its use, e.g., “The compounds are of the class of alkyl benzene sulfonyl ureas, useful as oral anti-diabetics.” Exemplification of a species could be illustrative of members of the class. For processes, the type of reaction, reagents and process conditions should be stated, generally illustrated by a single example unless variations are necessary.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract does not reflect the inventive compound of formula 1 containing a group of the present formula 2, characterized in that said group of the present formula 2 comprises at least one substituted or unsubstituted cycloalkyl group having 5 to 30 carbon atoms.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1-23 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.
Claims 1 and 17 are rejected as being vague and indefinite when they each recite formula 2
PNG
media_image1.png
354
617
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by “*” is not clear.
Claims 1 and 17 are rejected as being vague and indefinite when they each recite “when R14 to R19 are a crosslinked cycloalkyl group, each of a plurality of rings in the crosslinked cycloalkyl group has 5 to 10 ring-forming carbon atoms” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought is not clear, as there appears to be insufficient antecedent basis in the claims for R14 to R19 being a crosslinked cycloalkyl group. Claims 1 and 17 each fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the polycyclic compound of formula 1.
Claims 1 and 17 are rejected as being vague and indefinite when they each recite “Formula 1 comprises a structure in which one or more hydrogens are substituted with deuterium” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought is not clear. The antecedent basis for the “one or more hydrogens” is not clear since each of the substituents Ra to Rd , R1 to R12, L, Re to Ri , and R13 to R20 therein Formula I may be and/or contain hydrogen. Claims 1 and 17 each fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the polycyclic compound of formula 1.
Claims 2 and 18 are rejected as being vague and indefinite when they each recite the formulae 2-1a and 2-1b
PNG
media_image2.png
352
670
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
456
659
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by “*” is not clear.
Claims 3 and 19 are rejected as being vague and indefinite when they each recite the formulae 2-2a, and 2-2c through 2-2g:
PNG
media_image4.png
433
675
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
410
671
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
415
682
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
405
682
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
446
671
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
448
653
media_image9.png
Greyscale
(emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by “*” is not clear.
Claims 3 and 19 are rejected as being vague and indefinite when they each
recite the formula 2-2d:
PNG
media_image10.png
426
693
media_image10.png
Greyscale
(emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought is not clear as there is neither antecedent basis for, or a definition for the substituent P20 therein formula 2-2d. Claims 3 and 19 each fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the group of formula 2 contained in the polycyclic compound of formula 1.
Claims 4 and 20 are rejected as being vague and indefinite when they each recite the formulae 2-3a through 2-3e:
PNG
media_image11.png
314
603
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
309
601
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
354
579
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
294
640
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
306
614
media_image15.png
Greyscale
(emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by “*” is not clear.
Claims 4 and 20 are rejected as being vague and indefinite when they each recite “Formulas 2-3a to 2-3e each comprise a structure in which one or more hydrogens are substituted with deuterium” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought is not clear. The antecedent basis for the “one or more hydrogens” is not clear since each of the substituents L, Re to Ri , R13 to R16 , and R18 to R20 therein Formula I may be and/or contain hydrogen. Claims 4 and 20 each fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the group of formula 2 contained in the polycyclic compound of formula 1.
Claims 5 and 21 are rejected as being vague and indefinite when they each recite “wherein at least one selected from among R14 to R19 is represented by any one selected from among Formulas A1 to A5” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by “any one (blank) selected from among” is not clear. Claims 5 and 21 each fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the group of formula 2 contained in the polycyclic compound of formula 1, i.e., wherein at least one of the substituents R14 to R19 is represented one of Formulae A1 to A5.
Claims 5 and 21 are rejected as being vague and indefinite when they each recite the groups represented by A1 through A5:
PNG
media_image16.png
225
803
media_image16.png
Greyscale
(emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by “
PNG
media_image17.png
49
52
media_image17.png
Greyscale
” is not clear.
Claim 8 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “wherein the at least one functional layer further comprise at least one selected from among a second compound represented by Formula HT and a third compound represented by Formula ET” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by “any one (blank) selected from among” is not clear. Claim 8 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the contents of the functional layer contained in the claimed light emitting element, i.e., wherein said functional further comprises a compound represented by Formula HT and or a compound represented by Formula ET.
Claim 10 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “the first compound; and at least one selected from among the second compound and the third compound” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by “at least one (blank) selected from among” is not clear. Claim 10 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the contents of the emission layer contained in the claimed light emitting element.
Claim 11 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “wherein the emission layer is to emit delayed fluorescence” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by “is to emit” is not clear. Claim 11 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the contents of the emission layer contained in the claimed light emitting element.
Claim 12 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “wherein the emission layer is to emit blue light” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by “is to emit” is not clear. Claim 12 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the contents of the emission layer contained in the claimed light emitting element.
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. 2024/0268231, which is the pre-grant publication corresponding to the present application;
Chinese Patent No. CN 121108165 A, which is pertinent to applicant’s polycyclic compound of the present formula 1 containing a group of the present formula 2, characterized in that said group of the present formula 2 comprises at least one
substituted or unsubstituted cycloalkyl group having 5 to 30 carbon atoms; and Chinese Patent No. CN 114478592, which is pertinent to applicant’s polycyclic compound of the present formula 1 characterized by containing a group of the present formula 2, but which is missing the at least one substituted or unsubstituted cycloalkyl group having 5 to 30 carbon atoms on the group of the present formula 2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 17 would be allowable if 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.
Claims 2-5, 8, 10-12, and 17-21 would be allowable if rewritten 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 to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 6, 9, 13-16, and 22 are 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.
Claims 7 and 23 are 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, AND if rewritten overcome the objection set forth in preceding paragraph 2.
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, Anthony J Zimmer can be reached at (571)270-3591. 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