DETAILED ACTION
Summary
This Office Action is in response to the Amendments to the Claims and Remarks filed February 20, 2026.
In view of the Amendments to the Claims filed February 20, 2026, the rejections of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) previously presented in the Office Action sent August 28, 2025 have been withdrawn.
In view of the Amendments to the Claims filed February 20, 2026, the rejections of claims 1, 3, 5, and 6 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) previously presented in the Office Action sent August 28, 2025 have been withdrawn.
In view of the Amendments to the Claims filed February 20, 2026, the rejections of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 previously presented in the Office Action sent August 28, 2025 have been substantially maintained and modified only in response to the Amendments to the Claims.
Claims 1-5 and 7-12 are currently pending.
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.
Claim 11 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the organic electronic component" on line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Amending “the organic electronic component” to “the electronic component” would overcome the rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorok et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0155047 A1).
With regard to claims 1-5 and 7, Dorok et al. discloses a chemical compound of
the general formula I (see C12 at Table 1, column 12).
PNG
media_image1.png
183
471
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Dorok et al. does not teach, in a single embodiment, wherein the central phenyl derivative is a naphthyl derivative.
However, Dorok et al. teaches A can be a C10 aryl (see claim 4).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected C10 aryl as A in the chemical compound of Dorok et al. because Dorok et al. teaches C10 aryl as an appropriate selection for A in the chemical compound.
It would have also been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have tried the opposite/para attachment sites on the central naphthyl derivative (providing for the claimed Compound 2) because the opposite attachment sites on the central naphthyl derivative are one in a finite number of options immediately recognizable by a skilled artesian (see MPEP 2143 E).
With regard to claim 8, independent claim 1 is obvious over Dorok et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Dorok et al. discloses
A method of using a chemical compound, the method comprising: manufacturing an electronic component comprising the chemical compound as claimed in claim 1 (see, for example, [0024-0027]).
With regard to claim 9, independent claim 1 is obvious over Dorok et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Dorok et al. discloses
an electronic component having an electrode, a counter-electrode and a layer system between the electrode and the counter-electrode, wherein the layer system comprises at least one organic layer and at least one transport layer, wherein the at least one organic layer and/or the at least one transport layer comprises at least one chemical compound as claimed in 1 (see, for example, [0024-0027]).
With regard to claim 10, claim 9 is obvious over Dorok et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Dorok et al. discloses wherein
the proportion of the at least one chemical compound in the at least one organic layer and/or the at least one transport layer is in each case at most 35% by weight based on the total weight of the layer (see [0063] teaching “higher than 10 wt.%” which includes values within the ranges of “at most 35% by weight based on the total weight of the layer”).
With regard to claim 11, claim 8 is obvious over Dorok et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Dorok et al. discloses wherein manufacturing an electronic component comprising the chemical compound as claimed in claim 1 comprises
doping at least one transport layer and/or injection layer in the organic electronic component (see, for example, [0024-0027]).
With regard to claim 12, claim 9 is obvious over Dorok et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Dorok et al. discloses wherein
the at least one organic layer and/or the at least one transport layer comprises at least one chemical compound as claimed in claim 1 as a dopant (see, for example, [0024-0027]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues in the response that none of the chemical compounds taught by Dorok fall within the claimed formula.
However, the rejections of the claims do not rely on or allege Dorok to explicitly teach the claimed formula.
Applicant argues in the response that Dorok does not specifically teach selecting naphthalene within the genus of “C6-C18 arene”. However, this argument is not persuasive.
Dorok teaches “C6-C18 arene”, which includes C10.
Applicant argues in the response that there is no reasonable expectation of success to try opposite/para attachment sites on the central naphthyl derivative.
However, this argument is not persuasive. Dorok teaches achieving high conductivity by use of the chemical compound as a dopant and teaches C10 as an appropriate selection for A in the chemical compound.
Selecting C10 as an appropriate selection for A in the chemical compound would necessarily include attachment sites on the central naphthyl derivative, and selecting opposite/para attachment sites would have provided reasonable expectation of success of achieving high conductivity by use of the chemical compound as a dopant.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DUSTIN Q DAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5120. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 6:00 AM to 2:00 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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
/DUSTIN Q DAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721 May 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights