DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This Office action is in response to Amendments filed 7/22/2025.
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 and 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Keuren et al. (“Linear and third order nonlinear optical properties of substituted oligothiophenes”, Journal of Chemical Physics (1999), 110(7), 3584-3590; a copy of which was already provided).
Regarding claim 1, Van Keuren discloses an organic semiconducting compound (Compound 5 in Fig. 2) which only differs by Applicant’s formula of claim 1 (wherein b = c = 0 and a = 1) by a substitution of a thiophene group for A2 whereas Applicant has amended claim 1 to exclude this group.
PNG
media_image1.png
546
837
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, as noted in the Requirement for Restriction mailed 2/21/2025, for compound A2, the restriction required an election of a single species among the 19 disclosed possibilities for chemical group A2 (Page 5 of the restriction). These 19 different compounds were the explicit possibilities that were set forth by Applicant in claim 3 as originally filed. The restriction also stated (Page 14) that “Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species . . . are not patentably distinct, applicant should . . . clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.”
In the response to restriction (Applicant Arguments/Remarks dated 4/21/2025), Applicant clearly admitted that the compounds are not patentably distinct because they are obvious variants (“groups A1, A2, A3 and A4 are considered as obvious variants and necessary groups and should not be elected individually”; Page 5 of the Remarks).
As such, the remaining options for compound A2 in claim 3 are obvious variants of thiophene and each of these remaining options satisfy the requirements for compound A2 in claim 1. As such, claim 1 is obvious over Van Keuren.
Regarding claim 3, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, above, the options for compound A2 in claim 3 are obvious variants of thiophene. As such, claim 3 is obvious over Van Keuren.
Regarding claim 4, as b = c = 0, A3 of Van Keuren can be considered as any of the compounds listed in claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, as b = c = 0, A3 of Van Keuren can be considered as any of the compounds listed in claim 5.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Keuren as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Mahmood et al. (“First-principles theoretical designing of planar non-fullerene small molecular acceptors for organic solar cells: manipulation of noncovalent interactions”, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 2019, 21, 2128; a copy of which was already provided).
Regarding claim 6, the obvious modification of Van Keuren results in the organic semiconducting compound of claim of claim 1, as discussed above.
Van Keuren does not disclose that the terminal group A4 has one of the recited structures.
Van Keuren differs from the claimed invention by the substitution of a terminal group A4 having one of the recited structures in claim 6 with thiophene. However, using a group having one of the recited structures and the corresponding function of acting as a terminal group on both ends of an organic semiconducting compound was known in the art (Mahmood, in the same field of endeavor, discloses organic semiconducting compounds to have a terminal group of 2-(1,1-Dicyanomethylene)rhodamine (RCN)
PNG
media_image2.png
208
159
media_image2.png
Greyscale
which is Applicant’s second listed option). As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to have substituted the known group of 2-(1,1-Dicyanomethylene)rhodamine (RCN) as taught by Mahmood for the termional groups of Van Keuren and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. (see MPEP § 2143(I)(B)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 3-6 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive as the claimed have been amended to require a compound not explicitly taught by the prior art of record. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, a new ground of rejection of claims 1 and 3-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 necessitated by Applicant’s amendment has been made as claims 1 and 3-6 are obvious over the prior art of record, as discussed in the rejections above.
Conclusion
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 CHRISTOPHER A CULBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-4893. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at (571) 270-1435. 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.
/C.A.C/ Examiner, Art Unit 2815
/JOSHUA BENITEZ ROSARIO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2815