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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 26 January 2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 1, 14, 16-17, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 3-4, 6, 8-10, and 15 are cancelled.
Claims 21-26 are new.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7, 11-14, and 16-26 are pending.
The amendment to claim 1 has overcome the rejections of claims 1-2 and 4-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boudreault et al. (US 2020/0227659 A1) (hereafter “Boudreault”) in view of Ragini et al. (US 2006/0228582 A1) (hereafter “Ragini”) set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn.
The amendments to claims 1, 17, and 20 have overcome the rejections of claims 1-3, 5-8, 11, and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia et al. (US 2012/0223634 A1) (hereafter “Xia”) in view of Ragini et al. (US 2006/0228582 A1) (hereafter “Ragini”) set forth in the last Office action as well as the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia et al. (US 2012/0223634 A1) (hereafter “Xia”) in view of Ragini et al. (US 2006/0228582 A1) (hereafter “Ragini”), and further in view of Lamansky et al. (US 2002/0182441 A1) (hereafter “Lamansky”) set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn.
The terminal disclaimer filed 26 January 2026 has obviated the rejection of claims 1-2 and 4-14 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,369,488 B2 set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1-2 and 4-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boudreault et al. (US 2020/0227659 A1) (hereafter “Boudreault”) in view of Ragini et al. (US 2006/0228582 A1) (hereafter “Ragini”) set forth in the last Office action have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1-3, 5-8, 11, and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia et al. (US 2012/0223634 A1) (hereafter “Xia”) in view of Ragini et al. (US 2006/0228582 A1) (hereafter “Ragini”) set forth in the last Office action as well as the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia et al. (US 2012/0223634 A1) (hereafter “Xia”) in view of Ragini et al. (US 2006/0228582 A1) (hereafter “Ragini”), and further in view of Lamansky et al. (US 2002/0182441 A1) (hereafter “Lamansky”) set forth in the last Office action have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 26 January 2026 regarding each of the provisional rejections on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting set forth in the last Office action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the current claims are allowable and thus the provisional rejections should be withdrawn.
However, for the reasons described below, the current claims are not allowable.
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 2 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 2: Claim 2 recites the substituent variable “RA”. However, the structural formula of claim 1—Formula Ib—does not recite the substituent variable “RA”. Therefore, it is unclear to what the substituent variable “RA” is referring, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the substituent variable “RA” is being interpreted as being the same as the substituent variable “RAA”.
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: Claim 5 recites that the metal M can be selected from the group consisting of Ir, Rh, Ru, Os, Pt, Pd, Ag, Au, and Cu. However, claim 1 recites that the metal M is Ir. It is unclear if the metal M can be Rh, Ru, Os, Pt, Pd, Ag, Au, or Cu, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the claim is being interpreted such that the metal M is Ir as described by claim 1.
Claim 12 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 12: Claim 12 recites that the compound can be selected from a selection of compounds in which the metal M is Ir or from a selection of compound in which the metal M is Pt. However, claim 1 recites that the metal M is Ir. It is unclear if the metal M can be Pt, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the claim is being interpreted such that the metal M is Ir as described by claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 5: Claim 5 recites that the metal M can be selected from the group consisting of Ir, Rh, Ru, Os, Pt, Pd, Ag, Au, and Cu. However, claim 1 recites that the metal M is Ir. Therefore the claim fails to include all of the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 12: Claim 12 recites that the compound can be selected from a selection of compounds in which the metal M is Ir or from a selection of compound in which the metal M is Pt. However, claim 1 recites that the metal M is Ir. Therefore the claim fails to include all of the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 16: Claim 16 recites that the compound has the structure of Formula II in which the metal M is Pt. However, claim 1 recites that the metal M is Ir. It is unclear if the metal M can be Pt, rendering the claim indefinite. Therefore the claim fails to include all of the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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) 1-2, 5, 7, 11-14, 17-18, 21, 23, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al. (US 2007/0237981 A1) (hereafter “Shen”) in view of Ragini et al. (US 2006/0228582 A1) (hereafter “Ragini”).
Regarding claims 1-2, 5, 7, 11-14, 17-18, 21, 23, and 25: Shen discloses an organic light emitting device (OLED) comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode {(paragraphs [0021]-[0022] and Table 1: Device comprising Compound 2), (p. 10, structure of Compound 2)}.
PNG
media_image1.png
374
582
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The organic layer is a light emitting layer and further comprises a host material that is CBP, having the structure shown below {paragraphs [0021]-[0022] and Table 1: Device comprising Compound 2}.
PNG
media_image2.png
417
500
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Ir compound shown above does not meet the current claim limitations because the compound does not comprise a silyl substituent.
Ragini teaches metal complex compounds having the structure shown below {paragraph [0016]}.
PNG
media_image3.png
500
454
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Where in the structurally formula above rings CY1 and CY2 can each be aromatic rings and A^B is a monoanionic bidentate ligand {paragraph [0016]}. At least one of CY1, CY2, and A^B comprises a silyl substituent {paragraph [0016]}.
The compounds of Ragini are useful as phosphorescent light-emitting dopants in the light-emitting layer of organic light-emitting devices {abstract and paragraphs [0014]-[0015] and [0057]-[0060]}.
Ragini teaches that silyl substituted cyclometalated transition metal complexes have heat stability {paragraph [0029]}. Ragini exemplifies trimethylsilyl {paragraphs [0057]-[0060]}.
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 Shen shown above by substituting the pyridyl-thienyl rings with a trimethylsilyl group, based on the teaching of Ragini. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a metal complex having heat stability and efficient luminescence, as taught by Ragini.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to have placed the substituent at the pyridyl-thienyl rings. The selection of the pyridyl-thienyl rings would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions—the possible places where the substituent could be placed—with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of substituent and substituent positions to be used to make compounds for use in an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light emitting devices.
Regarding claim 21: Shen teaches all of the features with respect to claim 21, as outlined above.
The resultant compound would have the structure of one of the following structural formulas of claim 21:
PNG
media_image4.png
100
146
media_image4.png
Greyscale
or
PNG
media_image5.png
122
128
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 23: Shen teaches all of the features with respect to claim 21, as outlined above.
The resultant compound would have the structure of one of the following structural formulas of claim 21: LA23-(G1)(R1)(R1)(R1) having the structure
PNG
media_image6.png
118
138
media_image6.png
Greyscale
, LA24-(G1)(R1)(R1)(R1) having the structure
PNG
media_image7.png
126
136
media_image7.png
Greyscale
, or LA32-(G1)(R1)(R1)(R1) having the structure
PNG
media_image8.png
134
118
media_image8.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claims 1-2, 5, 7, 11-13, 17-18, 21, and 26: Shen discloses an organic light emitting device (OLED) comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode {(paragraphs [0021]-[0022] and Table 1: Device comprising Compound 1), (paragraph [0019], pp. 8-9: structure of Compound 1)}.
PNG
media_image9.png
462
724
media_image9.png
Greyscale
The organic layer is a light emitting layer and further comprises a host material that is CBP, having the structure shown below {paragraphs [0021]-[0022] and Table 1: Device comprising Compound 1}.
PNG
media_image2.png
417
500
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Ir compound shown above does not meet the current claim limitations because the compound does not comprise a silyl substituent.
Ragini teaches metal complex compounds having the structure shown below {paragraph [0016]}.
PNG
media_image3.png
500
454
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Where in the structurally formula above rings CY1 and CY2 can each be aromatic rings and A^B is a monoanionic bidentate ligand {paragraph [0016]}. At least one of CY1, CY2, and A^B comprises a silyl substituent {paragraph [0016]}.
The compounds of Ragini are useful as phosphorescent light-emitting dopants in the light-emitting layer of organic light-emitting devices {abstract and paragraphs [0014]-[0015] and [0057]-[0060]}.
Ragini teaches that silyl substituted cyclometalated transition metal complexes have heat stability {paragraph [0029]}. Ragini exemplifies trimethylsilyl {paragraphs [0057]-[0060]}.
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 Shen shown above by substituting the pyridyl-thienyl rings with a trimethylsilyl group, based on the teaching of Ragini. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a metal complex having heat stability and efficient luminescence, as taught by Ragini.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to have placed the substituent at the pyridyl-thienyl rings. The selection of the pyridyl-thienyl rings would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions—the possible places where the substituent could be placed—with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of substituent and substituent positions to be used to make compounds for use in an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light emitting devices.
Regarding claim 21: Shen teaches all of the features with respect to claim 21, as outlined above.
The resultant compound would have the structure of one of the following structural formulas of claim 21:
PNG
media_image10.png
104
176
media_image10.png
Greyscale
or
PNG
media_image11.png
112
114
media_image11.png
Greyscale
.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia et Shen et al. (US 2007/0237981 A1) (hereafter “Shen”) in view of Ragini et al. (US 2006/0228582 A1) (hereafter “Ragini”) as applied to claims 1 and 17 above, and further in view of Lamansky et al. (US 2002/0182441 A1) (hereafter “Lamansky”).
Regarding claim 20: Shen as modified by Ragini teaches all of the features with respect to claims 1 and 17, as outlined above.
Claim 20 differs from claim 17 in the organic light-emitting device is comprised in a consumer product.
Shen does not exemplify a consumer product comprising the organic light-emitting device of Shen described above.
Lamansky teaches the use of organic electroluminescent devices in display devices {paragraph [0139]}. Lamansky teaches that flat panel displays utilizing organic light emitting devices (which are organic electroluminescent devices) would have bright colors, wide viewing angle, low power requirements, broad temperature ranges, and thin form factor {paragraph [0010]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the organic light-emitting device of Sgeb to be part of a display device, based on the teachings of Lamansky. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a display device with bright colors, wide viewing angle, low power requirements, broad temperature ranges, and thin form factor, as taught by Lamansky.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 7, 11-13, 17-19, 21-22, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2023/0121032 A1) (hereafter “Park”) in view of Ragini et al. (US 2006/0228582 A1) (hereafter “Ragini”).
Regarding claims 1-2, 5, 7, 11-13, 17-19, 21-22, and 25: Park discloses an organic light emitting device (OLED) comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode {(paragraphs [0247]-[0250] and Table 2: Device Example comprising Compound 1), (p. 61, structure of Compound 1)}.
PNG
media_image12.png
502
836
media_image12.png
Greyscale
The organic layer is a light emitting layer and further comprises a host material that is CBP, having the structure shown below { paragraphs [0247]-[0250] and Table 2: Device Example comprising Compound 1}.
PNG
media_image13.png
892
744
media_image13.png
Greyscale
The Ir compound shown above does not meet the current claim limitations because the compound does not comprise a silyl substituent.
Ragini teaches metal complex compounds having the structure shown below {paragraph [0016]}.
PNG
media_image3.png
500
454
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Where in the structurally formula above rings CY1 and CY2 can each be aromatic rings and A^B is a monoanionic bidentate ligand {paragraph [0016]}. At least one of CY1, CY2, and A^B comprises a silyl substituent {paragraph [0016]}.
The compounds of Ragini are useful as phosphorescent light-emitting dopants in the light-emitting layer of organic light-emitting devices {abstract and paragraphs [0014]-[0015] and [0057]-[0060]}.
Ragini teaches that silyl substituted cyclometalated transition metal complexes have heat stability {paragraph [0029]}. Ragini exemplifies trimethylsilyl {paragraphs [0057]-[0060]}.
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 Park shown above by substituting the pyridyl-thienyl rings with a trimethylsilyl group, based on the teaching of Ragini. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a metal complex having heat stability and efficient luminescence, as taught by Ragini.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to have placed the substituent at the pyridyl-thienyl rings. The selection of the pyridyl-thienyl rings would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions—the possible places where the substituent could be placed—with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of substituent and substituent positions to be used to make compounds for use in an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light emitting devices.
Regarding claims 21-22: Park teaches all of the features with respect to claim 21, as outlined above.
The resultant compound would have the structure of one of the following structural formulas of claim 21-22:
PNG
media_image14.png
170
310
media_image14.png
Greyscale
where two RBB are alkenyl that are joined to form a ring.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2020/0308207 A1) (hereafter “Kim”) in view of Ragini et al. (US 2006/0228582 A1) (hereafter “Ragini”).
Regarding claim 16: Kim discloses an organic light emitting device (OLED) comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode {(paragraphs [0286]-[0286] and Table 3: Device Example comprising Compound 1), (p. 46, structure of Compound 1)}.
PNG
media_image15.png
796
1132
media_image15.png
Greyscale
The organic layer is a light emitting layer and further comprises a host material that is CBP, having the structure shown below {paragraphs [0286]-[0286] and Table 3: Device Example comprising Compound 1}.
PNG
media_image2.png
417
500
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Pt compound shown above does not meet the current claim limitations because the compound does not comprise a silyl substituent.
Ragini teaches metal complex compounds having the structure shown below {paragraph [0016]}.
PNG
media_image3.png
500
454
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Where in the structurally formula above rings CY1 and CY2 can each be aromatic rings and A^B is a monoanionic bidentate ligand {paragraph [0016]}. At least one of CY1, CY2, and A^B comprises a silyl substituent {paragraph [0016]}.
The compounds of Ragini are useful as phosphorescent light-emitting dopants in the light-emitting layer of organic light-emitting devices {abstract and paragraphs [0014]-[0015] and [0057]-[0060]}.
Ragini teaches that silyl substituted cyclometalated transition metal complexes have heat stability {paragraph [0029]}. Ragini exemplifies trimethylsilyl {paragraphs [0057]-[0060]}.
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 Kim shown above by substituting the pyridyl-thienyl rings with a trimethylsilyl group, based on the teaching of Ragini. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a metal complex having heat stability and efficient luminescence, as taught by Ragini.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to have placed the substituent at the pyridyl-thienyl rings. The selection of the pyridyl-thienyl rings would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions—the possible places where the substituent could be placed—with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of substituent and substituent positions to be used to make compounds for use in an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light emitting devices.
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 1-2, 4-9, 11-14, 21-23, and 25 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of copending Application No. 17745939 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-14, 21-23, and 25: Claim 16 of copending Application No. 17745939 discloses the compound shown below {claim 16}.
PNG
media_image16.png
336
716
media_image16.png
Greyscale
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-2, 4-14, 21-23, and 25 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of copending Application No. 18181378 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claims 1-2, 4-14, 21-23, and 25: Claim 16 of copending Application No. 18181378 discloses the compound shown below {claim 16}.
PNG
media_image17.png
354
672
media_image17.png
Greyscale
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-2, 4-15, and 21-25 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of copending Application No. 18630113 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claims 1-2, 4-15, and 21-25: Claim 15 of copending Application No. 18630113 discloses the compound shown below {claim 15}.
PNG
media_image18.png
400
670
media_image18.png
Greyscale
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-14, 21-23, and 25 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of copending Application No. 18657918 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-14, 21-23, and 25: Claim 15 of copending Application No. 18657918 discloses the compound shown below {claim 15}.
PNG
media_image19.png
330
496
media_image19.png
Greyscale
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-14, 21-23, and 25 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of copending Application No. 18657918 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-14, 21-23, and 25: Claim 15 of copending Application No. 18657918 discloses the compound shown below {claim 15}.
PNG
media_image20.png
336
608
media_image20.png
Greyscale
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 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
Prosecution Insights