DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Claims 20, 26-27, 29, and 32-33 are amended due to Applicant’s amendment dated 06/29/2026.
3. Claims 20-34 are pending.
Response to Amendment
4. The rejection of claims 20, 27, and 29 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 as set forth in the previous Office Action is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 06/29/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
5. The rejection of claims 20-26, 28, 30, 32-33 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha et al. (WO 2019/168368 A1, English translation obtained from
WIPO) is not overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 06/29/2026. The rejection is maintained.
6. The rejection of claims 27 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha et al. (WO 2019/168368 A1, English translation obtained from WIPO) as applied to claim 20, and further in view of Hummert et al. (US 20170373251 A1) is not overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 06/29/2026. The rejection is maintained.
7. The rejection of claims 31 and 34 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha et al. (WO 2019/168368 A1, English translation obtained from WIPO) as applied to claim 20, and further in view of Ma et al. (US 2018/0166509 A1) is not overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 06/29/2026. The rejection is maintained.
8. The rejection of claims 20-22 and 26 on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting over claim 14 of co-pending Application No. 18/722,072 is not overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 06/29/2026. The rejection is maintained.
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant's arguments on pages 12-15 filed in the reply dated 06/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
10. Applicant’s argument – Applicant argues that the cited reference Ha does not teach or suggest a compound of formula (I) per claim 20 wherein A1 (selected from formula (II)) is structurally different than A3 (selected from formula (III)), and that A1 and A3 are not identical. Applicant also argues on pg. 13 that the modified, positionally-isomeric compound of Ha, described in the preceding office action dated 03/09/2026, wherein the cyano and trifluoromethyl groups on one of the aryl substituents of the [3]-radialene are transposed, does not read on the limitations of claim 20. Applicant also argues at the end of pg. 13 and the beginning of pg. 14 that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to change the “arms” of Ha’s radialene compounds to arrive at an asymmetric compound, because Ha only teaches symmetrical compounds and fails to teach asymmetric compounds.
11. Examiner’s response – The examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed below and in the previous rejection, Ha teaches the radialene compound below (¶ [0236]).
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
While Ha’s radialene compound fails to read on the claimed compound of formula (I) wherein A1 and A3 are not identical, Ha teaches the X1-R21, X2-R23, and X3-R25 moieties in Chemical Formula 3 may each be selected as
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(¶ [0172]-[0173]). That is, the multiple R34 groups of the radialene compound may be provided on any location of the phenyl. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by the positional isomers of the compound represented by Ha in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as dopants in the hole injection layer of the organic light emitting device of Ha and possess the properties taught by Ha (more facile hole injection and lowered driving voltage, (¶ [0255])). Additionally, applicant has not explained how the transposition of the cyano and trifluoromethyl substituents fails to render the A1 and A3 groups non-identical. The modified, positionally isomeric compound of Ha, resulting from the previously described transposition, has A1 and A3 groups which are regioisomeric in nature, and therefore not identical as per claim 20. Furthermore, the invention of the prior art is not limited to or defined by only those embodiments disclosed in the examples. A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. See MPEP 2123. As discussed below and in the previous rejection, Ha teaches the X1-R21, X2-R23, and X3-R25 moieties in Chemical Formula 3 may each be selected as
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(¶ [0172]-[0173]). As the multiple R34 groups of the radialene compound may be provided on any location of the phenyl, asymmetric compounds are within the scope of Ha’s Chemical Formula 3 and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the positional isomer of Ha’s compound to arrive at a compound of the claimed invention.
Information Disclosure Statement
12. The references provided in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on March
30, 2026 and June 24, 2026 have been considered. Signed copies of the corresponding 1449 forms have been included with this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
13. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
14. Claims 20-26, 28, 30, 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Ha et al. (WO 2019168368 A1, English translation obtained from
WIPO).
15. Regarding claims 20-24, Ha teaches radialene compounds represented by
Chemical Formula 3 (¶ [0022]-[0026], see formula below) wherein:
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
X1, X2, and X3 can be CR22, CR24, and CR26 (respectively) or a nitrogen
atom; and
R21-R26 can be the same or different from each other; and
R21-R26 can be selected from cyano groups, substituted or unsubstituted
aryl groups, or substituted or unsubstituted heteroaryl groups.
16. Ha teaches that radialene compounds of Chemical Formula 3 are useful as
dopants within the hole injection layer by enabling more facile hole injection to adjacent
layers when compared to undoped hole injection host materials, resulting in a lowered
driving voltage required for the organic light emitting device (¶ [0255]).
17. Ha does not teach an exemplified compound that meets all of the limitations of
Formula (II) as per claim 20, however Ha does disclose the following radialene
compound (¶ [0236], see below).
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
18. The radialene compound of Ha (shown above) meets all of the limitations of
claim 20, except for the C3-symmetric disposition wherein A1-A3 are all identical.
19. However, Ha teaches that the following moieties of Chemical Formula 3 (¶
[0172], see below)
PNG
media_image4.png
135
435
media_image4.png
Greyscale
may each be independently selected as the following moiety (¶ [0173], see below)
wherein:
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a34 can be an integer of 1-5 (¶ [0176]); and
when a34 is an integer of 2 or more, R34 may be the same or different from
each other (¶ [0179]); and
R34 can be selected from a fluorine atom, a cyano group, a trifluoromethoxy
group, or a trifluoromethyl group (¶ [0190]).
20. Given the general formula and teachings of Ha, it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to make the positional isomer of the radialene compound of Ha (see line 14)
wherein the trifluoromethyl and cyano substituents of one of the arenes are transposed
(see circled arene). This positional isomer is shown below.
PNG
media_image5.png
369
480
media_image5.png
Greyscale
21. One of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been motivated to produce
additional compounds represented by the positional isomers of the compound represented by Ha in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp
and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as dopants in the hole injection layer of the organic light emitting device of Ha and possess the properties taught by Ha
(more facile hole injection and lowered driving voltage, (¶ [0255])).
22. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very
close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. When compounds
which are position isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity,
there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP
2144.09 II.
23. Regarding claim 20, Compound Ha (isomeric) reads on formulae (I), (II), and
(III) wherein:
X1 to X5 of A1 are CR1 to CR5; and
R1 is a cyano substituent; and
R3 is a perfluorinated C1 alkyl substituent; and
at least one of R1 to R5 is H; and
Ar of A2 and A3 are trifluoromethyl- and cyano-substituted C6 aryl
substituents; and
R’ of A2 and A3 are cyano substituents; and
A1 and A3 are not identical.
24. Regarding claim 21, Compound Ha (isomeric) reads on formulae (IV) to (V)
wherein:
X1 to X5 of B1 are the same as defined above; and
B3 and B5 are Ar as defined above; and
B2, B4, and B6 are R’ as defined above.
25. Regarding claim 22, Compound Ha (isomeric) reads on the limitation wherein X3 is CR3 and R3 is a perfluorinated C1 alkyl substituent.
26. Regarding claim 23, Compound Ha (isomeric) reads on the limitation wherein X1 is C-CN.
27. Regarding claim 24, Compound Ha (isomeric) reads on the limitation wherein X1 is C-CN.
28. Regarding claims 25 and 26, Ha exemplifies the radialene compound of Ha
(see line 14) that meets all of the limitations of claim 20, except for the C3-symmetric
disposition wherein A1-A3 are all identical.
29. However, given the teachings of Ha regarding Chemical Formula 3 (see ¶ [0172-
0173], ¶ [0176], ¶ [0179], ¶ [0190]), 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 the
hydrogen atom of position R1 on one of the arenes of the radialene compound of Ha
with a cyano substituent (see circled arene), because Ha teaches this variable may be
preferably selected as cyano. This substitution is depicted below with Compound Ha
(Modified).
PNG
media_image6.png
200
400
media_image6.png
Greyscale
30. 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 dopant material in the hole injection layer of
the organic light emitting device of Ha and possess the properties taught by Ha (more
facile hole injection and lowered driving voltage, (¶ [0255])). See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
31. Regarding claim 25, Compound Ha (Modified) reads on the limitation wherein
X1 and X3 are C-CN.
32. Regarding claim 26, Compound Ha (Modified) reads on the limitation wherein at
least three of R1 to R5 are independently selected from CN, partially fluorinated or
perfluorinated C1 to C8 alkyl, Cl, or F. Specifically wherein:
R1 and R3 are cyano substituents; and
R5 is a perfluorinated C1 alkyl substituent.
33. Regarding claims 28, 30, 32-33, Ha teaches an organic electronic device (see
Example 18 (¶ [0480]-[0483]) for device fabrication; see also Examples 18-47 in Table 2
(¶ [0494]) and Examples 48-55 in Table 3 (¶ [0508]) for devices with hole injection
layers doped with radialene compounds) comprising:
an anode layer (ITO, ¶ [0481]); and
a cathode layer (Al, ¶ [0483]); and
at least one organic semiconductor layer (hole injection layer, ¶ [0482])
arranged between the anode and cathode layers; and
the at least one organic semiconductor layer comprises a radialene
compound of Chemical Formula 3 (HI-2 (¶ [0466]); see Table 2 ¶ [0494], and
HI-3, HI-4 (¶ [0501]); see Table 3 ¶ [0508]).
at least one photoactive layer arranged between the anode and cathode layers (BH1 and BD1 as host and dopant respectively (¶ [0466] and ¶ [0482]), and the at least one organic semiconductor layer (hole injection layer, ¶ [0482]) is arranged between the anode layer and the at least one photoactive layer (¶ [0482]).
34. While Ha does not teach Compound Ha (isomeric) (see regarding claims 20-24)
in an organic electronic device, Ha does generally teach uses of radialene compounds
represented by Chemical Formula 3 in organic electronic devices of claim 28.
35. 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 organic electronic devices of Ha by using
the Compound Ha (isomeric) as the dopant of the hole injection layer, based on the
teaching of Ha. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements
according to known methods to yield predictable results and one of ordinary skill in the
art would reasonably expect the modified organic electronic devices to possess the
benefits taught by Ha (more facile hole injection and lowered driving voltage, (¶ [0255])).
See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
36. The modified organic electronic device of Ha comprising the compound Ha
(isomeric) in the hole injection layer reads on all the limitations of claims 28 and 30.
37. Regarding claims 32-33, the modified organic electronic device of Ha
comprising the compound Ha (isomeric) in the hole injection layer reads on claim 32
wherein the organic electronic device is an electroluminescent device and on claim 33
wherein the organic electronic device is an organic light emitting diode (¶ [0005]).
38. Claims 27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Ha et al. (WO 2019168368 A1, English translation obtained from WIPO) as
applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Hummert et al. (US 20170373251
A1).
39. Regarding claim 27, Ha, as modified above, teaches all of the features with
respect to claim 20 as outlined above.
40. Ha, as modified above, does not exemplify a structure wherein two of X1 to X5
are nitrogen atoms as required per claim 27.
41. Hummert teaches radialene compounds represented by formula 1 (¶ [0019], see
formula below) wherein:
PNG
media_image7.png
200
336
media_image7.png
Greyscale
A1 and A2 are independently aryl- or heteroaryl-substituted cyanomethylidene groups (¶ [0019]); and
A1 and A2 can be the same or different from each other (¶ [0030]).
42. Hummert exemplifies compound B1 (shown below, ¶ [0041]) wherein pyrimidine
is shown to be a preferred heterocyclic substituent for the cyanomethylidine moieties of
the [3]-radialene compounds.
PNG
media_image8.png
200
352
media_image8.png
Greyscale
43. Hummert also teaches that [3]-radialene compounds of Formula (I) are useful as
p-dopants in organic light emitting diodes (¶ [0024]) and that substitutions of the aryl and heteroaryl groups within the cyanomethylidene moieties of A1 and A2 result in
predictable changes of the dopant’s redox couple as measured by cyclic voltammetry (¶
[0033]-[0035]). Additionally, Hummert teaches that the capacity to alter the dopant’s
redox potential can be leveraged to lower the required doping concentration and provide
increased flexibility during electronic device design process (¶ [0039]).
44. 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 radialene compound of Ha (see line 14)
by substituting one of the aryl groups of the aryl cyanomethylidene moieties
for a pyrimidine heteroaryl group, based on the teachings of Hummert with the
motivation to provide a p-dopant material with a predictably alterable redox couple (¶
[0033]-[0035]) and possess the benefits taught by Hummert (lowered doping concentration and increased flexibility during electronic device design process (¶
[0039])).This substitution provides the following modified compound (see below).
PNG
media_image9.png
196
380
media_image9.png
Greyscale
45. The Compound of Ha (Hummert Modification) reads on all of the limitations of
claims 20 and 27.
46. Regarding claim 29, Ha, as modified above, teaches all of the features with
respect to claims 20 and 28 as outlined above.
47. Ha, as modified above, does not teach an organic semiconductor layer
comprising a compound of formula (IV) and at least one compound of formula (IVa) to
(IVd) as required per claim 29.
48. Hummert teaches a synthetic process for preparing C3-symmetric and
asymmetric [3]-radialene compounds (Abstract), and further discloses that the inventive
radialene compounds produced by this synthetic process may comprise all possible
geometric isomers with respect to the disposition of the substituents across the
exocyclic double bonds (¶ [0033]).
49. Hummert discloses that the final step in the synthetic process for preparing the
[3]-radialene compounds is an oxidation reaction (¶ [0022]) and teaches the following
example involving Compound B5 (¶ [0094], shown below).
PNG
media_image10.png
366
751
media_image10.png
Greyscale
50. Given that the cyano and (hetero)aryl substituents on the radialene precursor are
connected to single bonds (see circled areas above) capable of free rotation prior to the
oxidation reaction, and given the teaching of Hummert regarding the presence of
geometric isomers of the synthesized radialene compounds (¶ [0033]), it would be
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to reasonably expect the generation of regioisomeric [3]-radialene
compounds produced by the final oxidation reaction as described above, absent any
indication of unexpected results.
51. One possible regiosiomer of the Compound Ha (Hummert Modification) is shown
below, which reads on formula (IVa) as per claim 29.
PNG
media_image11.png
192
376
media_image11.png
Greyscale
52. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce organic
electronic devices comprising a composition of Compounds Ha (Hummert Modification)
and Ha (Hummert isomeric) in the organic semiconductor layer having the benefits
taught by Hummert (predictably alterable redox couple (¶ [0033]-[0035]) and increased
flexibility during electronic device design (¶ [0039])) in order to pursue the known
options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success,
absent any indication of unexpected results. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
53. Claims 31 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Ha et al. (WO 2019168368 A1, English translation obtained from WIPO) as
applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Ma et al. (US 20180166509 A1).
54. Regarding claims 31 and 34, Ha, as modified above, teaches all of the features
with respect to claims 20 and 28 as outlined above.55. Ha does not teach an organic electronic device that comprises at least two
photoactive layers wherein at least one of the at least one organic semiconductor layers
is arranged between the first and the second photoactive layer.
56. Ma teaches an organic electronic device comprising:
an anode layer (¶ [0007]); and
a cathode layer (¶ [0007]); and
at least two emitting layers arranged between the anode and cathode layers
(¶ [0007]); and
a charge generation layer between the adjacent emitting layers wherein the
charge generation layer includes a P-type semiconductor dopant (¶ [0007]).
57. The specific P-type semiconductor dopant is represented by the following
formula (see below, ¶ [0007]) wherein:
PNG
media_image12.png
200
400
media_image12.png
Greyscale
n is an integer greater than or equal to 1 (¶ [0008]); and
X1-X3 each has an independent structure of
PNG
media_image13.png
98
120
media_image13.png
Greyscale
(¶ [0008]); and
R’ is selected from any substituted aryl or heteroaryl group wherein the
substituent(s) include at least one electron acceptor group (¶ [0008]).
58. Ma also teaches that organic light emitting diodes possessing charge generation
layers disposed between two adjacent light emitting layers have improved luminous
efficiency and lowered driving voltages when the charge generation layers include
radialene-derived P-type semiconductor dopants (¶ [0035]).
59. 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 modified organic electronic device of Ha
(see regarding claim 28) by including a charge generation layer doped with Compound
Ha (isomeric) between a first light emitting layer and a second light emitting layer, based
on the teachings of Ma with the motivation to provide an organic electronic device with
improved luminous efficiency and lowered driving voltages (¶ [0035]). The resulting
device of Ha (Ma Modification) reads on all of the limitations of claim 31.
60. Ma also teaches a display device comprising all of the aforementioned limitations
of claims 28 and 31 (¶ [0011]).
61. 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 modified organic electronic device of Ha
(Ma Modification) by incorporating it into a display device, based on the teachings of Ma
with the motivation to provide a display device with improved luminous efficiency and
lowered driving voltages (¶ [0035]). The resulting display device of Ha (Ma Modification)
reads on all of the limitations of claim 34.
Double Patenting
62. 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).
63. 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).
64. 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.
65. 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.
66. Claims 20-22 and 26 are provisionally rejected on the ground of
nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of copending
Application No. 18/722,072 (reference application, hereafter Application ‘072).
67. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct
from each other because claim 14 of Application ‘072 recites a compound defined by
formulae (XI), (XIIa), and (XIII), and further provides structural limitations that are
commensurate with the scope of claims 20-22 and 26 of the instant application. This
is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct
claims have not in fact been patented.
68. Regarding claims 20-22 and 26 of the instant application, Application ‘072
discloses the following formulae (XI), (XIIa), and (XIII) in claim 14 wherein:
PNG
media_image14.png
271
607
media_image14.png
Greyscale
A1 in Formula (XI) is represented by Formula (XIIa); and
X1-X3, X5 are selected from CR1-CR3, CR5 or N; and
X4 is selected from CR4; and
A2 and A3 in in Formula (XI) is represented by Formula (XIII).
69. Application ‘072 also discloses Compound B20 (see below), which meets all of
the further structural limitations of claim 14 of Application ‘072.
PNG
media_image15.png
296
294
media_image15.png
Greyscale
70. Regarding claim 20 of the instant application, Compound B20 of Application
‘072 reads on formulae (I) to (III) wherein:
X1 to X5 are CR1 to CR5; and
R1 and R5 are perfluorinated C1 alkyl substituents; and
R2 and R4 are cyano substituents; and
R3 is a hydrogen atom; and
Ar of A2 and A3 are fluoro- and cyano-substituted C6 aryl substituents; and
R’ of A2 and A3 are cyano substituents; and
A1 and A3 are not identical.
71. Regarding claim 21 of the instant application, Compound B20 of Application
‘072 reads on formulae (IV) to (V) wherein:
X1 to X5 of B1 are the same as defined above; and
B3 and B5 are Ar as defined above; and
B2, B4, and B6 are R’ as defined above.
72. Regarding claim 22 of the instant application, Compound B20 of Application
‘072 reads on the limitation wherein X3 is CR3 and R3 is a hydrogen atom.
73. Regarding claim 26 of the instant application, Compound B20 of Application
‘072 reads on the limitation wherein at least three R1 to R5 are independently selected
from CN, partially fluorinated or perfluorinated C1 to C8 alkyl, Cl, or F. Specifically,
wherein R1 and R5 are perfluorinated C1 alkyl substituents and R2 and R4 are cyano
substituents.
74. Although the claims of the instant application and Application ‘072 are not
identical, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would recognize that the
claims of the instant application and Application ‘072 are obvious variants of each other
as they overlap in scope.
Conclusion
75. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
76. 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.
77. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brandon J. Cooper whose telephone number is (571)272-0005. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
78. 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.
79. 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.
80. 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.
/B.J.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1786
/BRAELYN R WATSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights