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 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.
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)/second paragraph
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(s) 12 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites “covalent matrix” which is vague because it is unclear what makes a matrix “covalent.” If a matrix made up of covalent bonds is the intended interpretation then this should be recited in the claim.
The rest of the rejected claims not specifically addressed above are rejected because they depend from one of the claims specifically addressed above and therefore include the same indefiniteness issue(s) via their dependency.
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 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.
If this application currently names joint inventors: in considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
When something is indicated as being “obvious” this should be taken as shorthand for “prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains before the effective filing date of the invention”.
When a range is indicated as overlapping a claimed range, unless otherwise noted, this should be taken as short hand to indicate that the claimed range is obvious in view of the overlapping range in the prior art as set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (U.S. 2017/0346037) in view of Zeika (U.S. 2010/0102709) in view of Hummert et al. (U.S. 2017/0373251).
Regarding claims 1-14, Huang teaches an organic semiconductor luminous display device ([0236]) with an anode, cathode, and two organic semiconductor light emitting layers therebetween, and with a radialene p-doped, organic matrix (made up of covalently bound atoms), charge generation layer located between one of the photoactive layers and the anode and/or between the two photoactive layers, as in claims 10-14, (see abstract, [0102], [0220], [0226], [0271], [0297]). Huang does not disclose that the radialene dopant is specifically as claimed.
However, Zeika teaches a composition comprising a radialene p-doped organic semiconductor matrix ([0039]), as sought by Huang, with multiple radialene p-dopants, (see claim 7 of Zeika), each of which overlaps the claimed I and II compounds, as in claims 2-9 (See claims 1-5 of Zeika) because each R1 independently may be a completely substituted phenyl or pyridine group, with the substituents including fluoro, cyano, and trifluoromethane (resulting in X groups that overlap the claimed I and II compounds and the compounds in the present examples). The mixture of compounds would thus encompass multiple different compounds that each overlaps the claimed I and II formula, and which may be different from each other in terms of the substituents used for the respective R1 groups of the different compounds, or via using the same R1 groups but having different geometric isomer arrangements (because the formula of Zeika is generic to all the possible geometric isomer arrangements of the radialene compounds, with the number of such geometric isomer arrangements, for a given selection of R1 groups, being sufficiently finite to try all possibilities). The radialene compounds of Zeika are disclosed as being readily handled in the production process of forming organic semiconductors ([0006]) and thus would be obvious to use as the radialene compound dopants sought in Huang.
In addition to different geometric isomer with the same R1 groups being obvious in Zeika of modified Huang given the disclosure of multiple compounds within the disclosed generic formula, as explained above, different geometric isomer of a compound with the same substituents is also prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.09 II. Compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) or homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). See also In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978) (stereoisomers prima facie obvious).
In addition to different geometric isomers with the same R1 groups being obvious in Zeika of modified Huang, as explained above, Hummert is also directed to radialene compounds in analogous art and discloses that different geometric isomers (e.g., E and Z geometric isomers) of a disclosed set of substituents for the radialene compound were obvious to use as a dopant for organic semiconductors (as in Zeika of modified Huang) (see abstract, [0031]-[0032]), such that it would have been obvious to have used different geometric isomers for a compound with a given set of R1 groups in Zeika of modified Huang, as taught by Hummert, because Hummert shows that such geometric isomers were known to provide the same desired functionality (dopant for organic semiconductors).
Although the particular ratio of the different I and II compounds explained above (either different in terms of substituents or of isomers), is not disclosed, the claimed ratio is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05 II A. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”); In reHoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc.v.Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 809, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1848 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989)(Claimed ratios were obvious as being reached by routine procedures and producing predictable results); In reKulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 1149, 14 USPQ2d 1056, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(Claimed amount of wash solution was found to be unpatentable as a matter of routine optimization in the pertinent art, further supported by the prior art disclosure of the need to avoid undue amounts of wash solution); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1997)(Claims were unpatentable because appellants failed to submit evidence of criticality to demonstrate that that the wear resistance of the protective layer in the claimed thickness range of 50-100 Angstroms was “unexpectedly good”); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree “will not sustain a patent”); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929) (“It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.”). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007) (identifying “the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art.”).
In addition to different geometric isomers with the same R1 groups being obvious in Zeika of modified Huang, as explained above, Hummert is also directed to radialene compounds in analogous art and discloses that such compounds may be formed from a reaction that is substantially the same as the one in the present application (see abstract, see the examples, showing that such radialene compounds are similarly formed by forming a triethyl amine intermediate compound with two of the three X groups in Zeika of modified Huang and reacting it with a cyano functional precursor for the third X group, which corresponds to the type of reactants 1 and 2 in the present examples, followed by converting the reaction product to the radialene form via exposure to nitric acid, as in the present examples). It would have been obvious to have used such reactions to form the radialene compounds of Zeika of modified Huang as in Hummert because Hummert shows that it is a suitable means to achieving the same radialene structure desired in Zeika of modified Huang for the same function (i.e., a dopant for organic semiconductors). Such reactions, if used to form even a single type of radialene compound (in terms of substituents), will inherently produce a mixture of different geometric isomers, as evidenced by the present specification. Although the ratio of such different compounds is already prima facie obvious as explained above, using the same reaction to form the compounds as in the present specification (as explained above) will also inherently result in a ratio of the different compounds within the claimed range, as evidenced by the present specification.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeika (U.S. 2010/0102709) in view of Hummert et al. (U.S. 2017/0373251).
Regarding claim 15, Zeika teaches a composition comprising a multiple radialene compounds (see claim 7 of Zeika), each of which overlaps the claimed I and II compounds (See claims 1-5 of Zeika) because each R1 independently may be a completely substituted phenyl or pyridine group, with the substituents including fluoro, cyano, and trifluoromethane (resulting in X groups that overlap the claimed I and II compounds and the compounds in the present examples). The mixture of compounds would thus encompass multiple different compounds that each overlaps the claimed I and II formula, and which may be different from each other in terms of the substituents used for the respective R1 groups of the different compounds, or via using the same R1 groups but having different geometric isomer arrangements (because the formula of Zeika is generic to all the possible geometric isomer arrangements of the radialene compounds, with the number of such geometric isomer arrangements, for a given selection of R1 groups, being sufficiently finite to try all possibilities).
In addition to different geometric isomer with the same R1 groups being obvious in Zeika given the disclosure of multiple compounds within the disclosed generic formula, as explained above, different geometric isomer of a compound with the same substituents is also prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.09 II. Compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) or homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). See also In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978) (stereoisomers prima facie obvious).
In addition to different geometric isomers with the same R1 groups being obvious in Zeika, as explained above, Hummert is also directed to radialene compounds in analogous art and discloses that different geometric isomers (e.g., E and Z geometric isomers) of a disclosed set of substituents for the radialene compound were obvious to use as a dopant for organic semiconductors (as in Zeika) (see abstract, [0031]-[0032]), such that it would have been obvious to have used different geometric isomers for a compound with a given set of R1 groups in Zeika, as taught by Hummert, because Hummert shows that such geometric isomers were known to provide the same desired functionality (dopant for organic semiconductors).
Although the particular ratio of the different I and II compounds explained above (either different in terms of substituents or of isomers), is not disclosed, the claimed ratio is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05 II A. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”); In reHoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc.v.Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 809, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1848 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989)(Claimed ratios were obvious as being reached by routine procedures and producing predictable results); In reKulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 1149, 14 USPQ2d 1056, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(Claimed amount of wash solution was found to be unpatentable as a matter of routine optimization in the pertinent art, further supported by the prior art disclosure of the need to avoid undue amounts of wash solution); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1997)(Claims were unpatentable because appellants failed to submit evidence of criticality to demonstrate that that the wear resistance of the protective layer in the claimed thickness range of 50-100 Angstroms was “unexpectedly good”); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree “will not sustain a patent”); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929) (“It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.”). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007) (identifying “the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art.”).
In addition to different geometric isomers with the same R1 groups being obvious in Zeika, as explained above, Hummert is also directed to radialene compounds in analogous art and discloses that such compounds may be formed from a reaction that is substantially the same as the one in the present application (see abstract, see the examples, showing that such radialene compounds are similarly formed by forming a triethyl amine intermediate compound with two of the three X groups in Zeika and reacting it with a cyano functional precursor for the third X group, which corresponds to the type of reactants 1 and 2 in the present examples, followed by converting the reaction product to the radialene form via exposure to nitric acid, as in the present examples). It would have been obvious to have used such reactions to form the radialene compounds of Zeika as in Hummert because Hummert shows that it is a suitable means to achieving the same radialene structure desired in Zeika for the same function (i.e., a dopant for organic semiconductors). Such reactions, if used to form even a single type of radialene compound (in terms of substituents), will inherently produce a mixture of different geometric isomers, as evidenced by the present specification. Although the ratio of such different compounds is already prima facie obvious as explained above, using the same reaction to form the compounds as in the present specification (as explained above) will also inherently result in a ratio of the different compounds within the claimed range, as evidenced by the present specification.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 18002003 (the copending application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The copending claims are similarly directed to an organic semiconductor composition and device that overlaps the claimed mixture of compounds, but without requiring the claimed ratio. However, this ratio is prima facie obvious as explained above, See MPEP 2144.05 II A.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 18002008 (the copending application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The copending claims are similarly directed to an organic semiconductor composition and device that overlaps the claimed mixture of compounds, but without requiring the claimed ratio. However, this ratio is prima facie obvious as explained above, See MPEP 2144.05 II A.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 18002013 (the copending application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The copending claims are similarly directed to an organic semiconductor composition and device that overlaps the claimed mixture of compounds, but without requiring the claimed ratio. However, this ratio is prima facie obvious as explained above, See MPEP 2144.05 II A.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 18002609 (the copending application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The copending claims are similarly directed to an organic semiconductor composition and device that overlaps the claimed mixture of compounds, but without requiring the claimed ratio. However, this ratio is prima facie obvious as explained above, See MPEP 2144.05 II A.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 18002562 (the copending application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The copending claims are similarly directed to an organic semiconductor composition and device that overlaps the claimed mixture of compounds, but without requiring the claimed ratio. However, this ratio is prima facie obvious as explained above, See MPEP 2144.05 II A.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 18002604 (the copending application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The copending claims are similarly directed to an organic semiconductor composition and device that overlaps the claimed mixture of compounds, but without requiring the claimed ratio. However, this ratio is prima facie obvious as explained above, See MPEP 2144.05 II A.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 18002172 (the copending application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The copending claims are similarly directed to an organic semiconductor composition and device that overlaps the claimed mixture of compounds, but without requiring the claimed ratio. However, this ratio is prima facie obvious as explained above, See MPEP 2144.05 II A.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 18002082 (the copending application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The copending claims are similarly directed to an organic semiconductor composition and device that overlaps the claimed mixture of compounds, but without requiring the claimed ratio. However, this ratio is prima facie obvious as explained above, See MPEP 2144.05 II A.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 18002088 (the copending application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The copending claims are similarly directed to an organic semiconductor composition and device that overlaps the claimed mixture of compounds, but without requiring the claimed ratio. However, this ratio is prima facie obvious as explained above, See MPEP 2144.05 II A.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 18002144 (the copending application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The copending claims are similarly directed to an organic semiconductor composition and device that overlaps the claimed mixture of compounds, but without requiring the claimed ratio. However, this ratio is prima facie obvious as explained above, See MPEP 2144.05 II A.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
References cited in any corresponding foreign applications have been considered but would be cumulative to the above. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL B NELSON whose direct telephone number is (571)272-9886 and whose direct fax number is (571)273-9886 and whose email address is Michael.Nelson@USPTO.GOV. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Sat, 7am - 7pm.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached on 571-272-1123. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300 (faxes sent to this number will take longer to reach the examiner than faxes sent to the direct fax number above).
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL B NELSON/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787