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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gao et al. (US 2020/0270278).
Considering Claims 1-4 and 11: Gao et al. teaches a compound of the formula
PNG
media_image1.png
142
200
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(¶0006), where X1 and X2 are nitrogen, A1 and A2 are cyano substituted C6 to 30 aryl groups, which have the reactive nitrile group, D1 and D2 are C1-20 alkyl group, C6-40 aryl group, or a C3-20 heterocyclic group; and R1 and R2 are halogen, C1-30 alkyl, C3-20 heterocyclic, or C6-40 aryl group (¶0007-15).
Considering Claim 7: Kori et al. teaches examples with 4 or 6 nitrile groups (M7 and M10).
Considering Claim 12: Kori et al. teaches a composition comprising the compound (¶0029).
Claims 1 and 8-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (Polymer 160, 2019, 138-147).
Considering Claims 1 and 8-11: Wang et al. teaches a compound of the formula
PNG
media_image2.png
126
162
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Scheme 1), which reads on the instant claims, where R1-R9 are hydrogen, R5 and R10 are hydrogen, and X1 and X2 are phenyl groups substituted with a hydroxyl reactive group.
Considering Claims 12-14 and 16: Wang et al. teaches the compound as being in a composition with a crosslinking agent and initiator (Scheme 1) and a reaction product/cured product thereof.
Considering Claim 15: Wang et al. teaches the composition of claim 12. The phrase “for an electronic component” is a statement of intended use. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (The court found that the preamble in one patent’s claim is limiting but is not in a related patent); Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kori et al. (US 2019/0067021) in view of Hayashida et al. (US 2014/0008626).
Considering Claims 1-6, 11, and 17-20: Kori et al. teaches a compound of the formula
PNG
media_image3.png
96
172
media_image3.png
Greyscale
. Kori et al. further teaches that the central aromatic ring can be substituted (¶0028).
Kori et al. is silent towards the substituents on the central aromatic ring, i.e. X1 and X2. However, Hayashida et al. teaches a compound of the formula
PNG
media_image4.png
178
332
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, where R1 can be a C1-20 alkyl group, C6-30 aryl group, or C3-30 heteroaryl group (¶0020, 22). Kori et al. and Hayashida et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely indolocarbazole compounds. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have used the substituent of Hayashida et al. on the compound of Kori et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, as Hayashida et al. suggests, they are conventional substituents for the indolocarbazole compounds.
Considering Claims 12-14: Kori et al. teaches a composition comprising the compound, a ketone or aldehyde crosslinking agent and an acid catalyst/initiator (¶0116).
Considering Claim 15: Kori et al. teaches the composition of claim 12. The phrase “for an electronic component” is a statement of intended use. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (The court found that the preamble in one patent’s claim is limiting but is not in a related patent); Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
Considering Claim 16: Kori et al. teaches the polymer product/cured product (¶0116).
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 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1- of copending Application No. 18/577,499 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Considering Claims 1-11 and 16-20: Claim 1 of application ‘499 teaches a compound of the formula I. Claim 4 teaches the reactive groups as being a carbon-carbon triple bond or phenolic hydroxyl group.
Considering Claims 12-16: Claims 7-10 or application ‘499 correspond to instant claims 12-16.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIAM J HEINCER whose telephone number is (571)270-3297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/LIAM J HEINCER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767