Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/263,602

ORGANIC COMPOUND OF FORMULA (I) FOR USE IN ORGANIC ELECTRONIC DEVICES, AN ORGANIC ELECTRONIC DEVICE COMPRISING A COMPOUND OF FORMULA (I) AND A DISPLAY DEVICE COMPRISING THE ORGANIC ELECTRONIC DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Jul 31, 2023
Examiner
BAHTA, MEDHANIT W
Art Unit
1692
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Novaled GmbH
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
613 granted / 763 resolved
+20.3% vs TC avg
Strong +29% interview lift
Without
With
+28.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
55 currently pending
Career history
818
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
35.8%
-4.2% vs TC avg
§102
18.2%
-21.8% vs TC avg
§112
30.3%
-9.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 763 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
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 . Status of the Claims The preliminary amendments filed on 07/31/2023 and 02/06/2024 have been entered. Claims 2-15, 17 and 20-22 have been amended. Thus claims 1-22 are currently pending and are under examination. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the attachment/bonding point in the structures of the formulas (II), (III), (IV), (IIa), (IIIa) and (IVa) to the compound of formula (I) has not been indicated. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites an improper Markush language “selected of the formula (VI)”. A proper Markush language must recite a selection of alternatives as discussed in MPEP § 2173.05(h), whereas the instant claim recites only formula (VI). Appropriate correction is required. Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim does not end with a period sign “.”. 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. Claims 1-4 and 6-22 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding claims 1 and 15, the formulas (II), (III), (IV), (IIa), (IIIa) and (IVa) of A1, A2 and A3 render the claim vague and indefinite as the attachment/bonding point to the compound of formula (I) has not been indicated in the structures of formulas (II), (III), (IV), (IIa), (IIIa) and (IVa). Claims 2-4 and 6-22 are also rendered indefinite for failing to obviate the vague language of claim 1. For purpose of applying art, the bonding point of the formulas (II), (III), (IV), (IIa), (IIIa) and (IVa) are interpreted to be at the methylene group bridging the Ar and R/CN groups (see below as an example): PNG media_image1.png 51 454 media_image1.png Greyscale Note: If the indefinite language of claims 1 and 15 is obviated by indicating the bonding point as above, the formula (VI) of claim 5 would not further limit claim 1 and would invoke the 112(d) rejection. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 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 1-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Enomoto (Enomoto, T. et al. “Synthesis, Structure, and Properties of Hexaaryl[3]radialenes” Bull. Chem. Soc. Jpn, 73, 2000, 2109–2114; cited in IDS 07/31/2023). Regarding claims 1-2 and 5-6, Enomoto teaches on pg. 2110 compound 1f that reads on the instant compound of formula (I): PNG media_image2.png 185 195 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 16 113 media_image3.png Greyscale In the above compound: Ar1, Ar2 and Ar3 = C6 aryl groups substituted by NO2, R’, R’’ and R’’’ = substituted aryl groups, and wherein the compound contains NO2 groups. Regarding claims 3 and 9, in the corresponding Ar1, Ar2 and Ar3: X1/6/11 is CR1/6/11, X2/7/12 is CR2/7/12; X3/8/13 is CR3/8/13; X4/9/14 is CR4/9/14; X5/10/15 is CR5/10/15; wherein one of R1/6/11, R2/7/12, R3/8/13, R4/9/14, and R5/10/15 is NO2 and the other R1/6/11, R2/7/12, R3/8/13, R4/9/14, and R5/10/15 are H Regarding claim 4, R3 (X of the above formula) is NO2. Regarding claim 8, Ar2 and Ar3 in 1f are identical. Allowable Subject Matter The subject matter of claims 7 and 10-22 is free of prior art reference. The closest prior art reference, Enomoto (Enomoto, T. et al. “Synthesis, Structure, and Properties of Hexaaryl[3]radialenes” Bull. Chem. Soc. Jpn, 73, 2000, 2109–2114; cited in IDS 07/31/2023), and its teachings have been set forth above. Regarding claim 7, Ar2 and Ar3 in compound 1f of Enomoto contain hydrogen as substituents but the reference fails to teach or suggest that at least one of Ar2 and Ar3 does not contain hydrogen. Regarding claim 10, compound 1f of Enomoto is the same compound of formula (I) that the instant claim is excluding. Regarding claim 11-14, the corresponding substituents of R’, R’’ and R’’’ in compound 1f of Enomoto are C6 aryl groups with NO2 groups, but fail to teach or suggest R’, R’’ and R’’’ as defined by claims 11-14. Regarding claim 15, while compound 1f of the reference is the same as the corresponding Ar1, Ar2 and Ar3 of formulas (IIa), (IIIa) and (IVa), R’, R’’ and R’’’ are not CN as instantly claimed. Regarding claim 16, compound 1f of Enomoto has 6 NO2 groups, not four nitro groups as required by the claim. Regarding claims 18-22, Enomoto teaches [3]Radialene (trimethylenecyclopropane) is the smallest member of [n]radialenes (all exo-methylenecycloalkanes) and has received considerable attention from both theoretical and experimental points of view owing to its unique structure and electronic properties, but fails to teach or suggest an organic semiconductor layer comprising compound 1f. Furthermore, Patent application publication number US20170373251A1 (US’251) teaches [3]-radialene compound of formula (I): PNG media_image4.png 134 295 media_image4.png Greyscale PNG media_image5.png 40 446 media_image5.png Greyscale PNG media_image6.png 363 443 media_image6.png Greyscale Some of US’251 further teaches a process for preparation of an electrically doped semiconducting material comprising a [3]-radialene p-dopant or for preparation of an electronic device containing a layer comprising a [3]-radialene p-dopant. However, the definition of A1 and A2 does not require the compound of formula (I) in US’251 to contain at least one NO2 group as instantly claimed or taught by Enomoto. Furthermore, each of A1 and A2 of US’251 include only one aryl- or heteroaryl-substituted cyanomethylidene groups, whereas in compound 1f of Enomoto, they contain two aryl groups. As such, one of ordinary skilled in the art would not have had a motivation to combine Enomoto and US’251 to arrive at the instant claims 7 and 10-22. Conclusion Claims 1-22 are rejected and no claims are allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEDHANIT W BAHTA whose telephone number is (571)270-7658. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm. 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, Scarlett Goon can be reached at 571-270-5241. 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. /MEDHANIT W BAHTA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 31, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 29, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600691
Process for Producing Mixed Alcohols from Purge Stream Containing Octene
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12590048
DINAPHTHYL ETHER COMPOUND AND LUBRICANT COMPOSITION CONTAINING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12577186
METHOD FOR PRODUCING ETHER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12570592
HIGHER SECONDARY ALCOHOL ALKOXYLATE PRECURSOR, HIGHER SECONDARY ALCOHOL ALKOXYLATE ADDUCT AND HIGHER SECONDARY ALKYL ETHER SULFATE ESTER SALT, AND METHODS FOR PRODUCING THESE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12565461
IMPROVED PROCESS FOR PREPARING BROMOCHLOROMETHANE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
80%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+28.6%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 763 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month