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 .
Election/Restriction
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claim(s) 1-9 in the reply filed on 06/29/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the amended claims are not read upon by DuPont, and thus, there is unity of invention. This is not found persuasive because the linear polymer is known in the prior art, as cited in the following rejections below and incorporated herein, and thus, the linear polymer is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 10, 11, 13-17, 19-21, and 23, are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 06/29/2026.
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.
Claim 1-9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7-12 of copending Application No. 18/852,980 (App. No. 18/852,980).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because App. No. 18/852,980 teaches each and every component and reads upon the claims in an anticipatory manner.
Regarding claims 1-9, App. No. 18/852,980 teaches a conjugated polymer having the repeating structure of formula
PNG
media_image1.png
93
138
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, wherein Ar is an arylene or heteroarylene group, p is at least 1, one of Y1 or Y2 is CR1, wherein R1 is H, the other Y1 and Y2 is N. (claim 7), wherein p is also 2-5 (claim 8), Ar is p-phenylene (claim 9), wherein one of the substituents of Ar is F (claim 10), and specifically, the formula is
PNG
media_image2.png
385
368
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(claim 12).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-2 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of copending Application No. 18/284,850 (App. No. 18/284,850).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because App. No. 18/284,850 teaches each and every component and reads upon the claims in an anticipatory manner.
Regarding claims 1-2, App. No. 18/284,850 teaches a conjugated polymer with the repeating unit of formula
PNG
media_image3.png
65
135
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, wherein Ar is an arylene or heteroarylene group, p is at least 1, one of Y1 and Y2 is CR7, and the other Y1 and Y2 is N. (claim 6).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 9 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.
Claim 9 recites the repeating units of formulae (II to IV), however “Y1,” “Y2,” “Ar,” and “p,” are not defined. It is unclear whether they are defined by the same definitions as in claim 1 or by another definition.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 9, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2010/0041862 A1 to Li (hereinafter Li).
Regarding claims 1-7 and 9, Li teaches a semiconducting polymer having the formula
PNG
media_image4.png
152
317
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(para 6), wherein a and b are 0 to 10, n is 2 to 5000, (para 7-11), and specifically, the formula is
PNG
media_image5.png
122
321
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, wherein R3 is an alkyl groups, (para 12-13), such as C1-C20 alkyl groups, (para 13), which meets the claimed linear polymer wherein Ar is heteroarylene groups of thiophene, p=4, Y1 is N, and Y2 is -CH- of claims 1-7. Li also teaches the semiconducting polymer can have the formula
PNG
media_image6.png
99
301
media_image6.png
Greyscale
, which appears to meet the claimed formula (II) in claim 9, wherein q is 1 and p does not appear to be defined.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8 and 9, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2020/225826 A1 to Sukumaran et al. (hereinafter Sukumaran).
Regarding claims 1-3, 8 and 9, Sukumaran teaches the fluorescent polymer having the formula
PNG
media_image7.png
242
147
media_image7.png
Greyscale
, wherein R1 and R2 is
PNG
media_image8.png
48
168
media_image8.png
Greyscale
(Example 2, page 15, ln 19-29) or
PNG
media_image9.png
45
183
media_image9.png
Greyscale
(page 3-4), which meets the formula (I) of claims 1-3, and formula (III) of claims 8-9, wherein the linker group L is a C6 alkylene group.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7 and 9, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang et al., “Conjugated Aromatic Polyimines. 2. Synthesis, Structure, and Properties of New Aromatic Polyazomethines,” Macromolecules, vol. 28(4), page 1180-1195 (1995). (hereinafter Yang).
Regarding claims 1-4, 7 and 9,Yang teaches a polyazomethine having the formula
PNG
media_image10.png
148
326
media_image10.png
Greyscale
, which meets formula (I) of claims 1-4, 7, and formula (II) of claim 9.
Claim(s) 1-7, and 9, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sun et al., “Synthesis of One-Dimensional Schiff Base Polymers that Contain an Oligothiophene Building Block on the Graphite Surface,” Chemistry European Journal, vol. 21, pp. 6898-6905 (2015). (hereinafter Sun).
Regarding claims 1-7, and 9, Sun teaches a polymer having the formula
PNG
media_image11.png
90
288
media_image11.png
Greyscale
, wherein Ar is
PNG
media_image12.png
71
292
media_image12.png
Greyscale
(page 6899), which meets claims 1-7 and 9.
Claim(s) 1-7, and 9, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cianga et al., “New polymers with poly(p-phenylene-azomethine) structures,” Buletinul Stiintific al Universitatii "Politehnica" din Timisoara Romania, Seria Chimie si Mediului, vol. 48(1-2), pp. 86-89. (2003). (hereinafter Cianga).
Regarding claims 1-7 and 9, Cianga teaches the polymer having the formula
PNG
media_image13.png
482
640
media_image13.png
Greyscale
(See STN abstract), which meets claims 1-7 and 9.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, and 9, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Itabashi et al., “Multi-Layer Polymer Light-Emitting Diodes Prepared by Vapor Deposition Polymerization of Polyazomethine Thin Film,” Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, Vol. 47, No. 2, pp. 1271–1275, (2008). (hereinafter Itabashi).
Regarding claims 1-4, 7, and 9, Itabashi teaches the polymer having the formula
PNG
media_image14.png
127
431
media_image14.png
Greyscale
(See page 1271), which meets claims 1-4, 7 and 9.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sheng-Fun et al., “Polyazomethines based on oxadiazolyl or 1,2,4-triazolyl groups: synthesis and hole-buffering application in polymer light-emitting diodes,” Polymer Chemistry, vol. 9, pp. 5442-5451 (2018). (hereinafter Sheng-Fun).
Regarding claims 1-3, 5-7, Sheng-Fun teaches the polymer having the formulas
PNG
media_image15.png
217
303
media_image15.png
Greyscale
, which meets claims 1-3, 5-7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HA S NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7395. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, Flex schedule 7:30am-4:00pm.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at (571)272-1302. 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.
/HA S NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights