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 .
Current Status
This action is responsive to the original claims of 09/22/2023. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 5-6 are withdrawn. Claims 1-4 and 7-20 have been examined on the merits.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of compounds 1-11, 13-15, 18-40, 42-48, R01, R05, and R06 and species of display in the reply filed on 04/07/20216 is acknowledged.
Examiner has searched for all of the compounds of dependent claim 13, including each of the above elected species. This search returned prior art with a shared Applicant and Inventor (applied below). Instant compound 4
PNG
media_image1.png
177
420
media_image1.png
Greyscale
was retrieved.
Compound 4 reads on claims 1-3 and 7-20.
A majority of the elected species appear to share the following structure:
PNG
media_image2.png
271
426
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein R1 is S or Se and R2 is C or N. The search was extended into this genus. The following species were found:
PNG
media_image3.png
185
680
media_image3.png
Greyscale
; and
PNG
media_image4.png
215
569
media_image4.png
Greyscale
. Since the search retrieved art, the search will not be unnecessarily extended to further species in this action, per Markush search practice.
The two extended species read on claims 1, 4, 7-8, 10-12, and 14-20 and claims 1, 4, 7-12, and 14-20, respectively.
Claims 5-6 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/07/2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
The effective filing date is 09/22/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/22/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: compounds 21 and 22 appear to be duplicates of each other; compounds R02 and R03 appear to be duplicates of each other. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The claims are drawn to a compound comprising a “π electron-rich C1-C60 group”. Since the word “group” is not chemically defined further than the fact that it must contain at least 1 to 60 carbons, the “group” is understood to encompass moieties also comprising heteroatoms and/or atoms other than carbon.
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 7-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the first repeating unit comprises “at least one selected from among a first-first moiety represented by Formula 1-1 and a first-second moiety represented by Formula 1-2”. This phrasing may be interpreted in two alternative ways: 1) the composition comprises at least one moiety of Formula 1-1 and a moiety of Formula 1-2, or alternatively, 2) the composition comprises at least one moiety that is either of Formula 1-1 or Formula 1-2. It is unclear if the phrase “selected from among” is establishing a Markush group of 1) Formula 1-1 moieties or 2) Formula 1-1 and Formula 1-2 moieties. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim are undefined rendering the claims indefinite. Dependent 2-4, 7-9, and 11-20 are similarly rejected since they do not clarify the underlying issue.
To overcome: please replace “selected from among” with “selected from the group consisting of”.
Claim 1 recites the second repeating unit comprises “at least one selected from among a second-first moiety represented by Formula 2-1 and a second -second moiety represented by Formula 2-2”. This is unclear for the same reasons stated in the above paragraph. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim are undefined rendering the claims indefinite. Dependent claims 2-4, 7-9, and 11-20 are similarly rejected since they do not clarify the underlying issue.
Claims 1 and 9-10 recite a “π electron-rich C1-C60 group” multiple times. The word “rich” is a relative term. Rich is not defined in the specification and the term is used rather loosely in the relevant art. There does not appear to be a defined scope for rich: i.e., does rich require 2,10, or more pi electrons? While the instant disclosure provides examples of the “π electron-rich C1-C60 group” in the species recited in claim 13 and the genera of claim 9 (Formulae 3-1 to 3-3), the species of claim 13 are all relatively similar and the variables in the Formulae of claim 9 could be chosen so that the resulting moiety does not contain any pi bonds/electrons. Thus, the scope of a “π electron-rich C1-C60 group” is unclear. The metes and bounds of the claim are undefined rendering the claims indefinite. Dependent claims 2-4, 7-8, and 11-20 are similarly rejected since they do not clarify the underlying issue.
Claim 1 recites ring A1 and ring A2 are each “C1-C60 heterocyclic group”. Rings A1 and A2 cannot be a C1 heterocyclic group based on the Formulas 2-1 and 2-2:
PNG
media_image5.png
206
562
media_image5.png
Greyscale
since 2 carbons (annotated) are already defined in rings A1 and A2. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim are undefined rendering the claims indefinite. Dependent claims 2-4, 7-8, and 11-20 are similarly rejected since they do not clarify the underlying issue.
Claim 8 recites ring A1 and ring A2 are each “a polycyclic C1-C30 heterocyclic group” in lines 7 and 8. This limitation lacks antecedent basis in the claim. Rings A1 and A2 cannot be a C1 heterocyclic group for the reasons stated in the paragraph above. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim are undefined rendering the claims indefinite.
Claim 9 recites the moiety “-C(Q1)(Q2)-” separate from Formulae 3-1 to 3-3. Variables Q1 and Q2 are only defined after the phrase “wherein, in Formulae 3-1 to 3-3”. Thus, the variables Q1 and Q2 as they appear in “-C(Q1)(Q2)-” are left undefined. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim are undefined rendering the claims indefinite.
Claim 9 recites ring B1 and ring B2 are each “C1-C60 heterocyclic group”. This is not consistent with the Formulas 3-1 to 3-3:
PNG
media_image6.png
409
579
media_image6.png
Greyscale
. As annotated, Formulae 3-1 and 3-2 define 2 carbons in each of rings B1 and B2 (i.e., not C1). In Formula 3-3, it appears that 4 carbons are defined in each of rings B1 and B2 (i.e., not C1-C3). The straight dashed-lines (rather than curved) are interpreted as undefined bonds (single or double or triple) between two carbons. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim are undefined rendering the claims indefinite.
Claim 9 recites “* and *’ each indicate a linking site to the first repeating unit” in the last line. In Formula 3-1 to 3-3, * and *’ are clearly shown and appear consistent with this definition:
PNG
media_image7.png
379
572
media_image7.png
Greyscale
. However, * and *’ are also used throughout the text defining the variables L1 to L5, T1, and a1 to a5:
PNG
media_image8.png
99
657
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
290
613
media_image9.png
Greyscale
. Here, it appears that * and *’ are used to denote the attachment points of each of these variables within the Formulae 3-1 to 3-3, not the attachment points of each of these variables to the first repeating unit. This notation under variables L1 to L5, T1, and a1 to a5 contradicts the last line of claim 9. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim are undefined rendering the claims indefinite.
Claim 13 recites:
compound 9
PNG
media_image10.png
164
250
media_image10.png
Greyscale
and compound R01
PNG
media_image11.png
163
260
media_image11.png
Greyscale
. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
For compound 9, parent claim 1 recites Formula 1-1 Y2 and Y3 (the annotated position) are chosen from C not N.
For compound R01, parent claim 1 recites Formulae 2-1 and 2-2 may be substituted with one or more R10b; however, there is no clause stating two R10b may join together with the atoms to which they are attached to create a fused cycle. Further, while the condensed cyclic compound allows for more than 1 second repeating unit, the annotated portion corresponds to 1 full second repeating unit
PNG
media_image12.png
177
209
media_image12.png
Greyscale
and a partial second repeating unit
PNG
media_image13.png
204
145
media_image13.png
Greyscale
which are fused rather than repeating via a linking bond.
Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim are undefined rendering the claims indefinite.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 8 and 13 recite limitations which are outside of the scope of the parent claim 1 for the reasons recited in ¶20 and 24, above. Thus, claims 8 and 13 do not properly further limit parent claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 4, 7-8, 10-12, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DO (Do, T.T. et al., Applied Materials & Interfaces, 2017, 9, 16967-16976).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 7-8, DO teaches compound NAI-FCN-NAI (BO)
PNG
media_image14.png
175
692
media_image14.png
Greyscale
(Pg. 16969 Scheme 1) wherein the first repeating unit is Formula 1-1, X1 is S, Y2-Y3 are CH, Y1 is C-* wherein -* is an attachment point to another repeating unit, n1 is 2, the second repeating unit is Formula 2-2, m2 is 1, X3 is C(CN)(CN), and ring A1 and A2 are both C6 carbocyclic group. Each first repeating unit comprises 1 π electron-rich C24 group annotated in the structure above:
PNG
media_image15.png
102
203
media_image15.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 10, compound NAI-FCN-NAI (BO) comprises a 9-methylenefluorene moiety and two cyano groups, two thiophenes, and π electron-rich C24 groups, wherein the π group is not directly connected to the fluorene moiety.
Regarding claims 11-12, DO teaches compound NAI-FCN-NAI (BO) has a LUMO of -4.21 eV, a HOMO of -6.14 eV (Pg. 16971 Fig. 6). The compound absorbs both green (~550 nm) and red light (~625 nm) (Pg. 16970 Fig. 4).
Regarding claims 14-18, DO teaches a device
PNG
media_image16.png
188
197
media_image16.png
Greyscale
(Pg. 16972 Fig. 8a) wherein ITO is an anode, PEDOT:PSS is a hole transport layer, P3HT:Acceptor is a light receiving layer comprising the above compound, LiF is an electron transport layer, and Al is a cathode (Pg. 16971 right col. last ¶). The device is a solar cell (Pg. 16971 right col. last ¶); i.e., an electronic apparatus comprising the light receiving device.
Claims 1, 4, 7-12, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by OHKURA (WO 2022/153962; pub. 21 July 2022). A machine translation of OHKURA is referenced for text-based teachings; references to figures are from the original document.
Regarding claims 1, 4, 7-9, OHKURA teaches compound A-23
PNG
media_image17.png
217
569
media_image17.png
Greyscale
(Pg. 49 ¶166) wherein the first repeating unit is Formula 1-1, X1 is S, Y2-Y3 are CH, Y1 is C-* wherein -* is an attachment point to another repeating unit, n1 is 2, the second repeating unit is Formula 2-2, m2 is 1, X3 is C(CN)(CN), and ring A1 and A2 are both C6 carbocyclic group. Each first repeating unit comprises 2 π electron-rich carbon groups annotated in the structure above. The first π group is C6 phenyl. The second π group is a C14 group:
PNG
media_image18.png
326
222
media_image18.png
Greyscale
. This group is a moiety of Formula 3-2 wherein Z1 is N, rings B1 and B2 are each C6 carbocyclic group substituted with 1 R10a which is C1 alkoxy, a1 and a2 are 0 so (L1)a1 and (L2)a2 are both a single bond, b1 is 0, and * is an attachment point to the first repeating unit via the other π electron-rich carbon group.
Regarding claims 1, 4, 7-8, alternatively, each first repeating unit comprises 1 π electron-rich C20 group:
PNG
media_image19.png
139
139
media_image19.png
Greyscale
. All other variables are the same as above.
Regarding claim 10, compound A-23 comprises a 9-methylenefluorene moiety and two cyano groups, two thiophenes, and π electron-rich groups chosen from: C6 and C14, or C20, wherein the π group is not connected to the fluorene moiety.
Regarding claims 11-12, the instant claims are drawn to properties of the compound: a LUMO less than -2.5 eV, a HOMO less than -4.5 eV, and absorption of green and/or red light. MPEP 2112.01.II states:
"Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.
Since OHKURA teaches a compound of instant claim 1, it would be expected that the compound would have the same physical properties as the compounds in the instant application, namely that the compound exhibits the properties recited in instant claims 11-12. Further, OHKURA teaches the compound absorbs sunlight (translation Pg. 62 ¶108).
Regarding claims 14-18, OHKURA teaches a photoelectric conversion element comprising a conductive support, an electron transport layer, a photoelectric conversion layer comprising the compound above, a hole transport layer, and a counter electrode (translation Pg. 16 ¶21) wherein the counter electrode is the anode and the conductive support is the cathode (translation Pg. 62 ¶108). The photoelectric conversion layer absorbs light (translation Pg. 62 ¶108); i.e., a light-receiving layer. The photoelectric conversion element is applied to solar cells, light sensors, and the like (translation Pg. 64 ¶110), i.e., an electronic apparatus.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by YOO (US 2025/0072283; effectively filed 21 Aug. 2023). YOO’s priority document is cited as “PD” below.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 7-9, and 13, YOO teaches compound 67
PNG
media_image20.png
177
445
media_image20.png
Greyscale
(Pg. 20 compound 67; PD Pg. 37 ¶170) wherein the first repeating unit is Formula 1-2, X1 and X2 are S, Y2-Y3 and Y6 are each CH, Y4 and Y5 are C(R4) and C(R5), R4 and R5 are a π electron-rich C15 group, n2 is 1, the second repeating unit is Formula 2-1, m1 is 1, X3 is C(CN)(CN), and ring A1 and A2 are both C6 carbocyclic group. The π electron-rich C15 group is a moiety of Formula 3-1 wherein Z1 is N, rings B1 and B2 are each C6 carbocyclic group, (L1)a1 and (L2)a2 are a single bond since a1 and a2 are each 0, b1 is 1, T1 is a bond, a3 is 1, L3 is -C(Q1)(Q2)-, Q1 and Q2 are both C1 alkyl, and * and *’ are attachment points to the first repeating unit. This is compound 4 of instant claim 13.
Regarding claims 1-2 and 7-8, alternatively, the first repeating unit is Formula 1-1, X1 is S, Y2-Y3 are CH, Y1 is C-* wherein -* is an attachment point to another repeating unit, n1 is 1, the second repeating unit is Formula 2-1 defined the same as stated above wherein m1 is 1, and the π electron-rich group is
PNG
media_image21.png
177
173
media_image21.png
Greyscale
which is a C19 group.
Regarding claim 10, compound 67 of YOO comprises a 9-methylenefluorene moiety and two cyano groups, a thiophene, and a π electron-rich C9 or C13 group wherein the π group is not connected to the fluorene moiety.
Regarding claims 11-12, YOO teaches compound 67 has a LUMO of -3.46, HOMO of -5.21, and max absorption wavelength of 533 nm (green light) (Pg. 101 Table 1; PD Pg. 124 Table 1).
Regarding claims 14-20, YOO teaches an optoelectronic device comprising a first electrode, second electrode, and photoactive layer between comprising the compound 67 (Pg. 103 claim 1; PD Pg. 129 claim 1). The device comprises a first electrode, hole transport region, photoactive layer, electron transport region, and a second electrode (Pg. 21 ¶159; PD Pg. 38 ¶175). The first electrode is an anode (Pg. 29 ¶164; PD Pg. 38 ¶181) and the second is a cathode (Pg. 78 ¶344; PD Pg. 84 ¶447). The device further comprising a thin film transistor comprising a source and drain electrode, wherein the source or drain is connected to the first electrode (Pg. 82 ¶389; PD Pg. 90 ¶496). YOO also teaches an electronic device comprising the optoelectronic device which is chosen from a list overlapping significantly with the list of instant claim 20, e.g., flat panel display (Pg. 109 claims 8-9; PD Pg. 138 claims 8-9).
Note, YOO also teaches species 58, 61, 64, and 70 (Pg. 19-20; PD Pg. 37 ¶170) which similarly read on the claims.
The applied reference has a common Inventor and Assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Claims 1, 4, 7-12, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by OHKURA (WO 2022/153962; effectively filed 01 Jan. 2022). The effectively filed date is the international filing date, thus, no priority document is cited below. OHKURA anticipates the instant claims as discussed above, ¶30.
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 1-3, 7-14, 16-18, and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9-10, and 20 of copending Application No. 18/809,352 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 7-10, and 13, reference claim 20 (depending from ref. claim 10) recites
PNG
media_image22.png
368
332
media_image22.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image23.png
388
332
media_image23.png
Greyscale
compounds 58, 64, 67, and 70: wherein the first repeating unit is Formula 1-2, X1 and X2 are S or Se, Y2-Y3 and Y6 are each CH, Y4 and Y5 are C(R4) and C(R5), R4 and R5 are a π electron-rich C15 group, n2 is 1, the second repeating unit is Formula 2-1, m1 is 1, X3 is C(CN)(CN), and ring A1 and A2 are both C6 carbocyclic group or one ring is C5 heterocyclic group. The π electron-rich C15 group is a moiety of Formula 3-1 wherein Z1 is N, rings B1 and B2 are each C6 carbocyclic group, (L1)a1 and (L2)a2 are a single bond since a1 and a2 are each 0, b1 is 1, T1 is a bond, a3 is 1, L3 is -C(Q1)(Q2)-, Q1 and Q2 are both C1 alkyl, and * and *’ are attachment points to the first repeating unit. Reference compound 67 is instant compound 4 of instant claim 13.
Regarding claims 1-2, 7-8, and 10, alternatively, the first repeating unit is Formula 1-1, X1 is S, Y2-Y3 are CH, Y1 is C-* wherein -* is an attachment point to another repeating unit, n1 is 1, the second repeating unit is Formula 2-1 defined the same as stated above wherein m1 is 1, and the π electron-rich group is
PNG
media_image21.png
177
173
media_image21.png
Greyscale
(or wherein the S is Se) which is a C19 group.
Regarding claims 1-2 and 7-9, reference claim 20 also recites compound 61:
PNG
media_image24.png
186
332
media_image24.png
Greyscale
wherein the first repeating unit is Formula 1-1, X1 is S, Y3 is CH, Y2 and Y1 are each C(R1) and C(R2), R1 and R2 are a π electron-rich C15 group, n1 is 1, the second repeating unit is Formula 2-1, m1 is 1, X3 is C(CN)(CN), and ring A1 and A2 are both C6 carbocyclic group. The π electron-rich C15 group is a moiety of Formula 3-1 wherein Z1 is N, rings B1 and B2 are each C6 carbocyclic group, (L1)a1 and (L2)a2 are a single bond since a1 and a2 are each 0, b1 is 1, T1 is a bond, a3 is 1, L3 is -C(Q1)(Q2)-, Q1 and Q2 are both C1 alkyl, and * and *’ are attachment points to the first repeating unit. The compound comprises a second π electron-rich C4 cyclic group
PNG
media_image25.png
67
75
media_image25.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claims 11-12, the instant claims are drawn to properties of the compound: a LUMO less than -2.5 eV, a HOMO less than -4.5 eV, and absorption of green and/or red light. See the above MPEP 2112.01.II citation regarding inherency of properties. Since the reference claims teach compounds of instant claim 1, it would be expected that the compound would have the same physical properties as the compounds in the instant application, i.e., the properties recited in instant claims 11-12.
Regarding claims 14, 16-18, and 20, reference claim 1 recites an electronic device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode, and a photoactive later between comprising a compound of Formula 1 wherein the species of reference claim 20 are species of Formula 1. Reference claim 9 recites electronic equipment comprising the electronic device of reference claim 1 wherein the equipment is chosen from the same list as instant claim 20.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Claims 1-4 and 7-20 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARA ELIZABETH BELL whose telephone number is (703)756-5372. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:30.
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, Andrew Kosar can be reached at 571-272-0913. 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.
/S.E.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1625
/JOHN S KENYON/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1625
Prosecution Insights