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/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (claims 2-15) in the reply filed on 6/2/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 1, 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Groups I and IV, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 5/7/2024 and 6/15/2025 have been considered by the examiner. Initialed copies accompany this action.
Drawings
The Drawings filed 5/7/2024 are approved by the examiner.
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 6 and 11 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.
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 6 and 11 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. Compound (I) of claim 6 and compound (III) of claim 11 fail to further limit the compound (chem. 5) recited in claim 2, which claims 6 and 11 are depended from. 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 § 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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 2-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al (JP2020015680) in view of Kobayashi et al (Chem. Sci., 2020, 11, 11699). The machine translation of JP2020015680 is relied upon for the rejection purposes. Both references are cited in the filed IDS by applicant.
Regarding claims 2, 6, 11, and 12, JP680 discloses a thin film containing compound A (para 0058-59), which is a tetrathiafulvalene derivative. Chem Sci. discloses a tetrathiafulvalene derivative, tetrathiafulvalene-extended dicarboxylate (TED) below that meets the claimed Chem 5, which is a single crystal (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the invention to use the tetrathiafulvalene-extended dicarboxylate (TED) disclosed by Chemi Sci. in place of the tetrathiafulvalene derivative of JP680, with a reasonable expectation of success for producing the thin film with high electrical conductivity.
PNG
media_image1.png
159
554
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 3, 5, 7, 8, and 13, given that the thin film of JP680 in view of Chem Sci. comprises of all the claimed elements in the claimed thin film, a person having an ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the thin film of JP680 in view of Chem Sci. to have the claimed conductivity and light transmittance.
Regarding claims 4 and 9, JP680 discloses the film thickness is from 1nm to 1000nm (para 0011).
Regarding claim 10, JP680 discloses the thin film comprising a mono to deca-molecular layer (para 0010).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, JP680 discloses a transparent electrode comprises the thin film of claim 2 (para 0039-0040).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAIDUNG D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5455. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 10a-3p.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 571-272-2817. 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.
/HAIDUNG D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
6/24/2026
Prosecution Insights