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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/12/2026 has been entered.
Examiner’s Note
It is suggested to use black font in the documents such as amendment and applicant’s response, because any other colored font is converted to a certain color within a grayscale, which drops the resolution of the writing. For instance, a red font is converted to a gray font which is not as clear as a black font, and sometime a writing in such a gray font is illegible.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election of Species (A1) each of X1 through X16 is C and (B1) L2 is a direct bond in the reply filed on 11/29/2024 is acknowledged.
Applicant's election of Species (A1) each of X1 through X16 is C and (B1) L2 is a direct bond in the reply filed on 11/29/2024 is acknowledged. Because it appears Applicant fails to distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse. See MPEP 818.01(a).
In the Office Action of 06/23/2025, the requirement of species election to select subspecies B1) through B4) is withdrawn. The requirement of species election for A1) and A2) is remained. The examinable species is A1) each of X1 through X16 is C.
With respect to the instant claims 15 and 17 only, a search of the prior art did not show the elected species. As none of the claims were specifically drawn to applicant's elected species in combination with the limitations of one of claims 15 and 17 in independent form, no claims have been indicated as allowable. However, claims written in independent form which require all the limitations of claims 15 and 17 as well as being limited to the elected species along with any dependent claims which require all the limitations of claims 15 and 17 as well as being limited to the elected species would be allowable.
Claims 15 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims as well as being limited to the elected species. This objection to the claims is only with respect to Applicant’s elected species.
It is noted that the potential allowability of claims 15 and 17 has not be determined with respect to species beyond Applicant's elected species, i.e. potential examinable species that could found once the search is expanded beyond Applicant's elected species.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 06/12/2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-2, 11, 13, and 19 have been amended.
The amendments of claims 11 and 13 have overcome the objections of claims 11 and 13 set forth in the last Office Action. The objections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see page 27-28 of the reply filed 06/12/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1-2, 5, and 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jiao et al. (“Oxa- and thia-fullerenes (C59O, C59S): Closed or opened cages?” Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2002, vol. 4, page 4916-4920, hereafter Jiao), and the rejections of claims 1-4 and 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (“Structure and stability of the defect fullerene clusters of C60: C59, C58, and C57” J. Chem. Phys. 2004, vol. 121, page 3941-3942, hereafter Lee ‘2004) set forth in the Office Action of 04/15/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that amended claims define that any two of RA, two of RB, two of RC, two o, or one RA and RB may be joined or fused to form a ring; however, in Jiao and Lee ‘2004, the substituents corresponding to one RA and one RB, the substituents corresponding to one RB and one RC, the substituents corresponding to one RC and one RD , and the substituents corresponding to one RD and one RA of present Formula I are joined to form a ring; thus, Jiao and Lee ‘2004 do not read on the limitation of the amended claims (page 28)
Respectfully, the Examiner does not agree.
The Examiner acknowledges that the amended claims do not recite RA and RB can be joined to form a ring, RB and RC can be joined to form a ring, or RC and RD can be joined to form a ring. However, none of claims do not require the substituents at the positions between RA and RB, RB and RC, and RC and RD not to form a ring. The amended claims are silent about the joining or forming a ring between any two of R, R’, RA, RB, RC, and RD. Although the claims are silent, the claims should be interpreted in the broadest reasonable manner (BRI) in light of specification. Thus, any two of R, R’, RA, RB, RC, and RD can be joined or fused to form a ring, because the instant specification recites “a compound of Formula I, … wherein any two of R, R’, R”, RA, RB, RC, and RD may be joined or fused to form a ring” ([0006], [0054]).
For at least this reason, the arguments are not found persuasive. The rejections are maintained.
It is informed that some claims including claims 5, 7, and 12 claim the structures comprising multiple CRR’ groups, wherein R and R’ are connected to form a ring. For examples, the structures include, but not limited to
PNG
media_image1.png
96
53
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image2.png
87
95
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, and
PNG
media_image3.png
84
148
media_image3.png
Greyscale
. Claim 1 is required to allow any two selected from R and R’ groups to be joined or fused to form a ring to avoid potential 112(d) rejections.
Applicant further argues that in the amended claims, any two of R and R’ (where are the Rs on L1 and L2) can no longer be joined or fused to form a ring (page 29, paragraph 1).
Respectfully, the Examiner does not agree.
As outlined above, being silent about joining or forming a ring between R and R, R and R’, and R’ and R’ do not mean the claims require the substituents at the positions between RA and RB, RB and RC, and RC and RD not to form a ring.
Although the claims are silent, the claims should be interpreted in the broadest reasonable manner (BRI) in light of specification. Thus, any two of R, R’, RA, RB, RC, and RD can be joined or fused to form a ring, because the instant specification recites “a compound of Formula I, … wherein any two of R, R’, R”, RA, RB, RC, and RD may be joined or fused to form a ring.” ([0006], [0054]).
For at least this reason, the arguments are not found persuasive. The rejections over Lee and the rejections over Stoessel of the Office Action of 12/16/2025 are re-applied in this Office Action.
Applicant’s arguments see page 27-28 of the reply filed 06/12/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1-6, 8-10, 13, and 18-19 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 15, 17, and 19 of US Patent 12,497,419 (previously Application no. 17/579,772, hereafter Patent ‘419), and the rejection of claim 20 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 15, 17, and 19 of US Patent 12,497,419 as applied to claims 1-4, 6-13, and 19 above, further in view of Pang et al. (“A full-color, low-power, wearable display for mobile applications”, SPIE, 03/29/2012)
The provisional rejections of claims 1-4, 6-13, and 19 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 17-18, and 20 of copending Application No. 18/062,118 (reference application, hereafter Application ‘118) set forth in the Office Action of 04/15/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that it is requested that this rejection be held in abeyance, pending indication of allowability of the present claims, after which a terminal disclaimer will be considered to obviate the rejection.
The amendment does not overcome the rejections. The provisional rejections are not the only rejections. Thus, the rejections are maintained.
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 5, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jiao et al. (“Oxa- and thia-fullerenes (C59O, C59S): Closed or opened cages?” Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2002, vol. 4, page 4916-4920, hereafter Jiao).
Regarding claims 1-2, 5, and 8-10, Jiao discloses Compounds 2a (X=O) and 2b (X=S) (Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image4.png
229
231
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The Compounds 2a and 2b each reads on the limitation of Applicant’s Formula I, wherein L1 is CRR’; L2 is O or S; X1-X16 are each C; R and R’ are each hydrogen; RA, RB, RC, and RD are hydrogen, alkenyl, or aryl (benzene).
Although the claims are silent about the joining or forming a ring between any two of R, R’, RA, RB, RC, and RD; claims are interpreted in the broadest reasonable manner (BRI) in light of specification such that any two of R, R’, RA, RB, RC, and RD can be joined or fused to form a ring, because the instant specification recites “a compound of Formula I, … wherein any two of R, R’, R”, RA, RB, RC, and RD may be joined or fused to form a ring.” ([0006], [0054]).
Claims 1-4 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (“Structure and stability of the defect fullerene clusters of C60: C59, C58, and C57” J. Chem. Phys. 2004, vol. 121, page 3941-3942, hereafter Lee ‘2004).
Regarding claims 1-4 and 8-10, Lee ‘2004 discloses Compounds 4-9 (Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image5.png
293
269
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The Compound 4-9 reads on the limitation of Applicant’s Formula I, wherein L1 is O; L2 is a direct bond; X1-X16 are each C; RA, RB, RC, and RD are hydrogen, alkenyl, or aryl (benzene); and any two of RA, RB, RC, and RD are joined or fused to form a ring.
Although the claims are silent about the joining or forming a ring between any two of R, R’, RA, RB, RC, and RD; claims are interpreted in the broadest reasonable manner (BRI) in light of specification such that any two of R, R’, RA, RB, RC, and RD can be joined or fused to form a ring, because the instant specification recites “a compound of Formula I, … wherein any two of R, R’, R”, RA, RB, RC, and RD may be joined or fused to form a ring.” ([0006], [0054]).
Claims 1-2, 6, 8-10, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2009/0273278 A1, hereafter Lee).
Regarding claims 1-2, 6, 8-10, 13, and 16, Lee discloses a compound (Formula 1) used for an organic light emitting device ([0001], [0012]) and exemplifies Compounds 2 and 143 ([0034]).
PNG
media_image6.png
267
425
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The Compound 2 of Lee reads on the limitation of Applicant’s Formula I, wherein L1 and L2 are each CRR’; X1-X6 are each C; R and R’ are each hydrogen or alkenyl, wherein R and R’ are joined or fused to form a ring (benzene); RA, RB, RC, and RD are hydrogen or aryl (naphthyl), meeting all the limitations of claims 1-2 and 8-10.
Although the claims are silent about the joining or forming a ring between any two of R, R’, RA, RB, RC, and RD; claims are interpreted in the broadest reasonable manner (BRI) in light of specification such that any two of R, R’, RA, RB, RC, and RD can be joined or fused to form a ring, because the instant specification recites “a compound of Formula I, … wherein any two of R, R’, R”, RA, RB, RC, and RD may be joined or fused to form a ring.” ([0006], [0054]).
The Compound 143 of Lee reads on the limitation of Applicant’s Formula I, wherein L1 and L2 are each CRR’; X1-X6 are each C; R and R’ are each hydrogen; R and R’ are joined or fused to form a ring (benzene); RA, RB, RC, and RD are each aryl (phenyl), meeting all the limitations of claims 1-2, 6, and 8-10.
Lee exemplifies an organic light emitting device (Example 1 in Table 2, [0089]-[0095]) comprising an anode, an emissive layer (Compound 2 as a host and DSA-Ph as a dopant), and a cathode, meeting all the limitations of claim 13.
The Organic light emitting device of Lee reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach that the Compound 2 of Lee is capable of emitting fluorescent light.
It is reasonable to presume that the Compound 2 of Lee is inherently capable of emitting fluorescent light.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
The instant specification states that the compound of the invention may be a fluorescent emitter ([0077]). The Compound 2 of Lee satisfies various structural features of the compound of the invention represented by Formula I ([0054]-[0064]).
Therefore, the Compound 2 of Lee is capable of emitting fluorescent light, and the compound is a fluorescent emitter, meeting all the limitations of claim 16.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 1-2, 8-10, 13-14, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Stoessel et al. (US 2020/0013960 A1, hereafter Stoessel).
Regarding claims 1-2, 8-10, 13-14, 16, and 18, Stoessel discloses a compound (Formula 1) used for an organic light emitting device ([0001]-[0002], [0008]) and exemplifies Compound 20 ([0064]).
PNG
media_image7.png
405
711
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The Compound 20 of Stoessel reads on the limitation of Applicant’s Formula I, wherein L1 and L2 are each CRR’; X1-X6 are each C; R and R’ are each hydrogen, alkenyl, or aryl, wherein R and R’ are joined or fused to form a ring (cyclohexadiene); RA, RB, RC, and RD are hydrogen or aryl (phenyl), meeting all the limitations of claims 1-2 and 8-10.
Although the claims are silent about the joining or forming a ring between any two of R, R’, RA, RB, RC, and RD; claims are interpreted in the broadest reasonable manner (BRI) in light of specification such that any two of R, R’, RA, RB, RC, and RD can be joined or fused to form a ring, because the instant specification recites “a compound of Formula I, … wherein any two of R, R’, R”, RA, RB, RC, and RD may be joined or fused to form a ring.” ([0006], [0054]).
PNG
media_image8.png
340
793
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Stoessel exemplifies an organic light emitting device (D13 in [0166]) comprising an anode, an emissive layer (Compound H34 as a host, Compound M1 as a host, and Compound Ir2 as a dopant), and a cathode, wherein the Compound H34 has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula I, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-2, 8-10, 13-14, and 18.
The Organic light emitting device of Stoessel reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach that the Compound H34 of Stoessel is capable of emitting fluorescent light.
It is reasonable to presume that the Compound H34 of Stoessel is inherently capable of emitting fluorescent light.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
The instant specification states that the compound of the invention may be a fluorescent emitter ([0077]). The Compound H34 of Stoessel satisfies various structural features of the compound of the invention represented by Formula I ([0054]-[0064]).
Therefore, the Compound H34 of Stoessel is capable of emitting fluorescent light, and the compound is a fluorescent emitter, meeting all the limitations of claim 16.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
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 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2009/0273278 A1).
Regarding claims 13-14, Lee discloses a compound (Formula 1) used for an organic light emitting device ([0001], [0012]) and exemplifies Compounds 2 ([0034]).
PNG
media_image6.png
267
425
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The Compound 2 of Lee reads on the limitation of Applicant’s Formula I as outlined above.
Lee exemplifies an organic light emitting device (Example 1 in Table 2, [0089]-[0095]) comprising an anode, an emissive layer (Compound 2 as a host and DSA-Ph as a dopant), and a cathode.
The organic light emitting device of Lee does not comprise a phosphorescent dopant; however, Lee does teach that dopant is not particularly restricted ([0040]) and teaches that the organic layer of the device of Lee can comprise a compound having electroluminescent peak of wavelength of not less than 560 nm to form a white electroluminescent device ([0058]). Lee exemplifies Ir(piq)2(acac) as the compound having electroluminescent peak of wavelength of not less than 560 nm ([0077]).
PNG
media_image9.png
161
265
media_image9.png
Greyscale
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the organic light emitting device of Lee by incorporating Ir(piq)2(acac) into the emissive layer of the device, as taught by Lee.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide a white light emitting device, based on the teaching of Lee.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides Modified organic light emitting device of Lee comprising an anode, an emissive layer (Compound 2 as a host, DSA-Ph as a dopant, Ir(piq)2(acac) as a dopant), and a cathode, meeting all the limitations of claims 13-14.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2009/0273278 A1) as applied to claims 13-14 above, further in view of Pang et al. (“A full-color, low-power, wearable display for mobile applications”, SPIE, 03/29/2012, hereafter Pang).
Regarding claims 19-20, the Organic light emitting device of Lee (Example 1 in Table 2, [0089]-[0095]) reads on all the features of claim 13.
The device comprises an anode, an emissive layer (Compound 2 as a host and DSA-Ph as a dopant), and a cathode.
Lee does not disclose a specific consumer product comprising the Organic light emitting device of Lee.
Pang discloses a consumer product, flexible display (“flexible active matrix OLED display” in Fig. 3) comprising an organic light emitting device (“C: OLED” in Fig. 3).
Pang teaches that an organic light emitting device can be incorporate to make a lightweight, non-breakable, wearable, and flexible display device (title and page 1, par. 1).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Organic light emitting device of Lee by incorporating it into a flexible display device of Pang, as taught by Pang.
The motivation of doing so would have been to make a lightweight, non-breakable, wearable, and flexible display device based on the teaching of Pang.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material and method to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, the substitution of the organic light emitting devices in a flexible display would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Flexible display of Lee as modified by Pang comprising the Organic light emitting device of Lee, wherein the flexible display is a consumer product.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoessel et al. (US 2020/0013960 A1) in view of Pang et al. (“A full-color, low-power, wearable display for mobile applications”, SPIE, 03/29/2012).
Regarding claims 19-20, Stoessel discloses a compound (Formula 1) used for an organic light emitting device ([0001]-[0002], [0008]) and exemplifies Compound 20 ([0064]).
Stoessel exemplifies an organic light emitting device (D13 in [0166]) comprising an anode, an emissive layer (Compound H34 as a host, Compound M1 as a host, and Compound Ir2 as a dopant), and a cathode, wherein the Compound H34 has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula I.
Stoessel does not disclose a specific consumer product comprising the Organic light emitting device of Stoessel; however, Stoessel does teach the device of Stoessel can be used for a display application ([0127]).
Pang discloses a consumer product, flexible display (“flexible active matrix OLED display” in Fig. 3) comprising an organic light emitting device (“C: OLED” in Fig. 3).
Pang teaches that an organic light emitting device can be incorporate to make a lightweight, non-breakable, wearable, and flexible display device (title and page 1, par. 1).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Organic light emitting device of Stoessel by incorporating it into a flexible display device of Pang, as taught by Pang.
The motivation of doing so would have been to make a lightweight, non-breakable, wearable, and flexible display device based on the teaching of Pang.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material and method to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, the substitution of the organic light emitting devices in a flexible display would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Flexible display of Stoessel as modified by Pang comprising the Organic light emitting device of Stoessel, wherein the flexible display is a consumer product.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-6, 8-10, 13, and 18-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 15, 17, and 19 of US Patent 12,497,419 (previously Application no. 17/579,772, hereafter Patent ‘419). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed at the same aspects of the same invention.
Regarding claims 1-6, 8-10, 13, and 18-19, Patent ‘419 discloses a compound (Formula I) used for an organic light emitting device (claims 1 and 17). Patent ‘419 discloses an exemplary compound (claim 15, the 6th compound from the last compound of claim 15, hereafter Compound A).
PNG
media_image10.png
286
563
media_image10.png
Greyscale
The Compound A has identical structure of Applicant’s Formula I of the instant claims, wherein RC is heteroaryl (i.e. pyridine), meeting all the limitations of claims 1-6 and 8-10.
Patent ‘419 does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising the Compound A; however, Patent ‘419 does teach an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, an organic layer, and a cathode, wherein the organic layer comprises the compound of Patent ‘419 (claim 17). Patent ‘419 teaches that the organic layer can comprise dicarbazolyl dibenzothiophene as a host (claim 19).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound A by incorporating it with dicarbazolyl dibenzothiophene (host) into the organic layer of an organic light emitting device which has a structure comprising an anode, an organic layer, and a cathode, as taught by Patent ‘419.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the organic layer materials would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified organic light emitting device of Patent ‘419 comprising an anode, an organic layer, and a cathode, wherein the organic layer comprises Compound A and dicarbazolyl dibenzothiophene (host), meeting all the limitations of claims 13 and 18.
Patent ‘419 does not disclose a specific consumer product comprising the Modified organic light emitting device of Patent ‘419; however, Patent ‘419 does teach that the organic light emitting device of Patent ‘419 can be incorporated in a consumer product (claim 20).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified organic light emitting device of Patent ‘419 by incorporating it into a consumer product, as taught by Patent ‘419.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of organic light emitting devices in a consumer product would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified consumer product of Patent ‘419 comprising the Modified organic light emitting device of Patent ‘419, meeting all the limitations of claim 19.
Claims 1-4, 6-13, and 19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 17-18, and 20 of copending Application No. 18/062,118 (reference application, hereafter Application ‘118). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed at the same aspects of the same invention. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claims 1-4, 6-13, and 19, Application ‘118 discloses a compound (Formula I) used for an organic light emitting device (claims 1 and 18). Application ‘118 discloses an exemplary compound (claim 17, the first compound on page 162, hereafter Compound p162-1).
PNG
media_image11.png
367
713
media_image11.png
Greyscale
The Compound p162-1 has identical structure of Applicant’s Formula I of the instant claims, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-4, 6, and 8-11.
Application ‘118 does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising the Compound p162-1; however, Application ‘118 does teach an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, an organic layer, and a cathode, wherein the organic layer comprises the compound of Application ‘118 (claim 18).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound p162-1 by incorporating it into the organic layer of an organic light emitting device which has a structure comprising an anode, an organic layer, and a cathode, as taught by Application ‘118.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the organic layer materials would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified organic light emitting device of Application ‘118 comprising an anode, an organic layer comprising Compound p162-1, and a cathode, meeting all the limitations of claim 13.
Application ‘118 does not disclose a specific consumer product comprising the Modified organic light emitting device of Application ‘118; however, Application ‘118 does teach that the organic light emitting device of Application ‘118 can be incorporated in a consumer product (claim 20).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified organic light emitting device of Application ‘118 by incorporating it into a consumer product, as taught by Application ‘118.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of organic light emitting devices in a consumer product would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified consumer product of Application ‘118 comprising the Modified organic light emitting device of Application ‘118, meeting all the limitations of claim 19.
Regarding claim 7, the Compound p162-1 reads on all the features of clam 1 as outlined above.
In the Compound p162-1, the substituents (i.e. hydrogen and bicarbazole) at the positions corresponding to RC, RD, RE, and RF of the Formula I of Application ‘118 do not read on the limitations of claim 7; however, Application ‘118 does teach that the substituents RC, RD, RE, and RF of the Formula I of Application ‘118 can be a heteroaryl group (claim 1). An N-carbazolyl group is a specific example of the heteroaryl substituent group (see examples at least the second and third compounds on page 161, claim 17).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound p162-1 by substituting the substituents at the positions corresponding to the RC, RD, RE, and RF of the Formula I of Application ‘118 with N-carbazolyl groups, as taught by Application ‘118.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of exemplary substituents would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified compound of Application ‘118.
PNG
media_image12.png
280
577
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, the Compound p162-1 reads on all the features of clam 1 as outlined above.
The Compound p162-1 of Application ‘118 has similar structure as the second compound of the instant claim 12,
PNG
media_image13.png
146
209
media_image13.png
Greyscale
. One of two differences is that the SiPh2 at the position corresponding to Y1 of Formula I of Application ‘118 is required to be O; however, Application ‘118 does teach that Y1 can be O (claim 1). The other difference is the bicarbazole group represented by
PNG
media_image14.png
160
134
media_image14.png
Greyscale
of Formula I of Application ‘118 is required to be an N-carbazolyl group; however, Application ‘118 does teach that L1 can be a direct bond; A can be a monocyclic 6-membered carbocyclic ring; X17 can be C; and RA and RB can be each hydrogen (claim 1). Application exemplifies an N-carbazolyl group as the example of the structure
PNG
media_image14.png
160
134
media_image14.png
Greyscale
(see examples at least the second and third compounds on page 161, claim 17).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound p162-1 by substituting the SiPh2 with O and the bicarbazole group with an N-carbazole group, as taught by Application ‘118.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of substituents would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Oxygen is one of finite number of exemplary structure at Y1 of the Formula I of Application ‘118. The selection of O at Y1 would have been one from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
The modification provides Modified compound of Application ‘118 (2) which has identical structure as the second compound of the instant claim 12.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEOKMIN JEON whose telephone number is (571)272-4599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm EST.
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, JENNIFER BOYD can be reached at (571)272-7783. 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.
/SEOKMIN JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights