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/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 14-23 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons the claims to the different species recite the mutually exclusive characteristics of such species including the requirement of a compound G0 that is distinct from G1 in that it requires a central unsubstituted pyridine whereas G1 requires a substituted triazine, the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification and the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 14-23 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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 1-5, 8, and 11-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, and 9-26 of U.S. Patent No. 11,404,656. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant and patented claims are drawn to overlapping subject matter.
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.
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 1-5, 8, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (JP 2004/022334) (Matsuura).
In reference to claims 1, 4-5, and 11-13, Matsuura teaches the compound 1-5 as shown below that reads on the instant claimed compound (p. 13) in a device example 2-4 (Matsuura Table 2) comprising compound 1-5 and Alq3 in an electron transporting/electron injecting layer and an emission layer between electrodes as claimed and an example of a display device comprising the same (example 3). While Matsuura calls the layer an electron transporting/electron injecting layers (Matsuura [0083]) and not just an electron injection layer, the composition requirements are the same (a compound of claim 1 and a metal). It is further noted that the instant claims allow for the metal and the compound of formula 1 to be at variable concentrations within the ‘layer’ and that in the art it is common for a ‘layer’ to comprise multiple sublayers (Matsuura [0077]).
PNG
media_image1.png
254
328
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Matsuura further teaches that alternative metal materials can be used in the electron transport layer including copper materials (Matsuura [0076]).
While Matsuura does not exemplify a device with such alternate materials selected, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have selected taught functional equivalents for the electron transport layer materials as taught by Matsuura with the anticipation of providing a similarly functional device, in the absence of unexpected results.
For Claim 1: Reads on a device with the claimed structure including a first electrode, a second electrode, a light e mitting layer and the electron transport layer comprising a compound of formula G1 wherein X4 is N, X5 is N, X3 is CH, X6 is CH, R3 and R4 are each a phenyl group, Ar is a pyrimidine substituted with an aryl group.
For Claim 4: Reads on wherein the other is CH.
For Claims 5: Reads on pyrimidine substituted with phenyl.
For Claim 11: Reads on a Cu.
For Claims 12-13: Reads on an electronic or lighting device.
In reference to claims 2-3 and 8, Matsuura teaches a compound of formula (1) as shown below.
PNG
media_image2.png
170
266
media_image2.png
Greyscale
for example, wherein in the formula (1), each of Ar1, Ar2 and Ar3 are a pyrimidine, and each of Ar11 to Ar13 are phenyl (Matsuura [0042]).
Matsuura discloses the compound of formula (1) that encompasses the presently claimed compound of formula G1, including wherein in the formula (1), each of Ar1, Ar2 and Ar3 are a pyrimidine, and each of Ar11 to Ar13 are phenyl. Each of the disclosed substituents from the substituent groups of Matsuura are considered functionally equivalent and their selection would lead to obvious variants of the compound of formula (1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, in the absence of unexpected results, to have selected these substituents among those disclosed for the compound of formula (1) to provide the compound described above, which is both disclosed by Matsuura and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Matsuura further teaches example device structures such as 2-4 (Matsuura Table 2) comprising these compounds and metals such as Alq3 in an electron transporting/electron injecting layer and an emission layer between electrodes as claimed and an example of a display device comprising the same (example 3). While Matsuura calls the layer an electron transporting/electron injecting layers (Matsuura [0083]) and not just an electron injection layer, the composition requirements are the same (a compound of claim 1 and a metal). It is further noted that the instant claims allow for the metal and the compound of formula 1 to be at variable concentrations within the ‘layer’ and that in the art it is common for a ‘layer’ to comprise multiple sublayers (Matsuura [0077]).
Matsuura further teaches that alternative metal materials can be used in the electron transport layer including copper materials (Matsuura [0076]).
While Matsuura does not exemplify a device with such alternate materials selected, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have selected taught functional equivalents for the electron transport layer materials as taught by Matsuura with the anticipation of providing a similarly functional device, in the absence of unexpected results.
For Claim 2: Reads on X3 is N and X6 is N.
For Claim 3: Reads on X4 is C bonded to phenyl, X5 is C bonded to phenyl, X3 is N and X6 is N.
For Claim 8: Reads on compound 105.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/01/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims as amended are not taught by the prior art of record. This argument has been fully considered but not found convincing for at least the following reasons. Applicant argues that Matsuura does not disclose a metal belonging to any one of group 34 to group 13 of the periodic table. However, Matsuura teaches materials such as copper complexes for use in the electron transport layer of the devices thereof (Matsuura [0076]). Applicant points to claim 10, however Applicant has canceled this claim and significantly amended the independent claim and therefore any remarks regarding claim 10 is moot.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sean M DeGuire whose telephone number is (571)270-1027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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 A. 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.
/Sean M DeGuire/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786