DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 8 recites the phrase “wherein the compound has the structures”. Applicants are advised to amend this phrase to recite “wherein the compound has the structure”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 19 recited illegible host compounds, see Page 240 of claims. Applicants are advised to amend the claim providing legible versions of these compounds. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
344
330
media_image1.png
Greyscale
;
however, the claim does not recite or define what atoms/elements or chemical species are encompassed by the variable M, thereby rendering the scope of the claim indefinite. In the interests of compact prosecution, pending rectification/clarification of the above, in the rejections set forth below, M will be considered to be either Pt or Pd.
Claim 8 recites structures such as:
PNG
media_image2.png
566
692
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
which render the scope of the claim indefinite for the following reasons. Claim 8, depends from claim 1, and claim 1 requires that in Formula I:
PNG
media_image1.png
344
330
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
ring C is a 5- or 6-membered carbocyclic or heterocyclic ring, and this ring is bonded to rings B and C, and M. However, in the above compounds in claim 8, while ring C is a 5-membered ring bonded to ring D, ring C is not bonded to M and ring B as required by Formula I in claim 1. Accordingly, it is unclear how one obtains the structures recited in claim 8 and still meets the requirements of Formula I in claim 1 that ring C is a 5- or 6-membered carbocyclic or heterocyclic ring and this ring is bonded to M and rings B and C.
Claim 9 recites formulas for substituent R* as:
PNG
media_image3.png
322
906
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
which renders the scope of the claim indefinite for the following reasons. Claim 9 depends from claim 7, and claim 7 requires that at least one R* has a structure of Formula II, i.e.
PNG
media_image4.png
34
160
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
where Q is Si, Si N or B, see claim 1. Claim 1 requires that when Q is C, R3 and R4 and R5 are alkyl, heteroaryl, cycloalkyl, heterocycloalkyl, or combinations thereof. However, in the structures for R* recited above, R3 to R5 do not correspond to any of the substituents recited in claim 1, and therefore, is unclear how one obtains the above structures for R* recited in claim 9, and still meet the requirements of Formula II recited in claim 1.
Claim 13 recites that at least one of X16’’ to X19’ is N which renders the scope of the claim indefinite for the following reasons. Claim 13 depends from claim 3, and claim 3 recites the following formula:
PNG
media_image5.png
336
298
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
However, the above formula does not recite the variables X16’ to X19’. Accordingly, it is unclear what X16’ to X19’ in claim 13 are referring to.
Claim 14 recites the formula:
PNG
media_image6.png
326
368
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
where Ly corresponds to formulas such as:
PNG
media_image7.png
222
206
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
210
196
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
200
214
media_image9.png
Greyscale
.
The above recited Ly’s render the scope of the claim indefinite for the following reasons. Claim 14, depends from claim 1, and claim 1 requires that in Formula I:
PNG
media_image1.png
344
330
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
ring C is a 5- or 6-membered carbocyclic or heterocyclic ring and that ring C is bonded to rings B and C, and M. However, in the above formulas in claim 14, while ring C is a 5-membered ring bonded to ring D, ring C is not bonded to M and ring B as required by Formula I in claim 1. Accordingly, it is unclear how one obtains the compounds recited in claim 14, and still meets the requirements of Formula I in claim 1 where ring C is a 5- or 6-membered carbocyclic or heterocyclic ring and that ring C is bonded to M and to rings B and C.
Claim 15 recites structures the formula:
PNG
media_image6.png
326
368
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
where Ly corresponds to formulas such as:
PNG
media_image10.png
182
212
media_image10.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image11.png
246
218
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
196
208
media_image12.png
Greyscale
which render the scope of the claim indefinite for the following reasons. Claim 15, depends from claim 1, and claim 1 requires that in Formula I:
PNG
media_image1.png
344
330
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
where ring C is a 5- or 6-membered carbocyclic or heterocyclic ring and that ring C is bonded to rings B and C, and M. However, in the above formulas in claim 15, while ring C is a 5-membered ring bonded to ring D, ring C is not bonded to M and ring B as required by Formula I in claim 1. Accordingly, it is unclear how one obtains the compounds recited in claim 15, and still meets the requirements of Formula I in claim 1 where ring C is a 5- or 6-membered carbocyclic or heterocyclic ring and that ring C is bonded to M and to rings B and C.
Claim 16 recites compounds such as:
PNG
media_image13.png
318
376
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
328
366
media_image14.png
Greyscale
,
which render the scope of the claim indefinite for the following reasons. Claim 16, depends from claim 1, and claim 1 requires that in Formula I:
PNG
media_image1.png
344
330
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
ring C is a 5- or 6-membered carbocyclic or heterocyclic ring and this ring is bonded to both rings B and C, and M. However, in the above formulas in claim 16, while ring C is a 5-membered ring bonded to ring D, it is not bonded to M and ring B as required by Formula I in claim 1. Accordingly, it is unclear how one obtains the compounds recited in claim 16, and still meets the requirements of Formula I in claim 1 where ring C is a 5- or 6-membered carbocyclic or heterocyclic ring and where this ring is bonded to M and rings B and C.
Claim 17 recites the formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
344
330
media_image1.png
Greyscale
;
however, the claim does not recite or define what atoms/elements or chemical species are encompassed by the variable M, thereby rendering the scope of the claim indefinite. In the interests of compact prosecution, pending rectification/clarification of the above, in the rejections set forth below, M will be considered to be either Pt or Pd.
Claim 20 recites the formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
344
330
media_image1.png
Greyscale
;
however, the claim does not recite or define what atoms/elements or chemical species are encompassed by the variable M, thereby rendering the scope of the claim indefinite. In the interests of compact prosecution, pending rectification/clarification of the above, in the rejections set forth below, M will be considered to be either Pt or Pd.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae et al (US 2022/0106345).
Regarding claim 1, Bae et al discloses the following compound (Page 118 – Compound 416):
PNG
media_image15.png
585
516
media_image15.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the compound represented by formula I:
PNG
media_image1.png
344
330
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
where:
ring B is a 6-membered carbocyclic ring;
ring D is a 6-membered heterocyclic ring;
Z1 is C;
Z3 is N;
L1 is O;
L2 is a direct bond;
One (1) RD corresponds to R**, where R* is represented by Formula IV:
PNG
media_image16.png
152
252
media_image16.png
Greyscale
.
Two (2) groups RA are alkenyl groups that join to form a ring;
RB is hydrogen;
RC is hydrogen;
RD is a deuterium substituted alkyl;
R1 and R2 are hydrogen;
RE represents two (2) tert-butyl alkyl substituents, i.e. alkyls;
RH represents deuterium and alkyl substituents; and
X1 to X5, X8 to X16 are C;
As discussed above, the substituent:
PNG
media_image17.png
196
188
media_image17.png
Greyscale
,
corresponds to Formula IV:
PNG
media_image16.png
152
252
media_image16.png
Greyscale
,
where four (4) RH substituents correspond to deuterium and one (1) RH substituent is an alkyl, thereby satisfying proviso (a) of the claims, i.e. where R* is Formula IV, at least one RH is a substituent that is not hydrogen or deuterium, and at least one RH is deuterium.
In the compound disclosed by the reference, ring C is not a 5- or 6-membered carbocyclic or heterocyclic ring as required by the present claims. However, the compound disclosed by the reference is but one embodiment and attention is directed to Formula 1-1 ([0014]):
PNG
media_image18.png
272
368
media_image18.png
Greyscale
,
where ring A20 can be a C5-30 carbocyclic ring ([0019]). This ring is exemplified in a benzene ring in Compounds 299 and 300 (Page 98):
PNG
media_image19.png
208
228
media_image19.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image20.png
240
250
media_image20.png
Greyscale
.
Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses an embodiment where ring C in Formula I of the claims is a 6-carbocyclic ring where X6, X7 and Z2 are C.
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed compound nor can the claimed compound be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed compound and the compound disclosed by the reference, absent a showing of criticality for the presently claimed compound, it is urged that it would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the compound which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Bae et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, two (2) substituents RA are alkenyl groups that join to form a ring. RB is hydrogen; RC is hydrogen; RD is a deuterium substituted alkyl. R1 and R2 are hydrogen. RE represents two (2) tert-butyl alkyl substituents. RH represents deuterium and alkyl substituents.
Regrading claim 3, Bae et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the compound disclosed by the reference does not correspond to Formula IA of the claims:
PNG
media_image21.png
334
298
media_image21.png
Greyscale
,
i.e. the compound possesses a benzimidazole group and not an imidazole group as required by the claim. However, the reference discloses the following general formula for the compound ([0081] - Formula I-1A):
PNG
media_image22.png
340
370
media_image22.png
Greyscale
,
A10 can be ([0064] and Page 4 – A10-1):
PNG
media_image23.png
130
150
media_image23.png
Greyscale
.
Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses the formula recited in the present claim.
Regarding claim 4, Bae et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, L1 is O.
Regrading claim 5, Bae et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. In the compound disclosed by the reference:
PNG
media_image15.png
585
516
media_image15.png
Greyscale
,
L2 is a direct bond and not BR, NR, PR or CR as required by the present claim. However, the reference discloses the following general formula for the compound ([0081] – Formula I-1A):
PNG
media_image22.png
340
370
media_image22.png
Greyscale
,
where T2 can be B(R3), where R3 is hydrogen ([0021] and [0029]). Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses an embodiment where L2 in Formula I is BR, where R is hydrogen.
Regrading claim 6, Bae et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. In the compound disclosed by the reference:
PNG
media_image15.png
585
516
media_image15.png
Greyscale
,
R1 or R2 does not comprise the group R* as required by the present claims. However, the reference discloses the following general formula for the compound ([0081] - Formula I-1A):
PNG
media_image22.png
340
370
media_image22.png
Greyscale
,
where E1 can be Si(Q3)(Q4)(Q5), where Q3 is deuterium ([0042]), and Q3 and Q4 are C1-60 alkyl groups ([0042]). That is, E1 corresponds R1 or R2, where R1 or R2 is represented by Formula II:
PNG
media_image4.png
34
160
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
where Q is Si, R3 is deuterium, and R4 and R5 are alkyl groups.
Regrading claim 7, Bae et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. In the compound disclosed by the reference:
PNG
media_image15.png
585
516
media_image15.png
Greyscale
,
R1 or R2 do not correspond to Formula II as required by the present claims, i.e. at least one group R* has the structure of Formula II.. However, the reference discloses the following general formula for the compound ([0081] - Formula I-1A):
PNG
media_image22.png
340
370
media_image22.png
Greyscale
,
where E1 can be Si(Q3)(Q4)(Q5), where Q3 is deuterium ([0042]), and Q3 and Q4 are C1-60 alkyl groups ([0042]). That is, E1 corresponds R1 or R2, where R1 or R2 is represented by Formula II:
PNG
media_image4.png
34
160
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
where Q is Si, R3 is deuterium, and R4 and R5 are alkyl groups.
Regrading claim 9, Bae et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses that E1 can be N(Q1)(Q2), where Q1 and Q2 are -CD3 ([0144]-[0146]), corresponding to:
PNG
media_image24.png
72
92
media_image24.png
Greyscale
,
of the claims.
Regrading claim 10, Bae et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, X1 to X16 are C.
Regrading claim 11, Bae et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, X1 to X16 are C, and therefore, one or X1 to X20 is not N as required by the present claims. However, the reference discloses the following general formula for the compound ([0081] - Formula I-1A):
PNG
media_image22.png
340
370
media_image22.png
Greyscale
,
where ring A10 can be ([0064] and Page 5 – A10-19)
PNG
media_image25.png
112
174
media_image25.png
Greyscale
,
i.e. X11 in recited Formula I can be N.
Regrading claim 12, Bae et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, X4’ to X7’ are C.
Regrading claim 13, Bae et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, X15’’ is not N as required by the present claims. However, the reference discloses the following general formula for the compound ([0081] - Formula I-1A):
PNG
media_image22.png
340
370
media_image22.png
Greyscale
,
where ring A10 can be ([0064] and Page 5 – A10-19)
PNG
media_image25.png
112
174
media_image25.png
Greyscale
,
i.e. X15’’ is N.
Regrading claim 14, Bae et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, it is noted that in the general formula ([0081] - Formula I-1A):
PNG
media_image22.png
340
370
media_image22.png
Greyscale
,
E2 can be H and R40 can be H. E1 can be N(Q1)(Q2), where Q1 and Q2 are -CD3 ([0144]-[0146]), corresponding to:
PNG
media_image24.png
72
92
media_image24.png
Greyscale
,
of the claims. Accordingly, the reference discloses a compound with the formula:
PNG
media_image6.png
326
368
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
where LA’ corresponds to:
PNG
media_image26.png
282
258
media_image26.png
Greyscale
,
where R1, RA, and RB are H; and R2 is
PNG
media_image24.png
72
92
media_image24.png
Greyscale
.
Ligand Ly is:
PNG
media_image27.png
284
186
media_image27.png
Greyscale
,
where RF is:
PNG
media_image28.png
72
44
media_image28.png
Greyscale
Regrading claim 15, Bae et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, it is noted that in the general formula ([0081] - Formula I-1A):
PNG
media_image22.png
340
370
media_image22.png
Greyscale
,
E2 can be H and R40 can be H. E1 can be N(Q1)(Q2), where Q1 and Q2 are -CD3 ([0144]-[0146]), corresponding to:
PNG
media_image24.png
72
92
media_image24.png
Greyscale
,
of the claims. Accordingly, the reference discloses a compound with the formula:
PNG
media_image6.png
326
368
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
where LA’ corresponds to:
PNG
media_image29.png
152
146
media_image29.png
Greyscale
,
where RW and RV are H (recited as R1); and RU is
PNG
media_image24.png
72
92
media_image24.png
Greyscale
(recited as R178). Ligand Ly-28 is:
PNG
media_image30.png
176
138
media_image30.png
Greyscale
,
where Rr is:
PNG
media_image28.png
72
44
media_image28.png
Greyscale
i.e. recited as R10; and
Rs and Rt’ are H (recited as R1).
Regarding claim 17, Bae et al discloses an organic light emitting device comprising first and second electrodes, i.e. an anode and a cathode ([0043]), and an organic layer disposed between the electrode ([0043]). The organic layer comprising the following compound ([0043] and Page 118 – Compound 416):
PNG
media_image15.png
585
516
media_image15.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the compound represented by formula I:
PNG
media_image1.png
344
330
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
where:
ring B is a 6-membered carbocyclic ring;
ring D is a 6-membered heterocyclic ring;
Z1 is C;
Z3 is N;
L1 is O;
L2 is a direct bond;
One (1) RD corresponds to R**, where R* is represented by Formula IV:
PNG
media_image16.png
152
252
media_image16.png
Greyscale
.
Two (2) groups RA are alkenyl groups that join to form a ring;
RB is hydrogen;
RC is hydrogen;
RD is a deuterium substituted alkyl;
R1 and R2 are hydrogen;
RE represents two (2) tert-butyl alkyl substituents, i.e. alkyls;
RH represents deuterium and alkyl substituents; and
X1 to X5, X8 to X16 are C;
As discussed above, the substituent:
PNG
media_image17.png
196
188
media_image17.png
Greyscale
,
corresponds to Formula IV:
PNG
media_image16.png
152
252
media_image16.png
Greyscale
,
where four (4) RH substituents correspond to deuterium and one (1) RH substituent is an alkyl, thereby satisfying proviso (a) of the claims, i.e. where R* is Formula IV, at least one RH is a substituent that is not hydrogen or deuterium, and at least one RH is deuterium.
In the compound disclosed by the reference, ring C is not a 5- or 6-membered carbocyclic or heterocyclic ring as required by the present claims. However, the compound disclosed by the reference is but one embodiment and attention is directed to Formula 1-1 ([0014]):
PNG
media_image18.png
272
368
media_image18.png
Greyscale
,
where ring A20 can be a C5-30 carbocyclic ring ([0019]). This ring is exemplified in a benzene ring in Compounds 299 and 300 (Page 98):
PNG
media_image19.png
208
228
media_image19.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image20.png
240
250
media_image20.png
Greyscale
.
Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses an embodiment where ring C in Formula I of the claims is a 6-carbocyclic ring where X6, X7 and Z2 are C.
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed compound nor can the claimed compound be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed compound and the compound disclosed by the reference, absent a showing of criticality for the presently claimed compound, it is urged that it would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the compound which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 20, Bae et al discloses an organic light emitting device, i.e. a consumer product, comprising first and second electrodes, i.e. an anode and a cathode ([0043]), and an organic layer disposed between the electrode ([0043]). The organic layer comprising the following compound ([0043] and Page 118 – Compound 416):
PNG
media_image15.png
585
516
media_image15.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the compound represented by formula I:
PNG
media_image1.png
344
330
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
where:
ring B is a 6-membered carbocyclic ring;
ring D is a 6-membered heterocyclic ring;
Z1 is C;
Z3 is N;
L1 is O;
L2 is a direct bond;
One (1) RD corresponds to R**, where R* is represented by Formula IV:
PNG
media_image16.png
152
252
media_image16.png
Greyscale
.
Two (2) groups RA are alkenyl groups that join to form a ring;
RB is hydrogen;
RC is hydrogen;
RD is a deuterium substituted alkyl;
R1 and R2 are hydrogen;
RE represents two (2) tert-butyl alkyl substituents, i.e. alkyls;
RH represents deuterium and alkyl substituents; and
X1 to X5, X8 to X16 are C;
As discussed above, the substituent:
PNG
media_image17.png
196
188
media_image17.png
Greyscale
,
corresponds to Formula IV:
PNG
media_image16.png
152
252
media_image16.png
Greyscale
,
where four (4) RH substituents correspond to deuterium and one (1) RH substituent is an alkyl, thereby satisfying proviso (a) of the claims, i.e. where R* is Formula IV, at least one RH is a substituent that is not hydrogen or deuterium, and at least one RH is deuterium.
In the compound disclosed by the reference, ring C is not a 5- or 6-membered carbocyclic or heterocyclic ring as required by the present claims. However, the compound disclosed by the reference is but one embodiment and attention is directed to Formula 1-1 ([0014]):
PNG
media_image18.png
272
368
media_image18.png
Greyscale
,
where ring A20 can be a C5-30 carbocyclic ring ([0019]). This ring is exemplified in a benzene ring in Compounds 299 and 300 (Page 98):
PNG
media_image19.png
208
228
media_image19.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image20.png
240
250
media_image20.png
Greyscale
.
Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses an embodiment where ring C in Formula I of the claims is a 6-carbocyclic ring where X6, X7 and Z2 are C.
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed compound nor can the claimed compound be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed compound and the compound disclosed by the reference, absent a showing of criticality for the presently claimed compound, it is urged that it would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the compound which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regrading claim 18, Bae et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the organic layer, i.e. the emitter layer, can comprise a host such as ([0266]-[0267] - CBP)
PNG
media_image31.png
122
262
media_image31.png
Greyscale
,
i.e. a compound comprising a carbazole moiety.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae et al (US 2022/0106345) as applied to claims 1-18 and 20 above, and in view of Ma et al (US 2010/0237334).
The discussion with respect to Bae et al as set forth in Paragraph 17 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 19, Bae et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. While the reference discloses that the emitter layer comprises a host material, the reference does not disclose the particular hosts recited in the present claims.
Ma et al discloses an OLED comprising an anode, cathode, and an organic light emitting layer between the anode and cathode (Abstract and [0098]). The light emitting layer comprises a triphenylene compound (Abstract and [0045] – Compound 1’), e.g.
PNG
media_image32.png
162
177
media_image32.png
Greyscale
.
The reference discloses that triphenylene containing benzothiophenes are excellent host materials for OLEDs as well as improved stability ([0104]).
Given that both Bae et al and Ma et al are drawn to organic electroluminescent devices comprising an emitter layer formed from a host and a dopant, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the triphenylene host as taught by Ma et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize such hosts in the device disclosed by Bae et al with a reasonable expectation of success.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-15 and 17-20 are directed to the same invention as that of claims 1-15 and 17-20 of commonly assigned co-pending application 18/149,776. Under 35 U.S.C. 101, more than one patent may not be issued on the same invention.
The USPTO may not institute a derivation proceeding in the absence of a timely filed petition. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office normally will not institute a derivation proceeding between applications or a patent and an application having common ownership (see 37 CFR 42.411). The applicant should amend or cancel claims such that the reference and the instant application no longer contain claims directed to the same invention.
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/475,852. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the reasons given below.
Claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/475,852 recites the identical compound as recited in instant claim 1. The only difference between claim 1 of the instant application and that recited in the co-pending application is that claim 1 of the co-pending application recites that M in Formula I is Pd or Pt, while claim 1 of the instant application does not recite any metals encompassed by M.
Furthermore, it is noted that claims 1-16 of copending application recite identical or encompassing subject matter recited in instant claims 1-16.
Claim 17 of copending Application No. 18/475,852 recites an organic light emitting device identical to that recited in instant claim 17. Additionally, the organic layer of the device comprises a compound represented by Formula 1, identical to that recited in instant claim 17. The only difference between claim 17 of the instant application and that recited in the co-pending application is that claim 17 of the co-pending application recites that M in Formula I is Pd or Pt, while claim 17 of the instant application does not recite any metals encompassed by M.
Furthermore, it is noted that claims 18-19 of copending application recite identical subject matter recited in instant claims 18-19..
Claim 17 of copending Application No. 18/475,852 recites a consumer product comprising an organic light emitting device identical to that recited in instant claim 20. Additionally, the organic layer comprises a compound represented by Formula 1, identical to that recited in instant claim 20. The only difference between claim 20 of the instant application and that recited in the co-pending application is that claim 20 of the co-pending application recites that M in Formula I is Pd or Pt, while claim 20 of the instant application does not recite any metals encompassed by M.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 16 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 16 of copending Application No. 18/149,776. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the reasons given below.
Claim 16 of copending application 18/149,776 recites specific compounds which overlap with the compounds recited in instant claim 16.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER C. KOLLIAS whose telephone number is (571)-270-3869. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00AM – 5:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Boyd can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER C KOLLIAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786