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 .
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 1-9 and 11-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 and 14-15 of co-pending Application No. 17/776,926 (reference application) which teaches an iridium complex reading on the instant application also used as a dopant in an OLED. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the co-pending application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-20 of U.S. Patent No 12/477,942. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference patent teaches an iridium complex reading on the instant application also used as a dopant in an OLED.
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.
Claims 1-9, 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BOUDREAULT (US 20150315222 A1).
Regarding Claims 1-7 and 9, BOUDREAULT teaches a metal complex represent by:
PNG
media_image1.png
564
486
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
248
464
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
554
472
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
165
462
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(page 5).
Ligand LA shows that two adjacent RB(s) can form a six-membered ring (paragraph 84) which can be represented as the ligand below (page 6) referred to going forward as “BOUpg6”.
PNG
media_image5.png
318
306
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
280
646
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(page 6)
PNG
media_image7.png
396
382
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(page 7)
The metal complex of BOUDREAULT includes a metal with an atomic number > 40 (paragraph 70) which includes iridium which is readily known in the art to have an atomic number of 77.
BOUpg6 teaches a number of substituent groups which are independently selected from a finite set of options which upon selection gives rise to obvious variant of generic LA (paragraph 67), absent unexpected results.
One such variant reading on applicants’ Formula 1 and 2 shows X5 = N (applicants’
A8); X6-X8 = CH; RA (applicants’ R4), RF (applicants’ R1), RG (applicants’ R2)= alkyl; R (applicants’ R3)= CD3. This corresponds to applicants’ R1-R3 = alkyl; A8 = N; A7 = alkyl; A6-A5 = CH; A1 bonded to Ring E; A2 bonded to the metal; A3 = alkyl; A4 = CH; A =N.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to have made a variety of derivatives of generic LA by selecting various functional equivalent substituents which would have included the above variant which reads on the instant limitations, absent unexpected results (per claims 1-2).
The above variant reads on:
claim 3 wherein X5 = A as N
Claim 4 wherein X6 = A7 as alkyl adjacent to A9 (per claim 4)
Claim 5 wherein R corresponding to applicants’ R3 can be CD3 (page 7)
Claim 6 wherein R corresponding to applicants’ R3 = CD3 adjacent to carbon metal bond (per claim 7).
Claim 9 wherein X = O
Regarding Claim 8, BOUDREAULT teaches the invention of claim 1. Claim 4 recites Formula 4
PNG
media_image8.png
194
230
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The above variant of BOUDREAULT BOUpg6 reads on applicants’ isoquinoline ligand A. Ligands b and c are represented below (paragraphs 68-69)
PNG
media_image9.png
193
467
media_image9.png
Greyscale
(claim 8).
Regarding Claim 12, BOUDREAULT teaches the invention of claim 1 wherein Ligands b and c are represented by
PNG
media_image9.png
193
467
media_image9.png
Greyscale
which corresponds to applicants’
PNG
media_image10.png
428
140
media_image10.png
Greyscale
(per claim 12).
Regarding Claim 13, Applicant claims a ligand represented by
PNG
media_image11.png
120
142
media_image11.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image12.png
180
140
media_image12.png
Greyscale
BOUDREAULT teaches a ligands reading on L5 and L45 represented by
PNG
media_image13.png
116
96
media_image13.png
Greyscale
found in compound 43 on page 11 and
PNG
media_image14.png
144
56
media_image14.png
Greyscale
found in compound 1 on page 25 (page 110) (per claim 13).
Regarding Claims 14-15, BOUDREAULT teaches an organic light emitting device, that includes an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode. The organic layer may include a host and a phosphorescent dopant. The organic layer can be an emissive layer and the compound (BOUpg6) can be an emissive dopant (paragraphs 130-131). The metal complexes that are useful in emissive devices. The incorporation of these ligands allows red phosphorescent materials with good external quantum efficiency (EQE), good color, and good lifetime (paragraph 65) (per claims 14-15).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY D CLARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7087. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-4PM M-F.
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 Chriss 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.
/GREGORY D CLARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786