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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on 11/01/2022 includes a US Patent no. 5,069,569 having the publication date of 10-29-1991 and the Name of Patentee or Applicant of Vanslyke, et a. The reference is lined through and is not considered because the US Patent no. 5,069,569 does not have such publication date and name. See the screen capture of a portion of the Patent no. 5,069,569 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
85
802
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 claims Chemical Formula 1-2 wherein the formula includes a phenanthrene group which is formed by a fused benzene ring at the position R2 of the Chemical Formula 1 of the claim 1.
The instant claim 1 claims R2 can be the following substituents groups: hydrogen, deuterium, a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C20 alkyl group, or a substituted or unsubstituted C6 to C20 aryl group. The claim 1 also claims adjacent R2s can be bonded with each other to form a ring.
However, a fused benzene ring cannot be formed by any of the claimed adjacent groups. For instance, a fused phenanthrene group can be formed by linking two adjacent phenyl groups, a fused dihydroindene group can be formed by linking two adjacent phenyl and alkyl groups, and a fused cycloalkyl group can be formed by liking two adjacent alkyl groups, and so on (see the figure below).
PNG
media_image2.png
582
811
media_image2.png
Greyscale
An ordinary skill in the art would acknowledge that a fused benzene ring is formed by linking two vinyl group; however, no vinyl nor alkenyl is claimed as the substituent R2 in the claims. Therefore, the Chemical Formula 1-2 of claim 2 is not encompassed by the Chemical Formula 1 of claim 1. Claim 2 fails to include all the limitations of the claims to which the claim refer.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 claims specific embodiments including at least Compounds 7 and 14 which contain a fused benzene ring at the position R2 of the Chemical Formula 1 of the claim 1.
The instant claim 1 claims R2 can be the following substituents groups: hydrogen, deuterium, a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C20 alkyl group, or a substituted or unsubstituted C6 to C20 aryl group. The claim 1 also claims adjacent R2s can be bonded with each other to form a ring.
However, a fused benzene ring cannot be formed by any of the claimed adjacent groups. For instance, a fused phenanthrene group can be formed by linking two adjacent phenyl groups, a fused dihydroindene group can be formed by linking two adjacent phenyl and alkyl groups, and a fused cycloalkyl group can be formed by liking two adjacent alkyl groups, and so on, as outlined above (see the figure above).
An ordinary skill in the art would acknowledge that a fused benzene ring is formed by linking two vinyl group; however, no vinyl nor alkenyl is claimed as the substituent R2 in the claims. Therefore, the Compounds 7 and 14 of claim 7 are not encompassed by the Chemical Formula 1 of claim 1. Claim 7 fails to include all the limitations of the claims to which the claim refer.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 claims Chemical Formula 1-2 wherein the formula includes a phenanthrene group which is formed by a fused benzene ring at the position R2 of the Chemical Formula 1 of the claim 1.
The instant claim 1 claims R2 can be the following substituents groups: hydrogen, deuterium, a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C20 alkyl group, or a substituted or unsubstituted C6 to C20 aryl group. The claim 1 also claims adjacent R2s can be bonded with each other to form a ring.
However, a fused benzene ring cannot be formed by any of the claimed adjacent groups. For instance, a fused phenanthrene group can be formed by linking two adjacent phenyl groups, a fused dihydroindene group can be formed by linking two adjacent phenyl and alkyl groups, and a fused cycloalkyl group can be formed by liking two adjacent alkyl groups, and so on (see the figure below).
An ordinary skill in the art would acknowledge that a fused benzene ring is formed by linking two vinyl group; however, no vinyl nor alkenyl is claimed as the substituent R2 in the claims. Therefore, the Chemical Formula 1-2 of claim 2 is not encompassed by the Chemical Formula 1 of claim 1. It is unclear whether Applicant claims the Chemical Formula 1-2 of claim 2.
For the purpose of prosecution, the Examiner interprets the limitation to mean that the Chemical Formula 1-2 of claim 2 is claimed regardless of the dependency from the claim 1. That is, a prior art having the structure of Chemical Formula 1-2 of claim 2 reads on the limitation of the claim 2.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 claims specific embodiments including at least Compounds 7 and 14 which contain a fused benzene ring at the position R2 of the Chemical Formula 1 of the claim 1.
The instant claim 1 claims R2 can be the following substituents groups: hydrogen, deuterium, a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C20 alkyl group, or a substituted or unsubstituted C6 to C20 aryl group. The claim 1 also claims adjacent R2s can be bonded with each other to form a ring.
However, a fused benzene ring cannot be formed by any of the claimed adjacent groups. For instance, a fused phenanthrene group can be formed by linking two adjacent phenyl groups, a fused dihydroindene group can be formed by linking two adjacent phenyl and alkyl groups, and a fused cycloalkyl group can be formed by liking two adjacent alkyl groups, and so on.
An ordinary skill in the art would acknowledge that a fused benzene ring is formed by linking two vinyl group; however, no vinyl nor alkenyl is claimed as the substituent R2 in the claims. Therefore, the Compounds 7 and 14 of claim 7 are not encompassed by the Chemical Formula 1 of claim 1. It is unclear whether Applicant claims the specific embodiments including the Compounds 7 and 14 although the embodiments are not encompassed by the Chemical Formula 1.
For the purpose of prosecution, the Examiner interprets the limitation to mean that the specific embodiments including the Compounds 7 and 14 which are not encompassed by the Chemical Formula 1, are claimed regardless of the dependency from the claim 1. That is, a prior art having the structure of Compound 7 or 14 of claim 7 reads on the limitation of the claim 7.
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 following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cho et al. (KR 2017/0136440 A, the English translation is referred to for figures and tables and the original document is referred to for the remainder body of the patent, hereafter Cho).
Regarding claims 1-6, Cho discloses a compound represented by Formula 1 for organic light emitting device, wherein in Formula 1 two among A1 to A10 can be represented by Formula 2 ([0007]-[0018] and on page 4 under Problem to be solved). Cho exemplifies a compound (the first compound in [0187], hereafter Compound p187-1).
PNG
media_image3.png
363
579
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The Compound p187-1 of Cho has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1 of the instant claims.
Claims 1-6, 8-10, 12-13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2023/0086039 A1, hereafter Kim).
Regarding claims 1-6, 8-10, 12-13, and 15-16, Kim discloses an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, a light emitting layer containing a compound of Formula 1 and a compound of Formula 2, and a cathode ([0008]-[0020]).
Kim exemplifies an organic light emitting device (Example 136 in [0439]-[0440], [0442], Table 1) comprising an anode (ITO), a light emitting layer (Compound 1-56 as a host, Compound 2-17 as a host, Compound Dp-7 as a dopant), and a cathode (Al).
PNG
media_image4.png
578
641
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The Compound 1-56 of Kim has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1 of the instant claim 1, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-6.
The Compound 2-17 of Kim has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 2 of the instant claim 8.
The organic light emitting device of Kim comprising an anode (ITO), a light emitting layer (Compound 1-56 as a host, Compound 2-17 as a host, Compound Dp-7 as a dopant), and a cathode (Al), wherein the organic light emitting device is an organic optoelectronic device; the light emitting layer materials are equated with a composition, meeting all the limitations of claims 8-10, 12-13, and 15-16.
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 7 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (KR 2017/0136440 A, the English translation is referred to for figures and tables and the original document is referred to for the remainder body of the patent).
Regarding claim 7, Cho discloses a compound represented by Formula 1 for organic light emitting device, wherein in Formula 1 up to two among A1 to A10 can be represented by Formula 2 ([0007]-[0018] and on page 4 under Problem to be solved). Cho exemplifies a compound (the first compound in [0187], hereafter Compound p187-1).
PNG
media_image5.png
351
609
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The Compound p187-1 has similar structure as Applicant’s Compound 7. The difference between two compounds is that: 1) the phenanthrenyl group at the position corresponding to A4 of Formula 1 of Cho (i.e. the part enclosed by a dashed circle in the figure above) is required to be a naphthyl, and 2) the phenyl group at the position corresponding to R1 of Formula 2 of Cho (i.e. the part pointed by an arrow in the figure above) is required to be dibenzofuryl group. However, Cho does teach aryl as the group at A4 ([0011]) and heteroaryl as the group at R1 ([0017] and exemplifies naphthyl as the aryl ([0054]) and dibenzofuryl as the heteroaryl ([0060]).
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 p187-1 of Cho by substituting the phenanthrenyl group at the position corresponding to A4 of Formula 1 with naphthyl and the phenyl group at the position corresponding to R1 of Formula 2 with dibenzofuryl group.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Both phenanthrenyl and naphthyl are exemplified substituents at the position corresponding to A4 of Formula 1 and both phenyl and dibenzofuryl are exemplified substituents at the position corresponding to R1 of Formula 2. Thus, each substitution 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 Cho which has identical structure as Applicant’s Compound 7.
PNG
media_image6.png
314
576
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 12-13, the Compound p187-1 of Cho reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
Cho does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising the Compound p187-1 of Cho; however, Cho does teach that the compound of Cho can be used as the host in an organic light emitting device ([0018], [0353]).
Cho teaches the structure of an organic light emitting device comprising an anode (ITO), a light emitting layer (compound of Cho as a host and Ir(ppy)3 as a dopant), and a cathode (Al) (Example 1-1 in [0522]-[0529]).
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 p187-1 of Cho by incorporating it as the host of the light emitting layer of an organic light emitting device, as taught by Cho.
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 host materials of Cho in the device of Cho 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 Cho comprising an anode (ITO), a light emitting layer (Compound p187-1 of Cho as a host and Ir(ppy)3 as a dopant), and a cathode (Al), wherein the organic light emitting device is an organic optoelectronic device.
Claims 8-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (KR 2017/0136440 A, the English translation is referred to for figures and tables and the original document is referred to for the remainder body of the patent), as applied to claims 12-13 above, further in view of Lee et al. (US 2020/0227644 A1, hereafter Lee).
Regarding claim 14, the Compound p187-1 of Cho reads on all the features of claim 1 and the Modified organic light emitting device of Cho reads on all the features of claim 12 as outlined above.
The device comprises an anode (ITO), a light emitting layer (Compound p187-1 of Cho as a host and Ir(ppy)3 as a dopant), and a cathode (Al).
Cho in view of Lee does not disclose a specific display device comprising the Modified organic light emitting device of Cho.
Lee teaches that an organic light emitting device can be applied to a display device such as flat display device and flexible display device ([0220]).
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 Cho by incorporating it into a display device, as taught by Lee.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide a flat display device or flexible display 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 substitution of organic light emitting devices in a display device 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 a display device comprising the Modified Organic light emitting device of Cho.
Regarding claims 8-17, the Compound p187-1 of Cho reads on all the features of claim 1 and the Modified organic light emitting device of Cho reads on all the features of claim 12 as outlined above.
The device comprises an anode (ITO), a light emitting layer (Compound p187-1 of Cho as a host and Ir(ppy)3 as a dopant), and a cathode (Al).
The device contains a triazine compound (i.e. Compound p187-1 of Cho) as a single host.
Lee discloses an organic light emitting device, wherein the light emitting layer contains two hosts (Formula A and Formula D) ([0011]). Lee exemplifies Compound H139 ([0128]), which has identical structure as Applicants Formula 2-VIIB-2 of the instant claim 11.
PNG
media_image7.png
360
619
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The Compound p-187 of Cho is encompassed by the Formula D of Lee, wherein HAr4 is a substituted or unsubstituted aryl of 6 to 30 carbon atoms; L is a substituted or unsubstituted arylene of 6 to 60 carbon atoms; n1 is 1; n2 is 1; m1 is 1; and Az is Formula 2
PNG
media_image8.png
112
78
media_image8.png
Greyscale
, wherein Z1, Z3, and Z5 are each N; Z2 and Z4 are each CR22 and CR24; R20 is linker to the L; R22 and R24 are each a substituted or unsubstituted C6 to C30 aryl group ([0021]-[0048]).
Lee teaches that the organic light emitting device comprising the light emitting layer containing the compounds of the Formulas A and D in the light emitting layer provides low voltage, improved emission efficiency, and long lifetime ([0182], [0010]-[0011]).
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 Cho by incorporating the Compound H139 of Lee as the second host compound in the light emitting layer of the device, as taught by Lee.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide low voltage, improved emission efficiency, and long lifetime, 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 Organic light emitting device of Cho as modified by Lee comprising an anode (ITO), a light emitting layer (Compound p187-1 of Cho as a host (first compound), Compound H139 of Lee as a host (second compound), and Ir(ppy)3 as a dopant), and a cathode (Al), wherein the light emitting device is an optoelectronic device; the light emitting layer materials are equated with a composition, meeting all the limitations of claims 8-13 and 15-16.
Cho in view of Lee does not disclose a specific display device comprising the Organic light emitting device of Cho as modified by Lee.
Lee teaches that an organic light emitting device can be applied to a display device such as flat display device and flexible display device ([0220]).
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 Cho as modified by Lee by incorporating it into a display device, as taught by Cho and Lee.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide a flat display device or flexible display 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 substitution of organic light emitting devices in a display device 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 Display device of Cho as modified by Lee comprising the Organic light emitting device of Cho as modified by Lee, meeting all the limitations of claim 14 and 17.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2023/0086039 A1).
Regarding claims 7, Kim discloses an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, a light emitting layer containing a compound of Formula 1 and a compound of Formula 2, and a cathode ([0008]-[0020]). Kim exemplifies Compound 1-49 as the compound of Formula 1 ([0240], [0066]).
PNG
media_image9.png
370
694
media_image9.png
Greyscale
The Compound 1-49 of Kim has similar structure as Applicant’s Compound 151 of the instant claim 7. The only difference is that the hydrogen atom at the position corresponding to R1 of the Formula 1 of Kim (i.e. the position-6 which is pointed by an arrow in the figure above) is required to be an unsubstituted phenyl group; however, Kim does teach that R1 can be an unsubstituted C6 aryl group ([0014]). Kim exemplifies a specific embodiment wherein an unsubstituted phenyl group as the R1 of the Formula 1 is substituted to the position-6 of the dibenzofuranyl group (see embodiments in [0066] including at least the third compound on page 6,
PNG
media_image10.png
293
250
media_image10.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 Compound 1-49 of Kim by substituting the hydrogen atom at the position corresponding to R1 of Formula 1 of Kim with an unsubstituted phenyl, as taught by Kim.
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 substituents at the position corresponding to R1 of Formula 1 of Kim 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 Kim which has identical structure as Applicant’s Compound 151.
PNG
media_image11.png
317
616
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Claims 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2023/0086039 A1) in view of Pang et al. (“A full-color, low-power, wearable display for mobile applications”, SPIE, 03/29/2012, hereafter Pang).
Regarding claims 14 and 17, Kim discloses an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, a light emitting layer containing a compound of Formula 1 and a compound of Formula 2, and a cathode ([0008]-[0020]).
Kim exemplifies an organic light emitting device (Example 136 in [0439]-[0440], [0442], Table 1) comprising an anode (ITO), a light emitting layer (Compound 1-56 as a host, Compound 2-17 as a host, Compound Dp-7 as a dopant), and a cathode (Al).
The Compound 1-56 of Kim has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1 of the instant claim 1 and the Compound 2-17 of Kim has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 2 of the instant claim 8.
Kim does not disclose a specific display device comprising the organic light emitting device of Kim.
Pang discloses a display device (“flexible active matrix OLED display” in Fig. 3) comprising an organic light-emitting device (“C: OLED” in Fig. 3) and a thin film transistor (“thin-film transistor”; “B: TFT” in Fig. 3).
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 Kim by incorporating it into a display device, as taught by Pang.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide a 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 Display device of Kim as modified by Pang comprising the Organic light emitting device of Kim.
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, 8-12, 14, 15, and 17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5, 12, and 17-18 of copending Application No. 17/741,013 (reference application, hereafter Application ‘013). 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 1-6, 8-12, 14, 15, and 17, Application ‘013 discloses an organic optoelectronic device comprising an anode, an organic layer, and a cathode, wherein the organic layer includes a light emitting layer containing a composition comprising a first compound of Formula 1 and a second compound of Formula 2 (claim 17).
Application ‘013 exemplifies Compound 1-29 as the Formula 1 (claim 5) and Compound 2-81 as the Formula 2 (claim 12).
PNG
media_image12.png
373
588
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Application ‘013 does not disclose a specific organic optoelectronic device comprising the Compound 1-29 and Compound 2-18; however, Application ‘013 does teach an organic optoelectronic device comprising a compound of Formula 1 and a compound of Formula 2 (claim 17 ) and exemplifies Compound 1-29 as the Formula 1 (claim 5) and Compound 2-81 as the Formula 2 (claim 12).
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 optoelectronic device by incorporating Compound 1-29 and Compound 2-81 into the light emitting layer, as taught by Application ‘031.
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, each substitution 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 optoelectronic device of Application ‘013 comprising an anode, an organic layer, and a cathode, wherein the organic layer includes a light emitting layer containing a composition comprising a composition comprising a first Compound 1-29 and a second Compound 2-18, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-6, 8-12, and 15.
Application ‘013 does not disclose a specific display device comprising the Modified organic optoelectronic device of Application ‘013; however, Application ‘013 does teach a display device comprising an organic optoelectronic device of Application ‘013 (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 Modified organic optoelectronic device of Application ‘013 by incorporating it into a display device, as taught by Application ‘031.
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 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 display device of Application ‘013 comprising the Modified organic optoelectronic device of Application ‘013, meeting all the limitations of claims 14 and 17.
Claims 1-6 and 8-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 6, 10, and 15-16 of copending Application No. 17/952,410 (reference application, hereafter Application ‘410). 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 1-6 and 8-17, Application ‘410 discloses an organic optoelectronic device comprising an anode, an organic layer, and a cathode, wherein the organic layer includes a light emitting layer containing a composition as a host comprising a first compound of Formula 1 and a second compound of Formula 2 (claim 15).
Application ‘410 exemplifies Compound 5 as the Formula 1 (claim 6) and a second compound of Formula 2-VIIIB-2 as the Formula 2 (claim 10).
PNG
media_image13.png
358
572
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Application ‘410 does not disclose a specific organic optoelectronic device comprising the Compound 5 and Compound of Formula 2-VIIIB-2; however, Application ‘410 does teach an organic optoelectronic device comprising a compound of Formula 1 and a compound of Formula 2 (claim 15) and exemplifies Compound 5 as the Formula 1 (claim 6) and a second compound of Formula 2-VIIIB-2 as the Formula 2 (claim 10).
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 optoelectronic device by incorporating a composition of Compound 5 and Compound of Formula 2-VIIIB-2 into the light emitting layer as a host, as taught by Application ‘031.
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, each substitution 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 optoelectronic device of Application ‘410 comprising an anode, an organic layer, and a cathode, wherein the organic layer includes a light emitting layer containing a composition comprising a composition comprising a first Compound 5 and a second Compound of Formula 2-VIIIB-2, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-16.
Application ‘410 does not disclose a specific display device comprising the Modified organic optoelectronic device of Application ‘410; however, Application ‘410 does teach a display device comprising an organic optoelectronic device of Application ‘410 (claim 16).
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 optoelectronic device of Application ‘410 by incorporating it into a display device, as taught by Application ‘410.
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 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 display device of Application ‘410 comprising the Modified organic optoelectronic device of Application ‘410, meeting all the limitations of claims 14 and 17.
Claims 1-6 and 8-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8, 12, and 17-18 of copending Application No. 17/924,486 (reference application, hereafter Application ‘486). 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 1-6 and 8-17, Application ‘486 discloses an organic optoelectronic device comprising an anode, an organic layer, and a cathode, wherein the organic layer includes a light emitting layer containing a composition as a host comprising a first compound of Formula 1 and a second compound of Formula 2 (claim 17).
Application ‘486 exemplifies Compound 31 as the Formula 1 (claim 8) and a second compound of Formula 2-VIIIB-2 as the Formula 2 (claim 12).
PNG
media_image14.png
330
634
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Application ‘486 does not disclose a specific organic optoelectronic device comprising the Compound 31 and Compound of Formula 2-VIIIB-2; however, Application ‘486 does teach an organic optoelectronic device comprising a compound of Formula 1 and a compound of Formula 2 (claim 17) as a host and exemplifies Compound 31 as the Formula 1 (claim 8) and a second compound of Formula 2-VIIIB-2 as the Formula 2 (claim 12).
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 optoelectronic device by incorporating a composition of Compound 31 and Compound of Formula 2-VIIIB-2 into the light emitting layer as a host, as taught by Application ‘031.
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, each substitution 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 optoelectronic device of Application ‘486 comprising an anode, an organic layer, and a cathode, wherein the organic layer includes a light emitting layer containing a composition comprising a first Compound 31 and a second Compound of Formula 2-VIIIB-2, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-16.
Application ‘486 does not disclose a specific display device comprising the Modified organic optoelectronic device of Application ‘486; however, Application ‘486 does teach a display device comprising an organic optoelectronic device of Application ‘486 (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 Modified organic optoelectronic device of Application ‘486 by incorporating it into a display device, as taught by Application ‘486.
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 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 display device of Application ‘486 comprising the Modified organic optoelectronic device of Application ‘486, meeting all the limitations of claims 14 and 17.
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