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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP20181398.7, filed on 06/22/2020.
The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP20181386.2, filed on 06/22/2020.
The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP20181408.4, filed on 06/22/2020.
The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP20203457.5, filed on 10/22/2020.
The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP20203463.3, filed on 10/22/2020.
The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP20203447.6, filed on 10/22/2020.
The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP20203458.3, filed on 10/22/2020.
The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP20203460.9, filed on 10/22/2020.
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 1–2, 4–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatwar et al. (US 2010/0288362 A1, included in Applicants’ IDS filed on 12/15/2022, hereafter Hatwar) in view of Hummert et al. (US 2017/0373251 A1, hereafter Hummert).
Regarding Claims 1–2, 4–7, 9, 13–14, Hatwar teaches a tandem organic light-emitting device 4-2 comprising an anode, a cathode, and an intermediate connecting region comprising a n-type charge generation layer and a p-type charge generation layer [0157] -– [0171], wherein the p-type charge generation layer comprises compound PR-1 which reads on Applicants’ formula (I)–(III) (shown below),
PNG
media_image1.png
204
294
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
322
265
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein:
X1–X5 are CR1–CR5, respectively,
R1, R2, R4, and R5 are each F,
R3 is CN
However, PD-1 fails to meet any of Applicants’ requirements a) to e).
Hummert teaches a tandem organic light-emitting device comprising an anode, a cathode, and a charge generation layer between an anode and a cathode. The charge generation layer comprises a compound of formula (I) [0016], exemplified by compound B8 [0041]. Hummert further teaches the p-type dopants of formula (I) may be used instead of state-of-art p-dopants as they have large redox potentials and therefore may be used in lower concentrations [0039].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use compound B8 as the p-dopant in the p-type charge generation layer of the tandem organic light-emitting device taught by Hatwar, based on the teaching of Hummert. The motivation for doing so would have been to use a p-dopant with large redox potentials therefore allowing for doping in lower concentrations, as taught by Hummert.
Per Claim 1, the organic light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation since compound B8 reads on Applicants’ formulae (I), (II), and (III) (shown below),
PNG
media_image1.png
204
294
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
280
233
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein:
For A1:
X1, X2, X4, and X5 are CR1, CR2, CR4, and CR5, respectively,
X3 is N,
R1, R4, and R5 are each F,
R2 is a perfluorinated C1 alkyl (trifluoromethyl),
R’ is CN
For A2 and A3:
Ar is a C6 aryl (phenyl),
substituted with F and perfluorinated C1 alkyl (trifluoromethyl),
R’ is CN
Furthermore, compound B8 meets Applicants’ provisos b) and e).
Per Claim 2, the organic light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation since compound B8 reads on Applicants’ formulae (IV) and (V) (shown below),
PNG
media_image4.png
220
216
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
280
233
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein:
For B1:
X1, X2, X4, and X5 are CR1, CR2, CR4, and CR5, respectively,
X3 is N,
R1, R4, and R5 are each F,
R2 is a perfluorinated C1 alkyl (trifluoromethyl),
R’ is CN
For B3 and B5:
Ar is a C6 aryl (phenyl),
substituted with F and perfluorinated C1 alkyl (trifluoromethyl),
For B2, B4, and B6:
R’ is CN
Per Claim 4, the organic light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation since X3 is N, while R1, R4, and R5 are each F, and R2 is a perfluorinated C1 alkyl (trifluoromethyl) in compound B8.
Per Claim 5, the organic light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation since compound B8 may be rotated wherein A1 and A3 are swapped. In this case, R1, R2, R4, R5 are F, and R3 is perfluorinated C1 alkyl (trifluoromethyl).
PNG
media_image3.png
280
233
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
298
227
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Per Claim 6, the organic light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation since in A2 and A3 are identical in compound B8.
Per Claim 7, the organic light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation since A1 is different from A2 and A3 in compound B8.
Per Claim 9, the organic light-emitting device, as described above based on Hatwar Example 4-2, reads on Applicants’ limitation since the p-type charge generation layer comprises 4,4'-Bis[N-(l-naphthyl)-N-phenylamino] Biphenyl (NPB) [0165] [Table 4]. NPB is a substantially covalent matrix compound as it is identical to Applicants’ compound F1 in the instant specification [pg. 45] (shown below).
PNG
media_image6.png
175
289
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Per Claim 13, the organic light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation as it is an electroluminescent device.
Per Claim 14, the organic light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation since Hatwar teaches the organic light-emitting device may be part of a display device [0102].
Regarding Claims 10–12, the organic light-emitting device, as described above, discloses a hole injection layer comprised of HAT-1.
However, it does not disclose the use of a p-dopant, like compound B8, in the hole injection layer.
Hatwar teaches that a more stable way to provide injection of holes is to use a layer comprising strong acceptors in the hole injection layers, such as p-dopants. If the hole transport layer is p-doped, then it may be used as the hole injection layer [0089].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use NPB doped with compound B8 as the hole injection layer, based on the teaching of Hatwar. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a more stable way to inject holes, as taught by Hatwar.
Per Claim 10, the organic light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation since the hole injection layer, which is positioned between the anode layer and charge generation layer, comprises compound B8, which is a compound of formula (I).
Per Claim 11, the organic light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation since the p-type charge generation layer and the hole injection layer both comprise compound B8, which is a compound of formula (I).
Per Claim 12, the organic light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation since the p-type charge generation layer and the hole injection layer both comprise NPB as the substantially covalent matrix compound.
Regarding Claims 1, 8 and 15, the organic light-emitting device, as described above comprising compound B8, does not read on Applicants’ claim 8 since compound B8 does not read on formulae (IVa) to (IVd). Additionally, compound B8 does not read on any of the groups recited in claim 15.
Hummert teaches the p-type dopants of formula (I) may be used instead of state-of-art p-dopants as they have large redox potentials and therefore may be used in lower concentrations [0039]. Hummert further teaches exemplary structures, including compound B9 [0040]].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use compound B9 as the p-dopant in the p-type charge generation layer of the tandem organic light-emitting device taught by Hatwar, based on the teaching of Hummert. The motivation for doing so would have been to use a p-dopant with large redox potentials therefore allowing for doping in lower concentrations, as taught by Hummert.
Per Claim 1, the organic light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation since compound B9 reads on Applicants’ formulae (I), (II), and (III) (shown below),
PNG
media_image1.png
204
294
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
284
282
media_image7.png
Greyscale
wherein:
For A1:
X1, X3, and X5 are CR1, CR3, and CR5, respectively,
X2 and X4 are each N,
R1, R3, and R5 are each a perfluorinated C1 alkyl (trifluoromethyl).
R’ is CN
For A2 and A3:
Ar is a C6 aryl (phenyl),
substituted with F and CN
R’ is CN
Furthermore, compound B9 meets Applicants’ requirements c) to e).
Per Claim 8, the organic light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation since compound B9 reads on Applicants’ formulae (IVa) (shown below),
PNG
media_image8.png
192
235
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
284
282
media_image7.png
Greyscale
wherein:
For B1:
X1, X3, and X5 are CR1, CR3, and CR5, respectively,
X2 and X4 are each N,
R1, R3, and R5 are each a perfluorinated C1 alkyl (trifluoromethyl).
R’ is CN
For B3 and B5:
Ar is a C6 aryl (phenyl),
substituted with F and CN
For B2, B4, and B6:
R’ is CN
Per Claim 15, the organic light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation since fragment 1 recited in claim 15 (shown below) is represented in compound B9 (circled),
PNG
media_image9.png
210
150
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
299
282
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Claims 1–3, 6, 8–9, 10–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatwar et al. (US 2010/0288362 A1, hereafter Hatwar) in view of Hartmann et al. (US 2008/0265216 A1, hereafter Hartmann).
Regarding Claims 1–3, 6, 8–9, 13–14, Hatwar teaches a tandem organic light-emitting device 4-2 comprising an anode, a cathode, and an intermediate connecting region comprising a n-type charge generation layer and a p-type charge generation layer [0157] -– [0171], wherein the p-type charge generation layer comprises compound PR-1 which reads on Applicants’ formula (I)–(III) (shown below),
PNG
media_image1.png
204
294
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
322
265
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein:
X1–X5 are CR1–CR5, respectively,
R1, R2, R4, and R5 are each F,
R3 is CN
However, PD-1 fails to meet any of Applicants’ requirements a) to e).
Hartmann teaches p-dopants which may be used in organic light-emitting diodes, exemplified by compound 12 [0054]. Hartmann further teaches charge carrier injection of the electrodes into the doped layer can be improved by the doping agents. Furthermore, the electronic components can have an improved long-time stability on account of the compounds in accordance with the invention [0007].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use compound 12 as the p-dopant in the p-type charge generation layer of the tandem organic light-emitting device taught by Hatwar, based on the teaching of Hummert. The motivation for doing so would have been to use a p-dopant with large redox potentials therefore allowing for doping in lower concentrations, as taught by Hummert.
Per Claim 1, the organic light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation since compound 12 reads on Applicants’ formulae (I), (II), and (III) (shown below),
PNG
media_image1.png
204
294
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
277
269
media_image11.png
Greyscale
wherein:
For A1:
X1–X5 are CR1–CR5, respectively,
R3 is CN,
R1, R2, R4, and R5 are each H,
R’ is a C6 aryl (phenyl) substituted with a CN.
For A2 and A3:
Ar is a C6 aryl substituted with a CN,
R’ C6 aryl substituted with a CN.
Furthermore, compound 12 meets Applicants’ requirement a).
Per Claim 2, the organic light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation since compound 12 reads on Applicants’ formulae (IV) and (V) (shown below),
PNG
media_image4.png
220
216
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
277
269
media_image11.png
Greyscale
wherein:
For B1:
X1–X5 are CR1–CR5, respectively,
R3 is CN,
R1, R2, R4, and R5 are each H,
For B3 and B5:
Ar is a C6 aryl substituted with a CN,
For B2, B4, and B6:
R’ is a C6 aryl substituted with a CN.
Per Claim 3, the organic light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation since in compound 12 R3 is CN and R1, R2, R4, R5 are each H.
Per Claim 6, the organic light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation since in compound 12 A2 and A3 are identical.
Per Claim 8, the organic light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation since compound 12 reads on Applicants’ formulae (IVa) (shown below),
PNG
media_image8.png
192
235
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
277
269
media_image11.png
Greyscale
wherein:
For B1:
X1–X5 are CR1–CR5, respectively,
R3 is CN,
R1, R2, R4, and R5 are each H,
For B3 and B5:
Ar is a C6 aryl substituted with a CN,
For B2, B4, and B6:
R’ is a C6 aryl substituted with a CN.
Per Claim 9, the organic light-emitting device, as described above based on Hatwar Example 4-2, reads on Applicants’ limitation since the p-type charge generation layer comprises 4,4'-Bis[N-(l-naphthyl)-N-phenylamino] Biphenyl (NPB) [0165] [Table 4]. NPB is a substantially covalent matrix compound as it is identical to Applicants’ compound F1 in the instant specification [pg. 45] (shown below).
PNG
media_image6.png
175
289
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Per Claim 13, the organic light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation as it is an electroluminescent device.
Per Claim 14, the organic light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation since Hatwar teaches the organic light-emitting device may be part of a display device [0102].
Regarding Claims 10–12, the organic light-emitting device, as described above, discloses a hole injection layer comprised of HAT-1.
However, it does not disclose the use of a p-dopant, like compound B8, in the hole injection layer.
Hatwar teaches that a more stable way to provide injection of holes is to use a layer comprising strong acceptors in the hole injection layers, such as p-dopants. If the hole transport layer is p-doped, then it may be used as the hole injection layer [0089].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use NPB doped with compound B8 as the hole injection layer, based on the teaching of Hatwar. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a more stable way to inject holes, as taught by Hatwar.
Per Claim 10, the organic light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation since the hole injection layer, which is positioned between the anode layer and charge generation layer, comprises compound B8, which is a compound of formula (I).
Per Claim 11, the organic light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation since the p-type charge generation layer and the hole injection layer both comprise compound B8, which is a compound of formula (I).
Per Claim 12, the organic light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation since the p-type charge generation layer and the hole injection layer both comprise NPB as the substantially covalent matrix compound.
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.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/002,562 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because independent claim 1 of ‘562 is a species of independent claim 1 of ‘008.
PNG
media_image1.png
204
294
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
242
337
media_image12.png
Greyscale
The instant application’s claim 1 recites an organic electronic device comprising an anode layer, a cathode layer and a charge generation layer, wherein the charge generation layer comprises a p-type charge generation layer and a n-type charge generation layer, wherein the p-type charge generation layer comprises a compound of formula (I), formula (II), and formula (III). Furthermore, claim 1 recites the proviso that requirement a) to e) must be satisfied.
‘562 claim 1 An organic electronic device comprising an anode layer, a cathode layer and at least one organic semiconductor layer, wherein the at least one organic semiconductor layer is arranged between the anode layer and the cathode layer; and wherein the at least one organic semiconductor layer comprises a compound of formula (I), formula (II), and formula (III).
R1–R3, X1–X3 for formula (II) of ‘562 are encompassed by X1–X5, R’ of formula (II) of the instant application. Additionally, the requirements of a) to e) of the instant application are broad and can be met by ‘562 formula (I), formula (II), and formula (III).
Therefore, independent claim 1 of ‘562 is a species of independent claim 1 of the instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of copending Application No. 18/722,072 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because independent claim 14 of ‘072 is a species of independent claim 1 of ‘008.
PNG
media_image1.png
204
294
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
192
291
media_image13.png
Greyscale
The instant application’s claim 1 recites an organic electronic device comprising an anode layer, a cathode layer and a charge generation layer, wherein the charge generation layer comprises a p-type charge generation layer and a n-type charge generation layer, wherein the p-type charge generation layer comprises a compound of formula (I), formula (II), and formula (III). Furthermore, claim 1 recites the proviso that requirement a) to e) must be satisfied.
‘072 claim 14 recites a compound according to formula (XI), formula (XIIa), and formula (XIII).
The difference between formula (II) of the instant application and formula (XIIIa) of ‘072 is that formula (XIIIa) requires that X4 be CR4, which is allowed by formula (II). Additionally, the requirements of a) to e) of the instant application are broad and can be met by ‘072 formula (XI), formula (XIIa), and formula (XIII).
Therefore, independent claim 14 of ‘072 is a species of independent claim 1 of the instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES RICHARD FORTWENGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-5433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am - 5 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571) 270-7692. 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.
/J.R.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789