0DETAILED 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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5 and 7-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/002,008. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the copending claims and the instant claims are drawn to overlapping subject matter.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 1-4, 7, and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al (US 2017/0346037) (Huang) in view of Kim et al (US 2017/0200899) (Kim).
In reference to claims 1-4, 7, and 9-14, Huang teaches organic light emitting diode for use in a display panel (Huang [0236]) comprising an anode, a cathode, , a hole injection layer, a first emission layer, an n-type charge generation layer, a p-type charge generation layer, and a second emission layer (among others) (Huang [0271]) wherein the p-type charge generation layer and hole transport layers comprise p-type dopants and Huang specifically teaches radialene derivatives as such p-type dopants that maybe mixed with organic matrix materials (Huang [0220] [0226] [0227] [0102]).
Huang does not expressly teach that the radialene derivative is the radialene derivatives of formula (1) as instantly claimed.
With respect to the difference, Kim teaches, in analogous art, radialene derivatives of formula 3-3 as p-dopants for organic light emitting devices in hole transport or charge generating materials (Kim [0350] to [0354]) and exemplifies compound P29 as shown below (Kim p. 83 and [0286]). Kim further teaches that the inclusion of this material provides a device with high hole mobility and improved stability (Kim [0194] [0289]).
PNG
media_image1.png
232
308
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In light of the motivation of using the radialene compound P29 as described above, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the radialene compound P29 as described by Kim in order to provides a device with high hole mobility and improved stability and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
For Claim 1: Reads on a device comprising an anode, cathode, a charge generating layer comprising a p-type and n-type layer wherein the p-type layer comprises a compound of formula 1 wherein A1 is II, R’ is C5 heteroaryl, X1 is CH, C2 is CH, X3 is CCN, X4 is CH, X5 is CH and A2 and A3 are III wherein each Ar is a substituted C6 aryl, and each R’ is C5 heteroaryl such that R1 and R5 are each hydrogen and R3 is CN which has a Hammett parameter of 0.66 in the para position according to Table 1 of the instant specification, R2 and R4 are each H.
For Claim 2: Reads on formula IV wherein B1, B3 and B5 are each substituted phenyl, B2, B4 and B6 are each pyridine.
For Claim 3: Reads on a combined Hammett value of 0.66.
For Claim 4: Reads on 3 CN moieties.
For Claim 7: Reads on a combined Hammett value of 0.66.
For Claim 9: The organic matrix materials read on the covalent matrix material.
For Claim 10: The p-doped hole injection layer reads on the hole injection layer.
For Claim 11: Reads on comprising the same material.
For Claim 12: The organic matrix materials read on the covalent matrix material.
For Claim 13: The OLED reads on an electroluminescent device.
For Claim 14: The display panel reads on a display device.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al (US 2017/0346037) (Huang) in view of Kim et al (US 2017/0200899) (Kim) as evidenced by Despotović and Maksić (J. Mol. Str:THEOCHEM; Vol 811, p 313-322 June 2007).
In reference to claim 8, Huang in view of Kim teaches the device as described above for claim 1 wherein the charge generating layer includes radialene derivatives (Huang [0220]). Huang in view of Kim does not expressly state that the isomers as claimed are also present.
However, it is noted that the claimed formulae are E/Z isomers of the material P29 of Kim. The p-dopant, under operating conditions of these devices, is reduced by accepting an electron from the matrix materials or adjacent layer materials. The resulting anion can readily undergo E/Z isomerization, a fact that would be recognized by an ordinarily skilled artisan. As evidence of this effect, Despotović and Maksić describe the isomerization of anions of [3]radialenes and similar materials in Schemes 1 and 2.
As such, the existence of various isomeric forms is expected to be inherent in the use of such devices, in the absence of results to the contrary.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In reference to the outstanding provisional double patenting rejection, the claim amendments do not appear to separate the instant claims from the copending claims.
In reference to the rejections under 35 USC 112, claims have been amended or canceled to overcome the rejections and the arguments are therefore moot.
In reference to the outstanding rejections under 35 USC 103, Applicant first argues that the amendments to the claims overcome the rejection. Notably, Applicant has amended the range of claimed Hammett values. However, as noted herein, the prior art of record teaches materials that meet the new claimed range.
Applicant further argues that the compound of P27 of Kim does not exhibit the unexpected and surprising results achieved by the compounds of amended claim 1. This argument has been fully considered but not found convincing for at least the following reasons. The data pointed to as evidence of unexpected results is data from compounds per se. The instant claims are not drawn to a compound per se, but to an organic electronic device. These data do not correspond to the claimed invention.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sean M DeGuire whose telephone number is (571)270-1027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer A. Boyd can be reached at (571) 272-7783. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Sean M DeGuire/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786