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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
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 1-3, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parham et al. (US 2023/0080974).
Claim 1: Parham et al. teaches compositions for organic electronic devices. The device examples are comprised of an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer, an emission layer comprising a first host, a second host, and a dopant, a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode (table 6). The first host in almost all inventive device examples is one which satisfies the structural limitations of Chemical Formula 1 of claim 1. As one example, compound 3 of Parham et al., which is employed as a first host material, has the structure
PNG
media_image1.png
214
236
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 623). As applied to Chemical Formula 1, compound 3 has L1-L3 equal to a single bond, Ar1 and Ar2 equal to phenyl, a equal to 1, and R1 equal to a substituted C12 heteroaryl group (a biphenyl substituted carbazole group).
While none of the working examples includes a second host material which satisfies Chemical Formula 2 of claim 1, the overall teachings of Parham et al. render obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art such compounds. Table 2 of Parham et al. discloses suitable second host materials which includes several host materials which satisfy Chemical Formula 2, such as those which are taught on pages 443-440, 494, and 496). Additionally, Parham et al. teaches that particularly suitable second host materials includes one of compounds 37 to 66a (paragraph 526). Compound 53 has the structure
PNG
media_image2.png
224
244
media_image2.png
Greyscale
which satisfies all of the structural limitations of Chemical Formula 2 of claim 1. As applied to Chemical Formula 2, compound 53 has ring A equal to a benzene ring, L4 equal to an unsubstituted C12 arylene (biphenyl), L5 and L6 equal to single bonds, Ar3 equal to a 9,9-dimethylfluorenyl group, and Ar4 equal to a spirobifluorenyl group. It is understood by one having ordinary skill in the art that these groups are considered to be aromatic groups. Given that nearly all of the exemplified devices includes a first host which satisfies Chemical Formula 1 and Parham et al. additionally teaches compound 53 above which is taught as a particularly preferred second host material (out of only a small handful of other preferred second host materials), a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it prima facie obvious to have employed compound 53 in a device example as a second host material which further comprises a first host material satisfying Chemical Formula 1 as such a combination is readily envisaged. Such a device would satisfy all of the structural and device limitations of claim 1.
Claims 2 and 3: In compound 3 above, Ar1 and Ar2 are phenyl which satisfies claim 2 and L2 and L3 are single bonds which satisfies claim 3.
Claims 7 and 8: In compound 53, L4 is biphenylene which satisfies claim 7 and L5 and L6 are single bonds which satisfies claim 8.
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 claims at issue 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 reference 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. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 6 and 7 of copending Application No. 18/016,720 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Claim 1 of the reference application is drawn to an organic light emitting device comprising a first host of chemical formula 1 and a second host of chemical formula 2. The specific first hosts recited in claim 6 of the reference application and the specific hosts recited in claim 7 of the reference application includes some of the same hosts which are recited in claims 8 and 9 of the instant applications. The hosts recited in claims 6 and 7 of the reference application also satisfy all of the limitations recited in claims 1-7 of the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Comment on Patentability
While all claims stand rejected, claims 4-6 and 9 are free of any prior art rejections and would be objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims should Applicants overcome the double patenting rejection above. The first and second host compounds taught by Parham et al. are exclusive of compounds which satisfy claims 4-6 and 9 as instantly claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT S LOEWE whose telephone number is (571)270-3298. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8 AM to 5 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-1302. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Robert S Loewe/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights