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
Response to Arguments
Applicants arguments and amendments, filed on 8/27/26, have been fully considered but they do not confer patentability on the instantly filed claims. Applicants have amended independent claim 1 such that variable R1 is selected from the group consisting of hydrogen, deuterium, phenyl, biphenylyl, terphenyl, naphthyl, phenanthrenyl, triphenyleneyl, fluoranthenyl, naphthyl phenyl, phenyl naphthyl, dihydroindenyl, dibenzofuranyl, dibenzothiophenyl, benzonaphthofuranyl, and benzonaphthothiophenyl, with the proviso that at least one of R1 is deuterium, phenyl substituted with deuterium, biphenylyl, terphenyl, naphthyl, phenanthrenyl, triphenyleneyl, fluoranthenyl, naphthyl phenyl, phenyl naphthyl, dibenzofuranyl, dibenzothiophenyl, benzonaphthofuranyl, and benzonaphthothiophenyl, each or which, except for deuterium and phenyl substituted with deuterium, is unsubstituted or substituted with deuterium. The prior art rejection to Parham et al. (US 2023/0080974) has been withdrawn in light of these amendments. The compounds disclosed by Parham et al. do not satisfy the limitations regarding R1. The compounds disclosed by Parham et al. are required to have a carbazole group as R1 (page 7 of Parham et al.), which is presently excluded from R1 as claimed. The double patenting rejection is wholly maintained as described below. Additionally, a new prior art rejection appears below. Because this new prior art rejection includes rejected claims which were previously indicated as containing allowable subject matter, this Office action is non-final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-3 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2022/0123233, cited on Applicants IDS filed on 5/23/23). Lee et al. has a publication date of 4/21/22 which is before Applicants filing data of 7/22/22 but after Applicants unperfected foreign priority date of 7/22/21 and qualifies as prior art under 102(a)(1). Additionally, Lee et al. has three foreign priority documents, all of which were filed before Applicants unperfected foreign priority document. The subject matter described below is fully supported in the foreign application priority document KR-10-2019-0098864, which was filed on 4/13/19. For these reasons, Lee et al. qualifies as prior art under both 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2).
Claim 1: Comparative examples 3 and 4 of Lee et al. are drawn to an organic light-emitting device comprising an anode, a first hole injection layer, a second hole injection layer, a first hole transport layer, a second hole transport layer, a light-emitting layer comprising a compound H-1-26 as first host, comparative compound 1 or comparative compound 2 as the second host, a dopant, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode (paragraphs 0143-0146 and Table 2). Compound H-1-26 has the structure
PNG
media_image1.png
158
214
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 81) and anticipates a compound represented by Chemical Formula 2 as recited in claim 1. As applied to Chemical Formula 2, compound H-1-26 has A equal to a benzene ring, L4 equal to biphenylene, L5 equal to phenylene, L6 equal to a single bond, Ar3 equal to naphthyl, and Ar4 equal to phenyl. Comparative compounds 1 and 2, which have the structures
PNG
media_image2.png
182
166
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image3.png
158
174
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, respectively (page 83). These compounds anticipate Chemical Formula 1 as recited in claim 1. As applied to Chemical Formula 1, comparative compounds 1 and 2 have L1 equal to biphenylene or a phenylene, L2 and L3 equal to single bonds, Ar1 and Ar2 equal to phenyl (comparative compound 1) or naphthyl (comparative compound 2). While the compounds above do not show a deuterium atom at a position corresponding to R1 as recited in claim 1, it is submitted that there would inherently be a naturally occurring amount of deuterium present, meaning that there would inherently be a portion of comparative compounds 1 and 2 where at least one of R1 is a deuterium atom.
Applicants can overcome this rejection by amending independent claim 1 to recite the limitation that when at least one R1 is deuterium, the deuterium substitution rate is 1% or more. This amendment is fully supported on page 18 of Applicants specification. A deuterium substitution rate of 1% of more is much higher than the naturally occurring amount of deuterium.
Claims 2 and 3: In comparative compounds 1 and 2, Ar1 and Ar2 are either phenyl or naphthyl which anticipates claim 2, and L2 and L3 are single bonds, which anticipates claim 3.
Claims 6-8: In compound H-1-26, Ar3 and Ar4 are phenyl and naphthyl groups, which anticipates claim 6; L4 is biphenyldiyl, which anticipates claim 7; and L5 and L6 are phenylene or a single bond, which anticipates 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 1-3 and 5-9 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 includes some of the same first hosts recited in claim 5 of the instant application. Further, the specific second hosts recited in claim 7 of the reference application includes some of the same second hosts recited in claim 9 of the instant application. As one example regarding the first host, the compound disclosed at the top left of page 611 of the reference application is the same as the compound disclosed on the bottom left of page 5 of the instantly filed claims.1 As one example regarding the second host, the compound disclosed at the bottom left of page 1022 is the same as the first compound disclosed on page 155 of the instantly filed claims.2
The hosts recited in claims 6 and 7 of the reference application also satisfy all of the limitations recited in claims 1-4 and 6-8 of the instant 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 5 and 9 are free of any prior art rejections. The prior art does not teach or suggest light-emitting devices having two host materials, where the host materials are one of the specific compounds recited in claims 5 and 9.
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
1
PNG
media_image4.png
204
138
media_image4.png
Greyscale
2
PNG
media_image5.png
118
146
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Prosecution Insights