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 .
Priority
The instant application is a 35 USC 371 National Stage filing of International Application PCT/KR2022/002506, filed February 21, 2022, which claims priority under 35 USC 119(a)-(d) from Korean Applications KR10-2022-0021927 and KR10-2021-0022497, filed February 21, 2022 and February 19, 2021, respectively.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed May 2, 2025, February 21, 2025, October 17, 2024, June 14, 2024 and May 24, 2023 were in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the IDS documents were considered and signed copies of the 1449 forms are attached.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the compound 1-12 as the species of Chemical Formula 1 and Compound 2-12 as the species of Chemical Formula 2, in the reply filed June 2, 2026 is acknowledged. All of claims 1-13 read on the elected species.
In accordance with the MPEP, if upon examination of the elected species, no prior art is found that would anticipate or render obvious the instant invention based on the elected species and the claims drawn to the elected species are allowable, the search of the Markush-type claim will be extended (see MPEP 803.02). If prior art is then found that anticipates or renders obvious the non-elected species, the Markush-type claim will be rejected. It should be noted that the prior art search will not be extended unnecessarily to cover all non-elected species. Should Applicant overcome the rejection by amending the claim, the amended claim will be reexamined. Id. The prior art search will be extended to the extent necessary to determine patentability of the Markush-type claim. Id. In the event prior art is found during reexamination that renders obvious or anticipates the amended Markush-type claim, the claim will be rejected and the action made final. Id.
As indicated above, the Examiner searched the claimed invention based on the elected species above, wherein: the combination of the two elected species was not found in the prior art. Accordingly, the scope of search and consideration has been expanded to include the additional species described in the rejection herein.
Status of Claims
Currently, claims 1-13 are pending in the instant application. All of claims 1-13 read on an elected invention and species and are therefore under consideration in the instant application to the extent that they read on the elected embodiment and expanded scope described above.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over CN108586188 in view of KR10-2020-0072211.
The ‘188 publication discloses an organic electroluminescence device comprising an anode layer, an organic light-emitting layer, and a cathode layer, where the organic light-emitting layer includes one or more chrysene derivative compounds of formula I:
PNG
media_image1.png
134
194
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(see Abstract). The prior art goes on to disclose particular examples of compounds of formula I contemplated for use therein, such as compounds A-39 and A-64
PNG
media_image2.png
111
283
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(see paragraphs [0049] and [0053], and prior art claims 1, 5 and 8-9). Compound A-39 corresponds to instant chemical formula 2 where R’1-R’5 and R’7-R’12 are hydrogen, and R’6 is chemical formula 3 where L’1 is unsubstituted phenyl, L’2 and L’3 are a single bond, and Ar’1 and Ar’2 are unsubstituted phenyl. Prior art compound A-64 corresponds to instant chemical formula 1 where L1 is C18 arylene; R1 is hydrogen and a is 1.
The instant invention differs from that described by the ‘188 publication in that the prior art compound A-64 lacks the substituted triazine moiety required by instant formula 1.
The ‘211 publication discloses a compound for optoelectronic use, represented by chemical formula 1: and goes on to describe particular compounds such as compound 33: . The prior art indicates that the compound is included in an organic layer, such as a light-emitting layer positioned between the anode and the cathode of the optoelectronic device and is formulated to have a long lifespan and low voltage driving characteristic (see paragraphs [0045] and [0276]), and compound 33 of the prior art reads on instant formula 1 where L1 and L2 are a single bond, L3 is unsubstituted phenylene; Ar1 is unsubstituted phenyl; Ar2 is unsubstituted naphthyl; R1 is unsubstituted phenyl and a is 1.
To this end, it is noted that MPEP 2141 states, "The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that "[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusatory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’" KSR, 550 U.S. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include: (A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; (B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; (C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (E) " Obvious to try " - choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; (F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention."
In the present case, the instant claims represent the selection and combination of known prior art elements, all disclosed within the ‘188 and ‘221 publications as being useful for the same purpose (i.e. organic compounds for organic light-emitting devices to includes light-emitting efficiency). To this end, MPEP 2166.04 states the following: “It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious at the time of filing for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine organic compounds in a light emitting layer of a light-emitting device, or to substituted one of the compounds in the ‘188 publication with one disclosed by the ‘221 publication known for the same purpose. The compounds are described in the art as being useful for the same purpose, which would have provided the requisite reasonable expectation of success.
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 1-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over:
claims 1-10 of copending Application No. 18/273,021; and
claims 1-9 of copending Application No. 18/038,369.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Claim 1 of the reference applications are 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 the instant claims. As particular examples, the ‘021 application claims the compound
PNG
media_image3.png
164
128
media_image3.png
Greyscale
corresponding to instant Chemical Formula 1 and the compound
PNG
media_image4.png
176
117
media_image4.png
Greyscale
corresponding to instant Chemical Formula 2 (among many other anticipatory examples). The ‘369 application claims the compound
PNG
media_image5.png
108
138
media_image5.png
Greyscale
corresponding to instant Chemical Formula 1 and
PNG
media_image6.png
117
148
media_image6.png
Greyscale
corresponding to instant Chemical Formula 2, among many other anticipatory examples. Accordingly, the copending claims recite organic light emitting devices which anticipate those of the instant claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed in this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alicia L. Otton whose telephone number is (571)270-7683. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00 AM - 6:00 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, Fereydoun Sajjadi can be reached at 571-272-3311. 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.
/ALICIA L OTTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1699
Prosecution Insights