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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on May 4, 2022.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on December 20, 2022.
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references provided in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on December 8, 2023 have been considered. A signed copy of the corresponding 1449 form has been included with this office action.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Some of the compounds in the specification, particularly those starting on page 49 are low resolution and difficult to discern.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,514,112. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because compounds within the scope of Formula 1 in the instant application overlap in scope with compounds within the scope of Formula 1 in claim 7 of the ‘112 patent, as evidenced by at least compound HTH-23 in claim 8 of the ‘112 patent.
Claims 1 – 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 20 of copending Application No. 18/297,173 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because compounds within the scope of Formula 1 in the instant application overlap in scope with compounds within the scope of Formula 1 in claim 1 of the copending ‘173 application, as evidenced by at least compound 1-62 in claim 5 of the copending ‘173 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 – 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 20 of copending Application No. 17/446,810 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because compounds within the scope of Formula 1 in the instant application overlap in scope with compounds within the scope of Formula 1 in claim 1 of the copending ‘810 application, as evidenced by at least compound 4 in claim 13 of the copending ‘173 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6, 10 and 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 6 is dependent on claim 1 and refers to “Formula 1-1.” However, there is not Formula 1-1 in claim 1. Therefore, claim 6 lacks antecedent basis. Furthermore, claim 6 describes a moiety represented by
PNG
media_image1.png
180
220
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, wherein the * indicate a binding site to a neighboring atom. This renders the claim indefinite because it is unceear if the amine group is meant to read on the carbazole group or if it is meant to require an amine group substituent on the ring in addition to R3. A similar issue is present in claim 10.
For examination purposes, the claim is interpreted as reading on either of the above interpretations.
As per claim 11, the claim is worded as in Formula 1: condition i); condition ii); condition iii); condition iv); or condition v); or in Formula 2…. This renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how many limitations need to be met by the compound. One interpretation is that the compound needs to meet conditions i) – iv) OR condition v) OR the last limitation. Another interpretation is that the compound only needs to meet one of conditions i) – v) or meet the last limitation.
For examination purposes, the claim is interpreted as only requiring one of the claimed conditions.
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 – 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Um (US20220112163A1).
As per claims 1 – 11, Shin teaches:
A condensed cyclic compound represented by Formula 1
PNG
media_image2.png
382
466
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Um teaches compounds of Formula 1
PNG
media_image3.png
98
258
media_image3.png
Greyscale
([0006]). A specific compound of Formula 1 taught by Um is compound 5
PNG
media_image4.png
352
326
media_image4.png
Greyscale
([0102]). This compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein X1 is represented by Formula 2, namely a group represented by Formula 2-1 in claim 2; R1 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl group; R2 – R5, R7 and R8 are hydrogen; R6 is a C6 aryl group, namely a phenyl group as required by claim 4 and b6 is an integer of 3. The compound is represented by Formula 1-1 in claim 5, Formula 1B-3 and 1D-2 in claim 6, Formula 1-13 in claim 7; Formula 1D-2 in claim 8. The compound is represented by Formula 1-22 in claim 9 and Formula 1B-3 in claim 10. The compound meets conditions i) – v) in claim 11.)
As per claims 12 – 14, and 16, Um teaches:
An organic light-emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode, and an organic layer arranged between the first electrode and the second electrode and comprising an emission layer, wherein the emission layer comprises a host and a dopant, the host and dopant are different from each other, the compound of host is greater than an amount of the dopant, and the host comprises the condensed cyclic compound, wherein the dopant is a phosphorescent dopant (In the device of Example 2, prepared as described in [0410 – 0412], a device is formed with an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an emission layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer and a cathode, in that order. Compound 5 is used as the host material for an Ir(pmp)3 dopant and the composition was provided in a weight ratio of 92:8 so that the host is present in a larger amount than the dopant. Ir(pmp)3 is a phosphorescent dopant.)
As per claim 15, Um teaches:
Wherein the emission layer emits blue light (As shown in Table 2, the device of Example 2 emits light at 457 nm, which is interpreted as blue light.)
As per claim 20, Um teaches:
An electronic apparatus comprising the organic light-emitting device (As an organic light emitting device is an electronic apparatus, Um anticipates claim 20.)
Claims 1 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fleetham (US20230329089A1).
As per claims 1 – 11, Fleetham teaches:
A condensed cyclic compound represented by Formula 1
PNG
media_image2.png
382
466
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Fleetham teaches compounds of Formula I
PNG
media_image5.png
194
266
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(Abstract). A specific compound within the scope of Formula I taught by Fleetham is
PNG
media_image6.png
302
230
media_image6.png
Greyscale
This compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein X1 is represented by Formula 2, namely a group represented by Formula 2-1 in claim 2; R1 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl group; R2 – R5, R7 and R8 are hydrogen; R6 is a C6 aryl group, namely a phenyl group as required by claim 4 and b6 is an integer of 1. The compound is represented by Formula 1-1 in claim 5, Formula 1B-3 and 1D-3 in claim 6, Formula 1-13 in claim 7; Formula 1D-3 in claim 8. The compound is represented by Formula 1-23 in claim 9 and Formula 1B-3 in claim 10. The compound meets conditions i) – v) in claim 11.)
Claims 1 – 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (US20220135601A1).
As per claims 1 – 11, Lee teaches:
A condensed cyclic compound represented by Formula 1
PNG
media_image2.png
382
466
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Lee teaches compounds of Formula 1
PNG
media_image7.png
142
298
media_image7.png
Greyscale
([0007]). A particular compound within the scope of Formula 1 taught by Lee is compound 1
PNG
media_image8.png
234
346
media_image8.png
Greyscale
([0113]). This compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein X1 is represented by Formula 2, namely a group represented by Formula 2-1 in claim 2; R1 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl group; R2 – R8 are all hydrogen. The compound is represented by Formula 1-1 in claim 5, Formula 1B-3 and 1D-3 in claim 6, Formula 1-13 in claim 7; Formula 1D-3 in claim 8. The compound is represented by Formula 1-23 in claim 9 and Formula 1B-3 in claim 10. The compound meets conditions i) – v) in claim 11.)
As per claims 12 – 14, and 16, Lee teaches:
An organic light-emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode, and an organic layer arranged between the first electrode and the second electrode and comprising an emission layer, wherein the emission layer comprises a host and a dopant, the host and dopant are different from each other, the compound of host is greater than an amount of the dopant, and the host comprises the condensed cyclic compound, wherein the dopant is a phosphorescent dopant (In the device of Example 1, prepared as described in [0478 – 04483], a device is formed with an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an emission layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer and a cathode, in that order. Compound 1 is used as the host material for an Ir(pmp)3 dopant and the composition was provided in a weight ratio of 92:8 so that the host is present in a larger amount than the dopant. Ir(pmp)3 is a phosphorescent dopant.)
As per claim 15, Lee teaches:
Wherein the emission layer emits blue light (As shown in Table 2, the device of Example 1 emits blue light.)
As per claim 20, Lee teaches:
An electronic apparatus comprising the organic light-emitting device (As an organic light emitting device is an electronic apparatus, Lee anticipates claim 20.)
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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 12 – 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleetham (US20230329089A1) as applied to claims 1 – 11 above.
As per claims 12 – 14 and 16, Fleetham does not specifically teach the use of the compound in a device. Fleetham teaches:
An organic light-emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode, and an organic layer arranged between the first electrode and the second electrode and comprising an emission layer, wherein the emissive layer comprises a host and a dopant, the host and dopant are different from each other, the host comprises the condensed cyclic compound, and the dopant is a phosphorescent dopant ([0168 – 0170]: “In some embodiments, an organic light-emitting device (OLED) comprising an anode; a cathode; and an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode is provided. In some embodiments, the organic layer comprises a compound of Formula I or Formula VI as described herein…. In some embodiments, the compound may be a host, and the first organic layer may be an emissive layer that comprises a phosphorescent material.”)
An amount of the host is greater than an amount of the dopant (In the Examples, Fleetham teaches emission layers with only 12% of the emitting component [0295].)
Fleetham teaches an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer and that the compound is in the organic layer as discussed above. It would have been obvious to use the compound in the organic layer with the device structure of Fleetham as Fleetham demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As per claim 15, Fleetham teaches:
Wherein the emission layer emits blue light ([0008]: “Silane substituted bimbim containing hosts can further increase the triplet energy of these hosts to support high efficiency blue OLEDs.”)
As per claim 20, Fleetham teaches:
An electronic apparatus comprising the organic light-emitting device ([0203]: “In yet another aspect, the present disclosure also provides a consumer product comprising an organic light-emitting device (OLED).”)
Claims 17 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleetham (US20230329089A1) as applied to claims 1 – 16 and 20 above, and further in view of Kwak (US20200006676A1).
As per claims 17 and 19, Fleetham teaches:
Wherein the emission layer comprises a host, a dopant, and a sensitizer, the host, the dopant and the sensitizer are different from each other, the host comprises the condensed cyclic compound and the dopant is a phosphorescent dopant ([0193]: “In some embodiments, the compound is a host and the OLED comprises an acceptor that is an emitter and a sensitizer selected from the group consisting of a delayed fluorescence material, a phosphorescent material, and combinations thereof.”)
Fleetham does not teach:
An amount of the host is greater than an amount of the sensitizer
The amount of the sensitizer is greater than an amount of the dopant
Kwak teaches an organic light-emitting device including an emission layer with a host, a dopant and a sensitizer (Abstract). This is similar to the emission layer composition of Fleetham. In Table 1 on page 292, Kwak teaches that the host is present as the majority compound, and that in the minority portion, the sensitizer is present in an amount higher than the dopant.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the emission layer with a host amount in a greater amount than the sensitizer and the sensitizer in a greater amount than that of the dopant because Kwak teaches that this was a known to be a predictably suitable composition for emissions layer with a host, dopant, and sensitizer (Page 292).
As per claim 18, Fleetham teaches:
Wherein the emission layer emits blue light ([0008]: “Silane substituted bimbim containing hosts can further increase the triplet energy of these hosts to support high efficiency blue OLEDs.”)
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US20110278552A1 teaches carbazole based compounds that could be used in a rejection against the claims as currently presented. US20240101537A1 teaches carbazole based compounds that could be used in a rejection against the claims as currently presented. ‘537 is eligible as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA N CHANDHOK whose telephone number is (571)272-5780. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 6:30 - 3:30.
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 on 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.
/JENNA N CHANDHOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789