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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
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 1-23 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Instant claim 1 recites “(wherein R901 to R907 are independently…..different from each other)”. The claim as written is indefinite and unclear. Applicants have failed to address the claims to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention. The primary purpose of this requirement of definiteness of claim language is to ensure that the scope of the claims is clear so the public is informed of the boundaries of what constitutes infringement of the patent. The claims recite the parentheses, which does not present the limitations in a clear manner. It is not clear Applicants intend the language recited inside the parentheses to be required in the claimed invention.
Claims 21, and 22 each recite the word “substantially”, which is considered vague and indefinite. The term “substantially” in claims 21 and 22 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially “is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear if respective recited components are present or not. Clarification and/or correction are required.
Claims 2-23 depends on claim 1; therefore, the claims are also indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. Appropriate correction is required
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 21 recites “wherein the second layer substantially does not comprises the compound having the structure represented by the formula (1B) within a molecular thereof, the compound having the structure represented by the formula (1C) within a molecular thereof, and the compound having the structure represented by the formula (1D) within a molecular thereof”, which does not further limit independent claim 1 which recites “does not comprises the compound having the structure represented by the formula (1B) within a molecular thereof, the compound having the structure represented by the formula (1C) within a molecular thereof, and the compound having the structure represented by the formula (1D) within a molecular thereof”. The limitation of claim 21 broadens the scope of independent claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-23 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 and 29-36 of copending Application No. 18/081,365 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the instant claims and copending application ‘365 have claims drawn to an organic electroluminescence device comprising a cathode, an anode, and one or two or more organic layers arranged between the cathode and the anode, wherein at least one layer of the one or two or more organic layers comprising a “first component” and a “second component”, “the first component” is a compound represented by formula (1), which is obvious variant of formula (1) of copending application ‘365 and a “second component” that is selected from the group consisting of an alkali metal, an alkali metal compound, an alkaline earth metal, an alkaline earth metal compound, a rare earth metal an organic metal complex ( see claim 30 of copending application ‘365). Both the instant claims and copending application ‘365 recite open claim language, comprising”; therefore, other components may be included in their respective inventions.
The present claims indicated above also cover the electronic apparatus which overlap the claims of copending application ‘365, and thus , render the present claims prima facie obvious.
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 1-12 and 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda et al. (US 2017/0244044 A1) in view of Arakane et al. (US 2008/0193796 A1) and in further view of Vargas (US 2010/0253210 A1).
Regarding claims 1-12 and 17-23, Ikeda teaches organic electroluminescent devices comprising an electron transport layer between a light emitting layer and a cathode (see abstract). The electron transport layer comprises a combination of two compounds (see abstract).
The “first” component may contain an anthracene (formula IV), pyrene, phenanthrene, or chrysene (of aryls in formula V) (see par. 28-29); however, it is not seen where specific compounds of instant formula 1 are taught for the electron transport layer per instant claim 1 composition.
In analogous art, Arakane et al. teaches electron transport material may include anthracene derivatives (see Arakane par. 29), pyrene derivatives (see par. 44), or further aryl derivatives (see par. 47) as well as compounds like above Ikeda formula I (see par. 50). Hydrocarbon compounds taught by Arakane et al. as electron-transport material meets the requirements of instant formula (1). Arakane et al. material formulas discussed above (Arakane par. 29-49 and 71-108) meet the limitations of instant claims 2-12. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used known electron transport material such as aromatic hydrocarbon compounds taught by Arakane et al. in combination with electron transport material as taught by Ikeda et al. because one would expect the Arakane et al. material to be useful for the same purpose as taught. It is obvious to combine material useful for the same purpose.
Ikeda and Arakane are relied upon as set forth above.
It is not seen where a metal-containing material as recited in claims 1 and 17 is added to an electron transport layer of Ikeda et al.; however, Vargas teaches, in analogous art, alkali metal or alkali metal compound may be part of an electron-transport layer (see claim 16 and par. 339). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place an alkali metal or alkali metal compound as taught by Vargas in an electron transport layer of a device according to Ikeda modified by Arakane, because the material is taught for the purpose of electron transportation. One would expect to achieve an operational device including materials rendered obvious by Ikeda, Arakane, and Vargas with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Further regards to claim 18, a mixture of an electron-transporting material as taught by Ikeda et al. and a material as taught by Arakane et al. would be expected to provide an electron transporting function to an electron transport layer in any mixed ratio as they are both useful for the same purpose. A mixed ratio would include the recited 30-70% by mass first component.
Further regards to claim 19, the device layers are taught by Ikeda et al. (see par. 150-196).
Further regards to claims 20-22, the Ikeda et al. electron transport region may be configured multilayered (see par. 181-187).
Further regards to claim 23, the Ikeda et al. device structures may be used within electronic devices (see par. 196).
Given the teachings of the reference, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to have combined compounds of the reference as described above where the composition for a device layer of a light emitting device would also meet the limitations of the instant claims. One would expect to achieve an operational device comprising materials within the disclosures of Ikeda et al. and Arakane et al. with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda et al. (US 2017/0244044 A1) in view of Arakane et al. (US 2008/0193796 A1) and in further view of Vargas (US 2010/0253210 A1), and in further view of Scheurich et al. (US 2012/0142855 A1).
Ikeda and Arakane are relied upon as set forth above.
While anthracene hydrocarbon derivatives are taught in Arakane (see par. 79) having Ar1 or Ar2 groups as “substituted or unsubstituted aryl group having 6 to 50 nucleus carbon atoms” (see par. 80), it is not seen where a benzofluorene is specifically taught as one of the aryl groups, although the group is within the recited carbon number range. In analogous art, Scheurich et al. teaches an aromatic ring system of 5 to 40 aromatic ring atoms specifically includes “benzofluorene” group (see par. 28, 36). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a benzofluorene group as an aryl group upon an anthracene group of Arakane, because the group is within the general range of aryl groups taught as suitable by Arakane for forming an anthracene electron transport compound. One would expect to achieve an operational device including materials rendered obvious by Ikeda, Arakane, and Scheurich with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
With further respect to claim 15, Arakane teaches A1 and A2 groups as aromatic ring groups (see par. 79).
With further respect to claim 16, the Arakane anthracene core (par. 79) reads upon the instant Ar601A group.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANCEITY N ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8:00 am-6:00 pm; IFP; PHP).
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, Mark Huff can be reached at 571-272-1385. 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.
/CHANCEITY N ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737