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 .
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 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 and 7-20 of copending Application No. 17/660,182. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the copending claims and the instant claims are drawn to overlapping subject matter.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,598,909. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims and the instant claims are drawn to overlapping subject matter.
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. 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 1-5 and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn et al (US 2020/0168819) (Ahn).
In reference to claims 1-4 and 8-20, Ahn teaches an organic light-emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode facing the first electrode, an organic layer between them and including an emission layer, hole transport layer, and electron transport layer and a heterocyclic compound of formula 1 as shown below in the emission layer with a dopant of formula 401 (Ahn abstract, [0004], [0007] [0115])
PNG
media_image1.png
160
428
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
230
384
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
124
370
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
354
460
media_image4.png
Greyscale
for example, wherein in the formula 1, X1 to X3 are each N, Ar1 is 2-3(1), Ar2 is 2-1(1), Ar3 is 2-1(2), wherein Z14 is phenyl Z11 to Z13 are each hydrogen (Ahn [0037] to [0039] [0081] [0083]).
Ahn discloses the compound of formula 1 that encompasses the presently claimed compound, including wherein in the formula 1, X1 to X3 are each N, Ar1 is 2-3(1), Ar2 is 2-1(1), Ar3 is 2-1(2), wherein Z14 is phenyl Z11 to Z13 are each hydrogen. Each of the disclosed substituents from the substituent groups of Ahn are considered functionally equivalent and their selection would lead to obvious variants of the compound of formula 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, in the absence of unexpected results, to have selected these substituents among those disclosed for the compound of formula 1 to provide the compound described above, which is both disclosed by Ahn and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
For Claim 1: Reads on the claimed device wherein Ar11, Ar12, Ar13, Ar21, Ar22, and Ar23 are each benzene, X1 to X3 are each N, X4 is CR4, R4 is phenyl, Y1 is silyl, a21 is 1 and E21 is phenyl.
For Claim 2: Reads on the claimed layers.
For Claim 3: Reads on the emitting layer comprises the compound.
For Claim 4: Reads on a dopant of 401.
For Claim 8: Reads on a compound as claimed.
For Claim 9: Reads on wherein X4 is CR4, R4 is phenyl.
For Claim 10: Reads on E11 is phenyl.
For Claim 11: Reads on s ingle bond.
For Claim 12: Reads on single bond.
For Claim 13: Reads on hydrogen .
For Claim 14: Reads on 1.
For Claim 15: Reads on 0.
For Claim 16: Reads on 1a.
For Claim 17: Reads on 1b-15.
For Claim 18: Reads on 2a.
For Claim 19: Reads on formula 2-1.
For Claim 20: Reads on compound 1.
In reference to claim 5, Ahn teaches the device as described above for claim 1. Ahn does not exemplify this exact device but other devices of similar structure and demonstrates EQE values of equal to or greater than about 20% (See e.g. Ahn Table 2). Further the property of the device is a result of its composition and therefore the device meeting the composition would be expected to perform similarly.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn et al (US 2020/0168819) (Ahn) in view of Song et al (US 2020/0028084) (Song).
In reference to claim 6-7, Ahn teaches the device as described above for claim 1 but does not expressly state that it comprises the claimed thin-film transistor configuration or a color filter, color conversion layer, touch screen layer, a polarizing layer or combination thereof. However, such features are exceptionally well known in the art of organic light emitting devices.
With respect to the difference, Song teaches, in analogous art, display devices with similar materials comprising thin film transistors, source and drain electrodes (Song [0132] to [0134]) and a color filter (Song [0143]).
It would have been obvious to use the device configuration of Song including well known elements such as thin film transistors, source and drain electrodes and a color filter with the expectation of providing an organic EL display device with improved color characteristics, efficiency and lifespan (Song abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sean M DeGuire whose telephone number is (571)270-1027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7:00 AM - 5:00 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, Jennifer A. Boyd can be reached at (571) 272-7783. 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.
/Sean M DeGuire/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights