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/Amendments
Applicants arguments and amendments, filed on 6/24/26, have been fully considered but they do not confer patentability on all of the instantly filed claims. Applicants have amended independent claims 1 and 11 such that a1 and a3 are each an integer from 0 to 5 and a2 is 0. By limiting a2 to zero, the prior art rejections to Wang et al. (CN-113861040) and Wang et al. (CN-11465412) have been withdrawn. All of the compounds taught by these references include a linker ̶(L1)̶ a1 where a1 is a positive integer. Further search has led to a new prior art rejection and a new 112(b) rejection as described below.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to. The preamble of claim 20 should be amended simply to “An amine-containing compound selected from one of Compounds 1 to 217:”. By having all of the generic claim language prior to the specific compounds is unnecessary and adds confusion to the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) 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. Claims 14 and 15 includes further limitations to L2. However, because a2 is zero as recited in claim 11, L2 cannot be anything other than a single bond. Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims complies with the statutory requirements. It is suggested that Applicants amend “wherein L1 to L3” as recited in each of claims 14 and 15 to “wherein L1, L3” (for claim 14) and to “wherein L1 and L3” (for claim 15).
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)(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 1-5 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhou et al. (CN-114920720). Copies of the original and a machine translation are included with this Office action.
Claim 11: Zhou et al. teaches compound 259, which has the structure,
PNG
media_image1.png
162
330
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 11). Compound 259 anticipates Formula 1 of claim 11. As applied to Formula 1, compound 259 has Ar2 equal to phenyl, R5 and R6 equal to phenyl, a2 equal to zero, a1 equal to zero, Ar1 equal to phenyl, a3 equal to zero, b3 equal to zero, and Ar3 equal to deuterated dibenzothiophene.
Claim 12: Compound 259 does not comprise a carbazole group or a fluorene group, which anticipates claim 12.
Claim 13: All R10a groups in compound 259 are equal to deuterium, which anticipates claim 13.
Claim 14: In compound 259, Ar1 and Ar2 are equal to a benzene group and Ar3 is equal to a dibenzothiophene group.
Claim 15: Claim 15 serves to further limit L1-L3 since a1-a3 may all be equal to zero. As such, Zhou et al. may be relied upon to reject claim 15.
Claim 16: All Ar1-Ar3 satisfy the limitations of claim 16, as described in claim 11 above.
Claims 1-5: The rejection of claim 11 above is wholly incorporated into the rejection of claim 1. The compounds taught by Zhou et al., which includes compound 259, are taught to be employed as a hole transport material in organic electroluminescent devices. The exemplified devices are comprised of an anode, a hole transport region which comprises one of the inventive hole transport compounds taught therein, an emission layer, an electron transport region, and a cathode. The employment of any one of the explicitly taught compounds taught by Zhou et al. in the manner described in the working examples, including compound 259, is at once envisaged. A device comprising compound 259 in the hole transport layer anticipates all of the structural and device limitations of claims 1-5.
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 of this title, 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.
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 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang A (CN-114685412) in view of Jung et al. (US 2016/0149141), as applied to claim 1 above.
Zhao et al. further teaches that a capping layer/covering layer is preferred. While Zhou et al. does not explicitly disclose employing the amine compounds disclosed therein as a capping layer, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to employ such amine compounds taught by Zhou et al. as a material for the capping layer/covering layer in the manner taught by Jung et al. Zhou et al. and Jung et al. are analogous art, as both pertain to the field of organic electroluminescent devices. Jung et al. teaches the use of first and second capping layers positioned, for example, above the cathode to improve external emission efficiency through constructive interference (see Fig. 4, paragraph 0312).
Furthermore, Jung et al. teaches that the same amine-based materials used in the hole transport region may be utilized as capping layers (see claims 19 and 20 of Jung et al.). Given that the amine-based materials in Zhou et al. are already selected for high thermal stability and transparency (see abstract of Zhou et al.), key requirement for both hole transport and outcoupling layers, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to employ these same compounds as the capping layer material. The motivation for this selection is rooted in manufacturing efficiency, as using the same material class reduces the number of deposition sources required in a vacuum chamber. Because the compounds of Zhou et al. possess the requisite physical and optical properties, their application as a capping layer represents a predictable use of a known material to achieve improved outcoupling.
Claim 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (CN-114920720).
Zhou et al. explicitly teaches that the organic electroluminescent devices taught therein can be applied to the field of illumination and display including computer and television displays to name a few. As such, it would have been prima facie obvious to have prepared electronic devices which include those recited in claim 10. Such devices are themselves an electronic apparatus which also satisfies the limitation of claim 8.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (CN-114920720) in view of Yamazaki et al. (US 2005/0073247) as applied to claim 1.
While Zhou et al. dose not explicitly teach that the electronic apparatus taught therein further comprises one of the elements recited in claim 9, it is submitted that the inclusion of at least a color filter layer to the electronic apparatus taught by Zhou et al. would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art given the teachings of Yamazaki et al. Zhou et al. and Yamazaki et al. are combinable as they are both from the same field of organic electroluminescent devices. Yamazaki et al. teaches light-emitting devices which comprise a color filter. Yamazaki et al. teaches that it is often the case that the spectrum of light emitted from a light-emitting element has a broad emission peak which means that the color purity is inferior. Applying a color filter serves to improve the color purity and also the reliability of the device as taught in paragraph 0017 of Yamazaki et al. For this reason, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have included a color filter to the electronic apparatus taught by Zhou et al. with the motivation to do so being rooted in the teachings of Yamazaki et al., thereby satisfying claim 9.
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 11-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of copending Application No. 18/110,622. At least compounds 32-34, 96-98 as shown in claim 20 of the ‘622 application fully satisfy all of the structural limitations of Formula 1 of claim 11. Additionally, the structural limitations of claims 12-18 of the instant application are satisfied by the compounds recited above in the ‘622 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19 and 20 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights