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 .
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 1-16 and 18-28 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the biphenylyl" in the 23rd line of the claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-16 and 18-28 are rejected due to the dependence of the claims on claim 1.
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.
Claims 28 and 29 are 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 1, which claims 28 and 29 depends, only allows Ar to be a substituted or unsubstituted phenyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted naphthyl group, or a substituted or unsubstituted phenanthryl group, but claims 28 and 29 claim that Ar can be a biphenylyl group. Claims 28 and 29 are broader than claim 1 and do not further limit 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yabunouchi (US 2014/0061630) (hereafter “Yabunouchi”).
Regarding claims 1-28, Yabunouchi teaches an electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a hole injection layer (applicant’s first electron transporting layer), an hole transporting layer (applicant’s second electron transporting layer), an emission layer, an electron injecting layer, and a cathode (paragraph [0080]) (claims 19-21). Yabunouchi teaches that the emission layer can comprise a fluorescent dopant or a phosphorescent dopant (paragraphs [0125] and [0135]) (claims 24 and 25). Yabunouchi teaches that either the hole injection layer (applicant’s first electron transporting layer), hole transporting layer (applicant’s second electron transporting layer) comprises an arylamine compound the meets the following formula,
PNG
media_image1.png
57
65
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, where one of Ar1 to Ar3 is
PNG
media_image2.png
116
150
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, at least one of Ar1 to Ar3 is
PNG
media_image3.png
65
185
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, where R5 group can form a fused ring group, and the other Ar1 to Ar3 can be a 6 to 50 aryl group (paragraphs [0026]-[0034] and [0070]) (claims 1, 18, 22, and 23). Yabunouchi teaches that the
PNG
media_image3.png
65
185
media_image3.png
Greyscale
can have the following structure,
PNG
media_image4.png
98
162
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, and
PNG
media_image2.png
116
150
media_image2.png
Greyscale
can have the following structure,
PNG
media_image5.png
248
290
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, and the other Ar group can be a phenyl, naphthyl, or phenanthrenyl group (paragraphs [0038], [0052], and [0067]). Yabunouchi teaches the following compounds that meet the above formula,
PNG
media_image6.png
252
186
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image7.png
273
316
media_image7.png
Greyscale
, and
PNG
media_image8.png
270
225
media_image8.png
Greyscale
are a few examples (paragraph [0067]) (claims 2-17, 27, and 28). Yabunouchi teaches that the electroluminescent device can be used in an electronic device (paragraph [0003]).
Yabunouchi does not specifically teach a compound that meets the applicant’s claimed compounds.
It would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substituted the
PNG
media_image9.png
138
122
media_image9.png
Greyscale
group in
PNG
media_image7.png
273
316
media_image7.png
Greyscale
for a naphthyl, phenanthryl, or phenyl group. The substitution would have been taught groups for other taught groups that can substitutes for each other. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect the compounds to act in a similar manner as the other compounds of Yabunouchi. The substation would lead to compounds that meet the following structures,
PNG
media_image10.png
200
190
media_image10.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image11.png
206
205
media_image11.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image12.png
214
577
media_image12.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image13.png
193
382
media_image13.png
Greyscale
.
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 1-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,618,749. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application is a species of the claims of the instant application. Many of the compounds claimed in claim 6 are same as claimed by the applicant.
Claim 1 of the instant application is covered by claims 1 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,618,749.
Claim 2 of the instant application is covered by claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,618,749.
Claim 4 of the instant application is covered by claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,618,749.
Claims 5-12, 17, 27, and 28 of the instant application is covered by claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,618,749.
Claims 13-16 of the instant application is covered by claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,618,749.
Claim 18 of the instant application is covered by claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,618,749.
Claim 19 of the instant application is covered by claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,618,749.
Claim 20 of the instant application is covered by claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,618,749.
Claim 21 of the instant application is covered by claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,618,749.
Claim 22 of the instant application is covered by claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,618,749.
Claim 23 of the instant application is covered by claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,618,749.
Claim 24 of the instant application is covered by claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,618,749.
Claim 25 of the instant application is covered by claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,618,749.
Claim 26 of the instant application is covered by claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,618,749.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Osaka et al. (US 2009/0284140) teaches triarylamine compounds for use in the hole transporting layer of electroluminescent device.
Miyake (US 2016/0372677) teaches triarylamine compounds, where one of the group is a dibenzofuran group, for use in the hole transporting layer of electroluminescent devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW K BOHATY whose telephone number is (571)270-1148. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-4pm.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571)272-1234. 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.
/ANDREW K BOHATY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights