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
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
The disclosure of the prior-filed applications, Application No. 61/912,051, 61/871,452, and 61/811,570, fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
The claims require the HOMO and LUMO relationships between the cathode-side wide energy gap material, the acceptor, and the electron conducting material, such that none of the prior-filed applications specifically or implicitly state those relationships.
61,912,051 is related to a BPhen:C60/BPhen buffer with DBP and C70 as donor and acceptor, respectively, but there is no mentioning of the mixture comprising the at least one cathode-side wide energy gap material and the at least one electron conducting material is at a ratio ranging from 10:1 to 1:10 by volume or 4:1 to 1:4 by volume or 2:1 to 1:2 by volume. There is also no mentioning the at least one cap layer, the at least one electron conducting material, and the at least one acceptor material comprise the same material.
61/871,452 is related to a BPhen:C60/BPhen buffer with DBP and C70 as donor and acceptor, respectively, but there is no mentioning of the mixture comprising the at least one cathode-side wide energy gap material and the at least one electron conducting material is at a ratio ranging from 10:1 to 1:10 by volume or 4:1 to 1:4 by volume or 2:1 to 1:2 by volume. There is also no mentioning the at least one cap layer, the at least one electron conducting material, and the at least one acceptor material comprise the same material.
61/811,570 is related to a C60:BCP exciton blocking layer, but there is no mentioning of the mixture comprising the at least one cathode-side wide energy gap material and the at least one electron conducting material is at a ratio ranging from 10:1 to 1:10 by volume or 4:1 to 1:4 by volume or 2:1 to 1:2 by volume. There is also no mentioning the at least one acceptor material and the at least one electron conducting material are chosen from different fullerenes and functionalized fullerene derivatives or the at least one cap layer the at least one electron conducting material, and the at least one acceptor material comprise the same material.
Accordingly, claims 1-16 and 18-25 are not entitled to the benefit of the prior applications and the effective filing date is determined to be 4/14/2014.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1, 20 and 25 or claims 1 and 24 of prior U.S. Patent No. 10,069,095. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 5-16, and 18-23 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 statutory type double patenting, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior arts are Forrest et al. (US 2006/0027834) and Bartynski et al.
However, while Forrest teaches many of the claimed features, it does not teach nor render obvious the combination of an at least one electron conducting material having a LUMO larger than the LUMO of the acceptor and in which the mixture comprising the at least one cathode side wide energy gap material and the at least one electron conducting material is in a ratio ranging from 10:1 to 1:10 by volume because while Forrest also discloses the electron conducting material can be PTCDA that has a LUMO larger than the LUMO of the acceptor PTCBI, Forrest does not expressly disclose the composition amounts of BCP in relation to the dopant PTCDA. Bartynski discloses the use of a BCP:C60 blend as an exciton blocking layer having a ratio of 1:1 and 1:2 by volume as a desirable amount, but the LUMO of C60 is not larger than the LUMO of the acceptor PTCBI.
Therefore, the unique combination of the instant claimed invention is allowable over the prior art.
It is noted that multiple attempts have been made to Applicant’s representative Mark Sweet (# 41,469) to resolve the statutory double patenting issue, but no response was received after leaving multiple voice mails.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA CHERN whose telephone number is (408)918-7559. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 AM-5:30 PM PT.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/CHRISTINA CHERN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights