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 11 to 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,7514,732. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant and patented claims are drawn to devices with the same compositions.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the numbering of views is incorrect. According to 37 C.F.R. 1.84(u) “View numbers must be preceded by the abbreviation “FIG.”". Currently, the view numbers are preceded by the word "FIGURE". Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 objected to because of the following informalities the claim does not have a period. Appropriate correction is required.
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 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 20160072078) (Lee) in view of Yokoyama et al (WO 2013/157367) (Yokoyama).
In reference to claims 11 and 17-18, Lee teaches an organic light emitting device having a structure of a first electrode, a hole transport region an emission layer, an electron transport region, and a second electrode that are sequentially stacked in that order (Lee [0022]) wherein the emission layer includes a phosphorescent dopant (Lee [0097]) an electron transporting host and a hole transporting host that meet at least an equation 1 in order to efficiently form an exciplex and further teaches that the and the electron transporting host is a compound of formula 10 [0069] as shown below
PNG
media_image1.png
40
458
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
349
466
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
63
267
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
176
385
media_image4.png
Greyscale
for example, a compound of formula 10 wherein a22 is 1 [0074], and L22 is a group of formula 12-2 as shown above [0072], X11 to X13 are N [0076], a21 is 0 [0074], b21 is 1 [0070], R21 is a group of formula 15-28 as shown above [0077], Z63 is phenyl [0078], R29 and R30 are each formula 15-1 [0077] and R22 to R28 are each hydrogen [0079].
Lee discloses the compound of formula 10 that encompasses the presently claimed n-type host compound, including wherein a22 is 1, and L22 is a group of formula 12-2 as shown above, X11 to X13 are N, a21 is 0, b21 is 1, R21 is a group of formula 15-28 as shown above, Z63 is phenyl, R29 and R30 are each phenyl. Each of the disclosed substituents from the substituent groups of Lee are considered functionally equivalent and their selection would lead to obvious variants of the compound of formula 10.
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 10 to provide the compound described above, which is both disclosed by Lee and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Lee does not expressly teach that the hole-transport host is a compound of the formulae as instantly claimed.
With respect to the difference, Yokoyama teaches compounds that are useful as host materials in organic electronic devices including hole transporting properties that are useful as host materials (Yokoyama abstract [0023]) such as the compound 4 shown below (Yokoyama [0046]) because these materials have excellent hole transport properties and wind band gap to lower driving voltage and improve luminous efficiency (Yokoyama [0023]).
PNG
media_image5.png
176
402
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In light of the motivation of using the compound 4 as described above, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the compound 4 as described by Yokoyama because these materials have excellent hole transport properties and wind band gap to lower driving voltage and improve luminous efficiency and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
While Lee in view of Yokoyama does not expressly teach that this combination of specific materials meets the taught requirements of Formula 1 as shown above to efficiently form an exciplex as instantly claimed, the calculation of the LUMO of this compound using the DFT methods described by Lee [0211] is within the ambit of the ordinarily skilled artisan and the selection of this material would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan for the described benefits of Yokoyama and its evident electron transport host structure.
While Lee in view of Yokoyama does not expressly teach that this combination of specific materials meets the claimed relative photoluminescence spectra of the individual host materials to the exciplex formed by the host materials, Lee does teach that the host material combinations form an exciplex and teaches that the claimed feature of the exciplex having a longer photoluminescence wavelength than a photoluminescence wavelength of either of the individual materials is evidence of exciplex formation (Lee [0207]). That is, the claimed feature relative photoluminescence wavelength is an inherent feature of an exciplex and therefore an inherent feature of the device of Lee in view of Yokoyama. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I). Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. General Electric v. Jewe Incandescent Lamp Co., 67 USPQ 155. Titanium Metal Corp. v. Banner, 227 USPQ 772. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 597, 195 USPQ 430.
For Claim 11: Reads on the device with the claimed structure wherein 4 is the p-type host of chemical formula 3 wherein R16 to R18 are each hydrogen, Ar4 is biphenyl and Ar5 is substituted fluorene and the compound of formula 10 is the n-type host wherein r11 is 1, L11 is an o-phenylene, Y1, Y2 and Y3 are each N, Ar18 and Ar19 are each phenyl, l10 is 1, L10 is a direct bond, Ar17 is a phenyl, R38 to R41 are each hydrogen and a phosphorescent dopant.
For Claim 17: Reads on formula 3-2.
For Claim 18: Reads on formula 10-2.
In reference to claim 12, Lee in view of Yokoyama teaches the device as described above for claim 1. While Lee does not expressly state that the exciplex formed of the host materials emits a photoluminescence peak with a lower photon energy than a photon energy of each of the photoluminescence peak of the p-type and N-type hosts, this is an inherent property of the device. Photon energy has an indirect relationship to wavelength as defined by the Planck-Einstein relation (E= hν) and therefore the relationships of the wavelengths as described by Lee in Fig 2 and [0205]-[0207] demonstrate that the claimed feature is present.
In reference to claim 13, Lee in view of Yokoyama teaches the device as described above for claim 1. Lee in view of Yokoyama does not expressly teach that the HOMO level of the hole transport host 4 is higher in energy than a homo energy level of the electron transport host. However, these electronic properties are an inherent property of the materials. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I). Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. General Electric v. Jewe Incandescent Lamp Co., 67 USPQ 155. Titanium Metal Corp. v. Banner, 227 USPQ 772. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 597, 195 USPQ 430.
In reference to claim 14, Lee in view of Yokoyama teaches the device as described above for claim 1. Lee in view of Yokoyama does not expressly teach that the LUMO level of the hole transport host 4 is higher in energy than a LUMO energy level of the electron transport host. These electronic properties are an inherent property of the materials. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I). Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. General Electric v. Jewe Incandescent Lamp Co., 67 USPQ 155. Titanium Metal Corp. v. Banner, 227 USPQ 772. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 597, 195 USPQ 430.
In reference to claim 15, Lee in view of Yokoyama teaches the device as described above for claim 1. Lee teaches that the materials are included in a volume ratio of 5:5, in other words 1:1. While a volume ratio is not necessarily identical to a weight ratio, the compounds and are of similar molecular weight and would therefore be highly likely to have a sufficiently similar density such that a volume ratio of 1:1 would correspond to a weight ratio between 2:8 and 8:2.
In reference to claim 16, Lee in view of Yokoyama teaches the device as described above for claim 1. Lee further teaches that taught devices have roll off efficiency ratio of ~14% (Lee [0212]) which is defined somewhat differently than the instantly claimed property of ‘an efficiency ratio’. However, these values appear to represent a similar property and furthermore, such a property is inherent to the device. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I). Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. General Electric v. Jewe Incandescent Lamp Co., 67 USPQ 155. Titanium Metal Corp. v. Banner, 227 USPQ 772. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 597, 195 USPQ 430.
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