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 § 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 16, 17, 19-21, and 24-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miyata et al. (US 2018/0170914) (hereafter “Miyata”).
Regarding claims 16, 17, 19-21, and 24-32, Miyata teaches an electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a hole transporting layer, a light emitting layer, an electron transporting layer, and cathode (paragraphs [0653]-[0663]) (claims 24-26). Miyata teaches that the light emitting layer comprises a host material at 82 vol %, a blue emitting dopant at 3 vol %, and an additional compound at 15 vol % (paragraphs [0199] and [0661]) (claims 26, 28, and 30-32). Miyata teaches that the additional compound can have the following structure,
PNG
media_image1.png
193
201
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image2.png
203
202
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, and
PNG
media_image3.png
202
206
media_image3.png
Greyscale
are a few examples (paragraphs [0199] and [0202]) (claims 16, 17, and 19-21). Miyata teaches that the light emitting layer comprising the aforementioned compounds is made using vapor deposition (paragraphs [0655] and [0661]) (claims 29 and 32).
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) 18, 22, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyata et al. (US 2018/0170914) (hereafter “Miyata”) as applied to claims 16, 17, 19-21, and 24-32 above.
Regarding claims 18, 22, and 23, Miyata teaches that the compounds mentioned above are derived from the following formula,
PNG
media_image4.png
89
106
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, where at least one Z1-Z6 is an electron donating group and at least one is an electron withdrawing group, and the other groups can be hydrogen, an aryl group, or a heteroaryl group, and further teaches that it is preferable that the electron donating group and the electron withdrawing group are orthro to each other on the phenyl ring (paragraphs [0158]-[0187]). Miyata teaches preferred examples of electron donating group can be
PNG
media_image5.png
95
68
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image6.png
152
128
media_image6.png
Greyscale
, or
PNG
media_image7.png
89
162
media_image7.png
Greyscale
, and preferred examples of the electron withdrawing group can be,
PNG
media_image8.png
51
77
media_image8.png
Greyscale
or
PNG
media_image9.png
51
78
media_image9.png
Greyscale
(paragraph [0202]). Miyata teaches in
PNG
media_image4.png
89
106
media_image4.png
Greyscale
two of Z1-Z6 can be electron withdrawing groups, one of Z1-Z6 can be an electron donating group, and the rest of Z1-Z6 can be hydrogen atoms (paragraph [0192]). Miyata teaches that
PNG
media_image4.png
89
106
media_image4.png
Greyscale
can have the following formula, where A are electron donating groups and D are electron withdrawing groups,
PNG
media_image10.png
87
108
media_image10.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image11.png
81
110
media_image11.png
Greyscale
(paragraph [0192]).
Miyata does not specifically teach a compound that meets applicant’s formula VIa-1, VIb-1, VIc-1, or VId-1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try to make a compound according to the formula of Miyata,
PNG
media_image4.png
89
106
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, where Z1 and Z3 are each
PNG
media_image8.png
51
77
media_image8.png
Greyscale
or
PNG
media_image9.png
51
78
media_image9.png
Greyscale
, one of Z6 or Z4 is
PNG
media_image5.png
95
68
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image6.png
152
128
media_image6.png
Greyscale
, or
PNG
media_image7.png
89
162
media_image7.png
Greyscale
, and the other 2 or 3 Z groups are hydrogen atoms. These compounds would have been obvious given the teaches general formula, more specific formulas, and specific compounds taught by Miyata. Given these teachings, it would have been obvious to try to make a compound that comprises the aforementioned groups. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect the compounds to act in a similar manner as the other compounds of Miyata. These compounds would meet applications formula VIa-1, VIb-1, VIc-1, or VId-1.
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 16-32 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,543,496. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,543,496 are a species of the claims of the instant application and anticipate the claims of the instant application. All the compounds claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,543,496 are a species of the claims of the instant application and read on the claims of the instant application.
Claims 16-23 of the instant application are covered by claims 1-4 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,543,496.
Claims 24-32 of the instant application are covered by claims 5-13 and 15-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,543,496.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Stubbs et al. (WO 2019/197902) teaches that the hole transporting layer that is in contact with the light emitting layer, where the hole transporting layer comprises a carbazole compound with cyano substituent groups.
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