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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 recites “heteroaryl group or 2 to 60 ring-forming”. Instead, it should say “heteroaryl group of 2 to 60 ring-forming”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1–25 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of copending Application No. 18,090,671 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because compounds of Formula 1 in instant claim 1 overlap in scope with compounds of Formula 1 in claim 1 of ‘671 application as evidenced by at least Compound 139 of claim 20 which contains a triazine bonded to a substituent which comprises a triphenyl silyl group which is substituted by deuterium atoms. Additionally, Compound 139 is identical to Compound 91 of the instant application’s Claim 14 and claim 25 (shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
541
252
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
399
328
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
(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 1–25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Fleetham et al. (US 2022/0181561 A1, hereafter “Fleetham”).
Regarding Claims 1 and 15, Fleetham teaches the organic light emitting device of Example 10 using Device Structure 2 including an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer, an emission layer, a blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer and a cathode, wherein the emission layer comprises DH2 [0385]. DH2 reads on Applicant’s Formula 1 (shown below),
PNG
media_image3.png
208
186
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
422
330
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein:
X1 to X3 are each N,
A1 is an aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms (phenyl) substituted with deuterium and a first substituent (triphenyl silyl) which is also substituted with deuterium,
A2 to A3 are each a heteroaryl group of 12 ring-forming carbon atoms (carbazole) substituted with deuterium.
Regarding Claims 2 and 16, A1 is substituted with deuterium atoms and the first substituent (triphenyl silyl) in Compound DH2 of Example 10.
Regarding Claims 3 and 17, Compound DH2 of Example 10 reads on Applicant’s Formula 1-1B (shown below),
PNG
media_image5.png
238
233
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
422
330
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein:
A11 is an aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms (phenyl) substituted with a first substituent (triphenyl silyl) substituted with deuterium,
A12 to A13 are each a heteroaryl group of 12 ring-forming carbon atoms (carbazole) substituted with deuterium.
Regarding Claims 4 and 18, in Compound DH2 of Example 10, A1 is a phenyl group substituted with deuterium atoms and comprising the first substituent (triphenyl silyl) which is also substituted with deuterium atoms, while A2 and A3 are each a carbazole group substituted with deuterium atoms.
Regarding Claims 5 and 19, in Compound DH2 of Example 10, A1 is represented by Applicant’s Formula A-2 wherein R3 is a heteroaryl group of 18 ring-forming carbon atoms (triphenyl silyl) which is substituted by deuterium atoms, and n3 is 1, while another R-3 is a deuterium atom, and n3 is 3. A2 and A3 are each represented by Applicant’s Formula A-3 wherein L1 is a direct linkage, Y1 is a direct linkage, R4 is a deuterium atom and n4 is 8.
PNG
media_image6.png
138
162
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
235
252
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
422
330
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 6 and 20, R3 is a silyl group substituted with deuterium atoms in Compound DH2 of Example 10.
Regarding Claims 7 and 21, Compound DH2 reads on Applicant’s Formula 1-2A (shown below),
PNG
media_image8.png
352
346
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
422
330
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein:
X11 to X13 are each N,
A31 to A21 are each a heteroaryl group of 12 ring-forming carbon atoms (carbazole) substituted with deuterium atoms,
R11 to R14 are each a deuterium atom,
n11 to n13 are each 5,
n14 is 4.
Regarding Claims 8 and 22, Compound DH2 reads on Applicant’s Formula 1-2AA (shown below), wherein n11 to n14, R11 to R14, A21, A31, and X11 to X13 are the same as defined in Formula 1-2 A (above).
PNG
media_image9.png
343
347
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
422
330
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 9 and 23, Compound DH2 reads on Applicant’s Formula 1-2AC (shown below),
PNG
media_image10.png
466
387
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
422
330
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein:
X11 to X13 are each N,
A21 is a heteroaryl group of 12 ring-forming carbon atoms (carbazole) substituted with deuterium atoms,
R11 to R14 and R21 are each a deuterium atom,
n11 to n13 are each 5,
n14 is 4,
n21 is 8.
Regarding Claims 10 and 24, A1 comprises a triphenylsilyl group substituted with deuterium atoms, while A2 and A3 are each a carbazole group substituted with deuterium atoms in Compound DH2 of Example 10.
Regarding Claim 11, the emission layer comprises a dopant and Compound DH2 as a host.
Regarding Claim 12, the emission layer of Example 10 further comprises DH1 [Table 4] which reads on Applicant’s Formula HT-1 (shown below),
PNG
media_image11.png
224
267
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
251
403
media_image12.png
Greyscale
wherein:
L1 is a direct linkage,
X91 is CR103,
R91 is an aryl group having 12 ring-forming carbon atoms (biphenyl) substituted with deuterium atoms and a heteroaryl group having 12 ring-forming carbon atoms (carbazole) substituted with deuterium atoms,
R94 is a heteroaryl group having 12 ring-forming carbon atoms (carbazole) substituted with deuterium atoms,
R92, R93, R95 to R98, and R103 are each a hydrogen atom.
Regarding Claim 13, the emission layer of Example 10 further comprises Compound Ir-3 which reads on Applicant’s Formula M-a (shown below),
PNG
media_image13.png
296
433
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
296
354
media_image14.png
Greyscale
wherein:
Y1 and Y3 are each CR51 wherein R51 are each an alkyl group of 1 carbon atom (methyl),
Y2 and Y4 are each CR51 wherein R51 are each a hydrogen atom,
Z1 to Z2 are each CR51 wherein R51 are each a hydrogen atom,
Z3 to Z4 are each CR51 wherein R51 are each an alkenyl group which are combined to form a ring (phenyl) substituted with an alkyl group of 3 carbon atoms.
R52 and R54 are each an alkyl group of 5 carbon atoms,
R53 is a hydrogen atom,
m1 is 1, while m2 is 2.
Regarding Claims 14 and 25, Compound DH2 of Example 10 is identical to Applicant’s Compound 78 of Compound Group 1 (shown below),
PNG
media_image15.png
440
326
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
422
330
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ahn et al. (US 2021/0367168 A1, hereafter “Ahn”) teaches Example 7 which comprises Compound 35 which reads on Applicant’s Formula 1 (shown below) [Table 2].
The applied reference has a common applicant and joint inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
PNG
media_image16.png
384
296
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Jung et al. (US 2023/0002332 A1, hereafter “Jung”) teaches compounds which read on Applicant’s Formula 1, such as Compound C-77 (shown below).
PNG
media_image17.png
390
282
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES RICHARD FORTWENGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-5433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am - 5 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571) 270-7692. 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.
/J.R.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights