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 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,730,053. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims and copending claims are drawn to devices comprising the same compositions.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Han et al (US 2016/02040346) (Han).
The applied reference has a common assignee 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.
In reference to claims 1-19, Han teaches an organic an organic light-emitting device [0248]) including an anode [0244] and a cathode [0247] (corresponds to a first electrode and a second electrode), a hole injection layer (HIL), a hole transport layer (HTL) [0245], an emission layer comprising Compound 38 (page 8; [0248]) as shown below as a dopant and 9,10-di-napthalene-2-yl-antrhacene (DNA) as shown below as a host material [0246], an electron transporting layer (ETL), an electron injection layer (EIL) [0247] (Example 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
386
326
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
152
256
media_image2.png
Greyscale
For Claim 1: Reads on the claimed device comprising a first and second electrode and an organic layer wherein compound 38 is a compound of formula 1 wherein R2 and R8 are each formula A, each a101 0, one of R101 is phenyl and the other is a biphenyl, one of R102 is a trimethylsilyl substituted phenyl and the other is dibenzofuran and DNA is a compound of formula 2-2 wherein a221 is 0, N221 is 2, b221 Is 1 and R221 is naphthyl.
For Claim 2: Reads on wherein each material are in the emission layer.
For Claim 3: Reads on wherein each R is hydrogen.
For Claim 7: Reads on wherein a101 and a221 are 0.
For Claim 8: Reads on one of R101 is phenyl and the other is a biphenyl, one of R102 is a trimethylsilyl substituted phenyl and the other is dibenzofuran.
For Claim 9: Reads on 5-1 and 5-6.
For Claim 12: Reads on wherein R221 is naphthyl.
For Claim 13: Reads on 9-7.
For Claim 14: Reads on 1-1.
For Claim 15: Reads on compound 38.
For Claim 16: Reads on formula 2-12.
For Claim 17: Reads on formula 2-24.
For Claim 18: Reads on formula H-33.
For Claim 19: Reads on a dopant and a host.
In reference to claim 4, the claim further limits the formula 2-1, which is an optional embodiment of claim 1 (i.e. one selected from formulae 2-1 to 2-4) and therefore not required. As such, claim 4 is rejected based on similar reasons to claim 1.
In reference to claim 5-6, the claims further limit the linking groups L#, which are optional embodiments of claim 1 (i.e. one a101 is 0, 1..) and therefore not required. As such, claims 5-6 are rejected based on similar reasons to claim 1.
In reference to claims 10-11, the claims further limit the formula 2-3, which is an optional embodiment of claim 1 (i.e. one selected from formulae 2-1 to 2-4) and therefore not required. As such, claims 10-11 are rejected based on similar reasons to claim 1.
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