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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on December 16, 2022.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on October 30, 2023.
Claims 1 – 24 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references provided in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on October 30, 2023 have been considered. A signed copy of the corresponding 1449 form has been included with this office action.
Specification
The specification is objected to because of the following informalities:
The compounds in the specification are low resolution, which makes it difficult to determine the atoms and the bonds in the compounds.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The compounds are low resolution, which makes it difficult to determine the atoms and the bonds in the compounds.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1 – 24 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 19 of copending Application No. 18/378,577 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because compounds of Formula 1 in claim 1 of the instant application overlap in scope with compounds of Formula 1 in claim 1 of the ‘577 application as evidenced by compound 1-1 in claim 5 of the ‘577 application. Compounds of Chemical Formula 4 in claim 17 of the instant application overlap in scope with compounds of Formula 8 in claim 11 of the ‘577 application as evidenced by compound 3-1 in claim 12 of the ‘577 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 – 24 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 21 of copending Application No. 18/378,562 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because compounds of Formula 1 in claim 1 of the instant application overlap in scope with compounds of Formula 1 in claim 1 of the ‘562 application as evidenced by compound 1-1 in claim 5 of the ‘562 application. Compounds of Chemical Formula 4 in claim 17 of the instant application overlap in scope with compounds of Formula 6 in claim 10 of the ‘562 application as evidenced by compound 3-1 in claim 11 of the ‘562 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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 1 – 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae (KR20220037190A, using the provided machine translation).
As per claims 1 – 13, Bae teaches:
An organic compound of Chemical Formula 1
PNG
media_image1.png
438
592
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Bae teaches compounds of Formula 1
PNG
media_image2.png
300
370
media_image2.png
Greyscale
([0007]), where R1 to R6 can be selected from a C6 to C30 aryl group ([0009]). A particular compound taught by Bae is compound 1-4
PNG
media_image3.png
210
154
media_image3.png
Greyscale
([0093]). However, Bae teaches that the aryl group may include a phenyl group or a naphthyl group ([0091]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify compound 1-4 and replace the phenyl ring with a naphthyl ring. When compound 1-4 is modified in this way, the modified compound reads on the claimed formula wherein a1 to a6 are 0 so that the corresponding R groups do not exist. The compound reads on Chemical Formula 2A and Chemical Formula 2B in claim 2, and the compound is represented by compound 1-1
PNG
media_image4.png
190
124
media_image4.png
Greyscale
or 1-6
PNG
media_image5.png
182
128
media_image5.png
Greyscale
in claim 7.)
An organic light emitting diode comprising a first electrode a second electrode facing the first electrode, and an emissive layer disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode, ([0174]: “As illustrated in FIG. 6, an organic light-emitting diode (D2) according to the third embodiment of the present invention includes a first electrode (310) and a second electrode (330) facing each other, and a light-emitting layer (320) located between the first and second electrodes (310, 330).”
Wherein the emissive layer comprises the organic compound of Chemical Formula 1 ([0218]: “At least one of the first light-emitting material layer… comprises a first compound represented by Chemical Formula 1…”)
Bae includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Bae being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of improved luminous efficiency ([0007]), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Bae teaches an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer and the compound is in the organic layer as discussed above. It would have been obvious to use the compound in the organic layer with the device structure of Bae as Bae demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As per claims 14 -16, Bae teaches:
Wherein the emissive layer comprises at least one emitting material layer and the one emitting material layer comprises an emitter including the organic compounds of Chemical Formula 1 ([0075]: “The luminescent material layer (240) includes a first compound which is a fluorescent material (compound).”
Wherein the at least one emitting material layer further comprises a first host ([0075]: “Additionally, the light-emitting material layer (240) may further include a third compound that is a host.”)
As per claims 17 and 18, Bae teaches:
Wherein the first host comprises a compound of Chemical Formula 4
PNG
media_image6.png
286
512
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(In Experimental Example 1 as described in [0146], a compound of Formula 6 is used as the host material
PNG
media_image7.png
104
146
media_image7.png
Greyscale
. This compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein b1 to b4 are 0 so that the corresponding R groups do not exist and Y1 has a structure of Chemical Formula 5A and is the same as compound 2-1
PNG
media_image8.png
168
156
media_image8.png
Greyscale
in claim 18.)
As per claim 19, Bae teaches:
Wherein the at least one emitting material layer further comprises a second host (As the claim is directed to a second host but does not require that the second host is different from the first host, it is the Examiner’s position that the second host can be interpreted as a second molecule of the host material of Chemical 4.)
As per claim 20, Bae teaches:
Wherein the emissive layer has a single emitting part ([0269]: “Each light-emitting part may have a single-layer structure of a light-emitting material layer.)
As per claim 21, Bae teaches:
Wherein the emissive layer comprises a first emitting part disposed between the first and second electrode and including a first emitting material layer, a second emitting part disposed between the first emitting part and the second electrode and including a second emitting material layer and a first charge generation layer disposed between the first emitting part and the second emitting part, wherein the emissive layer further comprises a third emitting part disposed between the second emitting part and the second electrode and including a third emitting material layer and a second charge generation layer disposed between the second emitting part and the third emitting part (In Fig. 12, as described in [0279 – 0288], Bae teaches a device with a first emitting part, indicated by 1410, a second emitting part, indicated by 1430, and a third light-emitting part indicated by 1450. Bae teaches a first charge generation layer, indicated by 1470 and a second charge generation layer, indicated by 1480, located in between the first, second and third emitting parts as claimed.)
Wherein the second emitting material layer comprises a first layer disposed between the first charge generation layer and the second charge generation layer, and a second layer disposed between the first layer and the second charge generation layer and wherein one of the first layer or the second layer comprises the organic compound of Chemical Formula 1 (As the claims requires a first and second layer in a single emitting layer but does not claim the composition of either or require that the layers are different, the layers are interpreted as sublayers of a single light-emitting layer. Furthermore, as Bae teaches that the compound is provided in the a light emitting layer of the device, the second emitting layer can be interpreted as whichever of the emitting units contains the compound of Bae.)
As per claim 24, Bae teaches:
An organic light emitting device comprising a substrate and the organic light emitting diode on the substrate ([0023]: “In another aspect, the present invention provides an organic light-emitting device comprising: a substrate; the aforementioned organic light-emitting diode positioned on the substrate; and an encapsulation film covering the organic light-emitting diode.”)
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA N CHANDHOK whose telephone number is (571)272-5780. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 6:30 - 3:30.
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 on 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.
/JENNA N CHANDHOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights