DETAILED ACTION
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 the phrase “a structure selected form”, which appears to be a typographical error of “a structure selected from”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the phrase “at least one of R1, R2, RA, RB, RC, RD, and RE”. Applicants are advised to amend this phrase to recite “at least one of R1, R2, RA, RB, RC, RD, or RE”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the phrase “at least one of Z1, Z2, and Z3 is N”. Applicants are advised to amend this phrase to recite “at least one of Z1, Z2, and Z3 or N”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the phrase “at least one of R1 and R2”. Applicants are advised to amend this phrase to recite “at least one of R1 or R2”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the phrase “Q is selected from C, Si Ge, N, P, O, S, Se and B”. Applicants are advised to amend this phrase to recite “Q is selected from C, Si Ge, N, P, O, S, Se or B”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the following:
(i) neither R¹ nor R² is hydrogen, and group R* comprises at least five carbon atoms,
(ii) at least one of R¹ and R² is hydrogen, and group R* comprises at least ten carbon atoms, or
(iii) R³ and R⁴ are joined to form a ring and R⁵ is not hydrogen,
(iv) R* comprises five or more carbon atoms, and at least one of R³, R⁴, and R⁵ comprises deuterium;
Applicants are advised to amend the above to recite:
(i) neither R¹ nor R² is hydrogen, and group R* comprises at least five carbon atoms;
(ii) at least one of R¹ and R² is hydrogen, and group R* comprises at least ten carbon atoms;
(iii) R³ and R⁴ are joined to form a ring and R⁵ is not hydrogen; or
(iv) R* comprises five or more carbon atoms, and at least one of R³, R⁴, or R⁵ comprises deuterium;
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 8 recites the phrase “wherein the compound has the structures”. Applicants are advised to amend this phrase to recite “wherein the compound has the structure”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 17 recites the phrase “a structure selected form”, which appears to be a typographical error of “a structure selected from”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 17 recites the phrase “at least one of R1, R2, RA, RB, RC, RD, and RE”. Applicants are advised to amend this phrase to recite “at least one of R1, R2, RA, RB, RC, RD, or RE”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 17 recites the phrase “at least one of Z1, Z2, and Z3 is N”. Applicants are advised to amend this phrase to recite “at least one of Z1, Z2, and Z3 or N”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 17 recites the phrase “Q is selected from C, Si Ge, N, P, O, S, Se and B”. Applicants are advised to amend this phrase to recite “Q is selected from C, Si Ge, N, P, O, S, Se or B”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the phrase “at least one of R1 and R2”. Applicants are advised to amend this phrase to recite “at least one of R1 or R2”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 17 recites the following:
(i) neither R¹ nor R² is hydrogen, and group R* comprises at least five carbon atoms,
(ii) at least one of R¹ and R² is hydrogen, and group R* comprises at least ten carbon atoms, or
(iii) R³ and R⁴ are joined to form a ring and R⁵ is not hydrogen,
(iv) R* comprises five or more carbon atoms, and at least one of R³, R⁴, and R⁵ comprises deuterium;
Applicants are advised to amend the above to recite:
(i) neither R¹ nor R² is hydrogen, and group R* comprises at least five carbon atoms;
(ii) at least one of R¹ and R² is hydrogen, and group R* comprises at least ten carbon atoms;
(iii) R³ and R⁴ are joined to form a ring and R⁵ is not hydrogen; or
(iv) R* comprises five or more carbon atoms, and at least one of R³, R⁴, or R⁵ comprises deuterium;
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 19 recited illegible host compounds, see Page 391 of claims. Applicants are advised to amend the claim providing legible versions of these compounds. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 20 recites the phrase “a structure selected form”, which appears to be a typographical error of “a structure selected from”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 20 recites the phrase “at least one of R1, R2, RA, RB, RC, RD, and RE”. Applicants are advised to amend this phrase to recite “at least one of R1, R2, RA, RB, RC, RD, or RE”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 20 recites the phrase “at least one of Z1, Z2, and Z3 is N”. Applicants are advised to amend this phrase to recite “at least one of Z1, Z2, and Z3 or N”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 20 recites the phrase “Q is selected from C, Si Ge, N, P, O, S, Se and B”. Applicants are advised to amend this phrase to recite “Q is selected from C, Si Ge, N, P, O, S, Se or B”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 20 recites the phrase “at least one of R1 and R2”. Applicants are advised to amend this phrase to recite “at least one of R1 or R2”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 20 recites the following:
(i) neither R¹ nor R² is hydrogen, and group R* comprises at least five carbon atoms,
(ii) at least one of R¹ and R² is hydrogen, and group R* comprises at least ten carbon atoms, or
(iii) R³ and R⁴ are joined to form a ring and R⁵ is not hydrogen,
(iv) R* comprises five or more carbon atoms, and at least one of R³, R⁴, and R⁵ comprises deuterium;
Applicants are advised to amend the above to recite:
(i) neither R¹ nor R² is hydrogen, and group R* comprises at least five carbon atoms;
(ii) at least one of R¹ and R² is hydrogen, and group R* comprises at least ten carbon atoms;
(iii) R³ and R⁴ are joined to form a ring and R⁵ is not hydrogen; or
(iv) R* comprises five or more carbon atoms, and at least one of R³, R⁴, or R⁵ comprises deuterium;
Appropriate correction is required.
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)(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 1-2, 4-5, 8, 10, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Bae et al (US 2022/0106345).
Regarding claim 1, Bae et al discloses the following compound (Page 118 – Compound 416):
PNG
media_image1.png
524
522
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the compound represented by formula I:
PNG
media_image2.png
344
330
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
where:
ring C is a 6-membered carbocyclic ring;
ring B is a 6-membered carbocyclic ring;
ring D is a 6-membered heterocyclic ring;
Z1 is C;
Z2 is C;
Z3 is N;
L1 is O;
L2 is N-R, where R is an aryl group that fused with RC to form a ring;
4 RD substituents are deuterium;
one RD substituent corresponds to R*, where R* is represented by Formula IV:
PNG
media_image3.png
152
252
media_image3.png
Greyscale
;
two (2) substituents RA are alkenyl groups that join to form a ring;
RB is hydrogen;
RC is hydrogen;
RD is a deuterium substituted alkyl;
R1 and R2 are hydrogen;
RE represents two (2) tert-butyl alkyl substituents, i.e. alkyls;
RH represents deuterium and alkyl substituents; and
X1 to X16 are C.
In the above compound, RD corresponds to R* and possesses 10 carbon atoms, thereby, meeting provision (ii) of the claims. Furthermore, one (1) substituent is RH is tert-butyl i.e. not hydrogen or deuterium and four (4) substituents RH are deuterium, thereby, meeting provision (a) of the claims.
Regarding claim 2, Bae et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, two (2) substituents RA are alkenyl groups that join to form a ring. RB is hydrogen; RC is hydrogen; RD is a deuterium substituted alkyl. R1 and R2 are hydrogen. RE represents two (2) tert-butyl alkyl substituents. RH represents deuterium and alkyl substituents.
Regarding claim 4, Bae et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, L1 is O.
Regarding claim 5, Bae et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, L2 is NR.
Regrading claim 8, Bae et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the reference discloses the recited formula:
PNG
media_image4.png
202
244
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regrading claim 10, Bae et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, X1 to X16 are C.
Regarding claim 17, Bae et al discloses an organic light emitting device comprising first and second electrodes, i.e. an anode and a cathode ([0043]), and an organic layer disposed between the electrodes ([0043]).
The organic layer comprises the following compound ([0043] and Page 118 – Compound 416):
PNG
media_image1.png
524
522
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the compound represented by formula I:
PNG
media_image2.png
344
330
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
where:
ring C is a 6-membered carbocyclic ring;
ring B is a 6-membered carbocyclic ring;
ring D is a 6-membered heterocyclic ring;
Z1 is C;
Z2 is C;
Z3 is N;
L1 is O;
L2 is N-R, where R is an aryl group that fused with RC to form a ring;
4 RD substituents are deuterium.
one RD substituent corresponds to R*, where R* is represented by Formula IV:
PNG
media_image3.png
152
252
media_image3.png
Greyscale
;
two (2) substituents RA are alkenyl groups that join to form a ring;
RB is hydrogen;
RC is hydrogen;
RD is a deuterium substituted alkyl;
R1 and R2 are hydrogen;
RE represents two (2) tert-butyl alkyl substituents, i.e. alkyls;
RH represents deuterium and alkyl substituents; and
X1 to X16 are C.
In the above compound RD corresponds to R* and possesses 10 carbon atoms, thereby, meeting provision (ii) of the claims. Furthermore, one (1) substituent is RH is tert-butyl i.e. not hydrogen or deuterium and four (4) substituents RH are deuterium, thereby, meeting provision (a) of the claims.
Regarding claim 20, Bae et al discloses an organic light emitting device, i.e. a consumer product, comprising first and second electrodes, i.e. an anode and a cathode ([0043]), and an organic layer disposed between the electrodes ([0043]).
The organic layer comprises the following compound ([0043] and Page 118 – Compound 416):
PNG
media_image1.png
524
522
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the compound represented by formula I:
PNG
media_image2.png
344
330
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
where:
ring C is a 6-membered carbocyclic ring;
ring B is a 6-membered carbocyclic ring;
ring D is a 6-membered heterocyclic ring;
Z1 is C;
Z2 is C;
Z3 is N;
L1 is O;
L2 is N-R, where R is an aryl group that fused with RC to form a ring;
4 RD substituents are deuterium.
one RD substituent corresponds to R*, where R* is represented by Formula IV:
PNG
media_image3.png
152
252
media_image3.png
Greyscale
;
two (2) substituents RA are alkenyl groups that join to form a ring;
RB is hydrogen;
RC is hydrogen;
RD is a deuterium substituted alkyl;
R1 and R2 are hydrogen;
RE represents two (2) tert-butyl alkyl substituents, i.e. alkyls;
RH represents deuterium and alkyl substituents; and
X1 to X16 are C.
In the above compound RD corresponds to R* and possesses 10 carbon atoms, thereby, meeting provision (ii) of the claims. Furthermore, one (1) substituent is RH is tert-butyl i.e. not hydrogen or deuterium and four (4) substituents RH are deuterium, thereby, meeting provision (a) of the claims.
In light of the above, it is clear that Bae et al anticipates the presently recited claims.
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 of this title, 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:
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 3, 6-7, 9, 11-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae et al (US 2022/0106345).
The discussion with respect to Bae et al as set forth in Paragraph 23 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 3, Bae et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the compound does not correspond to the recited formula:
PNG
media_image5.png
296
258
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
However, the compound disclosed by the reference is but one embodiment and attention is directed to Formula 1-1 ([0014]):
PNG
media_image6.png
272
368
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
where ring A20 can be a C5-30 carbocyclic ring ([0019]). This ring is exemplified in a benzene ring in Compounds 299 and 300 (Page 98):
PNG
media_image7.png
208
228
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
240
250
media_image8.png
Greyscale
.
Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses an embodiment where ring C in Formula I of the claims is a 6-carbocyclic ring where X6, X7 and Z2 are C.
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed compound nor can the claimed compound be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed compound and the compound disclosed by the reference, absent a showing of criticality for the presently claimed compound, it is urged that it would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the compound which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regrading claim 6, Bae et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. In the compound disclosed by the reference R1 or R2 does not comprise the group R* as required by the present claims. However, the reference discloses the following general formula for the compound ([0081] - Formula I-1A):
PNG
media_image9.png
340
370
media_image9.png
Greyscale
,
where E1 can be Si(Q3)(Q4)(Q5), where Q3 is deuterium ([0042]), and Q3 and Q4 are C1-60 alkyl groups ([0042]). That is, E1 corresponds R1 or R2, where R1 or R2 is represented by Formula II:
PNG
media_image10.png
34
160
media_image10.png
Greyscale
,
where Q is Si, R3 is deuterium, and R4 and R5 are alkyl groups.
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed compound nor can the claimed compound be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed compound and the compound disclosed by the reference, absent a showing of criticality for the presently claimed compound, it is urged that it would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the compound which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regrading claim 7, Bae et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. In the compound disclosed by the reference:
PNG
media_image11.png
585
516
media_image11.png
Greyscale
,
R1 or R2 do not correspond to Formula II as required by the present claims, i.e. at least one group R* has the structure of Formula II. However, the reference discloses the following general formula for the compound ([0081] - Formula I-1A):
PNG
media_image9.png
340
370
media_image9.png
Greyscale
,
where E1 can be Si(Q3)(Q4)(Q5), where Q3 is deuterium ([0042]), and Q3 and Q4 are C1-60 alkyl groups ([0042]). That is, E1 corresponds R1 or R2, where R1 or R2 is represented by Formula II:
PNG
media_image10.png
34
160
media_image10.png
Greyscale
,
where Q is Si, R3 is deuterium, and R4 and R5 are alkyl groups.
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed compound nor can the claimed compound be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed compound and the compound disclosed by the reference, absent a showing of criticality for the presently claimed compound, it is urged that it would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the compound which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regrading claim 9, Bae et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses that E1 can be N(Q1)(Q2), where Q1 and Q2 are -CD3 ([0144]-[0146]), corresponding to:
PNG
media_image12.png
72
92
media_image12.png
Greyscale
,
of the claims.
Regrading claim 11, Bae et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, X1 to X16 are C, and therefore, one of X1 to X20 is not N as required by the present claims. However, the reference discloses the following general formula for the compound ([0081] - Formula I-1A):
PNG
media_image9.png
340
370
media_image9.png
Greyscale
,
where ring A10 can be ([0064] and Page 5 – A10-19)
PNG
media_image13.png
112
174
media_image13.png
Greyscale
,
i.e. X11 in recited Formula I can be N.
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed compound nor can the claimed compound be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed compound and the compound disclosed by the reference, absent a showing of criticality for the presently claimed compound, it is urged that it would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the compound which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regrading claim 12, Bae et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, X4’ to X7’ are C.
Regrading claim 13, Bae et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, X15’’ is not N as required by the present claims. However, the reference discloses the following general formula for the compound ([0081] - Formula I-1A):
PNG
media_image9.png
340
370
media_image9.png
Greyscale
,
where ring A10 can be ([0064] and Page 5 – A10-19)
PNG
media_image13.png
112
174
media_image13.png
Greyscale
,
i.e. X15’’ is N.
Regrading claim 14, Bae et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, it is noted that in the general formula ([0081] - Formula I-1A):
PNG
media_image9.png
340
370
media_image9.png
Greyscale
,
E2 can be H and R40 can be H. E1 can be N(Q1)(Q2), where Q1 and Q2 are -CD3 ([0144]-[0146]), corresponding to:
PNG
media_image12.png
72
92
media_image12.png
Greyscale
,
of the claims. Furthermore, ring A20 can be a C5-30 carbocyclic ring ([0019]). This ring is exemplified in a benzene ring in Compounds 299 and 300 (Page 98):
PNG
media_image7.png
208
228
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
240
250
media_image8.png
Greyscale
.
Accordingly, the reference discloses a compound with the formula:
PNG
media_image14.png
326
368
media_image14.png
Greyscale
,
where LA’ corresponds to:
PNG
media_image15.png
282
258
media_image15.png
Greyscale
,
where R1, RA, and RB are H; and R2 is a combination of amino, alkyl, and deuterium.
Ligand Ly is:
PNG
media_image16.png
284
186
media_image16.png
Greyscale
,
where RE is hydrogen and RF is aryl
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed compound nor can the claimed compound be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed compound and the compound disclosed by the reference, absent a showing of criticality for the presently claimed compound, it is urged that it would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the compound which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regrading claim 15, Bae et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, it is noted that in the general formula ([0081] - Formula I-1A):
PNG
media_image9.png
340
370
media_image9.png
Greyscale
,
E2 can be H and R40 can be H. E1 can be Si(Q3)(Q4)(Q5) where Q3 to Q5 are -CH2CH3 ([0144]-[0146]), corresponding to:
PNG
media_image17.png
72
98
media_image17.png
Greyscale
,
of the claims. Furthermore, ring A20 can be a C5-30 carbocyclic ring ([0019]). This ring is exemplified in a benzene ring in Compounds 299 and 300 (Page 98):
PNG
media_image7.png
208
228
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
240
250
media_image8.png
Greyscale
.
Accordingly, the reference discloses a compound with the formula:
PNG
media_image14.png
326
368
media_image14.png
Greyscale
,
where LA’ corresponds to:
PNG
media_image18.png
152
146
media_image18.png
Greyscale
,
where Rw and Rv are H (recited as R1); and Ru is
PNG
media_image17.png
72
98
media_image17.png
Greyscale
(recited as R163).
Ligand Ly28 is:
PNG
media_image19.png
176
138
media_image19.png
Greyscale
,
where:
Rr is:
PNG
media_image20.png
72
44
media_image20.png
Greyscale
( recited as R5) ; and
Rs and Rt’ are H (recited as R1).
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed compound nor can the claimed compound be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed compound and the compound disclosed by the reference, absent a showing of criticality for the presently claimed compound, it is urged that it would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the compound which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regrading claim 16, Bae et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, it is noted that in the general formula ([0081] - Formula I-1A):
PNG
media_image9.png
340
370
media_image9.png
Greyscale
,
E1 and E2 can be tert-butyl and D ([0095]-[0086]); and R40 can be -CD3 ([0141]) can be H and R40 can be H. Accordingly, the reference discloses the compound:
PNG
media_image21.png
356
354
media_image21.png
Greyscale
,
from List 9 as defined in the instant Specification
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed compound nor can the claimed compound be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed compound and the compound disclosed by the reference, absent a showing of criticality for the presently claimed compound, it is urged that it would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the compound which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regrading claim 18, Bae et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the organic layer, i.e. the emitter layer, can comprise a host such as ([0266]-[0267] - CBP)
PNG
media_image22.png
122
262
media_image22.png
Greyscale
,
i.e. a compound comprising a carbazole moiety.
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed organic light emitting device nor can the claimed organic light emitting device be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed organic light emitting device and the organic light emitting device disclosed by the reference, absent a showing of criticality for the presently claimed host compound, it is urged that it would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the host compound which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae et al (US 2022/0106345) as applied to claims 3, 6-7, 9, 11-16, and 18 above, and in view of Ma et al (US 2010/0237334).
The discussion with respect to Bae et al as set forth in Paragraph 27 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 19, Bae et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. While the reference discloses that the emitter layer comprises a host material, the reference does not disclose the particular hosts recited in the present claims.
Ma et al discloses an OLED comprising an anode, cathode, and an organic light emitting layer between the anode and cathode (Abstract and [0098]). The light emitting layer comprises a triphenylene compound (Abstract and [0045] – Compound 1’), e.g.
PNG
media_image23.png
162
177
media_image23.png
Greyscale
.
The reference discloses that triphenylene containing benzothiophenes are excellent host materials for OLEDs as well as improved stability ([0104]).
Given that both Bae et al and Ma et al are drawn to organic electroluminescent devices comprising an emitter layer formed from a host and a dopant, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the triphenylene host as taught by Ma et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize such hosts in the device disclosed by Bae et al with a reasonable expectation of success.
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-17 and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-6, 8, 10-11, 17, 20, and 22-29 of copending Application No. 17/899,649. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the reasons given below.
Claim 1 of copending Application No. 17/899,649 recites a compound of formula I, where the formula is identical to Formula I of the present claims. Claim 1 of the copending application requires a substituent R* represented by Formula II, while claim 1 of the instant application recites that R* corresponds to one of Formulas II, III or IV. It is noted that while claim 1 of the copending application does not require one of provisions (i) to (iv) and one of provisions (a) and (b) to be met, given the substituents recited in claim of the copending application, the compound recited in claim of the copending application can meet the provisions as recited in instant claim 1.
Furthermore, it is noted that claims 2-6, 8, 10-11 and 22-29 of copending application recite identical or encompassing subject matter recited in instant claims 1-16.
Claim 17 of copending Application No. 17/899,649 recites an organic light emitting device identical to that recited in instant claim 17. Additionally, the organic layer of the device comprises a compound represented by Formula 1, identical to that recited in instant claim 17. Claim 17 of the copending application requires a substituent R* represented by Formula II, while claim 17 of the instant application recites that R* corresponds to one of Formulas II, III or IV. It is noted that while claim 17 of the copending application does not require one of provisions (i) to (iv) and one of provisions (a) and (b) to be met, given the substituents recited in claim of the copending application, the compound recited in claim of the copending application can meet the provisions as recited in instant claim 17.
Claim 20 of copending Application No. 17/899,649 2 recites a consumer product comprising an organic light emitting device identical to that recited in instant claim 20. Additionally, the organic layer comprises a compound represented by Formula 1, identical to that recited in instant claim 20. Claim 20 of the copending application requires a substituent R* represented by Formula II, while claim 20 of the instant application recited that R* corresponds to one of Formulas II, III or IV. It is noted that while claim 20 of the copending application does not require one of provisions (i) to (iv) and one of provisions (a) and (b) to be met, given the substituents recited in claim of the copending application, the compound recited in claim of the copending application can meet the provisions as recited in instant claim 20.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/149,776. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the reasons given below.
Claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/149,776 recites the identical compound as recited in instant claim 1. The only difference between claim 1 of the instant application and that recited in the co-pending application is that instant claim 1 recites that M in Formula I is Pd or Pt, while claim 1 of copending application does not recite the metals encompassed by M. However, in the compound recited in claim 2 of the copending application M is the Pt. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the metal Pt in compound recited in claim 1 of the co-pending application, and thereby, arrive at the claimed compound with a reasonable expectation of success.
Furthermore, it is noted that claims 2-16 of copending application recite identical or encompassing subject matter recited in instant claims 2-16.
Claim 17 of copending Application No. 18/149,776 recites an organic light emitting device, identical to the recited in instant claim 17. The organic layer of the device possesses the identical compound as recited in instant claim 17. The only difference between claim 17 of the instant application and that recited in the co-pending application is that instant claim 17 recites that M in Formula I is Pd or Pt, while claim 17 of copending application does not recite the metals encompassed by M. However, in the compound recited in claim 2 of the copending application M is the Pt. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the metal Pt in compound recited in claim 17 of the co-pending application, and thereby, arrive at the claimed compound with a reasonable expectation of success.
Furthermore, it is noted that claims 18-19 of copending application recite identical or encompassing subject matter recited in instant claims 18-19.
Claim 20 of copending Application No. 18/149,776 recites a consumer product comprising an organic light emitting device, identical to the recited in instant claim 20. The organic layer of the device possesses the identical compound as recited in instant claim 20. The only difference between claim 20 of the instant application and that recited in the co-pending application is that instant claim 20 recites that M in Formula I is Pd or Pt, while claim 20 of copending application does not recite the metals encompassed by M. However, in the compound recited in claim 2 of the copending application M is the Pt. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the metal Pt in compound recited in claim 20 of the co-pending application, and thereby, arrive at the claimed compound with a reasonable expectation of success.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER C. KOLLIAS whose telephone number is (571)-270-3869. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00AM – 5:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Boyd can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER C KOLLIAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights