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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 03/01/2024, 03/01/2024, 03/01/2024, and 03/01/2024 were filed after the mailing date of the instant application on 10/09/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With respect to claim 6, the repetition of benzo[d]benzo[4,5]imidazo[1,2-a]imidazole is unnecessary.
With respect to claim 16, L6 is divalent and phenyl should be phenylene.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 9, the claim references variables RA-RO, which are not present in the instant claim nor any parent claim.
In continuing examination, claim 9 is being interpreted as dependent from claim 8 which comprises variables RA-RO.
With respect to claims 10-16, the claims all contain references to formulae that are not present in the parent independent claim or any intervening claim(s).
In continuing examination, formulae I-VI are being interpreted as referring to the formulae in claim 8.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
With respect to claim 9, the claim references variables RA-RO, which are not present in the instant claim nor any parent claim.
With respect to claims 10-16, the claims all contain references to formulae that are not present in the parent independent claim or any intervening claim(s).
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin et al. (US 2017/0069857 A1).
With respect to claims 1-2 and 5, Lin discloses 1,2-bis(dibenzo[b,d]thiophen-4-yl)-1,1,2,2-tetraphenyldisilane (page 66), which has been annotated with relevant definitions below.
PNG
media_image1.png
344
426
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of the instant claim when M is Si, L is SiRR’ wherein R is an aryl (phenyl) group and R’ is a heteroaryl (dibenzothiophenyl) group, M’ is a carbocyclic hydrocarbon group (phenyl), R1 is an aryl (phenyl) group, and R2 is a heteroaryl (dibenzothiophenyl) group. Any remaining group is either a hydrogen atom or not present.
With respect to claims 8-10, Lin teaches the compound of claim 1, and R2 comprises a structure of Formula I wherein RA and RB are hydrogen atoms, L1 is a direct bond, X1-X8 are C, and Y1 is a sulfur atom, as pictured above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
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 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2017/0069857 A1) as applied above, and further in view of Su et al. (Su, T.A.; Li, H.; Klausen, R.S.; Kim, N.T.; Neupane, M.; Leighton, J. L.; Steigerwald, M.L.; Venkataraman, L.; Nuckolls, C., Silane and Germane Molecular Electronics. Acc. Chem. Res. 2017, 50 (4), 1088-1095).
With respect to claims 3 and 4, Lin teaches the compound of claim 1, as discussed above.
However, Lin does not teach nor fairly suggest incorporation of an ether group between two silicon atoms to form a siloxane moiety.
In analogous art, Su teaches fundamental charge transport properties of Si-Si and Ge-Ge single bonds and the introduction of useful functions into group 14 molecular wires (abstract).
Su teaches the results from an experiment designed to determine the rupture probability of Si-Si, Ge-Ge, C-C, Si-C, and Si-O bonds under high voltage in Figure 4 (page 1091). These results are pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
636
752
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 demonstrates that compounds with an Si-O-Si bond demonstrate greater bond strength, a lower likelihood for bond rupture, and greater suitability for use in high performance, high voltage electronics than analogous compounds without an oxygen linking group (see also page 1091, Col. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an oxygen bridged siloxane group into the compound of Lin in order to form a compound with greater bond strength, a lower likelihood for bond rupture, and greater suitability for use in high performance, high voltage electronics than analogous compounds without an oxygen linking group, as demonstrated by Su.
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of the instant claims wherein L is an oxygen atom and M’ is SiR4R5R6, wherein R4 and R5 are an aryl (phenyl) group and R6 is a heteroaryl (dibenzothiophenyl) group.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2017/0069857 A1) as applied above, and further in view of Thompson et al. (US 2018/0287087 A1).
With respect to claim 6, Lin teaches the compound of claim 1, as discussed above.
The compound 1,2-bis(dibenzo[b,d]thiophen-4-yl)-1,1,2,2-tetraphenyldisilane (page 66), pictured and discussed above, is derived from Lin Formula I (paragraph 0052), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image3.png
176
516
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In this formula, Lin teaches that any of R1-R8 may be aryl (paragraph 0055, line 5), and examples of aryl groups include substituted tetraphenylene (paragraph 0045, line 13).
However, Lin does not teach nor fairly suggest that at least one of R1-R3 comprises benzo[d]benzo[4,5]imidazo[1,2-a]imidazole.
In analogous art, Thompson teaches heterocycles comprising a tetraphenylene or azatetraphenylene moiety which are used as host materials in a phosphorescent electroluminescent device (abstract).
The tetraphenylene compounds of Thompson are derived from the following formula.
PNG
media_image4.png
488
842
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In this formula, Z1-Z16 are each a carbon or nitrogen atom, and preferably at least one of RA-RD has the structure below (benzo[d]benzo[4,5]imidazo[1,2-a]imidazole, see also the compounds on pages 8-11).
PNG
media_image5.png
104
192
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The work of Thompson overlaps in scope with Lin by way of example because Thompson teaches that the described substituted azatetraphenylene compounds are compatible with a compound wherein at least one of RA-RD is a disilyl group (see the compounds on pages 72-76).
Thompson teaches that the described azatetraphenylene moiety can be used to tune the energy level of the LUMO of the compound, which modifies the electron transport properties of the compound (paragraphs 0129 and 0131).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the benzo[d]benzo[4,5]imidazo[1,2-a]imidazole-substituted azatetraphenylene moiety of Thompson as one of R1-R6 in the compound of Lin in order to tune the energy level of the LUMO of the compound and obtain desired electron transport properties, as taught by Thompson.
Incorporating the benzo[d]benzo[4,5]imidazo[1,2-a]imidazole-substituted azatetraphenylene moiety of Thompson as one of R1-R6 in the compound of Lin produces a compound that meets the requirements of the instant claim wherein at least one of R1, R2, and R3 comprises a benzo[d]benzo[4,5]imidazo[1,2-a]imidazole moiety.
With respect to claim 16, Lin teaches the compound of claim 1, as discussed above.
The compound 1,2-bis(dibenzo[b,d]thiophen-4-yl)-1,1,2,2-tetraphenyldisilane (page 66), pictured and discussed above, is derived from Lin Formula I (paragraph 0052), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image3.png
176
516
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In this formula, Lin teaches that any of R1-R8 may be aryl or combinations of aryl groups (paragraph 0055, lines 5-7), and examples of aryl groups include phenyl and substituted tetraphenylene (paragraph 0045, line 13).
However, Lin does not teach nor fairly suggest that at least one of R1-R3 comprises a structure of instant Formula VI.
In analogous art, Thompson teaches heterocycles comprising a tetraphenylene or azatetraphenylene moiety which are used as host materials in a phosphorescent electroluminescent device (abstract).
The tetraphenylene compounds of Thompson are derived from the following formula.
PNG
media_image4.png
488
842
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In this formula, Z1-Z16 are each a carbon or nitrogen atom, and preferably at least one of RA-RD has a substituent, such as the structure below (benzo[d]benzo[4,5]imidazo[1,2-a]imidazole, see also the compounds on pages 8-11).
PNG
media_image5.png
104
192
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The work of Thompson overlaps in scope with Lin by way of example because Thompson teaches that the described substituted azatetraphenylene compounds are compatible with a compound wherein at least one of RA-RD is a disilyl group (see the compounds on pages 72-76).
Thompson teaches that the described azatetraphenylene moiety can be used to tune the energy level of the LUMO of the compound, which modifies the electron transport properties of the compound (paragraphs 0129 and 0131).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the benzo[d]benzo[4,5]imidazo[1,2-a]imidazole-substituted azatetraphenylene moiety of Thompson as one of R1-R6 in the compound of Lin in order to tune the energy level of the LUMO of the compound and obtain desired electron transport properties, as taught by Thompson.
Further, given the example compounds of Lin set forth in paragraph [0062], absent a showing of unexpected results, 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 incorporate a phenylene linking group at a location analogous to instant L6 in order to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a silicon compound which is useful for the electron transport layer of an OLED (paragraph 0096) as a result of the tetrahedral shape which reduces packing in the solid state while also breaking conjugation to maintain a high triplet energy level which is necessary for blue PHOLEDS (paragraph 0051), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Incorporating the azatetraphenylene moiety of Thompson as a moiety on one of the phenyl groups of R1-R6 in the compound of Lin produces a compound that meets the requirements of the instant claim wherein at least one of R1, R2, and R3 comprises structure of Formula VI, and L6 is a phenylene group.
Claims 7, 11-13, 15, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2017/0069857 A1) as applied above.
With respect to claim 7, Lin teaches the compound of claim 1, as discussed above.
Lin also teaches a compound of the formula below (page 10).
PNG
media_image6.png
370
688
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In this formula, m is 0 (paragraph 0064).
Such a selection produces a compound that meets the requirements of the instant claim wherein R1, R2, and R3 collectively comprise 2 carbazoles.
Lin includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Lin being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, 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 value for ‘m’ from the finite number of possible integers to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a silicon compound which is useful for the electron transport layer of an OLED (paragraph 0096) as a result of the tetrahedral shape which reduces packing in the solid state while also breaking conjugation to maintain a high triplet energy level which is necessary for blue PHOLEDS (paragraph 0051), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 11, Lin teaches the compound of claim 1, as discussed above.
The compound 1,2-bis(dibenzo[b,d]thiophen-4-yl)-1,1,2,2-tetraphenyldisilane (page 66), pictured and discussed above, is derived from Lin Formula I (paragraph 0052), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image3.png
176
516
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Lin also teaches that any of R1 to R8 may be represented by the moiety below (paragraph 0059).
PNG
media_image7.png
112
208
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In this formula, X is an oxygen atom (paragraph 0060).
Such a selection produces a compound that meets the requirements of the instant claim when at least one of R1, R2, and R3 comprises a structure of Formula I, and Y1 is an oxygen atom.
Lin includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Lin being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, 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 the finite list of preferred substituents as set forth in paragraph [0059] to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a silicon compound which is useful for the electron transport layer of an OLED (paragraph 0096) as a result of the tetrahedral shape which reduces packing in the solid state while also breaking conjugation to maintain a high triplet energy level which is necessary for blue PHOLEDS (paragraph 0051), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 12, Lin teaches the compound of claim 1, as discussed above.
Lin also teaches a compound of the formula below (page 12).
PNG
media_image8.png
314
498
media_image8.png
Greyscale
In this formula, m is 0 (paragraph 0064).
Such a selection produces a compound that meets the requirements of the instant claim wherein at least one of R1, R2, and R3 comprises a structure of Formula II and at least one of X1-X8 is a carbon atom.
Lin includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Lin being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, 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 value for ‘m’ from the finite number of possible integers to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a silicon compound which is useful for the electron transport layer of an OLED (paragraph 0096) as a result of the tetrahedral shape which reduces packing in the solid state while also breaking conjugation to maintain a high triplet energy level which is necessary for blue PHOLEDS (paragraph 0051), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 13, Lin teaches the compound of claim 1, as discussed above.
Lin also teaches a compound of the formula below (page 12).
PNG
media_image9.png
320
502
media_image9.png
Greyscale
In this formula, m is 0 (paragraph 0064).
Such a selection produces a compound that meets the requirements of the instant claim wherein at least one of R1, R2, and R3 comprises a structure of Formula III and L3 is a direct bond.
Lin includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Lin being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, 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 value for ‘m’ from the finite number of possible integers to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a silicon compound which is useful for the electron transport layer of an OLED (paragraph 0096) as a result of the tetrahedral shape which reduces packing in the solid state while also breaking conjugation to maintain a high triplet energy level which is necessary for blue PHOLEDS (paragraph 0051), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 15, Lin teaches the compound of claim 1, as discussed above.
Lin also teaches a compound of the formula below (page 12).
PNG
media_image10.png
276
498
media_image10.png
Greyscale
In this formula, m is 0 (paragraph 0064).
Such a selection produces a compound that meets the requirements of the instant claim wherein at least one of R1, R2, and R3 comprises a structure of Formula V and at least one of X34-X45 is a nitrogen atom.
Lin includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Lin being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, 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 value for ‘m’ from the finite number of possible integers to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a silicon compound which is useful for the electron transport layer of an OLED (paragraph 0096) as a result of the tetrahedral shape which reduces packing in the solid state while also breaking conjugation to maintain a high triplet energy level which is necessary for blue PHOLEDS (paragraph 0051), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 17, Lin teaches the compound of claim 1, as discussed above.
Lin also teaches a compound of the formula below (page 11).
PNG
media_image11.png
484
725
media_image11.png
Greyscale
In this formula, Lin teaches that m is 0 (paragraph 0064), and the triazine may be substituted by carbazolyl groups (paragraph 0046).
Such a selection produces the second compound on the first row of the instant claim.
PNG
media_image12.png
387
498
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Lin includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Lin being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, 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 value for ‘m’ and any substituent from the finite number of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a silicon compound which is useful for the electron transport layer of an OLED (paragraph 0096) as a result of the tetrahedral shape which reduces packing in the solid state while also breaking conjugation to maintain a high triplet energy level which is necessary for blue PHOLEDS (paragraph 0051), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 18, Lin discloses an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer between the electrodes comprising an organic layer (paragraph 0069) including a compound of Formula I (paragraph 0051-0052), such as 1,2-bis(dibenzo[b,d]thiophen-4-yl)-1,1,2,2-tetraphenyldisilane (page 66), which has been annotated with relevant definitions below.
PNG
media_image1.png
344
426
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of the instant claim when M is Si, L is SiRR’ wherein R is an aryl (phenyl) group and R’ is a heteroaryl (dibenzothiophenyl) group, M’ is a carbocyclic hydrocarbon group (phenyl), R1 is an aryl (phenyl) group, and R2 is a heteroaryl (dibenzothiophenyl) group. Any remaining group is either a hydrogen atom or not present.
Lin teaches that compounds of Formula I are useful for the electron transport layer of an OLED (paragraph 0096) as a result of the tetrahedral shape which reduces packing in the solid state while also breaking conjugation to maintain a high triplet energy level which is necessary for blue PHOLEDS (paragraph 0051).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the compound of Lin as a material in an organic light emitting device, as taught by Lin.
With respect to claim 20, Lin discloses a consumer product (paragraph 0071), comprising an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer between the electrodes comprising an organic layer (paragraph 0069) including a compound of Formula I (paragraph 0051-0052), such as 1,2-bis(dibenzo[b,d]thiophen-4-yl)-1,1,2,2-tetraphenyldisilane (page 66), which has been annotated with relevant definitions below.
PNG
media_image1.png
344
426
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of the instant claim when M is Si, L is SiRR’ wherein R is an aryl (phenyl) group and R’ is a heteroaryl (dibenzothiophenyl) group, M’ is a carbocyclic hydrocarbon group (phenyl), R1 is an aryl (phenyl) group, and R2 is a heteroaryl (dibenzothiophenyl) group. Any remaining group is either a hydrogen atom or not present.
Lin teaches that compounds of Formula I are useful for the electron transport layer of an OLED (paragraph 0096) as a result of the tetrahedral shape which reduces packing in the solid state while also breaking conjugation to maintain a high triplet energy level which is necessary for blue PHOLEDS (paragraph 0051).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the compound of Lin as a material in a consumer product including an organic light emitting device, as taught by Lin.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2017/0069857 A1) as applied above, and further in view of Kwon et al. (KR 2022/0098515 A, using the provided translation for references).
With respect to claim 14, Lin teaches the compound of claim 1, as discussed above.
However, while Lin teaches that the compound has a donor-linker-acceptor configuration (paragraph 0068), Lin does not teach nor fairly suggest that at least one of R1, R2, and R3 comprises a structure of Formula IV wherein Z is a boron atom.
In analogous art, Kwon teaches a thermally activated delayed fluorescent compound with improved color characteristics and lifetime (paragraph 0007) and an organic light-emitting device including the compound (paragraph 0001), wherein the compound comprises an acceptor moiety with a BO structure, and a donor substituent (paragraph 0070).
Kwon teaches that when a substituent with electron-donating properties is attached to the boron acceptor structure, the electron-withdrawing ability of the boron center is weakened and the band gap is increased (paragraph 0071), consequently, the intramolecular charge transport characteristics, which are the emission mechanism of delayed fluorescence, are weakened, narrowing the full width at half maximum and improving color characteristics (paragraph 0072). Therefore, the compound with a BO structure of chemical formula 1 can achieve deep blue luminescence while simultaneously preventing the degradation of lifespan properties by bonding a substituent with electron donating properties, such as a silyl group (paragraph 0074).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the boron-containing electron acceptor moiety of Kwon with the electron-donating silyl moiety of Lin in order to produce a compound with a donor-acceptor configuration, wherein the electron-withdrawing ability of the boron center is weakened and the band gap is increased (paragraph 0071), consequently, the intramolecular charge transport characteristics, which are the emission mechanism of delayed fluorescence, are weakened, narrowing the full width at half maximum and improving color characteristics of the compound (paragraph 0072), allowing the compound to achieve deep blue luminescence while simultaneously preventing the degradation of lifespan properties, as taught by Kwon.
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of the instant claim wherein at least one of R1, R2, and R3 comprises a structure of Formula IV, and Z is a boron atom.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2017/0069857 A1) as applied above, and further in view of Kwak et al. (US 2020/0006676 A1).
With respect to claim 19, Lin teaches that OLED of claim 18, as discussed above.
However, Lin does not teach nor fairly suggest that the emitting layer further comprises a sensitizer.
With respect to the difference, Kwak discloses an organic light-emitting device comprising an emission layer which has a host, dopant, and sensitizer (abstract).
Kwak teaches that when a sensitizer is used in combination with a host and dopant, the efficiency and lifespan of the organic light-emitting device may be improved because it has excellent characteristics in terms of exciton transfer to the dopant (paragraph 0339).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the sensitizer of Kwak in the emission layer of Lin in order to facilitate transfer of excitons to the dopant and obtain an organic light-emitting device with improved lifespan and efficiency, as taught by Kwak.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-2, 4, 8-9, 11, 18, and 20 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-6 and 19-20 of copending Application No. 18/669,825 (reference application).
The structures, formulae, limitations, and wording of claims 1-20 of ‘825 are either identical to each corresponding claim in the instant application, or the claims differ in their wording, but still contain the same limitations listed in the alternative. The substance of the claims is identical.
Specifically,
Instant claim 1 is met by claim 1 of ‘825
Instant claim 2 is met by claim 2 of ‘825
Instant claim 4 is met by claim 3 of ‘825
Instant claim 8 is met by claim 4 of ‘825
Instant claim 9 is met by claim 5 of ‘825
Instant claim 11 is met by claim 6 of ‘825
Instant claim 18 is met by claim 19 of ‘825
Instant claim 20 is met by claim 20 of ‘825
This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
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).
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL SIMBANA whose telephone number is (571)272-2657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 A.M. - 4:30 P.M..
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 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.
/RACHEL SIMBANA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights