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 .
The preliminary amendment dated November 15, 2023 has been entered. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 12-14 were amended. Claims 1-15 are pending.
Drawings
The drawing filed on November 15, 2023 is acceptable subject to correction of the informalities indicated below. In order to avoid abandonment of this application, correction is required in reply to the Office action. The correction will not be held in abeyance. The informality is the following:
The single drawing is currently labeled as “FIG. 1”. Per 37 C.F.R. 1.84 (u), “Where only a single view is used in an application to illustrate the claimed invention, it must not be numbered and the abbreviation “FIG.” must not appear.”
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Per 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1), the specification should be amended throughout to refer to “the FIGURE” rather than to “FIG. 1”. (See the original specification at least at page 5 in Description of the Drawings section for correction and at any other occurrences of a reference to “FIG. 1” that may be present).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolohan et al. (US 2021/0122765 A1).
Wolohan et al. teaches host materials for use in a light emitting layer of a light emitting device (see par. 142). Various groups may be included in host materials including at least triazine, carbazole, and indolocarbazole and substitution groups may include deuterium (see par. 142). Per instant Formula 1 at least the following bis-carbazole compounds are taught (see page 106) that may include a deuterium bonded to the phenyl and/or naphthyl groups of the below compounds and/or attached to carbazole group(s) per instant conditions i and ii (see par. 142):
PNG
media_image1.png
202
540
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Per instant Formula 2 +Formula 3 as second compound, at least the following host indolocarbazole compound is taught (see page 110) where deuterium may be included per conditions iii and iv (see par. 142):
PNG
media_image2.png
172
210
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
While Wolohan does not show an example where both a deuterated biscarbazole-containing and deuterated indolocarbazole-containing compound as discussed above per instant first and second compounds were combined for use together as hosts, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the materials for the host material of a light emitting layer of a device, because absent evidence otherwise, “[i]t is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions taught by the prior art as useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition which is to be used for the very same purpose” (see In re Kerkhoven, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980); In re Susi, 169 USPQ 423, 426 (CCPA 1971); In re Crockett, 126 USPQ 186, 188 (CCPA 1960)).
Regarding claim 2, the above shown compounds that may be deuterated shown from page 106 correspond to instant Formula 1-8 configuration. Regarding claims 3 and 4, discussed deuterated bis-carbazole compounds meet the limitations of claims 3 and 4. Regarding claim 5, when the carbazole groups are fully substituted with deuterium, the compounds correspond to instant formula 1-8a. Regarding claim 6, when the following compound of page 106 is fully deuterated (par. 142), the compound is the same as instant formula 1-1:
PNG
media_image3.png
262
312
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 7, above described page 110 indolocarbazole compound that may be deuterated (par. 142) is of instant Formula 2B. Regarding claim 8, above described page 110 indolocarbazole compound that may be deuterated (par. 142) is of instant Formula 2B-a. Regarding claims 9 and 10, the page 110 deuterated indolocarbazole compound discussed above meets the requirements of claims 9 and 10 by including phenyl groups and/or deuterated phenyl groups.
Regarding claim 12, when the following compound of page 106 is fully deuterated (par. 142), the compound is the same as instant formula 1-8a and when above described page 110 indolocarbazole compound is deuterated (par. 142) the compound is of instant Formula 2B-a-1.
Regarding claim 11, when the following compound of page 106 is further substituted with phenyl group, which is taught in par. 142 with respect to an aryl substitution group and also see additional compound of page 106, a deuterated (par. 142) indolocarbazole compound corresponds to at least instant 2-B-51 compound of claim 11:
PNG
media_image4.png
144
212
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(Instant 2-B-51).
Regarding claims 13-15, host materials including above discussed compounds are used in a light emitting layer of a device (see par. 127, 138, 142-143). OLEDs are formed which may be part of a display device (see par. 2-5).
Given the teachings of Wolohan et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to form deuterated host materials for use in combination in a light emitting layer of a device structure as described above wherein the resulting combination of materials and device including the materials would also meet the limitations of the instant claims. One would expect to achieve an operational device within the disclosure of Wolohan et al. with a predictable result and 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 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 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,501,829. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because US ‘829 claims a device with a combination of first and second compounds in an organic layer of a device structure where formula 1 + formula 2-1-i or 2-1-ii encompasses instant formula 2+3 compounds and formula 3 encompasses instant formula 1 compounds and substitutions of the compounds may include deuterium.
Therefore, given the overlap between the present claims and the patented claims, it would have been within the skill level of, as well as obvious to, one of ordinary skill in the art to use compounds in a device which are both disclosed by patent US 12,501,829 and encompassed by the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the present invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2022/00329109 A1 teaches material relevant to the field of the endeavor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dawn Garrett whose telephone number is (571)272-1523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday (Eastern Time).
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.
/DAWN L GARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights