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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2022-0057910, filed on 05/11/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 12/15/2023, 12/11/2024, 02/25/2025, 03/16/2026, and 09/03/2026 were filed after the mailing date of the instant application on 12/15/2023. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
In the preliminary amendments, the claims, specification, and abstract were amended.
These amendments are hereby entered.
Claims 1-12 were originally filed.
Claims 1, 3, 8-10, and 12 are instantly amended.
Claims 1-12 are pending in the application.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2023/0083073 A1).
With respect to claims 1-8, Lee discloses compound 3-147 (page 387), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image1.png
476
450
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of instant Chemical Formula 1 when Ar1 and Ar2 are each a C10 naphthyl(ene) group, R1-R7 are each hydrogen, and both Ar1 and Ar2 are deuterated with 7 deuterium atoms or the combination of 6 deuterium atoms and a C6D5 group.
With respect to claim 9, Lee teaches the compound of claim 1, and the compound of Chemical Formula 1 is represented by the structure below when a is 0, b is 7, c is 6, and d is 5.
PNG
media_image2.png
206
282
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2023/0083073 A1).
With respect to claims 1-8, Lee discloses compound 3-147 (page 387), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image1.png
476
450
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of instant Chemical Formula 1 when Ar1 and Ar2 are each a C10 naphthyl(ene) group, R1-R7 are each hydrogen, and both Ar1 and Ar2 are deuterated with 7 deuterium atoms or the combination of 6 deuterium atoms and a C6D5 group.
With respect to claim 9, Lee teaches the compound of claim 1, and the compound of Chemical Formula 1 is represented by the structure below when a is 0, b is 7, c is 6, and d is 5.
PNG
media_image2.png
206
282
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
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 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2023/0083073 A1) as applied above.
With respect to claims 10-11, Lee teaches the compound of claim 1, as discussed above.
Compound 3-147, pictured and discussed above, is derived from Lee Chemical Formula B (paragraph 0021).
Lee also teaches that compounds of Chemical Formula B are intended for use in the organic material layer of an organic light emitting device comprising a first and second electrode (paragraphs 0020-0021), and that the specific layer comprising the compound may be the light emitting layer (paragraph 0034).
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 use the compound in the light emitting layer of an organic light emitting device with the claimed device structure, as taught by Lee.
With respect to claim 12, Lee teaches the device of claim 11, and Lee also teaches that the light emitting layer also includes a compound of Chemical Formula 1 (paragraph 0021), such as Compound 1-1 (paragraph 0148 and page 11), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image3.png
432
476
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Compound 1-1 meets the requirements of instant Chemical Formula 2 when A1-A3 are each a C6 aryl (phenyl) group, L1 is a C16 heteroarylene (benzonaphthofuran), L2 is a single bond, and L3 is a C6 arylene (phenylene).
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 use an arylamine compound such as compound 1-1 in combination with the compound of instant Chemical Formula 1 in the light emitting layer of a device with the claimed device structure, as taught by Lee.
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 1-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of copending Application No. 18/760,803 (reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the compound of Chemical Formula 1 of instant claim 1 is met by Chemical Formula 1 of claim 1 of ‘803 when L3 of ‘803 is a single bond, and one of Ar1 and Ar2 is a polycyclic aromatic group. Additionally, the deuterium requirement of the instant claim is not only within the scope of Formula 1 of ‘803, but is clearly a preferred embodiment through the compounds of claim 7 of ‘803. Instant Chemical Formula 2 is met by Chemical Formula 2 of ‘803.
Claims 1-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of copending Application No. 18/275,390 (reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the compound of Chemical Formula 1 of instant claim 1 is met by Chemical Formula 1 of claim 1 of ‘390 when L1 of ‘390 is a single bond, and one of Ar1 and Ar2 is a polycyclic aromatic group. Additionally, the deuterium requirement of the instant claim is not only within the scope of Formula 1 of ‘390, but is clearly a preferred embodiment through the compounds of claim 9 of ‘390. Instant Chemical Formula 2 is met by Chemical Formulae 2 and 3 of ‘390.
Claims 1-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of copending Application No. 18/566,998 (reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the compound of Chemical Formula 1 of instant claim 1 is met by Chemical Formula 1 of claim 1 of ‘998 when L of ‘998 is a single bond, and one of Ar1 and Ar2 is a polycyclic aromatic group. Additionally, the deuterium requirement of the instant claim is not only within the scope of Formula 1 of ‘390, but is clearly a preferred embodiment through the compounds of claim 8 of ‘998. Instant Chemical Formula 2 is met by Chemical Formulae 2 and 3 of ‘998.
Claims 1-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of copending Application No. 18/277,524 (reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the compound of Chemical Formula 1 of instant claim 1 is met by Chemical Formula 1 of claim 1 of ‘524. Additionally, the deuterium requirement of the instant claim is not only within the scope of Formula 1 of ‘390, but is clearly a preferred embodiment through the compounds of claim 6 of ‘390.
Claims 1-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of copending Application No. 18/038,788 (reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the compound of Chemical Formula 1 of instant claim 1 is met by Chemical Formula 1 of claim 1 of ‘788 when L1 of ‘788 is a single bond, and one of Ar1 and Ar2 is a polycyclic aromatic group. Additionally, the deuterium requirement of the instant claim is not only within the scope of Formula 1 of ‘788, but is clearly a preferred embodiment through the compounds of claim 5 of ‘788. Instant Chemical Formula 2 is met by Chemical Formulae 2 and 3 of ‘788.
Claims 1-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of copending Application No. 18/038,369 (reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the compound of Chemical Formula 1 of instant claim 1 is met by Chemical Formula 1 of claim 1 of ‘369 when L1 of ‘369 is a single bond, and one of Ar1 and Ar2 is a polycyclic aromatic group. Additionally, the deuterium requirement of the instant claim is not only within the scope of Formula 1 of ‘369, but is clearly a preferred embodiment through the compounds of claim 5 of ‘369. Instant Chemical Formula 2 is met by Chemical Formula 2 of ‘369.
This are provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejections because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cho et al. (US 2023/0371374 A1) – teaches relevant arylamine compounds.
Kang et al. (US 2022/0123223 A1) – teaches relevant triazine compounds.
Jung et al. (US 2018/0337348 A1) – teaches relevant triazine compounds.
Lee et al. (KR 2019/0007789 A) – teaches relevant arylamine compounds.
Jung et al. (US 2021/0320263 A1) – teaches relevant triazine compounds.
Jung et al. (US 2018/0186764 A1) – teaches relevant arylamine compounds.
Lee et al. (WO 2020/080693 A1) – teaches relevant triazine compounds.
Ha et al. (KR 2017/0096770 A) – teaches relevant arylamine compounds.
Kim et al. (US 2023/0354706 A1) – teaches relevant arylamine and triazine compounds.
Parham et al. (US 2023/0080974 A1) – teaches relevant triazine compounds.
Lee et al. (US 2022/0123233 A1) – teaches relevant arylamine compounds.
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