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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-18 in the reply filed on 7/9/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claim 19 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The Applicant’s species election is also acknowledged.
PNG
media_image1.png
520
904
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Priority
The Application was filed on 12/23/2023 and claims the benefit of priority to:
PNG
media_image2.png
202
898
media_image2.png
Greyscale
See filing receipt dated 8/11/2026.
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 17/519770 (‘770), fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. The disclosure of ‘770 does not provide support for the specific mixture of the first and second compounds claimed in claims 1-19. Specifically, the first compound is not described as “the fused ring structure having the most rings and having three of more rings, in fused ring structures included therein” and the second compound is not described as “the fused ring structure having the most rings and having 5 or more rings, in fused ring structures included therein, and the fused ring structure having the most rings thereof has more rings than that of the first compound”. Therefore, the earliest effective filing date of the claims is the 371 date of PCT/JP2022/024294 (filed on 6/17/2022).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-18 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.
In claim 1, the definitions of the first compound and the second compound are indefinite because it is not clear what the limitation “has the fused ring structure having the most rings” refers to. Firstly, this is the first mention of any “fused ring structure” so the indefinite article “the” should be replaced with the indefinite article “a”. Secondly, both compounds are said to include “the fused ring structure having the most rings”, but then the claim also defines the second compound as “the fused ring structure having the most rings thereof has more rings than that of the first compound”. Therefore, the first compound cannot have “the most rings” in the fused ring structure. Based on the specification as filed, it appears as if the Applicant intends to recite that the first compound has a fused ring structure having three or more rings and the second compound has a fused ring structure having five or more rings. Since the upper limit of the ranges are not defined, any ring meeting these limitations will be “the fused ring structure having the most rings” within the fused structure of either of the first compound or second compound. It is not clear from the present claim language if this is the intended interpretation. None of the dependent claims appear to cure this deficiency.
Claim 2 is rejected for being indefinite because it is not clear if the “the fused ring structure having the most rings and having three or four rings” should be interpreted to mean i) that at least one fused ring of first compound must have three to four rings or ii) that at least one fused ring of first compound must have three to four rings, and this is the largest “fused ring” group in the first compound (thus excluding groups having above four rings from the compound for example). The second interpretation is more limiting than the first.
Claim 4 is rejected for being indefinite because it is not clear if the “the fused ring structure having the most rings and having 5 to 10 rings” should be interpreted to mean i) that at least one fused ring of second compound must have 5 to 10 rings or ii) that at least one fused ring of first compound must have 5 to 10 rings, and this is the largest “fused ring” group in the second compound (thus excluding groups having above 10 rings from the compound for example). The second interpretation is more limiting than the first.
The structure (H11) in claim 2 is indefinite:
PNG
media_image3.png
234
628
media_image3.png
Greyscale
. The claim requires that “provided that one of R101 to R110 represents a bonding position with L101 and one of R111 to R120 represents a bonding position with L101” but then also recites that variable mx can be 0. These two statements appear to contradict one another because L101 is defined as being a “single bond”. Therefore, if mx is 0, then what is connecting the two ring systems?
The structure (H14) in claim 2 is indefinite:
PNG
media_image4.png
314
642
media_image4.png
Greyscale
. The final proviso in the claim recites “provided that the compound represented by the formula (H14) does not contain three or more groups of a substituted or unsubstituted aryl group in which four or more rings are fused and a substituted or unsubstituted heterocyclic group in which four or more rings are fused in the molecule of the compound represented by the formula (H14)”. It is not clear which embodiments are being excluded with this language. The problem is with the bolded word “and” above.
It is not clear if the proviso is excluding:
A) i) three or more groups of a substituted or unsubstituted aryl group in which four or more rings are fused and ii) a single substituted or unsubstituted heterocyclic group in which four or more rings are fused, such that if there are no substituted or unsubstituted heterocyclic groups in which four or more rings are fused in (H14), then the compound can have three or more groups of a substituted or unsubstituted aryl groups;
B) i) three or more groups of a substituted or unsubstituted aryl group in which four or more rings are fused and ii) three or more groups of a substituted or unsubstituted heterocyclic group in which four or more rings are fused, such that either i) or ii) alone is acceptable; or
C) i) three or more groups of a substituted or unsubstituted aryl group in which four or more rings are fused or ii) three or more groups of a substituted or unsubstituted heterocyclic group in which four or more rings are fused, such that neither i) nor ii) is ever allowed and are alternatives to one another.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "R901 to R907 are independently the same as defined for R901 to R907 in the formula (2)" in the final lines of the definition for compound (5). Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and compound (2) is not in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “substantially consists of” in claim 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 15 recites that the same mixed powder “consists of” the first compound and the second compound, wherein this definition is well-understood according to MPEP 2111.03. Therefore, the Applicant appears to intend a difference in scope between “consists of” and “substantially consists of”, however, there is no indication in the specification of how a person of ordinary skill would understand the scope of the difference.
The term “solid-like” in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. There is no indication in the specification of what is a solid, solid-like, and non-solid like. Therefore, the skilled artisan has no metric by which to ascertain this limitation.
The term “pellet-like” in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. There is no indication in the specification of what is a pellet, pellet-like, and non-pellet like. Therefore, the skilled artisan has no metric by which to ascertain this limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
(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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 12, 14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Kim (US2020/0098993, published on 3/26/2020, of record in the PTO-892 dated 6/9/2026) as evidenced by CAS (SciFinder substances in the examples of Kim, downloaded on 8/6/2026) and Lee (“Photoluminescence and electroluminescence of vacuum-deposited poly(p-phenylene)thing film” Synthetic Metals, 2001, p. 75) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over by Kim (US2020/0098993, published on 3/26/2020, of record in the PTO-892 dated 6/9/2026) in view of Lee (“Photoluminescence and electroluminescence of vacuum-deposited poly(p-phenylene)thing film” Synthetic Metals, 2001, p. 75), as evidenced by CAS (SciFinder substances in the examples of Kim, downloaded on 8/6/2026).
Kim teaches a mixture of a first host of formula (1) and a second host of formula (2-1) to (2-5). See claims 1 and 17.
PNG
media_image5.png
754
350
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
806
332
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Formula (1) is a compound having three fused aromatic rings and formulas (2-1) to (2-5) are aromatic compounds having five fused rings. The examples in [0105-0118] teach the following examples of the first host (H1-3 and H-18) and the second host (H2-A and H2-B):
PNG
media_image7.png
480
472
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
672
288
media_image8.png
Greyscale
.
The compounds are pre-mixed to prepare a “mixed host” which is co-deposited onto a substrate to prepare an organic electroluminescence (EL) device (claim 12). See abstract, [099-0110], and claims 18-20. Also see MPEP 2111.02(II) regarding the intended use of compositions, even though this limitation is explicitly taught by Kim. The pre-mixes are of the following compositions:
PNG
media_image9.png
312
430
media_image9.png
Greyscale
. See [0110].
The first host compounds correspond to a first compound of structure (2) of claims 2-3 having three fused rings wherein R201 to R208 are H; L201 and L202 are single bonds; Ar201 is a substituted naphthalene ring (substituted aryl group having 10 carbon atoms); and Ar202 is either an unsubstituted naphthalene ring (H1-3) or a deuterium substituted naphthalene ring (H1-8). The second host compounds correspond to the second compound of claim 4 having five fused rings (H2-A and H2-B). Thus, all of the mixtures in examples 1-8 contain the instantly claimed first compound (H1-3 or H1-8) and the instantly claimed second compound (H2-A or H2-B).
Regarding claim 7, Kim teaches weight ratios of the first host: second host: dopant D1 in Table 2 in [0116]. In inventive example 1 the ratio is 75:15:10. Therefore, for the purposes of examination assuming a total weight of 100 g for ease of calculation, this corresponds to 75 grams of the instant first compound H1-3 and 15 grams of the instant second compound H2-A. As evidenced by SciFinder, the molecular weight (MW) of H1-3 is 556.69 g/mol and the MW of H2-A is 713.87 g/mol. Converting to moles provides:
75 g H1-3 x [1 mol / 556.69 g] = 0.13 mol H1-3 (instant MOL1)
15 g H2-A x [1 mol / 713.87 g] = 0.02 mol H2-A (instant MOL2);
And when inserted into the claimed equation MOL2/(MOL1+MOL2) = 0.02 / (0.13 + 0.02) = 0.13, which falls within the claimed range of 0 < 0.13 ≤ 0.2. Also see MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding claim 14, the composition appears to substantially consist of the first and second compound, which make up the majority of the compound. See Table 2 in [0116]. Also see MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 102
Kim does not explicitly teach that the compounds exist as a mixed powder. However, the compounds are expected to be particulate solids (powders) based on their structures, as evidenced by Lee. Lee teaches that similar highly aromatic structures PPP and TPD are solids, see Fig. 1 and section 2 on p. 76. This assertion is further supported by the examples in [0105-0112] of Kim, wherein the first and second host are mixed in a weight ratio to produce a solid mixture for deposition to form an organic electroluminescence device (the same intended use as that claimed). Nor does the specification as filed appear to impart any physical limitations on the size of solid particles to constitute a powder. Therefore, the mixture of the first and second host of Kim appears to anticipate the claimed composition. This argument also applies to claim 16.
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 103
It would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of Lee and Kim to arrive at the instantly claimed process with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the instant invention. Kim does not explicitly teach that the compounds exist as a mixed powder. However, the compounds are expected to be particulate solids (powders) based on their structures and the teachings of Lee. Lee teaches that similar highly aromatic structures PPP and TPD are solids, see Fig. 1 and section 2 on p. 76. This assertion is further supported by the examples in [0105-0112] of Kim, wherein the first and second host are mixed in a weight ratio to produce a solid mixture for deposition to form an organic electroluminescence device (the same intended use as that claimed). Therefore, though it is likely that the mixture in Kim qualifies as a powder, if it does not, then the skilled artisan could look to the teachings of Lee to cure this deficiency. Lee teaches an analogous process to that described in Kim for producing organo electroluminescent devices by subjecting highly aromatic organic compounds to vacuum deposition. See abstract and Fig. 1 and section 2 on p. 76. Lee teaches that powders of the organic compounds can be subjected to vacuum deposition to produce films have desirable characteristics for organic electroluminescence devices. See abstract and section 4 on p. 79. Therefore, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to prepare powders of the mixed compounds of the claimed first and second compounds of Kim because Lee teaches that this is a well-known form to use as substrates in deposition processes, such as those described in Kim. Also see MPEP 2143(I)(B). This argument also applies to claim 16.
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.
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Itoi (WO2020209293A1, published on 10/15/2020, including machine generated translation, obtained August 2026) in view of Ghosh (US 2005/0056960, published on 3/17/2005).
Applicant claims a mixed powder comprising a first compound having at least three or more fused rings in the largest fused ring structure and a second compound having at least five or more rings in the largest fused ring structure.
Itoi teaches the manufacture of an organic electroluminescence element (EL-claim 12) according to example 7:
PNG
media_image10.png
148
754
media_image10.png
Greyscale
“Example 7 and Comparative Example 7 An organic EL device was produced and evaluated in the same manner as in Example 1 except that the compounds shown in Table 7 were used. The results are shown in Table 7.” See lines 3366-3368 on p. 79 of the translation of the specification and [0382-0383] on p. 191 of the original patent.
Thus, inventive Example 7 (first row) includes the use of the following compounds:
PNG
media_image11.png
206
246
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
218
254
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
190
220
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
208
192
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
212
188
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
190
224
media_image16.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image17.png
156
216
media_image17.png
Greyscale
. See p. 183-188 of the original patent.
Example 7, refers to Example 1, which recites the following procedure and defines the abbreviations for the compounds above:
“⟨Manufacturing of Organic EL Element⟩ Example 1 [Manufacturing of Bottom Emission Type Organic EL Element] A glass substrate (manufactured by Geomatic) with an ITO (Indium Tin Oxide) transparent electrode (anode) having a thickness of 25 mm × 75 mm × 1.1 mm. Ultrasonic cleaning was performed in isopropyl alcohol for 5 minutes, followed by UV ozone cleaning for 30 minutes. The film thickness of the ITO transparent electrode was 130 nm. The glass substrate with the transparent electrode line after cleaning is attached to the substrate holder of the vacuum vapor deposition apparatus, and the compound HI-1 is first vapor-deposited on the surface on the side where the transparent electrode line is formed so as to cover the transparent electrode. A hole injection layer (HI) having a thickness of 5 nm was formed. Following the film formation of the hole injection layer, the compound HT-2 was deposited to form a first hole transport layer (HT) having a film thickness of 90 nm. Following the film formation of the first hole transport layer, the compound EBL-1 was deposited to form a second hole transport layer (also referred to as an electron barrier layer) (EBL) having a film thickness of 10 nm. Compound BH-1 (host material (BH)) and compound BD-2 (dopant material (BD)) are co-deposited on the second hole transport layer so that the proportion of BD-2 is 4% by mass. , A light emitting layer having a thickness of 20 nm was formed. The compound aET-1 was deposited on the light emitting layer to form a first electron transport layer (also referred to as a hole barrier layer) (HBL) having a film thickness of 5 nm. Compound bET-1 was deposited on the first electron transport layer to form a second electron transport layer (ET) having a film thickness of 20 nm. LiF was vapor-deposited on the second electron transport layer to form an electron injection layer having a film thickness of 1 nm. Metal Al was vapor-deposited on the electron injection layer to form a cathode having a film thickness of 80 nm. The element configuration of the organic EL element of Example 1 is shown as follows. ITO (130) / HI-1 (5) / HT-2 (90) / EBL-1 (10) / BH-1: BD-2 (20, 96%: 4%) / aET-1 (5) / bET-1 (20) / LiF (1) / Al (80) The numbers in parentheses indicate the film thickness (unit: nm). Also, in parentheses, the number displayed as a percentage indicates the ratio (mass%) of the compound of the host material and the dopant material in the light emitting layer.
⟨Evaluation of Organic EL Element⟩ The initial characteristics of the obtained organic EL element were measured at room temperature with a DC (direct current) constant current of 10 mA / cm2 drive. The voltage measurement results are shown in Table 1. A voltage was applied to the obtained organic EL element so that the current density was 50 mA / cm2, and the time until the brightness became 90% with respect to the initial brightness (LT90 (unit: time)) was measured. The results are shown in Table 1.”
See [0368-0369] on p. 188-189 of the original patent and lines 3258-3298 on p. 77-78 of the translation of the specification.
Thus, the experimental procedure includes the step that a compound BH-X (host material BX) and a compound (BD-2) (dopant material BD) are co-deposited on the second hole transport layer. When applied to Example 7, this corresponds to the co-deposition of the elected species. BH-1 is the instantly claimed first compound of formula (2) in claims 2-3, having four fused rings as the largest fused ring structure, wherein R201 to R208 are H; L201 and L202 are single bonds; one of Ar202 and Ar201 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl group (phenyl) and the other is an unsubstituted heterocyclic group having 17 ring atoms. BD-7 is the instantly claimed second compound of formula (6) in claims 4-5, having five fused rings as the largest fused ring structure, wherein R601 and R602 are both a substituted C6 aryl (phenyl) group; and rings a, b, and c are substituted C6 aromatic hydrocarbon (phenyl) rings. Further, example 7 teaches that BD-7, the second compound, is present in 4 wt%, which falls within the range of claims 8 and 9.
Regarding claim 7, as evidenced by Table 1 in [0245] of the specification as filed, the molecular weight (MW) of BH-1 (“M1” in the Table) is 470.57 g/mol and the MW of BD-7 (“BD-1” or “M2” in the Table) is 658.78 g/mol. Assuming a total weight of 100g of BH-1 and BD-7 for calculation, the mixture would contain 96 g of BH-1 and 4 g of BD-7.
96 g BH-1 x [1 mol/470.57] = 0.20 mol BH-1
4 g BD-7 x [1 mol/658.78 g] = 0.006 mol BD-7
Then the mole ratio is 0.006 / (0.20 + 0.006) = 0.03, which falls within the range of claims 7 and 10. The mole ratio can also be rewritten as 3 mol% BD-7 and 97 mol% of BH-1.
Further regarding claims 6, 10, and 11, these properties appear to be inherent to the elected species as evidenced by the inventive examples regarding the combination of BH-1 and BD-1 in the specification as filed, when BH-1 and BD-1 fall within the concentrations of claims 7-9. See [0240-0252]. Additionally in the response filed on 6/9/2026 (see p. 2) the Applicant indicates that the elected species falls within all of the examined claims. Also see MPEP 2112.
Itoi does explicitly teach that BH-1 and BD-1 are a single source of mixed powder for the physical vapor deposition described in the examples. Nor does Itoi explicitly describe a “solid-like” or “pellet-like” mixed powder (claims 16-17). Itoi also fails to teach that the mixed powder is heated, melted, and solidified to produce a mixture of claim 18. Itoi does teach that BH-1 is a solid according to [0487-0492] of original patent and lines 4077-4150 on p. 96-97 of the translation of the specification. Further, the examples in the instant specification teach that both BH-1 and BD-1 (BD-7 in the instant specification) are inherently solids. See MPEP 2112.
Ghosh is directed toward forming homogeneous mixtures of powders organic materials for physical vapor deposition using melting. Ghosh teaches the method “includes combining organic materials having at least one dopant component and one host component to form a mixture of organic materials and placing the mixture of organic materials in a container and sealing the container. The method further includes, heating and mixing the organic materials until they are melted, to form a homogeneous mixture of organic materials. Solidifying the homogeneous mixture of organic materials and removing the solidified homogeneous mixture of organic materials from the container.” See abstract.
Ghosh teaches that care must be taken to avoid decomposition of organic materials during physical vapor deposition (PVD) and that co-evaporation is a known technique for forming thin layers of electroluminescent materials (OLEDs) having more than one organic component. Ghosh teaches that co-evaporation simultaneously from two adjacent sources has several disadvantages, including requiring a large enough chamber to accommodate the evaporation sources which is costly and is more time-consuming to bring to vaporization conditions. Ghosh also teaches that the ratio of vaporization of each individual deposition source is crucial because that determines the chemical composition of the deposited organic layer on the substrate. Ghosh teaches that organic powders, flakes, or granules can lead to nonuniform heating of such organic materials in PVD sources with attendant specially nonuniform vaporization of organic material, which can result in potentially nonuniform vapor-deposited organic layers formed on a structure. See [0003-0015]. Ghosh teaches that the disclosed process for producing a homogeneous single source of mixed powders for vapor deposition can overcome the previously known challenges. See [0016-0041].
In the working example, Ghosh teaches a mixed solid powder consisting of the organic dopant and organic host (i.e. 100mol% of the first and second compound-claims 13-16) was placed in a sealed ampoule and heated to melting to form a molten mixture of organic materials. The molten mixture of organic materials was mixed and cooled to room temperature to solidify the homogeneous mixture of organic materials (claim 18). See [0048-0049]. Ghosh then teaches that the solidified homogeneous mixture was retrieved and pulverized to produce another solid powder (claim 16). The homogeneous mixture of organic powder was then compacted to produce a pellet (claim 17). The pellet was then used as the sole source for the PVD to produce OLED substrates.
It would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of Itoi and Ghosh to arrive at the instantly claimed process with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide the claimed mixed powder as the PVD source in Itoi because Ghosh explicitly teaches the production of a homogenous mixed powder for use as the evaporation source in PVD. Ghosh additionally teaches that a single PVD evaporation source provides both cost savings and more consistent thin layer formation than when PVD is conducted using two different sources of organic materials is used to produce thin films for OLEDs. Therefore, including the process of Ghosh in the process of Itoi will predictably lead to a cost-effective process to reliably form thin films for OLEDs. Also see MPEP 2143(I)(A).
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 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 11411182 (‘182) in view of Itoi (WO2020209293A1, published on 10/15/2020).
The claims of ‘182 are directed to a mixed powder comprising a first organic compound and a second organic compound having the characteristics of instant claims 7 and 10 for use in a vapor deposition process, provided that the first organic compound and the second organic compound are different compounds. The claims of ‘182 do not teach that the first compound contains a fused ring containing 3 or more rings as its largest fused ring structure and that the second compound contains a fused ring containing 5 or more rings as its largest fused ring structure.
The teachings of Itoi were described in the 35 USC 103 rejection above and are incorporated by reference herein.
It would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of the claims of ‘182 and Itoi to arrive at the instantly claimed process with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to produce the organic layer of the OLED of the claimed first and second compounds in the claimed compositions, including the elected species, of Itoi with the mixed powder of the claims of ‘182, because the claims of ‘182 teach that a mixed powder having the claimed characteristics will predictably undergo PVD to produce OLED organic layers. Further regarding claims 6, 10, and 11, these properties appear to be inherent to the elected species as evidenced by the inventive examples regarding the combination of BH-1 and BD-1 in the specification as filed, when BH-1 and BD-1 fall within the concentrations of claims 7-9. See [0240-0252]. Additionally in the response filed on 6/9/2026 (see p. 2) the Applicant indicates that the elected species falls within all of the examined claims. Also see MPEP 2112 and MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claims 1-4 and 12-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-29 of U.S. Patent No. 12648353 (‘353) in view of Ghosh (US 2005/0056960, published on 3/17/2005).
The claims of ‘353 are directed to an electron-transporting layer for an organic electroluminescence device (OLED) comprising a composition comprising one or more selected from the group consisting of compounds of formula (1), (2), (3), and (4) and one or more selected from the group consisting of compounds of formulas (11), (12), and (13). Compounds (2) and (3) contain fused ring structures having 5 or more rings and compounds (11) and (12) contain fused ring structures having 3 or more rings (corresponding to structure (2) of instant claim 3). Thus, these combinations meet the limitations of the claimed compounds. The claims of ‘353 do not teach that the compounds are present in a mixed powder.
The teachings of Ghosh were described in the 35 USC 103 rejection above and are incorporated by reference herein.
It would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of the claims of ‘353 and Ghosh to arrive at the instantly claimed process with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to produce the OLED organic layer of the claims of ‘353 with the process of Ghosh, which requires the claimed mixed powder, because Ghosh explicitly teaches the production of a homogenous mixed powder for use as the evaporation source in PVD to produce OLED substrates. Ghosh additionally teaches that a single PVD evaporation source provides both cost savings and more consistent thin layer formation than when PVD is conducted using two different sources or organic materials is used to produce thin films for OLEDs. Therefore, using the process of Ghosh, which requires the claimed composition, in the production of the OLED organic layer of the claims of ‘353 will predictably lead to a cost-effective process to reliably form thin films for OLEDs. Also see MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claims 1-5 and 12-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12615959 (‘959) in view of Ghosh (US 2005/0056960, published on 3/17/2005).
The claims of ‘959 are directed to an OLED device comprising an emitting layer comprising a compound of formula (1) and one or more selected from the group consisting of compounds of formulas (21), (31), (41), and (51). Compound (1) contains fused ring structures having 3 or more rings (corresponding to the first compound of formula (2) in claims 2 and 3) and compounds (31) and (41) contain fused ring structures having 5 or more rings (corresponding to the second compounds of claims 4 and 5). Thus, these combinations meet the limitations of the claimed compounds. The claims of ‘359 do not teach that the compounds are present in a mixed powder.
The teachings of Ghosh were described in the 35 USC 103 rejection above and are incorporated by reference herein.
It would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of the claims of ‘359 and Ghosh to arrive at the instantly claimed process with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to produce the organic layer of the OLED of the claims of ‘359 with the process of Ghosh, which requires the claimed mixed powder, because Ghosh explicitly teaches the production of a homogenous mixed powder for use as the evaporation source in PVD to produce OLED substrates. Ghosh additionally teaches that a single PVD evaporation source provides both cost savings and more consistent thin layer formation than when PVD is conducted using two different sources or organic materials is used to produce thin films for OLEDs. Therefore, using the process of Ghosh, which requires the claimed composition, in the production of the OLED organic layer of the claims of ‘359 will predictably lead to a cost-effective process to reliably form thin films for OLEDs. Also see MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claims 1-5 and 12-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12550610 (‘610) in view of Ghosh (US 2005/0056960, published on 3/17/2005).
The claims of ‘610 are directed to a compound of formula (A1-structure (5) of instant claims 4-5) and an OLED device comprising (A-1) and a compound of formula (10-structure (2) of claims 2-3). Thus, these combinations meet the limitations of the claimed compounds. The claims of ‘610 do not teach that the compounds are present in a mixed powder.
The teachings of Ghosh were described in the 35 USC 103 rejection above and are incorporated by reference herein.
It would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of the claims of ‘610 and Ghosh to arrive at the instantly claimed process with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to produce the organic layer of the OLED of the claims of ‘610 with the process of Ghosh, which requires the claimed mixed powder, because Ghosh explicitly teaches the production of a homogenous mixed powder for use as the evaporation source in PVD to produce OLED substrates. Ghosh additionally teaches that a single PVD evaporation source provides both cost savings and more consistent thin layer formation than when PVD is conducted using two different sources or organic materials is used to produce thin films for OLEDs. Therefore, using the process of Ghosh, which requires the claimed composition, in the production of the OLED organic layer of the claims of ‘610 will predictably lead to a cost-effective process to reliably form thin films for OLEDs. Also see MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claims 1-5 and 12-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 12477945 (‘945) in view of Ghosh (US 2005/0056960, published on 3/17/2005).
The claims of ‘945 are directed to an OLED device comprising an emitting layer comprising one or both of a compound of formula (1A) and (1B) and a compound of formula (32). Compounds (1A) and (1B) are correspond to structure (2) of claims 2-3 and compound (32) corresponds to structure (5) of claims 4-5. Thus, these combinations meet the limitations of the claimed compounds. The claims of ‘945 do not teach that the compounds are present in a mixed powder.
The teachings of Ghosh were described in the 35 USC 103 rejection above and are incorporated by reference herein.
It would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of the claims of ‘945 and Ghosh to arrive at the instantly claimed process with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to produce the organic layer of the OLED of the claims of ‘945 with the process of Ghosh, which requires the claimed mixed powder, because Ghosh explicitly teaches the production of a homogenous mixed powder for use as the evaporation source in PVD to produce OLED substrates. Ghosh additionally teaches that a single PVD evaporation source provides both cost savings and more consistent thin layer formation than when PVD is conducted using two different sources or organic materials is used to produce thin films for OLEDs. Therefore, using the process of Ghosh, which requires the claimed composition, in the production of the OLED organic layer of the claims of ‘945 will predictably lead to a cost-effective process to reliably form thin films for OLEDs. Also see MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claims 1-5 and 12-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 12433162 (‘162) in view of Ghosh (US 2005/0056960, published on 3/17/2005).
The claims of ‘162 are directed to a compound of formula (1-1), (1-2), (1-3), (1-4), (1-5), or (1-6), which are all compounds of formula (2) or (H14) of claims 2-3. The claims are also directed to an OLED device comprising an emitting layer comprising one of the above compounds and a compound of formula (11), (21), (31), (41), (51), (61), (71), or (81), wherein (31) and (41) correspond to structures (5) and (6) respectively in claims 4-5. Thus, these combinations meet the limitations of the claimed compounds. The claims of ‘162 do not teach that the compounds are present in a mixed powder.
The teachings of Ghosh were described in the 35 USC 103 rejection above and are incorporated by reference herein.
It would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of the claims of ‘162 and Ghosh to arrive at the instantly claimed process with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to produce the organic layer of the OLED of the claims of ‘162 with the process of Ghosh, which requires the claimed mixed powder, because Ghosh explicitly teaches the production of a homogenous mixed powder for use as the evaporation source in PVD to produce OLED substrates. Ghosh additionally teaches that a single PVD evaporation source provides both cost savings and more consistent thin layer formation than when PVD is conducted using two different sources or organic materials is used to produce thin films for OLEDs. Therefore, using the process of Ghosh, which requires the claimed composition, in the production of the OLED organic layer of the claims of ‘162 will predictably lead to a cost-effective process to reliably form thin films for OLEDs. Also see MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claims 1-5 and 12-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 12171141 (‘141) in view of Ghosh (US 2005/0056960, published on 3/17/2005).
The claims of ‘141 are directed to an OLED device comprising an emitting layer comprising a compound of formula (1), a compound of structure (2) of claims 2-3, and a compound of formula (11), (21), (31), (41), (51), (61), (71), and (81), wherein (31) and (41) correspond to structures (5) and (6) of claims 4-5 respectively. Thus, these combinations meet the limitations of the claimed compounds. The claims of ‘141 do not teach that the compounds are present in a mixed powder.
The teachings of Ghosh were described in the 35 USC 103 rejection above and are incorporated by reference herein.
It would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of the claims of ‘141 and Ghosh to arrive at the instantly claimed process with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to produce the organic layer of the OLED of the claims of ‘141 with the process of Ghosh, which requires the claimed mixed powder, because Ghosh explicitly teaches the production of a homogenous mixed powder for use as the evaporation source in PVD to produce OLED substrates. Ghosh additionally teaches that a single PVD evaporation source provides both cost savings and more consistent thin layer formation than when PVD is conducted using two different sources or organic materials is used to produce thin films for OLEDs. Therefore, using the process of Ghosh, which requires the claimed composition, in the production of the OLED organic layer of the claims of ‘141 will predictably lead to a cost-effective process to reliably form thin films for OLEDs. Also see MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claims 1-5 and 12-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12581850 (‘850) in view of Ghosh (US 2005/0056960, published on 3/17/2005).
The claims of ‘850 are directed to an OLED device comprising an emitting layer comprising a compound of formula (1); a compound of formula (2), wherein (1) and (2) are compounds of structure (2) of claims 2-3; and a compound of formula (31), which corresponds to structure (5) claims 4-5. Thus, these combinations meet the limitations of the claimed compounds. The claims of ‘850 do not teach that the compounds are present in a mixed powder.
The teachings of Ghosh were described in the 35 USC 103 rejection above and are incorporated by reference herein.
It would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of the claims of ‘850 and Ghosh to arrive at the instantly claimed process with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to produce the organic layer of the OLED of the claims of ‘850 with the process of Ghosh, which requires the claimed mixed powder, because Ghosh explicitly teaches the production of a homogenous mixed powder for use as the evaporation source in PVD to produce OLED substrates. Ghosh additionally teaches that a single PVD evaporation source provides both cost savings and more consistent thin layer formation than when PVD is conducted using two different sources or organic materials is used to produce thin films for OLEDs. Therefore, using the process of Ghosh, which requires the claimed composition, in the production of the OLED organic layer of the claims of ‘850 will predictably lead to a cost-effective process to reliably form thin films for OLEDs. Also see MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claims 1-4 and 12-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 11393986 (‘986) in view of Ghosh (US 2005/0056960, published on 3/17/2005).
The claims of ‘986 are directed to a mixture for producing an electron-transporting layer for an organic electroluminescence device (OLED) comprising a composition comprising a first compound (14A), having five fused rings, and a second compound (201), having three fused rings and corresponding to structure (H14) in claims 2-3. Thus, these combinations meet the limitations of the claimed compounds. The claims of ‘986 do not teach that the compounds are present in a mixed powder.
The teachings of Ghosh were described in the 35 USC 103 rejection above and are incorporated by reference herein.
It would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of the claims of ‘986 and Ghosh to arrive at the instantly claimed process with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to produce the OLED organic layer of the claims of ‘986 with the process of Ghosh, which requires the claimed mixed powder, because Ghosh explicitly teaches the production of a homogenous mixed powder for use as the evaporation source in PVD to produce OLED substrates. Ghosh additionally teaches that a single PVD evaporation source provides both cost savings and more consistent thin layer formation than when PVD is conducted using two different sources or organic materials is used to produce thin films for OLEDs. Therefore, using the process of Ghosh, which requires the claimed composition, in the production of the OLED organic layer of the claims of ‘986 will predictably lead to a cost-effective process to reliably form thin films for OLEDs. Also see MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claims 1-5 and 12-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 10763441 (‘441) in view of Ghosh (US 2005/0056960, published on 3/17/2005).
The claims of ‘441 are directed to a mixture for producing OLED comprising an emitting layer comprising a composition comprising a first compound (1A), corresponding to a compound of structure (2) in claims 2-3, and a second compound (43D), having five fused rings and corresponding to structure (6) in claims 4-5. Thus, these combinations meet the limitations of the claimed compounds. The claims of ‘441 do not teach that the compounds are present in a mixed powder.
The teachings of Ghosh were described in the 35 USC 103 rejection above and are incorporated by reference herein.
It would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of the claims of ‘441 and Ghosh to arrive at the instantly claimed process with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to produce the OLED organic layer of the claims of ‘441 with the process of Ghosh, which requires the claimed mixed powder, because Ghosh explicitly teaches the production of a homogenous mixed powder for use as the evaporation source in PVD to produce OLED substrates. Ghosh additionally teaches that a single PVD evaporation source provides both cost savings and more consistent thin layer formation than when PVD is conducted using two different sources or organic materials is used to produce thin films for OLEDs. Therefore, using the process of Ghosh, which requires the claimed composition, in the production of the OLED organic layer of the claims of ‘441 will predictably lead to a cost-effective process to reliably form thin films for OLEDs. Also see MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claims 1-5 and 12-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 10777752 (‘752) in view of Ghosh (US 2005/0056960, published on 3/17/2005).
The claims of ‘752 are directed to an OLED comprising an electron-transporting layer comprising a composition comprising a first compound (1), corresponding to a compound of structure (2) in claims 2-3, and a second compound (31), having five fused rings and corresponding to structure (5) in claims 4-5. Thus, these combinations meet the limitations of the claimed compounds. The claims of ‘752 do not teach that the compounds are present in a mixed powder.
The teachings of Ghosh were described in the 35 USC 103 rejection above and are incorporated by reference herein.
It would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of the claims of ‘752 and Ghosh to arrive at the instantly claimed process with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to produce the OLED organic layer of the claims of ‘752 with the process of Ghosh, which requires the claimed mixed powder, because Ghosh explicitly teaches the production of a homogenous mixed powder for use as the evaporation source in PVD to produce OLED substrates. Ghosh additionally teaches that a single PVD evaporation source provides both cost savings and more consistent thin layer formation than when PVD is conducted using two different sources or organic materials is used to produce thin films for OLEDs. Therefore, using the process of Ghosh, which requires the claimed composition, in the production of the OLED organic layer of the claims of ‘752 will predictably lead to a cost-effective process to reliably form thin films for OLEDs. Also see MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claims 1-5 and 12-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 10811612 (‘612) in view of Ghosh (US 2005/0056960, published on 3/17/2005).
The claims of ‘612 are directed to a mixture for producing an OLED comprising an emitting layer comprising a composition comprising a first compound (1A), corresponding to a compound of structure (2) in claims 2-3, and a second compound (43D), having five fused rings and corresponding to structure (6) in claims 4-5. Thus, these combinations meet the limitations of the claimed compounds. The claims of ‘612 do not teach that the compounds are present in a mixed powder.
The teachings of Ghosh were described in the 35 USC 103 rejection above and are incorporated by reference herein.
It would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of the claims of ‘612 and Ghosh to arrive at the instantly claimed process with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to produce the OLED organic layer of the claims of ‘612 with the process of Ghosh, which requires the claimed mixed powder, because Ghosh explicitly teaches the production of a homogenous mixed powder for use as the evaporation source in PVD to produce OLED substrates. Ghosh additionally teaches that a single PVD evaporation source provides both cost savings and more consistent thin layer formation than when PVD is conducted using two different sources or organic materials is used to produce thin films for OLEDs. Therefore, using the process of Ghosh, which requires the claimed composition, in the production of the OLED organic layer of the claims of ‘612 will predictably lead to a cost-effective process to reliably form thin films for OLEDs. Also see MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claims 1-5 and 12-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12486450 (‘450) in view of Ghosh (US 2005/0056960, published on 3/17/2005).
The claims of ‘450 are directed to a mixture for producing an OLED comprising an emitting layer comprising a composition comprising a first compound (1), a compound of formula (2) in claims 2-3, and one or more compounds selected from (11), (21), (31), (41), (51), (61), (71), and (81), wherein (31) and (41) correspond to structures (5) and (6) in claims 4-5 respectively. Thus, these combinations meet the limitations of the claimed compounds. The claims of ‘450 do not teach that the compounds are present in a mixed powder.
The teachings of Ghosh were described in the 35 USC 103 rejection above and are incorporated by reference herein.
It would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of the claims of ‘450 and Ghosh to arrive at the instantly claimed process with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to produce the OLED organic layer of the claims of ‘450 with the process of Ghosh, which requires the claimed mixed powder, because Ghosh explicitly teaches the production of a homogenous mixed powder for use as the evaporation source in PVD to produce OLED substrates. Ghosh additionally teaches that a single PVD evaporation source provides both cost savings and more consistent thin layer formation than when PVD is conducted using two different sources or organic materials is used to produce thin films for OLEDs. Therefore, using the process of Ghosh, which requires the claimed composition, in the production of the OLED organic layer of the claims of ‘450 will predictably lead to a cost-effective process to reliably form thin films for OLEDs. Also see MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claims 1-5 and 12-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. co-pending Application No. 19/247874 (‘874) in view of Ghosh (US 2005/0056960, published on 3/17/2005).
The claims of ‘874 are directed to a compound of formula (1), a compound of formula (2) in claims 2-3. The claims are also directed to an OLED device comprising an emitting layer comprising (1) and a compound of formula (11), (21), (31), (41), (51), (61), (71), or (81), wherein (31) and (41) correspond to structures (5) and (6) respectively in claims 4-5. Thus, these combinations meet the limitations of the claimed compounds. The claims of ‘874 do not teach that the compounds are present in a mixed powder.
The teachings of Ghosh were described in the 35 USC 103 rejection above and are incorporated by reference herein.
It would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of the claims of ‘874 and Ghosh to arrive at the instantly claimed process with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to produce the organic layer of the OLED of the claims of ‘874 with the process of Ghosh, which requires the claimed mixed powder, because Ghosh explicitly teaches the production of a homogenous mixed powder for use as the evaporation source in PVD to produce OLED substrates. Ghosh additionally teaches that a single PVD evaporation source provides both cost savings and more consistent thin layer formation than when PVD is conducted using two different sources or organic materials is used to produce thin films for OLEDs. Therefore, using the process of Ghosh, which requires the claimed composition, in the production of the OLED organic layer of the claims of ‘874 will predictably lead to a cost-effective process to reliably form thin films for OLEDs. Also see MPEP 2143(I)(A). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMY C BONAPARTE whose telephone number is (571)272-7307. The examiner can normally be reached 11-7.
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, Scarlett Goon can be reached at 571-270-5241. 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.
/AMY C BONAPARTE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692
Prosecution Insights