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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/27/2026 has been entered.
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claim(s) 1, 5-16, and species: Host, Dopant 56, E15, and F1, in the reply filed on 3/12/2024 is acknowledged.
Group II, claim(s) 17-34 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/12/2024.
Response to Amendment
The previous rejection of Claims 1-3, 5-7, on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-17 of US Pat. No. 12,414,460 B2 (US 12,414,460) is/are withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s amendments.
The previous rejection of Claims 1-3, 5-7, provisionally on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of Application No. 17/260,700 (App. No. 17/260,700) is/are withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s amendments.
The previous rejection of Claim(s) 1, and 3, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2017/188111 A1 in which US 2019/0207112 A1 to Hatakeyama et al. is used as the US English equivalent (hereinafter Hatakeyama’112), and in further view of WO 2016/080622 A1 in which US 2018/0269402 A1 to Huh et al. is used as the US English equivalent. (hereinafter Huh) is/are withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s amendments.
The previous rejection of Claim(s) 5-6, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama’112 in view of Huh, as applied to claim 1, and in further view of WO 2019/194298 A1 in which US 2021/0028365 A1 to Tasaki et al. is used the US English equivalent. (hereinafter Tasaki-365) is/are withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s amendments.
The previous rejection of Claim(s) 7-16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama’112 in view of Huh, as applied to claim 1, and in further view of US 2016/0164042 A1 to Cho et al. (hereinafter Cho) is/are withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s amendments.
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 1-3, 5-16, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-38 of US Pat. No. 12,161,046 B2 (US 12,161,046).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because US 12,161,046 teaches each and every component and reads upon the claims in an anticipatory manner.
Regarding claims 1-3, 5-7, US 12,161,046 teaches an OLED comprising a first electrode, a second electrode, a first emitting layer (EML1) between the first and second electrodes, (claim 1), and a first hole blocking layer (HBL1) between the second electrode and the first emitting layer; (claim 5), wherein the EML1 includes a host and dopant, (Claim 1), wherein the first host is has formula Host 2-30 (claim 2-3), and a dopant with formula Dopant 2-234 (claim 3), and wherein the a HBL1 includes material azine-based and/or benzimidazole-based compounds having formula E1-E21 (claims 6 and 7) and F1-F6 (claims 6 and 8).
Regarding claim 7-16, US 12,161,046 also teaches the OLED further comprising a second emitting material layer (EML2) between the first emitting layer and second electrode, a first charge generation layer between the first and second emitting layers, (claim 9), wherein the EML1 to EML2 has compound formula Host 2-30 (claim 9), further includes a second hole blocking layer (HBL2) between the second emitting layer and second electrode, (claim 11), containing the above azine-based and/or benzimidazole-based compounds (claim 12), the ELM2 emits yellow-green light, (claim 13) or red-green color light (claim 14), a third emitting material layer (EML3) between the EML2 unit and second electrode and a second charge generation layer (CGL2) between the EML2 unit and EML3 unit, and the EML1 to EML3 have the above host and dopants (claim 15), and a third hole blocking material layer (HBL3) with the above azine-based and/or benzimidazole-based compounds (claim 17-18).
Claims 1, 5-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-18 of copending Application No. 17/283,791 which is now patented as US Patent No. 12,284,907 B2. (US 12,284,907).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because App. US 12,284,907 teaches each and every component and reads upon the claims in an anticipatory manner.
Regarding claims 1, 5-7, App. No. US 12,284,907 teaches an OLED comprising a first electrode, a second electrode, a first emitting layer (EML1) between the first and second electrodes, (claim 1), and a first hole blocking layer (HBL1) between the second electrode and the first emitting layer; (claim 5), wherein the EML1 includes a host and dopant, (Claim 1), wherein the first host is has formula Host 1-30 (claim 2), and a dopant with formula Dopant 1-234 (claim 3), and wherein the a HBL1 includes material azine-based and/or benzimidazole-based compounds having formula E1-21 (claims 6 and 7) and F1-6 (claims 6 and 8).
Regarding claim 7-16, US 12,284,907 also teaches the OLED further comprising a second emitting material layer (EML2) between the first emitting layer and second electrode, a first charge generation layer (CGL1) between the first and second emitting layers, (claim 9), wherein the EML1 to EML2 has the above host and dopant (claim 9), further includes a second hole blocking layer (HBL2) between the second emitting layer and second electrode, (claim 11), containing the above azine-based and/or benzimidazole-based compounds (claim 12), the ELM2 emits yellow-green light, (claim 13) or red-green color light (claim 14), a third emitting material layer (EML3) between the EML2 unit and second electrode and a second charge generation layer (CGL2) between the EML2 unit and EML3 unit, and the EML1 to EML3 have the above host and dopants (claim 15), and a third hole blocking material layer (HBL3) with the above azine-based and/or benzimidazole-based compounds (claim 17-18).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 5-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of US Patent no. 11,950,500 B2. (US 11,950,500).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because US 11,950,500 teaches each and every component and reads upon the claims in an anticipatory manner.
Regarding claims 1, 5-7, US 11,950,500 teaches an OLED comprising a first electrode, a second electrode, a first emitting layer (EML1) between the first and second electrodes, (claim 1), and a first hole blocking layer (HBL1) between the second electrode and the first emitting layer; (claim 5), wherein the EML1 includes a host and dopant, (Claim 1), wherein the first host is has formula Host 1-30 (claim 2), and a dopant with formula Dopant 2-233 (claim 3), and wherein the a HBL1 includes material azine-based and/or benzimidazole-based compounds having formula E1-E21 (claims 6 and 7) and F1-F6 (claims 6 and 8).
Regarding claim 7-16, US 11,950,500 also teaches the OLED further comprising a second emitting material layer (EML2) between the first emitting layer and second electrode, a first charge generation layer (CGL1) between the first and second emitting layers, (claim 9), wherein the EML1 to EML2 has compound formula Host and dopants above (claim 9), further includes a second hole blocking layer (HBL2) between the second emitting layer and second electrode, (claim 11), containing the above azine-based and/or benzimidazole-based compounds above (claim 12), the ELM2 emits yellow-green light, (claim 13) or red-green color light (claim 14), a third emitting material layer (EML3) between the EML2 unit and second electrode and a second charge generation layer (CGL2) between the EML2 unit and EML3 unit, and the EML1 to EML3 have the above host and dopants (claim 15), and a third hole blocking material layer (HBL3) with the above azine-based and/or benzimidazole-based compounds (claim 17-19).
Claims 1, 5-7 and 11-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of US Patent No. 11,963,443 B2. (US 11,963,443).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because US 11,963,443 teaches each and every component and reads upon the claims in an anticipatory manner.
Regarding claims 1, 5-6, US 11,963,443 teaches an OLED comprising a first electrode, a second electrode, a first emitting layer (EML1) between the first and second electrodes, and a first hole blocking layer (HBL1) between the second electrode and the first emitting layer, wherein the EML1 includes a host and dopant, and HBL1 has an azine and benzimidazole (Claim 1-3). The benzimidazole has the formula F1 (claims 4-5), the host has the formula Host 1-30 (claim 6-7), the dopant has the formula Dopant 1-234 (claim 12-13), the azine has the formula E1-E23 (claim 16-17).
Regarding claim 7, and 11-13, US 11,963,443 also teaches the OLED further comprising a second emitting material layer (EML2) include the host and dopant above and between the first emitting layer and second electrode, a first charge generation layer (CGL1) between the first and second emitting layers, (claim 18), further includes Ems lL3 (claim 19) that emits yellow-green or red light and green (claim 19-20).
Claims 1, 5-9, 13-16, are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of Application No. 19/236,963 (App. No. 19/236,963).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because App. No. 19/236,963 teaches each and every component and reads upon the claims in an anticipatory manner.
Regarding claims 1, 5-9, 13-16, App. No. 19/236,963 teaches an OLED comprising a first electrode, a second electrode, a first emitting stack including a first emitting layer and a first organic material layer, a second emitting layer, a third emitting layer, and a first charge generation layer and second charge generation layer, wherein the first emitting layer includes a first host, a second host, and a first dopant, (Claim 1), wherein the first host has formula Host 1-30 (claim 8), the dopant has the formula 1-234, (claim 15), and wherein the organic layers contain a second compound and third compound (claim 18), wherein the second compound has the formula E1-E23 and the third compound has the formula F1-F6, (claims 18-19).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 44-48, filed 05/27/2026, with respect to the Hatakeyama’112 and Huh references have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous rejection of Claim(s) 1, 3, and 5-16, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama’112, and in further view of Huh, have been withdrawn.
However, regarding the above remaining double patenting rejections, the Applicant's arguments filed 05/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in part. The Applicant argues that the above double patenting rejections do not teach the claimed hosts, dopants, and/or azine-based compounds. This is not persuasive because, as cited above, the listed applications and US patents teach each and every component and reads upon the claims in an anticipatory manner.
It is suggested to file a terminal disclaimer to alleviate the double patenting rejections.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 5-16, would be allowable if a terminal disclaimer is filed to alleviate the above cited nonstatutory double patenting rejections and the withdrawn claims 17-34 are either canceled or rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art is WO 2017/188111 A1 in which US 2019/0207112 A1 to Hatakeyama et al. is used as the US English equivalent (hereinafter Hatakeyama'112). Hatakeyama'112 teaches an organic EL element (Fig. 1), comprising a substrate (101), a positive electrode (102), a hole injection layer (103), a hole transport layer (104), a light emitting layer (105), an electron transport layer (106), an electron injection layer (107), and a negative electrode (108) (para 160). The light emitting layer comprises a polycyclic aromatic compound (1) and an anthracene-based compound (3), (page 114, para 527, See Examples in Table 2A). Hatakeyama'112 further teaches the above electron transport layer (106), i.e. hole blocking layer, contains material such as pyrimidine or triazine derivatives (para 184-188). Hatakeyama'112 further teaches the above light emitting layer with the above combination of polycyclic aromatic compound and anthracene compound obtain optimum light emitting characteristics and provide an organic EL element having a low consumption power and an excellent quantum efficiency. (para 60). Hatakeyama'112 further teaches a first electron transport layer 1 and a second electron transport layer 2. (See Table 2A and para 562 and 566).
Hatakeyama'112 does not teach the host with the claimed formula and also does not teach the azine compound formula in the electron transporting layer (i.e. hole blocking layer).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HA S NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7395. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, Flex schedule 7:30am-4:00pm.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at (571)272-1302. 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.
/HA S NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights