DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is responsive to the amendment received January 14, 2026. Claims 1, 6, 8-10, and 12 were amended. Claims 2-5, 15, and 16 were canceled. Claims 1 and 6-14 are pending.
The rejection of claims 1 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2020/0098991 A1) is withdrawn due to the amendment received January 14, 2026.
The rejection of claims 5-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2020/0098991 A1) in view of Song et al. (US 2015/0060825) is withdrawn due to the amendment received January 14, 2026.
The rejection of claims 5-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2020/0098991 A1) in view of Yoon et al. (US 2019/0305227 A1) is withdrawn due to the amendment received January 14, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 12 is 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.
Dependent claim 12 recites the organic light emitting diode further includes “a second emitting material layer”. Because claim 1, upon which claim 12 depends, already recites a “second blue light emitting layer”, it is unclear if the second emitting layer recited in claim 12 is an additional emitting layer or if the claim is intended to further limit the already recited second emitting layer of claim 1. The claim is considered vague and indefinite. Clarification and/or correction are required.
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 and 6-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 12-19 of copending Application No. 17/523,475 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because US ‘475 recites a device in claim 1 having two emitting layer that each comprise a dopant of a boron derivative and an anthracene host and there is a charge generation layer between the first and second blue emitting layers. US ‘475 recites additional materials (i.e., electron blocking and hole blocking materials) are present, but these are not excluded from being present by the instant claims. US ‘475 claims the boron derivative may be compound 1-11 or 1-13, which are the same as a compounds of Formula 3 in instant claim 1. US ‘475 claims the anthracene derivative(s) may be of formula 2-7, which is the same as recited in instant claim 1. Regarding claim 6, the provision corresponds to ‘475 claim 1. Claim 7 corresponds to ‘475 claim 12. Claim 8 corresponds to ‘475 claim 13. Claim 9 corresponds to ‘475 claim 14. Claim 10 corresponds to ‘475 claim 15. Claim 11 corresponds to ‘475 claim 16. Claim 12 corresponds to ‘475 claim 17. Claim 13 corresponds to ‘475 claim 18. Claim 14 corresponds to ‘475 claim 14.
Therefore, given the overlap between the present claims and the copending claims, it would have been within the skill level of, as well as obvious to, one of ordinary skill in the art to use compounds to form a light emitting device which are both disclosed by copending Application No. 17/523,475 and encompassed by the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the present invention.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 and 6-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 10-19 of copending Application No. 17/520,606 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because US ‘606 recites a device in claims 1 and 10 having two emitting layers that each comprise a dopant of a boron derivative and an anthracene host and there is a charge generation layer between the first and second blue emitting layers. US ‘606 recites additional materials (i.e., electron blocking and hole blocking materials) are present, but these are not excluded from being present by the instant claims. US ‘606 claims the boron derivative may be compound 1-11, 1-12, and 1-13 in claim 1, which are the same as a compounds of Formula 3 in instant claim 1. US ‘606 claims the anthracene derivative(s) may be of formula 2-7 or 2-8 in claim 1, which are the same as recited in instant claim 1. Regarding claim 6, the provision corresponds to ‘606 claim 11. Claim 7 corresponds to ‘606 claim 12. Claim 8 corresponds to ‘606 claim 13. Claim 9 corresponds to ‘606 claim 14. Claim 10 corresponds to ‘606 claim 15. Claim 11 corresponds to ‘606 claim 16. Claim 12 corresponds to ‘606 claim 17. Claim 13 corresponds to ‘606 claim 18. Claim 14 corresponds to ‘606 claim 19.
Therefore, given the overlap between the present claims and the copending claims, it would have been within the skill level of, as well as obvious to, one of ordinary skill in the art to use compounds to form a light emitting device which are both disclosed by copending Application No. 17/520,606 and encompassed by the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the present invention.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 6-9, and 12-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, and 11-20 of copending Application No. 17/524,184 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because US ‘184 recites a device in claims 1, 11, and 12 having two emitting layer that each comprise a dopant of a boron derivative and an anthracene host and there is a charge generation layer between the first and second blue emitting layers. US ‘184 recites additional materials (i.e., electron blocking and hole blocking materials) are present, but these are not excluded from being present by the instant claims. US ‘184 claims the boron derivative may be compound 1-11, 1-12, or 1-13, which are the same as a compounds of Formula 3 in instant claim 1. US ‘184 claims the anthracene derivative(s) may be of formula 3, which encompasses compounds the same as anthracene compounds recited in instant claim 1 (further note dependent claim 5 of ‘184 recites compounds 2-7 and 2-8 as specific anthracene-based compounds within formula 3). Regarding claim 6, the provision corresponds to ‘184 claim 12. Claim 7 corresponds to ‘184 claim 16. Claim 8 corresponds to ‘184 claim 13. Claim 9 corresponds to ‘184 claim 15. Claim 12 corresponds to ‘184 claim 17-18. Claim 13 corresponds to ‘184 claim 19. Claim 14 corresponds to ‘184 claim 20.
Therefore, given the overlap between the present claims and the copending claims, it would have been within the skill level of, as well as obvious to, one of ordinary skill in the art to use compounds to form a light emitting device which are both disclosed by copending Application No. 17/524,184 and encompassed by the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the present invention.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 6, 7, and 12-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, and 11-20 of copending Application No. 17/523,417 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because US ‘417 recites a device in claims 1, 11, and 12 having two emitting layer that each comprise a dopant of a boron derivative and an anthracene host and there is a charge generation layer between the first and second blue emitting layers. US ‘417 recites additional materials (i.e., electron blocking and hole blocking materials) are present, but these are not excluded from being present by the instant claims. US ‘417 claims the boron derivative may be compound 1-11, 1-12, or 1-13, which are the same as a compounds of Formula 3 in instant claim 1. US ‘417 claims the anthracene derivative(s) may be of formula 3, which encompasses compounds the same as anthracene compounds recited in instant claim 1 (further note dependent claim 5 of ‘184 recites compounds 2-7 and 2-8 as specific anthracene-based compounds within formula 3). Regarding claim 6, the provision corresponds to ‘417 claim 12. Claim 7 corresponds to ‘417 claim 16. Claim 12 corresponds to ‘417 claim 15, 17, 18. Claim 13 corresponds to ‘417 claim 19. Claim 14 corresponds to ‘417 claim 20.
Therefore, given the overlap between the present claims and the copending claims, it would have been within the skill level of, as well as obvious to, one of ordinary skill in the art to use compounds to form a light emitting device which are both disclosed by copending Application No. 17/523,417 and encompassed by the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the present invention.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joo et al. (US 20200172558 A1) in view of Yoon et al. (WO 2020/138867 A1).
Joo et al. discloses an organic light emitting device comprising a light emitting layer between a pair of electrodes [6-9]. The light emitting layer comprises a host compound of formula C and a dopant of formula A-3 ([7, 16-17] and [45-49]).
PNG
media_image1.png
136
242
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
190
248
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Compounds of formula “A” meet instant boron dopant formulas 1-11 to 11-13 when the top Y is oxygen and other two Y are nitrogen (N-R1 with R1 as substituted phenyl). Z groups include R as deuterium, alkyl or hydrogen (see par. 17). With respect to anthracene compounds of formula C, Ar groups may be naphthyl and L13 can be phenylene (see groups within par. 49 compounds). Note that compounds may be deuterated (see par. 46 and groups within par. 47).
Regarding claims 1 and 6-14, Joo et al. disclose using formula A as an emitting dopant with an anthracene derivative host that the device may form a full color display device with red, green, and blue emission layers [par.3, structures of Table 1 par. 181, and claim 18]. Joo et al. does not specifically describe device layers as recited comprising emitting layers separated by charge generation layer(s) and including a color filter. In analogous art, Yoon teaches that an organic electroluminescent device can has a structure where the organic electroluminescent device has an organic light-emitting layer including a vertical stack of a first light emitting part (530), a second light emitting part (550), a third light emitting part (570), a first charge-generating layer (CGL 580), and a second charge generating layer (CGL 590) in between the light emitting parts ([0372] and [383]), wherein the multiple light emitting layers may render any of blue, red, green, or yellow ([376], [378], and [380]). (This would including two light emitting layers each containing light emitting layer materials such as those taught by Joo et al.) Additionally, Yoon teaches an organic light emission display device including a color filter that absorbs light generated from the organic electroluminescent device wherein the color filter patterns that absorb the red, green, and blue light may be disposed separately on a pixel basis, wherein each of these color filter patterns may overlap with a corresponding organic light - emitting layer of the organic electroluminescent device that emits light having a corresponding wave length and by adopting the color filter, and thereby allow the organic light emission display device to render a full color range ([392], [397], and [398], Note that a color filter may also be considered a “color conversion layer”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these display component features as taught by Yoon et al. and thereby arrive at the claimed device, because this would have been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2143.I.(A). One would expect to achieve an operational device comprising the materials and layer structure as taught by Joo et al. and Yoon et al. with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Where a claimed improvement of a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple
substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a
piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex
Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727,
1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)). Accordingly, applicant claims a combination that only
unites old elements with no change in the respective functions of those old elements, and the
combination of those elements yields predictable results; absent evidence that the modifications
necessary to effect the combination of elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of
ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte
Smith, 83 USPQ.2d at 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at
1396). Accordingly, since the applicant[s] have submitted no persuasive evidence that the
combination of the above elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in
the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) because it is no more than
the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions resulting in the
simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPGPUB references are cited that correspond to US applications referenced in the obviousness double patenting rejections of this office communication.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dawn Garrett whose telephone number is (571)272-1523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday (Eastern Time).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAWN L GARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights