DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 18, 2026 has been entered.
The claim amendment dated June 18, 2026 has been entered. Claim 1 and 12 were amended. Claims 2-5, 15, and 16 are canceled claims. Claims 1 and 6-14 are pending.
The rejection of claim 12 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U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention as set forth in the last office action (mailed April 1, 2026) is withdrawn due to the amendment received June 18, 2026.
The rejection of claims 1 and 6-14 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 (WO 2020/138867 A1) as set forth in the last office action (mailed April 1, 2026) is withdrawn due to the amendment and response received June 18, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the second dopant is at least one of the compounds in Formula 3, and the second host is at least one of the compounds in Formula 4”, but claim 1, upon which claim 6 depends, already requires “wherein each of the first dopant and the second dopant is one of compounds in Formula 3” and “wherein each of the first host and the second host is one of compounds in Formula 4”. Accordingly, it is not seen how claim 6 further limits claim 1, since the requirement of claim 6 for second dopant and second host is provided for in claim 1. Claim 7 is included in the rejection, because claim 7 depends from claim 6.
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 (1-11) and an anthracene host (2-7) 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, which is 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 or 1-12 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. (Note that a notice of allowance has been mailed in the co-pending application, but the application has not issued as a patent yet.)
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 or 1-12, 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. (Note that a notice of allowance has been mailed in the co-pending application, but the application has not issued as a patent yet.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 18, 2026 have been fully considered. The remarks state on page 8 “Applicant has filed herewith a terminal disclaimer over the ‘475, ‘606, ‘184 and ‘417 applications”. No terminal disclaimers have been received and accordingly, the double patenting rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
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