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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 23, 2026 has been entered.
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed February 23, 2026 is sufficient to overcome the rejection of the claims based upon Fujita et al. (US 2019/0280209 A1).
The rejection of claims 1, 27-30, 38, and 45-49 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita et al. (US 2019/0280209 A1) is withdrawn due to the declaration, amendment, and response received February 23, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 51 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, (page 3 of claim set) the word “phenantryl” is misspelled.
In claim 51, the word “phenantryl” is misspelled.
Appropriate correction is 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, 27-30, 38, 45-49, and 51-54 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 32-60, 63, 66, 72, 74, 75, 77, 78, 80, 81, and 83 of copending Application No. 17/642,224 (Note: The application is scheduled to publish as U.S. Patent 12,666,861). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because independent claim 1 of ‘224 sets forth a device with an anthracene derivative and sets forth a pyrene derivative that are overlapping in scope with instant first and second compounds.
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 device which are both disclosed by US application 17/642,224 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, 27-30, 38, 45-48, 51, and 52 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,581,849 (previously copending Application No. 17/642,666). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because independent claims 1, 4, and 7 of ‘849 sets forth a device with a pyrene derivative and dependent claims 16-20 set forth an anthracene derivative that are overlapping in scope with instant first and second compounds.
Therefore, given the overlap between the present claims and the patented 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 device which are both disclosed by US 12,581,849 and encompassed by the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the present invention.
Claims 1, 27-30, 38, 45, 47, 48, and 51-54 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 45, and 62 of copending Application No. 17/642,652 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because independent claim 1 of 17/642,652 sets forth a device with a pyrene derivative and anthracene derivative that are overlapping in scope with instant first and second compounds. While ‘652 further recites layer thicknesses, the instant claims are not limited to a certain thickness.
Therefore, given the overlap between the present claims and the co-pending 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 device which are both disclosed by US 17/642,652 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, 27-30, 38, 45-48, and 51-54 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 23, 24, 26, 28, 30, 38-42, 44, 49-53, and 55 of copending Application No. 17/642,222 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because independent claims 1 and 24 of 17/642,222 sets forth a device with a pyrene derivative and anthracene derivative that are overlapping in scope with instant first and second compounds. While ‘222 further recites further materials and features, the instant claims do not exclude the further limitations from being present.
Therefore, given the overlap between the present claims and the co-pending 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 device which are both disclosed by US 17/642,222 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered. No specific arguments against the obviousness double patenting rejection(s) were provided.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wee, Kyung-Ryang, et al. "Asymmetric anthracene-based blue host materials: synthesis and electroluminescence properties of 9-(2-naphthyl)-10-arylanthracenes." Journal of Materials Chemistry 21.4 (2011): 1115-1123.
The reference discusses anthracene-based host materials. The reference is considered relevant to the field of the invention.
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