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 .
This office action is responsive to the Amendment and Remarks filed 12 January 2026, wherein claims 2, 3, 5, and 7-15 were canceled, and claims 24-25 were newly added. Subsequently, claims 1, 4, 6, and 16-25 are pending and presently under consideration in this application.
Election of Species
Applicant’s election without traverse of the organic light emitting diode containing a red emitting material layer comprising: a first compound represented by RD1
PNG
media_image1.png
166
226
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, and a second compound represented by RHH-4
PNG
media_image2.png
290
372
media_image2.png
Greyscale
in the reply filed on 12 January 2026 is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner notes that the organic light emitting diode of the base independent claim 1 has been amended to delete the inclusion of a “third compound” in the red emitting material layer
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
the recitation of each of “[Formula 1-1]”, “[Formula 2-1]”, “[Formula 1-4]”, and “[Formula 1-8]” is superfluous. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6, and 16-25 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.
Amended claim 1 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “a first emitting part including a first red emitting material layer and positioned between the first and second electrodes” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by a first emitting “part” is not clear. For applicant’s convenience the dictionary definition of “part” is included with this office action. Regarding claim 1, the phrase "part" renders the claim indefinite because the claim includes emitting parts not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "part"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 1 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the contents of the claimed organic light emitting diode.
Amended claim 1 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “
PNG
media_image3.png
93
65
media_image3.png
Greyscale
is an auxiliary ligand“ (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by "auxiliary" is not clear. For applicant’s convenience the dictionary definition of “auxiliary” is included with this office action. Regarding claim 1, the phrase "auxiliary" ligand renders the claim indefinite because the claim includes ligands not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "auxiliary"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 1 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the compound of formula 1-1 contained in the claimed organic light emitting diode.
Amended claim 1 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “L1 is selected from the group consisting of an unsubstituted or substituted C6-C30 arylene group and an unsubstituted or substituted C3-C30 heteroarylene group, and a is 0” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by reciting the definition of the substituent L1 is not clear in light of the amendment to claim 1 whereby “a” in the compound of formula 2-1
PNG
media_image4.png
264
398
media_image4.png
Greyscale
is precluded from being 1. Claim 1 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the compound of formula 2-1 contained in the claimed organic light emitting diode.
Amended claim 16 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites
“wherein a weight % of the second compound is greater than a weight % of the first compound” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by an arbitrary weight % is not clear. Claim 16 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the contents of the claimed organic light emitting diode, i.e., wherein the weight % of the second compound is greater than the weight % of the first compound.
Claim 17 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “further comprising: a second emitting part including a second red emitting material layer and positioned between the first emitting part and the second electrode” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by each of a first emitting “part” and a second emitting “part” is not clear. For applicant’s convenience the dictionary definition of “part” is included with this office action. Regarding claim 17, the phrase "part" renders the claim indefinite because the claim includes emitting parts not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "part"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 17 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the contents of the claimed organic light emitting diode.
Amended claim 18 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites
“wherein the second emitting material layer includes a fourth compound represented by Formula 1-1, and a fifth compound represented by Formula 2-1” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by each of “fourth compound” and a “fifth compound” is not clear, as there is insufficient antecedent basis for a “third” compound. Claim 18 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the contents of the claimed organic light emitting diode, i.e., wherein the second emitting material layer includes a compound represented by Formula 1-1, and a compound represented by Formula 2-1.
Claim 19 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “comprising: a second emitting part including a first blue emitting material layer and positioned between the first electrode and the first emitting part“ (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by each of a first emitting “part” and a second emitting “part” is not clear. For applicant’s convenience the dictionary definition of “part” is included with this office action. Regarding claim 19, the phrase "part" renders the claim indefinite because the claim includes emitting parts not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "part"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 19 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the contents of the claimed organic light emitting diode.
Claim 20 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “comprising: a third emitting part including a second blue emitting material layer and positioned between the first emitting part and the second electrode” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by each of a first emitting “part” and a third emitting “part” is not clear. For applicant’s convenience the dictionary definition of “part” is included with this office action. Regarding claim 20, the phrase "part" renders the claim indefinite because the claim includes emitting parts not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "part"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 20 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the contents of the claimed organic light emitting diode.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected as being vague and indefinite when they each recite “wherein the first emitting part further includes” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by a first emitting “part” is not clear. For applicant’s convenience the dictionary definition of “part” is included with this office action. Regarding each of claims 21 and 22, the phrase "part" renders the claim indefinite because the claim includes emitting parts not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "part"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claims 21 and 22 each fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the contents of the claimed organic light emitting diode.
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, 4, 6, and 16-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,501,827. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are drawn to an organic light emitting diode characterized by containing a light emitting layer comprising a combination of a first compound inclusive of the compound of the present general formula 1-1, and the more specific formula RD1, and a second compound inclusive of the compound of the present general formula 2-1, and the more specific formula RHH-4.
Claims 1, 4, 6, and 16-25 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 17/953,826 (corresponding to U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0139277). Although the claims at issue are not identical, the Examiner notes that they are obvious variants thereof each other, and that they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are drawn to an organic light emitting diode characterized by containing a red emitting material layer comprising a combination of a first compound inclusive of the compound of the present general formula 1-1, and the more specific formula RD1, and a second compound inclusive of the compound of the present general formula 2-1, and the more specific formula RHH-4.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 4, 6, and 16-25 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-25 of copending Application No. 17/953,866 (corresponding to U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0124167). Although the claims at issue are not identical, the Examiner notes that they are obvious variants thereof each other, and that they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are drawn to an organic light emitting diode characterized by containing a red emitting material layer comprising a combination of a first compound inclusive of the compound of the present general formula 1-1, and the more specific formula RD1, and a second compound inclusive of the compound of the present general formula 2-1, and the more specific formula RHH-4.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: - U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0309373, which is the pre-grant publication corresponding to the present application; as well as
- U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0127288 and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0148324, each of which teaches an organic light emitting diode comprising a 1H-Benzo[de]naphtho[2,3-h]quinoline-iridium-containing compound of the present formula RD1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Geraldina Visconti whose telephone number is (571)272-1334. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Mark F Huff can be reached at 571-272-1385. 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.
GERALDINA VISCONTI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1737
/GERALDINA VISCONTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737