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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-17, with compound A-2
PNG
media_image1.png
221
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
as the species for the compound of formula (I), and compound B-17
PNG
media_image2.png
372
455
media_image2.png
Greyscale
as the species for the compound of formula (II), in the reply filed on 5 March 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “each compound of claim 18 in Group II includes a triazinyl moiety, and is a compound of formula (I) of claim 1”. This is not found persuasive because the organic light emitting diode and corresponding use thereof said organic light emitting diode in a device of Group I and the 9 specific compounds of Group II, do not relate to a single general inventive concept.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 18 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 5 March 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: it ends with a semicolon of a period. 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 1-17 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.
Claim 1 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites formula (I): (Ar1-Ac)a-Xb (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought is not clear since as presently written each of subscripts “c” and “b” do not clearly represent the number of substituents “A” and “X” respectively. Claim 1 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the substituents “A” and “X” in the compound of formula (I) contained in the claimed organic light emitting diode. This may easily be rectified by rewriting formula (I) as (Ar1-(A)c)a-(X)b.
Claim is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “the molecular dipole moment of the compound of formula (I) is ≥ o D and ≤ 4 D” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by each of “o” and “D” is not clear, as they are not defined. Claim 1 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the compound of formula (I) contained I the claimed organic light emitting diode.
Claim 1 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites formula (II): (Ar2)m-(Zk -G)n (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought is not clear since as presently written the subscript “k” does not clearly represent the number of substituent “Z”. Claim 1 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the substituent “Z” in the compound of formula (II) contained in the claimed organic light emitting diode. This may easily be rectified by rewriting formula (II) as (Ar2)m-((Z)k -G)n.
Claim 1 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “G is chosen so that the dipole moment of a compound G-phenyl is ≥ 1D and ≤ 7D” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by “G-phenyl” is not clear. Claim 1 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the the definition of “D”. Also, the phrase “G is chosen so that the dipole moment of a compound G-phenyl is” renders the claim indefinite, because the claim includes groups not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "“G is chosen so that the dipole moment" is), 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 substituent “G” in the compound of formula (II) contained I 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 1-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of copending Application No. 18/000,910 (corresponding to U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0225201). 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 and corresponding use thereof said organic light emitting diode in a device, characterized in that said organic light emitting diode comprises a substrate, an anode, a cathode, a first emission layer, an electron injection layer and a second electron transport layer stack, wherein the second electron transport layer stack is arranged between the first emission layer and the electron injection layer, wherein at least one of the first electron transport layer stack and the second electron transport layer stack comprises independently a first electron transport layer and a second electron transport layer, characterized in that said first electron transport layer comprises a compound of Formula (I) encompassing the elected species of formula A-2, and said second electron transport layer comprises a compound of Formula (II) encompassing the elected species of formula B-17.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of copending Application No. 18/000,006 (corresponding to U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0292595). 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 and corresponding use thereof said organic light emitting diode in a device, characterized in that said organic light emitting diode comprises a substrate, an anode, a cathode, a first emission layer, an electron injection layer and a second electron transport layer stack, wherein the second electron transport layer stack is arranged between the first emission layer and the electron injection layer, wherein at least one of the first electron transport layer stack and the second electron transport layer stack comprises independently a first electron transport layer and a second electron transport layer, characterized in that said first electron transport layer comprises a compound of Formula (I) encompassing the elected species of formula A-2, and said second electron transport layer comprises a compound of Formula (II) encompassing the elected species of formula B-17.
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. 2023/0270004, which is the pre-grant publication corresponding to the present application.
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
Prosecution Insights