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 .
Summary of Claims
Claims 1, 5, 8, and 10–12 are amended, claim 16 is new, and claim 15 is cancelled due to Applicant's amendment dated 05/26/2026. Claims 1–14 and 16 are pending.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claim 15 as set forth in the previous Office Action is moot because claim 15 is cancelled due to the Applicant's amendment dated 05/26/2026.
The rejection of claim 1 on the grounds of provisional nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/002,562 set forth in the previous Office Action is maintained as the instant application is not in condition for allowance.
The rejection of claim 1 on the grounds of provisional nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of copending Application No. 18/722,072 set forth in the previous Office Action is maintained as the instant application is not in condition for allowance.
The rejections of claims 1–14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatwar et al. (US 2010/0288362 A1, hereinafter “Hatwar”) in view of Hummert et al. (US 2017/0373251 A1, hereinafter “Hummert”) are overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 05/26/2026. The rejections are withdrawn.
The rejections of claims 1–3, 6, 8–9, and 10–14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatwar et al. (US 2010/0288362 A1, hereinafter “Hatwar”) in view of Hartmann et al. (US 2008/0265216 A1, hereinafter “Hartmann”) are overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 05/26/2026. The rejections are withdrawn.
However, new grounds of rejection have been made below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments on pages 8–10 of the reply dated 05/26/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-2 and 4–15 as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument –Applicant argues that the cited references do not teach the claims as amended. Specifically, claim 1 now requires the n-type charge generation layer to comprise a metal dopant.
Examiner's response –Hatwar appears to not teach an n-type charge generation layer which comprises metal dopants. However, for the reasons discussed in the new grounds of rejection below, the cited references meet the claims as amended.
Applicant' s arguments on pages 8–10 of the reply dated 05/26/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-3, 6, 8–9, and 10–14 as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument –Applicant argues that the cited references do not teach the claims as amended. Specifically, claim 1 now requires the n-type charge generation layer to comprise a metal dopant.
Examiner's response –Hatwar appears to not teach an n-type charge generation layer which comprises metal dopants. However, for the reasons discussed in the new grounds of rejection below, the cited references meet the claims as amended.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: Formula (IV) has a short bond going to B1. Additionally, X2 and X3 appear to be missing a bond in Formula (V). These formulae did not have these issues in the original claim set filed on 12/15/2022. However, the claim set of 05/26/2026 has slightly altered formulae which have these issues. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1–2, 4–14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao et al. (US 2003/0170491 A1, hereinafter “Liao”) in view of Hummert et al. (US 2017/0373251 A1, hereafter “Hummert”).
Regarding Claims 1–2. 4–7, 13–14, and 16, Liao teaches the stacked OLED of Fig. 5 (shown below), including an anode (210), a cathode (240), a first EL unit (320.1), a second EL unit (320.2), and a doped organic connector (230) which comprises an n-type doped organic layer (237) and a p-type doped organic layer (233) [0049] – [0059]. Liao further teaches n-type dopants in the n-type doped organic layer of the doped organic connector include metals or metal compounds [0063]. Liao teaches the p-type dopant in the p-type doped organic layer of the doped organic connector is an oxidizing agent with strong electron-withdrawing properties [0065].
Liao teaches a non-limiting list of examples of a p-type dopants [0065]. However, they do not read on Applicant’s formula (I).
PNG
media_image1.png
498
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hummert teaches a tandem organic light-emitting device comprising an anode, a cathode, and a charge generation layer between an anode and a cathode. The charge generation layer comprises a compound of formula (I) [0016], exemplified by compound B8 [0041]. Hummert further teaches the p-type dopants of formula (I) may be used instead of state-of-art p-dopants as they have large redox potentials and therefore may be used in lower concentrations [0039].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use compound B8 as the p-dopant in the p-type doped organic layer of the stacked organic light-emitting device taught by Liao, based on the teaching of Hummert. The motivation for doing so would have been to use a p-dopant with large redox potentials therefore allowing for doping in lower concentrations, as taught by Hummert.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use compound B8, because it would have been choosing between A1 to A8 and B1 to B10, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the p-dopant in the p-type doped organic layer layer of the stacked organic light-emitting device of Liao and possessing the benefits taught by Hummert. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising compound B8 having the benefits taught by Hummert in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Per Claim 1, the organic light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation since compound B8 reads on Applicants’ formulae (I), (II), and (III) (shown below),
PNG
media_image2.png
204
294
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
280
233
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein:
For A1:
X1, X2, X4, and X5 are CR1, CR2, CR4, and CR5, respectively,
X3 is N,
R1, R4, and R5 are each F,
R2 is a perfluorinated C1 alkyl (trifluoromethyl),
R’ is CN
For A2 and A3:
Ar is a C6 aryl (phenyl),
substituted with F and perfluorinated C1 alkyl (trifluoromethyl),
R’ is CN
Furthermore, compound B8 meets Applicants’ provisos b) and e).
Per Claim 2, the organic light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation since compound B8 reads on Applicants’ formulae (IV) and (V) (shown below),
PNG
media_image4.png
220
216
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
280
233
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein:
For B1:
X1, X2, X4, and X5 are CR1, CR2, CR4, and CR5, respectively,
X3 is N,
R1, R4, and R5 are each F,
R2 is a perfluorinated C1 alkyl (trifluoromethyl),
R’ is CN
For B3 and B5:
Ar is a C6 aryl (phenyl),
substituted with F and perfluorinated C1 alkyl (trifluoromethyl),
For B2, B4, and B6:
R’ is CN
Per Claim 4, the organic light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation since X3 is N, while R1, R4, and R5 are each F, and R2 is a perfluorinated C1 alkyl (trifluoromethyl) in compound B8.
Per Claim 5, the organic light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation since compound B8 may be rotated wherein A1 and A3 are swapped. In this case, R1, R2, R4, R5 are F, and R3 is perfluorinated C1 alkyl (trifluoromethyl).
PNG
media_image3.png
280
233
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
298
227
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Per Claim 6, the organic light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation since in A2 and A3 are identical in compound B8.
Per Claim 7, the organic light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation since A1 is different from A2 and A3 in compound B8.
Per Claim 13, the organic light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation as it is an electroluminescent device.
Per Claim 14, the organic light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation since Liao teaches the stacked OLED may be advantageously used in applications such as area color displays, full color displays, heads-up displays, microdisplays, and any device that requires improved brightness or lifetimes [0070].
Per Claim 16, the organic light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation since Liao teaches n-type dopants in the n-type doped organic layer of the doped organic connector include metals or metal compounds [0063].
Regarding Claim 9, the organic light-emitting device, as described above does not specify another material in the p-type doped organic layer.
Liao teaches hole-transporting materials used in conventional OLED devices represent a useful class of host materials for the p-type doped organic layer [0064]. Specifically, Liao teaches a list of non-limiting examples which includes N,N'-di(naphthalene-1-yl)-N,N'-diphenyl-benzidine (NPB) [0064]. Additionally, Liao teaches a stacked OLED device has an improved luminance efficiency, increased brightness, increased lifetime, and decreased driving voltage in comparison to a non-stacked OLED device [0027] – [0030].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use NPB as a host material in the p-type doped organic layer of the stacked OLED taught by Liao, because it would have been choosing NPB from the list of examples taught by Liao, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the host material in the p-type doped organic layer of the stacked OLED of Liao and possessing the benefits taught by Liao. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising NPB having the benefits taught by Liao in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
NPB is a substantially covalent matrix compound as it is identical to Applicants’ compound F1 in the instant specification [pg. 45] (shown below).
PNG
media_image6.png
175
289
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 10–12, the organic light-emitting device of Fig. 5 comprises a hole injection layer (321.1) [0055]. However, the composition of the hole injection layer is not specified.
Liao teaches a hole injection layer can improve charge injection from the electrode [0055]. Liao teaches an embodiment wherein NPB is used in the hole transporting layer and is used as the host in the p-type doped organic layer [0200]. Additionally, Liao teaches a stacked OLED device has an improved luminance efficiency, increased brightness, increased lifetime, and decreased driving voltage in comparison to a non-stacked OLED device [0027] – [0030].
Hummert teaches radialene p-dopants may be co-deposited with a matrix material to form a hole injection layer or a charge generation layer [0009]. Hummert further teaches the matrix material is preferably a hole transport compound which can be electrically doped with radialene p-dopants [0009]. Additionally, Hummert teaches the p-type dopants of formula (I) may be used instead of state-of-art p-dopants as they have large redox potentials and therefore may be used in lower concentrations [0039].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use NPB doped with compound B8 as the hole injection layer of the stacked OLED taught by Liao, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Hummert and Liao according to known methods to yield predictable results of a stacked OLED with the improved luminance efficiency, increased brightness, increased lifetime, and decreased driving voltage, as taught by Liao. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use compound B8, because it would have been choosing between A1 to A8 and B1 to B10, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the p-dopant in the p-type doped organic layer layer of the stacked organic light-emitting device of Liao and possessing the benefits taught by Hummert. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising compound B8 having the benefits taught by Hummert in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Per Claim 10, the organic light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation since the hole injection layer, which is positioned between the anode layer and charge generation layer, comprises compound B8, which is a compound of formula (I).
Per Claim 11, the organic light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation since the p-type charge generation layer and the hole injection layer both comprise compound B8, which is a compound of formula (I).
Per Claim 12, the organic light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation since the p-type charge generation layer and the hole injection layer both comprise NPB as the substantially covalent matrix compound.
Regarding Claims 1 and 8, the organic light-emitting device, as described above comprising compound B8, does not read on Applicants’ claim 8 since compound B8 does not read on formulae (IVa) to (IVd). Additionally, compound B8 does not read on any of the groups recited in claim 15.
Hummert teaches the p-type dopants of formula (I) may be used instead of state-of-art p-dopants as they have large redox potentials and therefore may be used in lower concentrations [0039]. Hummert further teaches exemplary structures, including compound B9 [0040]].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use compound B9 as the p-dopant in the p-type charge generation layer of the tandem organic light-emitting device taught by Liao, based on the teaching of Hummert. The motivation for doing so would have been to use a p-dopant with large redox potentials therefore allowing for doping in lower concentrations, as taught by Hummert.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use compound B9, because it would have been choosing between A1 to A8 and B1 to B10, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the p-dopant in the p-type doped organic layer layer of the stacked organic light-emitting device of Liao and possessing the benefits taught by Hummert. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising compound B8 having the benefits taught by Hummert in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Per Claim 1, the organic light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation since compound B9 reads on Applicants’ formulae (I), (II), and (III) (shown below),
PNG
media_image2.png
204
294
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
284
282
media_image7.png
Greyscale
wherein:
For A1:
X1, X3, and X5 are CR1, CR3, and CR5, respectively,
X2 and X4 are each N,
R1, R3, and R5 are each a perfluorinated C1 alkyl (trifluoromethyl).
R’ is CN
For A2 and A3:
Ar is a C6 aryl (phenyl),
substituted with F and CN
R’ is CN
Furthermore, compound B9 meets Applicants’ requirements c) to e).
Per Claim 8, the organic light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation since compound B9 reads on Applicants’ formulae (IVa) (shown below),
PNG
media_image8.png
192
235
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
284
282
media_image7.png
Greyscale
wherein:
For B1:
X1, X3, and X5 are CR1, CR3, and CR5, respectively,
X2 and X4 are each N,
R1, R3, and R5 are each a perfluorinated C1 alkyl (trifluoromethyl).
R’ is CN
For B3 and B5:
Ar is a C6 aryl (phenyl),
substituted with F and CN
For B2, B4, and B6:
R’ is CN
Claims 1–3, 6, 8–14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao et al. (US 2003/0170491 A1, hereinafter “Liao”) in view of Hartmann et al. (US 2008/0265216 A1, hereinafter “Hartmann”).
Regarding Claims 1–3, 6, 8, 13–14, and 16, Liao teaches the stacked OLED of Fig. 5 (shown below), including an anode (210), a cathode (240), a first EL unit (320.1), a second EL unit (320.2), and a doped organic connector (230) which comprises an n-type doped organic layer (237) and a p-type doped organic layer (233) [0049] – [0059]. Liao further teaches n-type dopants in the n-type doped organic layer of the doped organic connector include metals or metal compounds [0063]. Liao teaches the p-type dopant in the p-type doped organic layer of the doped organic connector is an oxidizing agent with strong electron-withdrawing properties [0065].
Liao teaches a non-limiting list of examples of a p-type dopants [0065]. However, they do not read on Applicant’s formula (I).
PNG
media_image1.png
498
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hartmann teaches p-dopants which may be used in organic light-emitting diodes, exemplified by compound 12 ([0054] and pg. 3). Hartmann further teaches charge carrier injection of the electrodes into the doped layer can be improved by the doping agents. Furthermore, the electronic components can have an improved long-time stability on account of the compounds in accordance with the invention [0007].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use compound 12 as the p-dopant in the p-type doped organic layer of the stacked OLED taught by Liao, based on the teaching of Hartmann. The motivation for doing so would have been to improved long-time stability of the OLED, as taught by Hartmann.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use compound 12, because it would have been choosing between the exemplified compounds taught by Hartmann, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the p-dopant in the p-type doped organic layer of the stacked OLED of Liao and possessing the benefits taught by Hartmann. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising compound 12 having the benefits taught by Hartmann in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Per Claim 1, the organic light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation since compound 12 reads on Applicants’ formulae (I), (II), and (III) (shown below),
PNG
media_image2.png
204
294
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
277
269
media_image9.png
Greyscale
wherein:
For A1:
X1–X5 are CR1–CR5, respectively,
R3 is CN,
R1, R2, R4, and R5 are each H,
R’ is a C6 aryl (phenyl) substituted with a CN.
For A2 and A3:
Ar is a C6 aryl substituted with a CN,
R’ C6 aryl substituted with a CN.
Furthermore, compound 12 meets Applicants’ requirement a).
Per Claim 2, the organic light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation since compound 12 reads on Applicants’ formulae (IV) and (V) (shown below),
PNG
media_image4.png
220
216
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
277
269
media_image9.png
Greyscale
wherein:
For B1:
X1–X5 are CR1–CR5, respectively,
R3 is CN,
R1, R2, R4, and R5 are each H,
For B3 and B5:
Ar is a C6 aryl substituted with a CN,
For B2, B4, and B6:
R’ is a C6 aryl substituted with a CN.
Per Claim 3, the organic light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation since in compound 12 R3 is CN and R1, R2, R4, R5 are each H.
Per Claim 6, the organic light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation since in compound 12 A2 and A3 are identical.
Per Claim 8, the organic light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation since compound 12 reads on Applicants’ formulae (IVa) (shown below),
PNG
media_image8.png
192
235
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
277
269
media_image9.png
Greyscale
wherein:
For B1:
X1–X5 are CR1–CR5, respectively,
R3 is CN,
R1, R2, R4, and R5 are each H,
For B3 and B5:
Ar is a C6 aryl substituted with a CN,
For B2, B4, and B6:
R’ is a C6 aryl substituted with a CN.
Per Claim 13, the organic light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation as it is an electroluminescent device.
Per Claim 14, the organic light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation since Liao teaches the stacked OLED may be advantageously used in applications such as area color displays, full color displays, heads-up displays, microdisplays, and any device that requires improved brightness or lifetimes [0070].
Per Claim 16, the organic light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation since Liao teaches n-type dopants in the n-type doped organic layer of the doped organic connector include metals or metal compounds [0063].
Regarding Claim 9 the organic light-emitting device, as described above does not specify another material in the p-type doped organic layer.
Liao teaches hole-transporting materials used in conventional OLED devices represent a useful class of host materials for the p-type doped organic layer [0064]. Specifically, Liao teaches a list of non-limiting examples which includes N,N'-di(naphthalene-1-yl)-N,N'-diphenyl-benzidine (NPB) [0064]. Additionally, Liao teaches a stacked OLED device has an improved luminance efficiency, increased brightness, increased lifetime, and decreased driving voltage in comparison to a non-stacked OLED device [0027] – [0030].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use NPB as a host material in the p-type doped organic layer of the stacked OLED taught by Liao, because it would have been choosing NPB from the list of examples taught by Liao, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the host material in the p-type doped organic layer of the stacked OLED of Liao and possessing the benefits taught by Liao. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising NPB having the benefits taught by Liao in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
NPB is a substantially covalent matrix compound as it is identical to Applicants’ compound F1 in the instant specification [pg. 45] (shown below).
PNG
media_image6.png
175
289
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 10–12, the organic light-emitting device of Fig. 5 comprises a hole injection layer (321.1) [0055]. However, the composition of the hole injection layer is not specified.
Liao teaches a hole injection layer can improve charge injection from the electrode [0055]. Liao teaches an embodiment wherein NPB is used in the hole transporting layer and is used as the host in the p-type doped organic layer [0200]. Additionally, Liao teaches a stacked OLED device has an improved luminance efficiency, increased brightness, increased lifetime, and decreased driving voltage in comparison to a non-stacked OLED device [0027] – [0030].
Hartmann teaches p-dopants which may be used in organic light-emitting diodes, exemplified by compound 12 [0054]. Hartmann further teaches charge carrier injection of the electrodes into the doped layer can be improved by the doping agents. Furthermore, the electronic components can have an improved long-time stability on account of the compounds in accordance with the invention [0007].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use NPB doped with compound 12 as the hole injection layer of the stacked OLED taught by Liao, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Hartmann and Liao according to known methods to yield predictable results of a stacked OLED with the improved luminance efficiency, increased brightness, increased lifetime, and decreased driving voltage, as taught by Liao. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use compound 12, because it would have been choosing between the exemplified compounds taught by Hartmann, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the p-dopant in the p-type doped organic layer of the stacked OLED of Liao and possessing the benefits taught by Hartmann. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising compound 12 having the benefits taught by Hartmann in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Per Claim 10, the organic light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation since the hole injection layer, which is positioned between the anode layer and charge generation layer, comprises compound 12, which is a compound of formula (I).
Per Claim 11, the organic light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation since the p-type charge generation layer and the hole injection layer both comprise compound 12, which is a compound of formula (I).
Per Claim 12, the organic light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation since the p-type charge generation layer and the hole injection layer both comprise NPB as the substantially covalent matrix compound.
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.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/002,562 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because independent claim 1 of ‘562 is a species of independent claim 1 of ‘008.
PNG
media_image2.png
204
294
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
242
337
media_image10.png
Greyscale
The instant application’s claim 1 recites an organic electronic device comprising an anode layer, a cathode layer and a charge generation layer, wherein the charge generation layer comprises a p-type charge generation layer and a n-type charge generation layer, wherein the p-type charge generation layer comprises a compound of formula (I), formula (II), and formula (III). Furthermore, claim 1 recites the proviso that requirement a) to e) must be satisfied.
‘562 claim 1 An organic electronic device comprising an anode layer, a cathode layer and at least one organic semiconductor layer, wherein the at least one organic semiconductor layer is arranged between the anode layer and the cathode layer; and wherein the at least one organic semiconductor layer comprises a compound of formula (I), formula (II), and formula (III).
R1–R3, X1–X3 for formula (II) of ‘562 are encompassed by X1–X5, R’ of formula (II) of the instant application. Additionally, the requirements of a) to e) of the instant application are broad and can be met by ‘562 formula (I), formula (II), and formula (III).
Therefore, independent claim 1 of ‘562 is a species of independent claim 1 of the instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of copending Application No. 18/722,072 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because independent claim 14 of ‘072 is a species of independent claim 1 of ‘008.
PNG
media_image2.png
204
294
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
192
291
media_image11.png
Greyscale
The instant application’s claim 1 recites an organic electronic device comprising an anode layer, a cathode layer and a charge generation layer, wherein the charge generation layer comprises a p-type charge generation layer and a n-type charge generation layer, wherein the p-type charge generation layer comprises a compound of formula (I), formula (II), and formula (III). Furthermore, claim 1 recites the proviso that requirement a) to e) must be satisfied.
‘072 claim 14 recites a compound according to formula (XI), formula (XIIa), and formula (XIII).
The difference between formula (II) of the instant application and formula (XIIIa) of ‘072 is that formula (XIIIa) requires that X4 be CR4, which is allowed by formula (II). Additionally, the requirements of a) to e) of the instant application are broad and can be met by ‘072 formula (XI), formula (XIIa), and formula (XIII).
Therefore, independent claim 14 of ‘072 is a species of independent claim 1 of the instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
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 JAMES RICHARD FORTWENGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-5433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am - 5 pm.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571) 270-7692. 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.
/J.R.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/BRAELYN R WATSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights