DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claims 16-32 are currently pending. Claims 1-15 have been canceled. Claims 16, 17, 19, 20, 25 and 28 are currently pending.
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 16-32 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16-33 of copending Application No. 18/026,569 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the instant claims and copending application ‘569 have claims drawn to an organic electroluminescent device comprising a light-emitting layer B ( “a light emitting layer” as recited by copending application ‘569) comprising a TADF material EB having a lowermost excited sublet state energy level E(S1E) and a lowermost excited triplet state energy level E (T1E) ( see TADF material in claim 16 and claim 31 of copending application ‘569); a small full width at half maximum (FWHM) emitter SB having a lowermost excited singlet state energy level E(S1s) and a lowermost excited triplet stated energy level E (T1s), wherein SB is to emit light with a full width at half maximum (FWHM) of less than or equal to 0.25 eV and to emit light with an emission maximum between 440 nm and 480 nm ( see emitter (ii) in claim 16 of copending application ‘569); an excitation energy transfer component EET-2 being selected from the group consisting of a TADF material EB and a phosphorescence material PB ( see claims 22 and 23 of copending application ‘569) and a host material HB having a lowermost excited singlet state energy E (SH) and a lowermost excited triplet state energy level E ( T1H) ( see host material recited in claims 16 and 31 of copending application ‘569). The instant claims and copending application ‘569 recite open claim language “comprising”; therefore, it would have been obvious to include other components in their respective invention. Furthermore, the organic electroluminescent device of copending application ‘569 comprises an exciton management layer adjacent to the light-emitting layer and comprising a triplet-triplet-annihilation (TTA) material ( see one adjacent layer adjacent to the light-emitting layer B comprising a triplet-triplet-annihilation (TTA) material in claim 25 of the instant claims).
The present claims indicated above also cover the method for generating light which overlap the claims of copending Application No. 18/026,569, and thus , render the present claims prima facie obvious.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 16-32 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 21-40 of copending Application No. 18/026,328 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the instant claims and copending application ‘’328 have claims drawn to an organic electroluminescent device comprising a light-emitting layer B ( “at least one light emitting layer” as recited by copending application ‘328) comprising a TADF material EB having a lowermost excited sublet state energy level E(S1E) and a lowermost excited triplet state energy level E (T1E) ( see the at least one TADF material in claim 21 and claim 23 of copending application ‘328); a small full width at half maximum (FWHM) emitter SB having a lowermost excited singlet state energy level E(S1s) and a lowermost excited triplet stated energy level E (T1s), wherein SB is to emit light with a full width at half maximum (FWHM) of less than or equal to 0.25 eV and to emit light with an emission maximum between 440 nm and 480 nm ( see at least one small full width at half maximum ( FWHM) in claim 21 of copending application ‘328); an excitation energy transfer component EET-2 being selected from the group consisting of a TADF material EB and a phosphorescence material PB ( see “at least one phosphorescence material in claims 21 of copending application ‘569) and a host material HB having a lowermost excited singlet state energy E (SH) and a lowermost excited triplet state energy level E ( T1H) (see host material recited in claims 21 and 24 of copending application ‘328). The instant claims and copending application ‘328 recite open claim language “comprising”; therefore, it would have been obvious to include other components in their respective invention.
The present claims indicated above also cover the method for generating light which overlap the claims of copending Application No. 18/026,328, and thus , render the present claims prima facie obvious.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 16-24 and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Hong et al. (US 2020/0136059 A1).
Regarding claims 16-24 and 27-29, Hong et al. ( see abstract, claims, figures 2, 4, 7 and 8, examples and paragraphs [0106, 0134, 0138, 0165-0175, 183-0190 & 0231]) teach “an organic electroluminescent device comprising at least one light emitting layer B ( EML1-EML-3) comprising: a TADF material EB having a lowermost excited sublet state energy level E(S1E) and a lowermost excited triplet state energy level E (T1E) ( see Compound 1 or compound 6); a small full width at half maximum (FWHM) emitter SB having a lowermost excited singlet state energy level E(S1s) and a lowermost excited triplet stated energy level E (T1s), wherein SB is to emit light with a full width at half maximum (FWHM) of less than or equal to 0.25 eV and to emit light with an emission maximum between 440 nm and 480 nm ( see chemical formula 7, [0136] , ( blue light ; [0036]) and Table 1); an excitation energy transfer component EET-2 being selected from the group consisting of a TADF material EB and a phosphorescence material PB ( see BODIPY [0185], and derivatives page 27, FD-1 to FD-5 and BODIY dye implicitly or Compounds 2 and 6, Fig. 8 and Table 1) and a host material HB having a lowermost excited singlet state energy E (SH) and a lowermost excited triplet state energy level E ( T1H) (see Compounds 1, 3 and 5, Table 1 and fig. 8). The light emitter layer comprises less than or equal to 5% by weight of one or more phosphorescence material [0187]. Hong et al. discloses in Table 1 the positions of the triplet levels of the different compounds in accordance with present claims 17-19. Hong discloses in paragraph [0139] the subject-matter of claim 20 for a boron comprising FWHM emitter. The additional features concerning an ΔEst of 0.4 EV and the PLQY>30% of the TASF compound are disclosed in [0088, 0115-0016 and 0142]. Also, Hong et al. discloses the EET-2 is a phosphorescence material [0057-0059, 01014175 & 0175], which comprises a structure according to formula PB-1 [0141]. The position of the HOMO levels is disclosed in Fig. 8 and Table 1 according to presently claimed invention Hong et al. teach a method for generating light, the method comprising providing an organic electroluminescent device and applying an electric current to the organic electroluminescent device [0231].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al. (US 2020/0136059 A1) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Umeda et al. (WO 2019/186727 A1; citations from US equivalent 2021/0083218 A1).
Regarding claims 25-26, Hong et al. do not explicitly recite “wherein one adjacent layer adjacent to the light-emitting layer B comprises a triplet-triplet-annihilation (TTA) material as instantly claimed. Nonetheless, the examiner has added Umeda et al. to teach it is well-known to one of ordinary skilled in the art of organic electroluminescent device to include an adjacent layer including a host material that can be adamantane anthracene as a Triplet-Triplet Annihilation (TTA) host material [0035], which meets the limitation of Formula 4 as instantly claimed. Umeda et al. and Hong et al. are analogous art in the field of organic electroluminescent device Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify the organic electroluminescent device of Hong et al. to include to include an adjacent layer including a host material that can be adamantane anthracene as a Triplet-Triplet Annihilation (TTA) host material as disclosed by Umeda et al. in view of aiding in exciton and light emission.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Sharifidehsari et al. (US 2024/0049492 A1; see abstract, claims and examples) teach an organic electroluminescent device including one or more light-emitting layers B as instantly claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 07/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s principal arguments are the following:
A) Applicants request that the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejections to at least amended claim and its dependents be reconsidered and withdrawn.
Examiner respectfully disagrees .The current amendments to claim 16 do not overcome the ODP rejections. Therefore, the rejections are maintained for reasons of records.
B) Applicants traverse the rejection over Hong et al. In the present disclosure, the components of the emissive layer ( e.g., the TADF material EET-2, FWHM emitter and host) are all contained within a single light-emitting layer B. In contrast, Hong appears to disclosure that these components are distributed across three separate emissive layers. A reference that instead distributes those components across multiple, separate emissive layers does not disclose the claimed combination arranged as recited within a single light-emitting layer B. Accordingly, the Applicants respectfully submits that the organic electroluminescent device of the present disclosure is structurally different from the device disclosed in Hong and would have been anticipated by, or rendered obvious in view of Hong.
Examiner respectfully disagrees that the organic electroluminescent device of the present disclosure is structurally different from the device disclosed in Hong and would have been anticipated by or rendered obvious in view of Hong. In response to applicants’ argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., single light-emitting layer B) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Hong teaches each and every component recited independent claim 16. See citations above. There is no mention that light emitting layer B is a single layer. It is noted that the present disclosure teaches more than one light emitting B as well as more than one sublayers may make up light-emitting layer B ( see page 29, lines 20-36). Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHANCEITY N ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8:00 am-6:00 pm; IFP; PHP).
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/CHANCEITY N ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737
