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 Request for Continued Examination filed 22 July 2026, whereby the Amendment and Remarks filed 9 July 2026 were entered. Claims 1-4 and 6-20 are pending and presently under consideration in this application.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112(pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as set forth in paragraph 12 of the previous FINAL office action on the merits, is hereby withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment to claim 1.
Applicants have amended the base independent claim 1 with respect to the substituent L13 in the host compound of formula 2 contained in the claimed organic light-emitting device, to “a substituted or unsubstituted C1-C20 alkylene group, a substituted or unsubstituted C2-C20 alkenylene group, an unsubstituted C5-C60 carbocyclic group, or a substituted or unsubstituted C1-C60 heterocyclic group” (emphasis added).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9 July 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Ahn et al. (‘632), as set forth in paragraph 15 of the previous FINAL office action on the merits, said argument essentially to the effect that the amendment to claim limiting the substituent L13 in the host compound of formula 2 contained in the claimed organic light-emitting device to being an unsubstituted C5-C60 carbocyclic group distinguishes it from the prior art of record, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The aforementioned rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed 9 July 2026 with respect to the alleged allowability of the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: the appropriate punctuation, i.e., a period at the end of the claim, is missing. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: page 33 of the claims filed 9 July 2026 is blank. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(s)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0309841).
Claim 8 of Kim et al. teaches an organic light-emitting device comprising a first electrode and a second electrode facing the first electrode and an emission layer there between said first and second electrode, wherein said emission layer comprises phosphorescent dopant and a triazine-silicon-containing host compound of the present formula 2, as exemplified by the following compounds:
PNG
media_image1.png
251
388
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
403
416
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
315
401
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
338
390
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
339
416
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
309
425
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
327
410
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
426
413
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
299
409
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
323
414
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
350
413
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
387
409
media_image12.png
Greyscale
As for whether the emission layer of the inventive organic light-emitting device exhibits a photoluminescence spectrum comprising a first peak (Imax) having a maximum intensity and a second peak (I2nd) having a second highest intensity, wherein a rate of change of an intensity of the second peak of the emission layer is greater than an intensity of the second peak, or the transient photoluminescence decay curve, and/or whether the host and the phosphorescent dopant form an exciplex, the Examiner notes that a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. [MPEP 2112.01 In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)].
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 and 6-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,201,017. 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 device comprising a first electrode and a second electrode facing the first electrode and an emission layer there between said first and second electrode, wherein said emission layer comprises phosphorescent dopant and a triazine-silicon-containing host compound of the present formula 2.
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, Anthony J 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.
GERALDINA VISCONTI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1737
/GERALDINA VISCONTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737
Prosecution Insights