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 of Species
Applicant’s election without traverse of the following in the reply filed on 9 January 2026 is acknowledged:
PNG
media_image1.png
324
834
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 13-17 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 13 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “C1 – C60 heterocyclic group” (emphasis added) with respect to the each of the substituents CY1,CY2, R1 to R4, R10a, Q1 to Q3, Q13 to Q21, and Q31 to Q33 in the host compound of formula 1; the scope of the protection sought is not clear, since “C1 – C60” includes one carbon atom, and a heterocyclic group requires a minimum of two carbon atoms. Claim 13 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim each of the substituents CY1,CY2, R1 to R4, R10a, Q1 to Q3, Q13 to Q21, and Q31 to Q33 in the host compound of formula 1 contained in the claimed light-emitting device.
Claim 14 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “C1 – C60 heterocyclic group” (emphasis added) with respect to the each of the substituents CY1,CY2, R21, R22, Ar1, Ar2, Ar21, R10a, Q1 to Q3, Q11 to Q13, Q21 to Q23, and Q31 to Q33 in the host compound of formula 2; the scope of the protection sought is not clear, since each of “C1 – C30” and “C1 – C60” includes one carbon atom, and a heterocyclic group requires a minimum of two carbon atoms. Claim 14 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim each of the substituents CY1,CY2, R21, R22, Ar1, Ar2, Ar21, R10a, Q1 to Q3, Q11 to Q13, Q21 to Q23, and Q31 to Q33 in the host compound of formula 2 contained in the claimed light-emitting device.
Claim 14 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “in T21, * indicates a binding site to a neighboring atom“ (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by, and the antecedent basis of, each of a “binding site” and a ”neighboring atom“ is not clear. Claim 14 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the point of attachment of the substituent T21 to the ring CY21 in the compound of formula 2 contained in the claimed
Claim 16 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “C1 – C30 heterocyclic group” (emphasis added) with respect to the each of the substituents L31 to L34, and “C1 – C60 heterocyclic group” (emphasis added) with respect to the each of the substituents R31 thru R34, R10a, Q1 to Q3, Q11 to Q13, Q21 to Q23, and Q31 to Q33 in the host compound of formula 3; the scope of the protection sought is not clear, since each of “C1 – C30” and “C1 – C60” includes one carbon atom, and a heterocyclic group requires a minimum of two carbon atoms. Claim 16 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim each of the substituents L31 to L34, R31 thru R34, R10a, Q1 to Q3, Q11 to Q13, Q21 to Q23, and Q31 to Q33 in the host compound of formula 3 contained in the claimed light-emitting device.
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 1-12 and 18-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 9-12, and 15-20 of copending Application No. 17/975,472 (corresponding to U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0139475). 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 a light emitting device characterized by comprising light-emitting device, and the corresponding use thereof said light-emitting device in an electronic apparatus, characterized in that said light-emitting device comprises a first electrode, a second electrode facing the first electrode, and an interlayer between the first electrode and the second electrode and comprising an emission layer, wherein the emission layer comprises a first emission layer and a second emission layer, the first emission layer comprises a first host, the second emission layer comprises a second host and a third host.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-12 and18-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8, 15, 16, and 18-20 of copending Application No. 17/454,006 (corresponding to U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0149293). 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 a light emitting device characterized by comprising light-emitting device, and the corresponding use thereof said light-emitting device in an electronic apparatus, characterized in that said light-emitting device comprises a first electrode, a second electrode facing the first electrode, and an interlayer between the first electrode and the second electrode and comprising an emission layer, wherein the emission layer comprises a first emission layer and a second emission layer, the first emission layer comprises a first host, the second emission layer comprises a second host and a third host.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-12 and 18-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12, 15, and 18-20 of copending Application No. 17/729,446 (corresponding to U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0135170). 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 a light emitting device characterized by comprising light-emitting device, and the corresponding use thereof said light-emitting device in an electronic apparatus, characterized in that said light-emitting device comprises a first electrode, a second electrode facing the first electrode, and an interlayer between the first electrode and the second electrode and comprising an emission layer, wherein the emission layer comprises a first emission layer and a second emission layer, the first emission layer comprises a first host, the second emission layer comprises a second host and a third host.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lim et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0320256).
Lim et al. discloses a light emitting device characterized by comprising light-emitting device, and the corresponding use thereof said light-emitting device in an electronic apparatus, wherein said light-emitting device comprises a first electrode, a second electrode facing the first electrode, and an interlayer between the first electrode and the second electrode and comprising an emission layer, wherein the emission layer comprises a first emission layer and a second emission layer, the first emission layer comprises a first host, the second emission layer comprises a second host and a third host, characterized in that the
second host may be represented by a compound inclusive of the compound of the elected species of formula 2-1, as represented therein by
PNG
media_image2.png
217
411
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(p.31),
the third host may be represented by a compound inclusive of the compound of the elected species of formula 3-1, as represented therein by
PNG
media_image3.png
184
392
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(p.31), and
the first host may be represented by a pyrene compound inclusive of the pyrene compound of the present formula 1
PNG
media_image4.png
228
225
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, as represented by the compounds beginning on p. 69, such as
PNG
media_image5.png
367
395
media_image5.png
Greyscale
wherein CY1 is a C6 carbocyclic group, a1 = 1 and R1 is N(Q1)(Q2), wherein each of Q1 and Q2 is a phenyl group, CY2 is a C6 carbocyclic group, a2 = 1 and R2 is N(Q1)(Q2), wherein each of Q1 and Q2 is a phenyl group, a3 = 1 and R3 = hydrogen, and a4 = 1 and R4 = hydrogen.
Although Lim et al. does not expressly illustrate light-emitting device characterized containing 1st and second light-emitting layers comprising a combination of the aforementioned host compounds inclusive of the present formula 1, 2-1, and 3-1, they are well known in art, individually as well as in combination, as generally taught therein. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the requisite art at the time the invention was filed to utilize host compounds inclusive of the present formula 1, 2-1, and 3-1, in the light-emitting layers of Lim et al. as generally taught therein, with reasonable expectations of achieving, absent object evidence to the contrary, the advantages taught therein, as well as those associated with their combination thereof.
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims limited to comprising a first host represented by the elected species of formulae 1-1, i.e., the pyrene triphenylsilyl phenyl compound represented by
PNG
media_image6.png
244
290
media_image6.png
Greyscale
, would be allowable.
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. 2023/0165022, 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