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 the following species in the reply filed on 15 May 2026 is acknowledged:
an organic electroluminescence device and the corresponding electronic device comprising said organic electroluminescence device, wherein said organic electroluminescence device comprises an emitting layer characterized by containing a third material having at least one group represented by a group of formula
PNG
media_image1.png
186
383
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein X31, X32, X34, and X36 are each CR31, Y31 to Y38 are each CR37, and, R31 and R37 are each hydrogen.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that “the office action does not show a search burden and a search has not yet been conducted”. This is not found persuasive.
Initially, the Examiner notes that there are eight different groups in the Election of Species, i.e., a group of formula (30b-1), a group of formula (30c-1), a group of formula (30d-1), a group of formula (30e-1), a group of formula (30e-2), a group of formula (30g), a group of formula (30h), and a group of formula (30i), are simply that ,i.e., groups contained in a compound, and not a single complete structural formula for a compound. Each of the aforementioned eight groups then contains hundreds of possible substituent combinations therein requiring a different search query.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1-24 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 multiple definitions for the substituents such as (including, but not limited to) the substituents Y31, Y38 and R33 . The scope of the protection sought is not clear, as the claim fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the substituent definition corresponding to the group it is contained in.
Claim 1 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites each of “Y31, Y32 and Y35 to Y38 each independently represent a nitrogen atom, CR32 or a carbon atom bonded to another atom in the molecule of the third material” (emphasis added), “Y41 to Y45, Y47 and Y48 each independently represent a nitrogen atom, CR34 or a carbon atom bonded to another atom in the molecule of the third material” (emphasis added),“Y31 to Y38, Y41 to Y48 and Y51 to Y58 each independently represent a nitrogen atom, CR37 or a carbon atom bonded to another atom in the molecule of the third material”
(emphasis added). The scope of the protection sought by and antecedent basis of “another atom” is not clear, especially as the third material is simply described by a property, i.e., “the third material has a singlet energy larger than a singlet energy of the second material” and as it “includes at least one group selected from the group consisting of a group of formula” (emphasis added). Claim 1 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the contents of, i.e., the third material, in the claimed organic electroluminescence device.
Claim 1 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites the formulae
(30b-1), (30c-1), (30d-1), (30e-1), (30e-2), (30g), (30h), and (30i), each of which comprises
PNG
media_image2.png
70
87
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(emphasis added) with the recitations “a wavy line shows a bonding position with another atom or another structure in the molecule of the third material, (emphasis added) and “a wavy line(s) shows a bonding position with another atom or another structure in the molecule of the third material, (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by and antecedent basis of “another atom or another structure” is not clear, especially as the third material is simply described by a property, i.e., “the third material has a singlet energy larger than a singlet energy of the second material” and as it “includes at least one group selected from the group consisting of a group of formula” (emphasis added). Claim 1 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the contents, i.e., the third material, in the claimed organic electroluminescence device.
Claim 1 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “R51 to R54 each independently represent the same as R33 and R35 each being the substituent” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought, especially as by “represent the same as” is not clear. Claim 1 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the contents of the claimed organic electroluminescence device.
Claim 2 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “wherein Y39 and Y49 are each independently an oxygen atom or a sulfur atom” (emphasis added). The scope of the protection sought by and antecedent basis for the substituent is not clear, as the claim fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim group containing the referenced substituent. Claim 3 is similarly rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “wherein R31 is a hydrogen atom or a substituent”. Claim 4 is similarly rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “wherein R31 is a hydrogen atom”. Claim 5 is similarly rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “wherein X31, X32, X34 and X36 are each independently”. Claim 6 is similarly rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “wherein R32 is a hydrogen atom or a substituent”. Claim 7 is similarly rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “wherein R32 is a hydrogen atom or substituted”. Claim 8 is similarly rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “wherein Y31 to Y31 are each independently”.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected as being vague and indefinite when they each recite “wherein the third material is an aromatic heterocyclic compound” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by an antecedent basis of “an aromatic heterocyclic compound” is not clear, especially as the third material is simply described by a property, i.e., “the third material has a singlet energy larger than a singlet energy of the second material” and as it “includes at least one group selected from the group consisting of a group of formula” (emphasis added). Claim 1 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the contents of, i.e., the third material, in the claimed organic electroluminescence 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 1-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-48 of U.S. Patent No. 9,905,779. 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 electroluminescence device characterized by comprising an anode, an emitting layer; and a cathode, characterized in that said emitting layer comprises a first material, a second material and a third material, wherein the first material is a fluorescent material, the second material is a delayed fluorescent material, and the third material has a singlet energy larger than a singlet energy of the second material.
Claims 1-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-77 of U.S. Patent No. 10,811,616. 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 electroluminescence device characterized by comprising an anode, an emitting layer; and a cathode, characterized in that said emitting layer comprises a first material, a second material and a third material, wherein the first material is a fluorescent material, the second material is a delayed fluorescent material, and the third material has a singlet energy larger than a singlet energy of the second material.
Claims 1-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,569,456. 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 electroluminescence device characterized by comprising an anode, an emitting layer; and a cathode, characterized in that said emitting layer comprises a first material, a second material and a third material, wherein the first material is a fluorescent material, the second material is a delayed fluorescent material, and the third material has a singlet energy larger than a singlet energy of the second material.
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. 2023/0126981, which is the pre-grant publication corresponding to the present application, - U.S. Patent No. 8,847,218, which teaches an organic electroluminescence device comprising a phenylcarbazole compound, as well as a fluorescent material, and - Volyniuk et al., "Highly Efficient Blue Organic Light-Emitting Diodes Based on Intermolecular Triplet−Singlet Energy Transfer", 2013, J. Phys. Chem., Vol. 117, pp. 22538-22544.
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