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 in the reply filed on 26 June 2026 is acknowledged: a composition comprising a first compound, a second compound, and a third compound (claim 24), the corresponding use thereof said composition in the light-emitting layer of an electroluminescent device (claims 1-22), and the corresponding use thereof said electroluminescent device in an electronic apparatus (claim 23), wherein said composition comprises: a first compound represented by
PNG
media_image1.png
214
413
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, a second compound represented by
PNG
media_image2.png
260
427
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, and a third compound represented by
PNG
media_image3.png
313
417
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
The traversal is on the grounds that: (a) for the inventions “No excessive search or examination burden is imposed on the Examiner, and the associated search and examination workload remains within a reason range”. This is not found persuasive. Notwithstanding the fact that the first compound alone is selected from compound of three different formulae, each of which has an infinitesimal amount of possible combinations of substituents therein, there are at least 55K possible combinations of a composition comprising the more specific first compound selected from ONE of the 266 compounds of formulae 1-1-1 thru 1-1-104, 1-2-1 thru 1-2-101, 1-3-1 thru 1-3-61, the more specific second compound selected from ONE of the 208 compounds of formulae B-1 through B-208, and the more specific third compound selected from ONE of the 139 compounds of formulae C1 through C139; , each species requiring a different field of search, i.e., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, and employing different search strategies or search queries;
and
(b) the inventions of electroluminescent device of claims 1-22, the electronic apparatus of claim 23 and the composition of claim 24 “are a single inventive concept and satisfy the unity of invention requirement”. This argument is not moot as the office action of 28 April 2026 simply requires an Election of Species, and was not a Restriction between the inventions of claims 1-22, 23 and 24?
The Election of Species 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 2, 3, 6, 9-11, 13-16, 19, 20, and 22 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 2 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “preferably, the first compound has a structure represented by any one of Formula 1-a to Formula 1-c, Formula 2-a and Formula 3-a” (emphasis added), and “more preferably, Rw is, at each occurrence identically or differently, selected from” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by “preferably” is not clear. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claim 2 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the first compound, as well as the substituent Rw in the compounds of Formula 1-a to Formula 1-d, Formula 2-a to Formula 2-c, and Formula 3-a contained in the claimed electroluminescent device.
Claim 3 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “preferably, Q is, at each occurrence identically or differently” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by “preferably” is not clear. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claim 3 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the substituent Q in the compounds of Formula 1-a to Formula 1-d, Formula 2-a to Formula 2-c, and Formula 3-a contained in the claimed electroluminescent device.
Claim 6 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “wherein in Formula 4-2, V is selected from O or S; preferably, V is O” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by “preferably” is not clear. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claim 6 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the substituent V in the compound of Formula 4-2 contained in the claimed electroluminescent device.
Claim 9 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “preferably, Rv is, at each occurrence identically or differently” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by “preferably” is not clear. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claim 9 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the substituent Rv in the compounds contained in the claimed electroluminescent device.
Claim 10 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “preferably, Ar1 and Ar2 are, at each occurrence identically or differently” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by “preferably” is not clear. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claim 10 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the substituents Ar1 and Ar2 in the compounds contained in the claimed electroluminescent device.
Claim 11 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “preferably, L1 to L3 are, at each occurrence identically or differently” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by “preferably” is not clear. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claim 11 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the substituents L1 to L3 in the compounds contained in the claimed electroluminescent device.
Claim 13 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “preferably, the ring A and/or the ring B are each independently selected from” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by “preferably” is not clear. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claim 13 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim ring A and/or ring B in the compounds contained in the claimed electroluminescent device.
Claim 14 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “preferably, at least one or two of Rx1, Rx2, Ri, Ri2 and R3 and/or at least one or two of Rii1, Rii2, Rii3 and Rii4 are, at each occurrence identically or differently” (emphasis added) and “more preferably, at least one or two of Rx1, Rx2, Ri1, Ri2 and Ri3 and/or at least one or two of Rii1, Rii2, Rii3 and Rii4 are, at each occurrence identically or differently” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by “preferably” is not clear. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claim 14 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the substituents Rx1, Rx2, Ri1, Ri2, Ri3, Rii1, Rii2, Rii3 and Rii4 in the compounds contained in the claimed electroluminescent device.
Claim 15 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “preferably, Ri2 is selected from the group consisting of” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by “preferably” is not clear. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claim 15 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the substituent Ri2 in the compound contained in the claimed electroluminescent device.
Claim 16 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “preferably, at least one of Rx1, Rx2, Ri1, Ri2, Ri3, Rii1, Rii2, Rii3, Rii4 and R is” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by “preferably” is not clear. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claim 16 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the substituents Rx1, Rx2, Ri1, Ri2, Ri3, Rii1, Rii2, Rii3, Rii4 and R in the compound contained in the claimed electroluminescent device.
Claim 19 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “M is selected from Ir, Rh, Re, Os, Pt, Au or Cu; preferably, M is selected from Ir or Pt; more preferably, M is” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by “preferably” is not clear. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claim 19 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the metal in the third compound of formula M(La)m(Lb)n(Lc)q contained in the claimed electroluminescent device.
Claim 20 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “preferably, at least one or two of R1 to R3 are” (emphasis added), and “more preferably, at least two of R1 to R3 are” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by “preferably” is not clear. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claim 20 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the substituents R1 to R3 in the compound contained in the claimed electroluminescent device.
Claim 22 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “preferably, the third compound is selected from the group consisting of the following structures” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by “preferably” is not clear. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claim 22 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the third compound contained in the claimed electroluminescent 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 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-27 of copending Application No. 19/340,146 (corresponding to U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2026/0096343). 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 composition and the corresponding use thereof said composition in the light-emitting layer of an electroluminescent device, as well as the corresponding use thereof said electroluminescent device in an electronic apparatus, wherein said composition comprises a first carbazole compound, a second triazine compound, and a third iridium complex compound encompassing the selected species.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-24 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of copending Application No. 19/343,521 (corresponding to U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2026/0096278). 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 composition and the corresponding use thereof said composition in the light-emitting layer of an electroluminescent device, as well as the corresponding use thereof said electroluminescent device in an electronic apparatus, wherein said composition comprises a first carbazole compound, a second triazine compound, and a third iridium complex compound encompassing the selected species.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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. 2023/0309394, which is the pre-grant publication corresponding to the present application;
- U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0034746, 20260096341, and U.S. Patent No. 12,595,277, each of which is pertinent to the bidentate iridium complex.
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