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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 5, and 24 are each objected to because of the following informalities: some of the subscript substituent designations as well as single vs double bonds are not clearly distinguishable. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-25 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.
Claims 1, 13, and 23 are rejected as being vague and indefinite when they each recite “an emissive layer disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode, and comprising at least one emitting part” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by “part” is not clear and is unascertainable. Claims 1, 13, and 23 each fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the contents of the emissive layer contained in the claimed organic light emitting diode.
Claims 1 and 13 are rejected as being vague and indefinite when they each recite “each of R1 to R5 is independently hydrogen, an unsubstituted or substituted C1-C20 alkyl group or an unsubstituted or substituted C6-C30 aryl group or an unsubstituted or substituted C3-C30 hetero aryl group, where at least one of R3 and R4 has an unsubstituted or substituted carbazolyl moiety” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought is not clear. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 1 and 13 each recite the broad recitation, i.e., that the substituents R3 and R4 are “independently hydrogen, an unsubstituted or substituted C1-C20 alkyl group or an unsubstituted or substituted C6-C30 aryl group or an unsubstituted or substituted C3-C30 hetero aryl group”, and the claim also recites “at least one of R3 and R4 has an unsubstituted or substituted carbazolyl moiety” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claims are 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. Claims 1 and 13 each fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the substituents R3 and R4 in the electron transporting material of formula 1 contained in the claimed organic light emitting diode, i.e., each of R1, R2, and R5 is independently hydrogen, an unsubstituted or substituted C1-C20 alkyl group or an unsubstituted or substituted C6-C30 aryl group or an unsubstituted or substituted C3-C30 hetero aryl group, at least one of R3 and R4 has an unsubstituted or substituted carbazolyl moiety, and the other of R3 and R4 is independently hydrogen, an unsubstituted or substituted C1-C20 alkyl group or an unsubstituted or substituted C6-C30 aryl group or an unsubstituted or substituted C3-C30 hetero aryl group.
Claims 1 and 23 are rejected as being vague and indefinite when they each recite “an emissive layer disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode, and comprising at least one emitting part, wherein one of the at least one emitting part is disposed adjacently to the second electrode and comprises: at least one emitting material layer” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by amd differentiation between the “an emissive layer” and “at least one emitting material layer” is not clear. Claims 1 and 23 each fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the contents of the claimed organic light emitting diode.
Claims 3 and 24 are rejected as being vague and indefinite when they recite “at least one of the following organic compounds” followed by
PNG
media_image1.png
204
610
media_image1.png
Greyscale
; the scope of the protection sought is not clear, as the structural formulae are identical. Claims 3 and 24 each fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the first electron transporting material contained in the claimed organic light emitting diode.
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 1-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,428,596. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are obvious variants thereof each other and the Examiner notes that they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are drawn to an organic light emitting diode characterized in that said electron transport layers comprising a diazine/triazine carbazole-containing compound inclusive of that of the present formula 1, and an anthracene-benzimidazole compound inclusive of that of the present formula 4.
Claims 1-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 6-8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,274,161. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are obvious variants thereof each other and the Examiner notes that they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are drawn to an organic light emitting diode characterized in that said electron transport layers comprising a diazine/triazine carbazole-containing compound inclusive of that of the present formula 1, and an anthracene-benzimidazole compound inclusive of that of the present formula 4.
Claims 1-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5-7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,284,907. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are obvious variants thereof each other and the Examiner notes that they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are drawn to an organic light emitting diode characterized in that said electron transport layers comprising a diazine/triazine carbazole-containing compound inclusive of that of the present formula 1, and an anthracene-benzimidazole compound inclusive of that of the present formula 4.
Claims 1-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 6-8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,950,500. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are obvious variants thereof each other and the Examiner notes that they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are drawn to an organic light emitting diode characterized in that said electron transport layers comprising a diazine/triazine carbazole-containing compound inclusive of that of the present formula 1, and an anthracene-benzimidazole compound inclusive of that of the present formula 4.
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. 2024/0237517, 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, 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