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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Specification
Applicants are reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the language “The present disclosure relates to”, “according to the present disclosure” should be removed. The abstract should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. Applicants are reminded that it is generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The compound shown as formula 3-1
PNG
media_image1.png
139
272
media_image1.png
Greyscale
is missing a bond and unclear on page 28.
D1-26 of formula H2-263 appears to be cut from page 49:
PNG
media_image2.png
169
133
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Formula 3-1
PNG
media_image1.png
139
272
media_image1.png
Greyscale
is missing a bond and unclear in claim 11. 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 1-16 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, 2, 4, 5, 11, 12 and 15 have chemical formula compounds that contains “…” ellipses, e.g. formula 1 in claim 1 as shown
PNG
media_image3.png
226
312
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
Applicants have failed to define the ellipses “…….” in each of the formulas listed above as well as those formulas recited in claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 11, 12 and 15 The claims as written are indefinite and unclear. Appropriate correction is required. Examiner suggests applicants delete all the ellipses recited in the claims.
Claims 9 and 13 recites “An organic electroluminescent device comprising … at least one emitting layer between the anode and the cathode, wherein the at least one layer of the light-emitting layers comprises the plurality of host materials…” The claims as written are indefinite and unclear. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation “the light-emitting layers” in the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-14 depend on claim 1 and claim 16 depend on claim 15; therefore, the claims are also indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-7 and 9-16 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-7 and 9-16 of copending Application No. 18/925140 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims made at the same invention have not in fact been patented. Both the instant claims and copending application 18/925140 recite explicitly disclose a plurality of host materials comprising a first host material comprising at least one compound represented by the following formula 1 and a second host material comprising at least one compound represented by the following formula 2, wherein at least one of the first host material and the second host material comprises deuterium. Also, both the instant claims and copending application 18/925140 recite explicitly disclose an organic electroluminescent compound represented by the following formula 1’.
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.
Claim 8 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of copending Application No. 18/925140 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the instant claims and copending application have claims drawn to the plurality of host materials wherein the compound represented by formula 2, which are obvious variants of each other compounds.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kang et al. (US 2022/0123223 A1).
Regarding claims 1-13, Kang et al. (see abstract, claims and examples) teach an organic electroluminescent device (abstract) comprising an anode, a cathode, and at least one emitting layer between the anode and cathode, wherein the emitting layer comprises a plurality of host material ( see examples and claim 7) . The plurality of host materials comprising a first host material comprising at least one compound represented as formula 1:
PNG
media_image4.png
125
308
media_image4.png
Greyscale
( see claim 1), more specifically compounds such as formula H1-115
PNG
media_image5.png
309
337
media_image5.png
Greyscale
( see claim 5) meeting the limitation of formula 1, formula 1-2 , formula 1-3 , and H1-58 as recited by the instant claims and a second host material comprising at least one compound represented by formula 2
PNG
media_image6.png
129
296
media_image6.png
Greyscale
( see claim 1), more specifically compounds such as H2-1
PNG
media_image7.png
318
321
media_image7.png
Greyscale
in claim 6 meeting the limitation of formulas 2, 2-1-3, 2-1-4 and H2-98 as instantly claimed wherein at least oen of the first and the second host material comprises deuterium ( see claim 1).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Kang et al. (see abstract, claims and examples) teach an organic electroluminescent compound (abstract) represented as formula 1:
PNG
media_image4.png
125
308
media_image4.png
Greyscale
( see claim 1), more specifically compounds such as formula H1-115
PNG
media_image5.png
309
337
media_image5.png
Greyscale
( see claim 5) meeting the limitation of formula 1’ , and H1-58 as recited by the instant claims.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Cho et al. (US 2023/0139032 A1; see abstract, claims, and examples) teach an organic electroluminescent device comprising a plurality of host materials as instantly claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANCEITY N ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8:00 am-6:00 pm; IFP; PHP).
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 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.
/CHANCEITY N ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737
Prosecution Insights