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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status as Continuation
This application discloses and claims only subject matter disclosed in prior US 12035618, effectively filed 11/28/2018, and names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application. Accordingly, this application may constitute a continuation or division. Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120 and 37 CFR 1.78.
Claim Rejections - 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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claim(s) 1-20 is (are) rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 11, 15-16, 21, 24-28, 31-34 and 40-41 of US 11672165.
‘165 (claims 1-3, 11, 15-16, 21, 24-28, 31-34 and 40-41) meets instant claims 1-20, because it discloses the claimed OLED and the consumer product (such as flat panel display) comprising thereof comprising the claimed OE layer between electrodes, wherein the OE layer comprises the claimed delayed fluorescent metal complex and host such as:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, and
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
RA to RF are:
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In light of this, one having ordinary skill in the art would obviously recognize to prepare the claimed phosphorescent metal complex by selecting aforementioned RA to RF as deuterium, because although many compositions are disclosed in the reference and therefore anticipation does not appear to be present, it has been held that the mere fact that a reference suggests a multitude of possible combinations does not in and of itself make any one of these combination less obvious (Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Claim(s) 1-20 is (are) rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending US 11672176.
‘176 (claims 1-20) meets instant claims 1-20, because it discloses the claimed OLED and the consumer product (such as flat panel display) comprising thereof comprising the claimed OE layer between electrodes, wherein the OE layer comprises the claimed delayed fluorescent metal complex
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, and
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
RA to RF are:
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In light of this, one having ordinary skill in the art would obviously recognize to prepare the claimed phosphorescent metal complex by selecting aforementioned RA to RF as deuterium, because although many compositions are disclosed in the reference and therefore anticipation does not appear to be present, it has been held that the mere fact that a reference suggests a multitude of possible combinations does not in and of itself make any one of these combination less obvious (Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Claim(s) 1-20 is (are) rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of US 12035618.
‘168 (claims 1-20) meets instant claims 1-20, because it discloses the claimed OLED and the consumer product comprising thereof comprising the claimed OE layer between electrodes, wherein the OE layer comprises the claimed delayed fluorescent metal complex and host such as:
PNG
media_image4.png
200
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
200
400
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The aforementioned laundry list case law has been applied to meet the claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim(s) 1-20 are provisionally allowable over the closest prior art: Lin (US 20190036055/EP 3435438, listed on IDS).
Lin discloses (claims, examples, abs., figures) an OLED comprising a host and emission layer:
PNG
media_image6.png
200
400
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
200
400
media_image7.png
Greyscale
However, Lin fails to teach the claimed OLED requiring:
PNG
media_image8.png
342
701
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
52
672
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Therefore, claims 1-20 are allowable in proviso the above ODP issue is resolved.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANE FANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7378. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs. 8am-6pm. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski can be reached on 571.572.1302. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHANE FANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights