DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/26/2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the following species in the reply filed on 12/30/2022 was previously acknowledged.
The previously examined species was as follows: a compound comprising a first skeleton, a second skeleton, and a third skeleton wherein:
PNG
media_image1.png
209
708
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant previously amended the claims such that the above species was no longer encompassed by any of the independent claims.
Accordingly, the search was expanded to find an examinable species based on MPEP § 803.02. It is noted that the prior art search has not been extended to cover all nonelected species.
The next examinable species was a compound comprising a first skeleton, a second skeleton, and a third skeleton wherein: the first skeleton comprising (ii) dibenzoquinoxaline, the second skeleton comprises (vi) a condensed aromatic hydrocarbon comprising two or more aromatic rings; and (viii) a pyridine ring, a pyrimidine ring, a pyrazine ring, or a triazine ring. The examinable species reads on pending claims 1-2, 8-9, 15-21, 26, 29-32, and 34.
Response to Amendment
The reply of 02/26/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 2, and 9 are amended due to the applicant's amendment.
Claims 1-2, 8-9, 15-21, 26, 29-32, and 34 are pending.
The rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth in the previous Office action are each overcome due to the applicant's amendment. However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of record have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 8-9, 15-21, 26, 29-32, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1, 2, and 9, it is unclear where there is support for the newly added limitations in claims 1, 2 and 9 for the following reasons.
Claim 1 recites
PNG
media_image2.png
278
780
media_image2.png
Greyscale
; claim 2 recites
PNG
media_image3.png
177
818
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and claim 9 recites
PNG
media_image4.png
385
809
media_image4.png
Greyscale
For support, the applicant points to specification paragraphs [0108]-[0111], [0271], and [0321], and FIGS. 19 and 34.
It is noted that FIG. 19 is "a graph showing a change in luminance over driving time at a current density of 50 mA/cm2" and FIG. 34 is "a graph showing a change in luminance over driving time at a current density of 50 mA/cm2" (see paragraphs [0269] and [0319], respectively). Neither of these appear to be a decay curve. The specification appears recite a decay curve in paragraphs [0092], [0108], and [0110]; however, nowhere in the discussion of a decay curve is "a first component," "a second component," "a maximum value," "a second component," recited. Further, "a time when a relative luminance with respect to an initial luminance decreases to 98%", "a time when a relative luminance with respect to an initial luminance decreases to 95%", and "a relative luminance range of 98% to 95% with respect to an initial luminance" is not recited or readily apparent from the specification or drawings.
In paragraph [0271] comparison between the luminance of light-emitting device 1 and comparative light-emitting device 1 is discussed and it is noted that the luminance increases after the start of the driving, becomes higher than the initial luminance, and then gradually decreases. The time until when the luminance becomes 2 % to 5 % lower than the initial luminance is described; however, it is unclear where there is support for how this relates to the claimed maximum value of a decay curve and it is furthermore unclear that this recitation is applicable to the full claimed range of the electron-transport material. Light-emitting device 1 does not comprise a compound as claimed and instead comprises PyA1PQ which is lacking a dibenzo[f,h]quinoxaline ring.
In paragraph [0321] the luminance of light-emitting device 3 is discussed and it is noted that the luminance increases after the start of the driving and then gradually decreases. The time until when the luminance becomes 2 % to 5 % lower than the initial luminance is described; however, it is unclear where there is support for how this relates to the claimed maximum value of a decay curve and it is furthermore unclear that this recitation is applicable to the full claimed range of the electron-transport material.
Finally, in paragraphs [0108]-[0111], a maximum value of a decay curve, i.e. a portion where the luminance increase with time, is recited; however, this maximum is not described in relation to "a time when a relative luminance with respect to an initial luminance decreases to 98%", "a time when a relative luminance with respect to an initial luminance decreases to 95%", or "a relative luminance range of 98% to 95% with respect to an initial luminance."
In summary, it is unclear where there is support for the newly added limitations of claims 1, 2, and 9 at least because no decay curve appears to be present and described as claimed in the application as filed and therefore it is unclear the applicant had possession of the invention as presently claimed.
Claims 8, 20-21, 26, 29-32, and 34 are dependent on claim 1 and therefore, for the reasons outlined above with respect to claim 1, these claims also contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 15-19 are dependent on claim 9 and therefore, for the reasons outlined above with respect to claim 9, these claims also contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elizabeth M. Dahlburg whose telephone number is 571-272-6424. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET, and alternate Fridays.
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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached on 571-272-7783. 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.
/ELIZABETH M. DAHLBURG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights