DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is responsive to the amendment received February 27, 2026. Claims 1, 12-15, and 17 were amended. Claims 2-11 and 20-23 are canceled claims. Claims 1 and 12-19 are pending.
The rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2020/0098991 A1) in view of Kawamura (US 2012/0126208) is withdrawn due to the amendment.
The rejection of claims 10-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2020/0098991 A1) in view of Kawamura (US 2012/0126208) and in further view of Song et al. (US 2015/0060825) is withdrawn due to the amendment.
The rejection of claims 11-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2020/0098991 A1) in view of Kawamura (US 2012/0126208) and in further view of Yoon et al. (US 2019/0305227 A1) is withdrawn due to the amendment.
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.
Claim 17 is 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 17 recites the light emitting diode further includes “a second emitting material layer”, but claim 1 already recites “a second blue emitting material layer”. It is unclear if the claim 17 second emitting layer is the same or in addition to the second emitting layer of parent claim 1. Clarification and/or correction are required.
Claim 17 recites the light emitting diode further includes “a first charge generation layer”, but claim 1 already recites “a first charge generation layer”. It is unclear if this charge generation layer is the same or in addition to the charge generation layer of parent claim 1. Furthermore, this charge generation layer of claim 17 is recited between the “first blue emitting material layer and the second emitting material layer”. Because the charge generation layer of claim 1 is already recited for between the first blue and the second blue emitting material layers, it is unclear if the recited “second emitting layer” in this portion of claim 17 is referring to the second emitting layer recited earlier within claim 17 or refers to the second emitting layer of parent claim 1. Clarification and/or correction are required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 12-16, 18, and 19 are allowed. The closest prior art is considered to be Kim et al. discussed in the last office action. The reference fails to teach or to suggest the combination of two blue emitting layers separated by a charge generation layer with the combination of further layers each comprised of the very specific materials recited in independent claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dawn Garrett whose telephone number is (571)272-1523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday (Eastern Time).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 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.
/DAWN L GARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights