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 (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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I drawn to a quantum dot-containing material, a composition and a light-emitting device comprising the same, and the species wherein the electron-donating group is (a) a π electron-rich C3-C60 cyclic group and the electron-withdrawing group is (iii) a π electron-deficient nitrogen-containing C1-C60 cyclic group in the reply filed on 01/22/2025 was previously acknowledged.
Claims 13-15 were withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/22/2025.
Response to Amendment
The reply of 06/24/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1 and 7-9 are amended and claim 6 is cancelled due to the applicant's amendment.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-21 are pending and claims 13-15 remain withdrawn.
The objection to the drawings as set forth in the previous Office action is overcome due to the applicant's amendment. The objection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1, 3-12, and 16-17 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 as set forth in the previous Office action is overcome due to the applicant's amendment. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1, 3-12, and 16-21 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 as set forth in the previous Office action is overcome due to the applicant's amendment. The rejection is withdrawn.
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. The rejections are each withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments with respect to rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth in the previous Office action 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 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, 3-5, 7-12, and 16-21 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites
PNG
media_image1.png
101
805
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and the claim also recites
PNG
media_image2.png
360
797
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, and later recites that in Formula 1 and Formula 2,
PNG
media_image3.png
76
782
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It is unclear if the electron-donating group recited to be comprised in the first organic group is the same as E1 or if E1 represents an additional electron-donating group. Likewise, it is unclear if the electron-withdrawing group recited to be comprised in the second organic group is the same as E2 or if E2 represents an additional electron-donating group. Further, it is unclear if E1 may be any electron-donating group or if it is required to have the same definition as provided above and if E2 may be any electron-withdrawing group or if it is required to have the same definition as provided above.
For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted such that E1 is the electron-donating group recited to be comprised in the first organic group and E2 is the electron-withdrawing group recited to be comprised in the second organic group and the claim does not require additional electron-donating and electron-withdrawing groups.
Claims 3-5, 7-12, and 16-21 are rejected for being dependent on indefinite claim 1.
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.
Conclusion
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 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.
/ELIZABETH M. DAHLBURG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights