DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Amendment filed 07/14/26.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The objection to Claims 24 and 25 as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 04/15/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claims 1, 11-14, and 17-30 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 Non-Final Rejection filed 04/15/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claims 1, 11-14, and 17-30 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 (in regards to the scope of “R”) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 04/15/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Objections
Claim 31 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim recites the following structures: formulae (110), (150), (A) to (D), and (H) to (L) which are all graphically unclear due to their low resolutions; particular focus is directed to the legibility of the subscripts of the variable groups. They all need to be replaced by structures comprising bonds, atoms, and labels which are clearly drawn (i.e., of sufficient size and with solid lines).
Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 1, 11-14, and 17-30 are allowed. Furthermore, Claim 31 is currently objected to due to minor informalities but would be allowable if amended to overcome the objection as set forth above.
Examiner’s Note: The Office has relied on national phase publication US 2017/0077418 A1 as the English equivalent of WIPO publication WO 2015/135624 A1 (herein referred to as “Stoessel et al.”). Unless otherwise noted, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers referenced herein refer to numbers found in the national phase publication.
The closest prior art is provided by Stoessel et al. (WO 2015/135624 A1), which discloses an organic electroluminescent (EL) device comprising a pair of electrodes, interposed therein the following layers: hole-injecting layer, hole-transporting layer, light-emitting layer, electron-transporting layer, and electron-injecting layer (Abstract; [0256], [0329]); the light-emitting layer comprises a mixture of a TADF (delayed fluorescent) compound and a fluorescent compound which are doped into a host (matrix) material ([0013], [0033], [0053]). An embodiment is disclosed wherein the wavelength of emission from the fluorescent compound is at 430-650 nm ([0050]); the fluorescent compound “may be any compounds” as used in the prior art, using any base structure ([0055], [0059]). Stoessel et al. discloses the use of a variety of delayed fluorescent compounds ([0046]). However, it is the position of the Office that neither Stoessel et al. singly nor in combination with any other prior art provides sufficient motivation to produce the organic EL device as recited by the Applicant, particularly in regards to the nature of the emitting layer.
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant’s arguments on pages 13-16 with respect to the deficiencies of rejections as stated in the previous Office Action have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the newly amended claims. Hence, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
9. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY L YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1137. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 6am-3pm.
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 A 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.
/JAY YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights