DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/12/2026 has been entered.
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, 7-10, and 13-16 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 claim 1, the amended limitation “a material of the electron transporting layer comprises at least one of diethyl zinc, dimethyl zinc, dibutyl zinc, diphenyl zinc, diethyl cadmium, dimethyl cadmium, dibutyl cadmium, and diphenyl cadmium…wherein the material of the electron transporting layer and the material of the additional component doped in the luminescent layer are the same one material” raises a new matter issue since the specification of the instant application does not fully and clearly describes such limitation to comply with the written description requirement.
Specifically, the specification of the instant application discloses that the electron transporting layer 54 includes a compound of a first metal such as zinc oxide, magnesium zinc oxide, aluminum zinc oxide, tin oxide, and titanium oxide (paragraphs 20 and 82) and the additional component 13 doped in the luminescent layer 12 includes at least one of the first metal, an oxide of the first metal, and an organic compound of the first metal (Fig. 7 and paragraphs 20 and 82). In other words, the specification is directed to 1) the electron transporting layer 54 formed of inorganic metal oxide compound and 2) the electron transporting layer 54 and the additional component 13 both include “the first metal” such as zinc. As such, both 1) “a material of the electron transporting layer comprises at least one of diethyl zinc, dimethyl zinc, dibutyl zinc, diphenyl zinc, diethyl cadmium, dimethyl cadmium, dibutyl cadmium, and diphenyl cadmium” and 2) “wherein the material of the electron transporting layer and the material of the additional component doped in the luminescent layer are the same one material” in claim 1 would raise new matter issues since the specification does not fully and clearly describes such limitation to comply with the written description requirement. Claims 2, 7-10, and 13-16, which depend from claim 1, are also rejected by virtue of their dependencies.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim 1 have been considered, but are moot in view of new ground of rejection as set forth above in this Office Action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL B WHALEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3418. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8AM-5PM.
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, Sue Purvis can be reached on (571)272-1236. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/DANIEL WHALEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights