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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the superfluous recitation of each of “[Formula 1]” and “[Formula 2]”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the superfluous recitation of “[Formula 3]”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the superfluous recitation of “[Formula 4]”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 is rejected as being vague and indefinite it recites “at least one of X4, X5, and X6 is N and the remaining ones are CH” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought is not clear, particularly as there are two of each of the substituents X4, X5, and X6 in formula 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
239
378
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. Claim 1 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the substituents X4, X5, and X6 in the compound of formula 1 contained in the claimed light emitting device, i.e., whether both occurrences of at least one of X4, X5, and X6 is N and the remaining ones are CH.
Claim 1 is rejected as being vague and indefinite it recites “L1 and L2 are independently a single bond or independently include one selected from a phenyl group and a naphthyl group” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought is not clear. Claim 1 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the substituents L1 and L2 in the compound of formula 2 contained in the claimed light emitting device, i.e., L1 and L2 are independently selected from one of a single bond, a phenyl group and a naphthyl group.
Claim 1 is rejected as being vague and indefinite it recites “R3, R4, and R6 each independently include one are selected from a phenyl group, a naphthyl group, and an anthracene group” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought is not clear. Claim 1 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the substituents R3, R4, and R6 in the compound of formula 2 contained in the claimed light emitting device, i.e., R3, R4, and R6 are independently selected from one of a phenyl group, a naphthyl group, and an anthracene group.
Claim 1 is rejected as being vague and indefinite it recites “R5 is a single bond or includes one selected from methyl, ethyl, a phenyl group, a naphthyl group, and an anthracene group” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought is not clear, i.e., how R6 is bonded to a methyl group or an ethyl group. Claim 1 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the substituent R5 in the compound of formula 2 contained in the claimed light emitting device.
Claim 6 is rejected as being vague and indefinite it recites “wherein L3 is a single bond, or includes a phenyl group or a naphthyl group“ (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought is not clear. Claim 1 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the substituent L3 in the compound of formula 3 contained in the claimed light emitting device, i.e., L3 is a single bond, a phenyl group or a naphthyl group.
Claim 7 is rejected as being vague and indefinite it recites “wherein the light emitting device further comprises a charge generation unit comprising an n-type charge generation layer and a p-type charge generation layer between the second blue stack and a next stack adjacent to the second blue stack” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by “type” is not clear. Regarding claim 7, the phrase "type" renders the claim indefinite because the claim includes charge generation layers not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "type"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 7 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the contents of the claimed light emitting device. Claims 8/12 and 9/13 are similarly rejected as being vague and indefinite as they respectively recite a “n-type charge generation layer” and a “p-type charge generation layer”. Claims 9 and 12 are each similarly rejected as being vague and indefinite as they each recite a “p-type dopant”. Claim 13 is similarly rejected as being vague and indefinite as it recites a “n-type dopant”.
Claim 9 is rejected as being vague and indefinite it recites “a substituent of A includes one of a cyano group, a halogen group, a trifluoromethyl group, a trifluoromethoxy group, hydrogen and deuterium” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought is not clear, as A may be an unsubstituted group and/or a group not capable of substitution. Claim 9 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the substituent A in the compound of formula 4 contained in claimed light emitting device, i.e., that when A is a substituted aryl or heteroaryl group, a substituted C1-C12 alkyl group, or a substituted C1-C12 alkoxy group, that it is substituted with a cyano group, a halogen group, a trifluoromethyl group, a trifluoromethoxy group, hydrogen and deuterium.
Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure of a compound of Formula 1 as represented by
PNG
media_image2.png
219
282
media_image2.png
Greyscale
: U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0217815, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0255078, and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0217821, which is the pre-grant publication corresponding to the present application.
Allowable Subject Matter
The light emitting device and light emitting display of the respective present independent claims 1 and 18 are distinguished from those of the prior art of record, in that they are each comprise an electron transport layer characterized by comprising a combination of a compound represented by Formula 1
PNG
media_image2.png
219
282
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and a compound represented by Formula 2
PNG
media_image3.png
242
215
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 6-9, 12 and 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 2-5, 10, 11 and 14-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Geraldina Visconti whose telephone number is (571)272-1334. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00am-4:30pm. 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, Mark F Huff can be reached at 571-272-1385. 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.
GERALDINA VISCONTI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1737
/GERALDINA VISCONTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737