DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Amendment filed 05/01/26.
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 Claim 28 as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 02/05/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claims 19-22 and 27 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 02/05/26 is overcome by the cancellation of the claims.
The rejection of Claims 24-26, 28-32, and 34-38 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 02/05/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 02/05/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claims 19, 20, 22, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Je et al. (KR 10-2011-0105285) in view of Kim et al. (WO 2010/110553 A2) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 02/05/26 is overcome by the cancellation of the claims.
The rejection of Claims 24, 26, 29, 30, 34, 35, 37, and 38 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Je et al. (KR 10-2011-0105285) in view of Kim et al. (WO 2010/110553 A2) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 02/05/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Je et al. (KR 10-2011-0105285) in view of Kim et al. (WO 2010/110553 A2) in view of Yoon et al. (US 2003/0165715 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 02/05/26 is overcome by the cancellation of the claim.
The rejection of Claims 31 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Je et al. (KR 10-2011-0105285) in view of Kim et al. (WO 2010/110553 A2) and Liao et al. (US 2006/0145604 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 02/05/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claim 36 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Je et al. (KR 10-2011-0105285) in view of Kim et al. (WO 2010/110553 A2) and Yamazaki et al. (US 2002/0190257 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 02/05/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
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 23-26, 28-32, and 34-40 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, Claim 23, which the other claims are dependent upon, recites the broad recitation as set forth below:
PNG
media_image1.png
190
642
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 4), and the claim also recites the following:
PNG
media_image2.png
48
640
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 7) which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
14. Claim 33 is allowed.
The closest prior art is provided by Dobbs et al. (US 2013/0264560 A1) which discloses triazine compounds of the following form:
PNG
media_image3.png
129
380
media_image3.png
Greyscale
where Ar1-3 = independently:
PNG
media_image4.png
118
377
media_image4.png
Greyscale
where a = 1-5, b = 0-5, and c = 0-4 ([0064], [0067]-[0068]); Q = N, O, S-heterocycle (among others) ([0066]). An embodiment is disclosed:
PNG
media_image5.png
420
421
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(page 5). However, it is the position of the Office that neither Dobbs et al. singly nor in combination with any other prior art discloses the light-emitting device as recited in the claims, particularly in regards to the nature of the first and second capping layers of the device.
Response to Arguments
15. Applicant’s arguments on pages 33-37 with respect to the deficiencies of the previously cited prior art have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as set forth above.
Conclusion
16. 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