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 3, 5, 6, 8, 11, 13-15, and 20 are each objected to because of the following informalities: some of the single vs double bonds are not clearly distinguishable. 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 1-21 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.
Claim 1 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “an emissive layer disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode, and comprising at least one emitting part, wherein one of the at least one emitting part comprises” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by “part” and “one of” a part is not clear and is unascertainable. The phrases “part” and “one of” a part renders the claims indefinite because the claims include layers not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "part"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 1 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the contents of the emissive layer contained in the claimed organic light emitting diode. Claims 7 and 9 are likewise rejected as being vague and indefinite when they each recite “a first emitting part” (emphasis added) and “a second emitting part” (emphasis added). Claim 17 is likewise rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “a first emitting part” (emphasis added), “a second emitting part” (emphasis added), and “a third emitting part” (emphasis added).
Claim 1 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “wherein the electron injection layer comprises a phenanthroline-based organic compound having the following structure of Chemical Formula 7” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by “based” is not clear. The phrase "based" renders the claims indefinite because the claims include phenanthroline organic compound not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "based"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 1 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the contents of the electron injection layer contained in the claimed organic light emitting diode. Claims 6, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are likewise rejected as being vague and indefinite when they each recite the “phenanthroline-based organic compound”.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 are rejected as being vague and indefinite when they each recite the chemical formula 7:
PNG
media_image1.png
412
353
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the scope of the protection sought by is not clear, as a carbon atom is tetravalent, and there are two pentacoordinate carbon atoms (indicated by the arrows) therein said formula 7. Claims 1, 9, and 17 each fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the phenanthroline compound contained in the claimed organic light emitting diode.
Claim 2 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “wherein the first electron transporting material has a structure of Chemical Formula 2” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought is not clear. The antecedent basis is not clear, particularly in light of the recitation in claim 1 of “wherein the first electron transport layer comprises a first electron transporting material having the following structure of Chemical Formula 1”. Claim 2 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the contents of the first electron transport layer contained in the claimed organic light emitting diode, i.e., whether the first electron transporting material of formula 1 is represented by formula 2.
Claim 3 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “wherein the first electron transporting material is at least one of the following organic compounds” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought is not clear. The antecedent basis is not clear, particularly in light of the recitation in claim 1 of “wherein the first electron transport layer comprises a first electron transporting material having the following structure of Chemical Formula 1”. Claim 3 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the contents of the first electron transport layer contained in the claimed organic light emitting diode, i.e., wherein the first electron transporting material of formula 1 is selected from at least one of the recited compounds.
Claim 4 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “wherein the second electron transporting material has a structure of Chemical Formula 5” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought is not clear. The antecedent basis is not clear, particularly in light of the recitation in claim 1 of “wherein the second electron transport layer comprises a second electron transporting material having the following structure of Chemical Formula 4”. Claim 4 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the contents of the second electron transport layer contained in the claimed organic light emitting diode, i.e., whether the second electron transporting material of formula 4 is represented by formula 5.
Claim 5 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “wherein the second electron transporting material is at least one of the following compounds” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought is not clear. The antecedent basis is not clear, particularly in light of the recitation in claim 1 of “wherein the second electron transport layer comprises a second electron transporting material having the following structure of Chemical Formula 4”. Claim 5 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the contents of the second electron transport layer contained in the claimed organic light emitting diode, i.e., wherein the second electron transporting material of formula 4 is selected from at least one of the recited compounds.
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected as being vague and indefinite when they each recite “wherein the phenanthroline-based organic compound is at least one of 4,7-diphenyl-1,10-phenanthroline, 2,9-bis(naphthalen-2-yl)-4,7-diphenyl-1,10-phenanthroline, 2,9-dimethyl-4,7-diphenyl-1,10-phenanthroline, 2,4,7,9-tetraphenyl-1,10-phenanthroline, (2-naphthalen-2-yl)-4,7-diphenyl-1,10-phenanthroline and the following organic compounds” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought is not clear. The antecedent basis is not clear, particularly in light of the recitation in claim 1 of “wherein the second electron transport layer comprises a second electron transporting material having the following structure of Chemical Formula 4”. Claims 6 and 8 each fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the contents of the second electron transport layer contained in the claimed organic light emitting diode, i.e., wherein the second electron transporting material of formula 4 is selected from at least one of the recited compounds.
Claims 6, 8, 14, 15, and 20 are rejected as being vague and indefinite when they each recite the chemical formulae 3-1 through 3-4
PNG
media_image2.png
246
406
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
259
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
293
412
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
286
414
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought is not clear in light of the recitation of formula 7 in claims 1, 9, and 17. Claims 6, 8, 14, 15, and 20 each fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the phenanthroline compound contained in the claimed organic light emitting diode.
Claim 7 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “wherein the emissive layer comprises: a first emitting part disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode”; the scope of the protection sought is not clear in view of the recitation in claim 1 of “an emissive layer disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode, and comprising at least one emitting part”. Claim 7 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the contents of the claimed organic light emitting diode.
Claim 8 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “wherein the first electron transport layer comprises a first electron transporting material having the following structure of Chemical Formula 2” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought is not clear. The antecedent basis is not clear, particularly in light of the recitation in claim 1 of “wherein the first electron transport layer comprises a first electron transporting material having the following structure of Chemical Formula 1”. Claim 8 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the contents of the first electron transport layer contained in the claimed organic light emitting diode, i.e., whether the first electron transporting material of formula 1 is represented by formula 2.
Claim 8 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “wherein the second electron transporting layer comprises a second electron transporting material having the following structure of Chemical Formula 5” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought is not clear. The antecedent basis is not clear, particularly in light of the recitation in claim 1 of “wherein the second electron transport layer comprises a second electron transporting material having the following structure of Chemical Formula 4”. Claim 8 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the contents of the second electron transport layer contained in the claimed organic light emitting diode, i.e., whether the second electron transporting material of formula 4 is represented by formula 5.
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected as being vague and indefinite when they each recite a “N-type charge generation layer” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by “type” is not clear. The phrase "type" renders the claims indefinite because the claims include a charge generation layer not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "type"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claims 9 and 17 each fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the contents of the claimed organic light emitting diode.
Claim 10 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “wherein the first electron transporting material has a structure of Chemical Formula 2” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought is not clear. The antecedent basis is not clear, particularly in light of the recitation in claim 9 of “wherein the first electron transport layer comprises a first electron transporting material having the following structure of Chemical Formula 1”. Claim 10 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the contents of the first electron transport layer contained in the claimed organic light emitting diode, i.e., whether the first electron transporting material of formula 1 is represented by formula 2.
Claim 11 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “wherein the first electron transporting material is at least one of the following organic compounds” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought is not clear. The antecedent basis is not clear, particularly in light of the recitation in claim 9 of “wherein the first electron transport layer comprises a first electron transporting material having the following structure of Chemical Formula 1”. Claim 11 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the contents of the first electron transport layer contained in the claimed organic light emitting diode, i.e., wherein the first electron transporting material of formula 1 is selected from at least one of the recited compounds.
Claim 12 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “wherein the second electron transporting material has a structure of Chemical Formula 5” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought is not clear. The antecedent basis is not clear, particularly in light of the recitation in claim 9 of “wherein the second electron transport layer comprises a second electron transporting material having the following structure of Chemical Formula 4”. Claim 12 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the contents of the second electron transport layer contained in the claimed organic light emitting diode, i.e., whether the second electron transporting material of formula 4 is represented by formula 5.
Claim 13 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “wherein the second electron transporting material is at least one of the following compounds” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought is not clear. The antecedent basis is not clear, particularly in light of the recitation in claim 9 of “wherein the second electron transport layer comprises a second electron transporting material having the following structure of Chemical Formula 4”. Claim 13 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the contents of the second electron transport layer contained in the claimed organic light emitting diode, i.e., wherein the second electron transporting material of formula 4 is selected from at least one of the recited compounds.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected as being vague and indefinite when they each recite “wherein the phenanthroline-based organic compound is at least one of 4,7-diphenyl-1,10-phenanthroline, 2,9-bis(naphthalen-2-yl)-4,7-diphenyl-1,10-phenanthroline, 2,9-dimethyl-4,7-diphenyl-1,10-phenanthroline, 2,4,7,9-tetraphenyl-1,10-phenanthroline, (2-naphthalen-2-yl)-4,7-diphenyl-1,10-phenanthroline and the following organic compounds” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought is not clear. The antecedent basis is not clear, particularly in light of the recitation in claim 9 of “wherein the second electron transport layer comprises a second electron transporting material having the following structure of Chemical Formula 4”. Claims 14 and 15 each fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the contents of the second electron transport layer contained in the claimed organic light emitting diode, i.e., wherein the second electron transporting material of formula 4 is selected from at least one of the recited compounds.
Claim 18 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “wherein the first electron transporting material has a structure of Chemical Formula 2” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought is not clear. The antecedent basis is not clear, particularly in light of the recitation in claim 17 of “wherein the first electron transport layer comprises a first electron transporting material having the following structure of Chemical Formula 1”. Claim 18 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the contents of the first electron transport layer contained in the claimed organic light emitting diode, i.e., whether the first electron transporting material of formula 1 is represented by formula 2.
Claim 19 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “wherein the second electron transporting material has a structure of Chemical Formula 5” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought is not clear. The antecedent basis is not clear, particularly in light of the recitation in claim 17 of “wherein the second electron transport layer comprises a second electron transporting material having the following structure of Chemical Formula 4”. Claim 19 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the contents of the second electron transport layer contained in the claimed organic light emitting diode, i.e., whether the second electron transporting material of formula 4 is represented by formula 5.
Claim 20 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “wherein the first electron transport layer comprises a first electron transporting material having the following structure of Chemical Formula 2” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought is not clear. The antecedent basis is not clear, particularly in light of the recitation in claim 17 of “wherein the first electron transport layer comprises a first electron transporting material having the following structure of Chemical Formula 1”. Claim 20 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the contents of the first electron transport layer contained in the claimed organic light emitting diode, i.e., whether the first electron transporting material of formula 1 is represented by formula 2.
Claim 20 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “wherein the second electron transporting layer comprises a second electron transporting material having the following structure of Chemical Formula 5” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought is not clear. The antecedent basis is not clear, particularly in light of the recitation in claim 17 of “wherein the second electron transport layer comprises a second electron transporting material having the following structure of Chemical Formula 4”. Claim 20 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the contents of the second electron transport layer contained in the claimed organic light emitting diode, i.e., whether the second electron transporting material of formula 4 is represented by formula 5.
Claim 20 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when they each recites “wherein the phenanthroline-based organic compound is at least one of 4,7-diphenyl-1,10-phenanthroline, 2,9-bis(naphthalen-2-yl)-4,7-diphenyl-1,10-phenanthroline, 2,9-dimethyl-4,7-diphenyl-1,10-phenanthroline, 2,4,7,9-tetraphenyl-1,10-phenanthroline, (2-naphthalen-2-yl)-4,7-diphenyl-1,10-phenanthroline and the following organic compounds” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought is not clear. The antecedent basis is not clear, particularly in light of the recitation in claim 17 of “wherein the second electron transport layer comprises a second electron transporting material having the following structure of Chemical Formula 4”. Claim 20 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the contents of the second electron transport layer contained in the claimed organic light emitting diode, i.e., wherein the second electron transporting material of formula 4 is selected from at least one of the recited compounds.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 9, and 17 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 2-8, 10-16, and 18-21 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.
Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0206331, which is the pre-grant publication corresponding to the present application.
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, Anthony J Zimmer can be reached at (571)270-3591. 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
Prosecution Insights