DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-5 in the reply filed on 12/20/2023 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112a
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.
Claims 1-5 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.
Claim 1 recites “a ratio of the first material to the second material is 5% or more and less than 40%.” Claims 2-3 recite similar language. There is no support for what elements are being compared in the ratio. The claim language itself only states that there is a ratio, but does not say what the ratio is comparing. (e.g. ratio of size, ratio of composition, etc.) Looking to the Specification for support, there is no support for what the ratio is comparing from the first material and the second material. See, for example, paragraph [0090]: “In FIGS.14 and 15, the lateral axis represents the ratio of the first material MTL1 to the second material MTL2 (MTL1/MTL2 (%)). The vertical axis in FIG.14 represents the intensity of the luminescence of fast light emission in the light emitting layer ELL, FAST LUMINESCENCE RATE (unit: 1 × 106/s). That is, it represents the increase in fast light emission in the light emitting layer ELL when the ratio of the first material MTL1 to the second material MTL2 within the light emitting layer ELL increases uniformly.” While a ratio is mentioned, there is no indication what feature from the two materials is being compared in the ratio.
Therefore, claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 USC 112(a) for lack of written description, and claims 4-5 are rejected for at least their dependencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112b
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.
Claims 1-5 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 recites “a ratio of the first material to the second material is 5% or more and less than 40%.” Claims 2-3 recite similar language. It is unclear what elements are being compared in the ratio. Is the ratio a ratio of the width of the first material to a width of the second material? A ratio of compositions? A ratio of luminescence? No clear indication is given for what the ratio is in either the claims or the Specification.
Therefore, claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b), and claims 4-5 are rejected for at least their dependencies.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20240215278 A1 – lumo levels in a light emitting device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN M Page whose telephone number is (571)272-3249. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10:00AM-6:00PM.
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, Christine S. Kim can be reached at 571-272-8548. 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.
/STEVEN M PAGE/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights