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
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: some of the substituents, subscript designations, as well as single vs double bonds are not clearly distinguishable. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 when it recites “wherein a1 is an integer of 0 to 4, a2 is an integer of 0 to 3, n is an integer of 1 to 3” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought when n=3 is not clear. If n = 3, then 3-3 = 0, and subsequently, Ir is not bonded to Z1 and Z2, i.e.,
PNG
media_image1.png
65
74
media_image1.png
Greyscale
? Claim 1 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the organometallic compound of formula 1.
Claim 1 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “each of X1 to X5 is N or CR3, and at least one of X1 to X5 is CR3” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought is not clear. 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 1 recites the broad recitation “each of X1 to X5 is N or CR3”, and the claim also recites “at least one of X1 to X5 is CR3” 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. Claim 1 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the substituents X1 to X5 in the claimed organometallic compound of formula 1.
Claim 1 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “each of X6 to X15 is N or CR4, and at least one of X6 to X15 is N, at least one of X6 to X15 is CR4” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought is not clear. 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 1 recites the broad recitation “each of X6 to X15 is N or CR4”, and the claim also recites “at least one of X6 to X15 is N” and “at least one of X6 to X15 is CR4” which are the narrower statements 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. Claim 1 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the substituents X6 to X15 in the claimed organometallic compound of formula 1.
Claim 2 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites formula 1b
PNG
media_image2.png
340
659
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought is not clear because an oxygen atom with 3 bonds to it has a + charge, which is not reflected in the formula. Claim 2 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the organometallic compound of formula 1b.
Claim 5 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites the compounds of Formula 3, as exemplified in, but not limited to, the following compounds
PNG
media_image3.png
403
921
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought is not clear since the claimed compound of formula 1 contains a single bond between X12 and X13:
PNG
media_image4.png
260
431
media_image4.png
Greyscale
. Claim 5 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the organometallic compounds of formula 3.
Claim 6 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “a first emitting part positioned between the first and second electrodes and including a first emitting material layer” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by, and antecedent basis of, “part” is not clear. Claim 8 is similarly rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “a second emitting part including a second emitting material layer and positioned between the first emitting part and the first electrode; and a first charge generation layer between the first and second emitting parts“ (emphasis added). Claim 12 is similarly rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “a third emitting part positioned between the first emitting part and the second electrode and including a third emitting material layer; and a second charge generation layer between the first and third emitting parts“ (emphasis added). Claim 14 is similarly rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “a third emitting part positioned between the first emitting part and the second electrode and including a third emitting material layer; and a second charge generation layer between the first and third emitting parts, wherein the first emitting part further includes a fourth emitting material“ (emphasis added). Claims 6, 8, 12 and 14 each fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the contents of the compound contained in the claimed organic electroluminescent light emitting diode, as the scope of the protection sought by, and antecedent basis of, “part” is not clear.
Claim 16 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “a first emitting part positioned between the first and second electrodes and including a first emitting material layer” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by, and antecedent basis of, “part” is not clear. Claim 17 is similarly rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “a second emitting part including a second emitting material layer and positioned between the first emitting part and the first electrode; and a first charge generation layer between the first and second emitting parts“ (emphasis added).Claim 18 is similarly rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “wherein the first emitting part further include a third emitting material layer “ (emphasis added). Claim 19 is similarly rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “a third emitting part positioned between the first emitting part and the second electrode and including a third emitting material layer; and a second charge generation layer between the first and third emitting parts“ (emphasis added). Claim 20 is similarly rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “a third emitting part positioned between the first emitting part and the second electrode and including a third emitting material layer; and a second charge generation layer between the first and third emitting parts, wherein the first emitting part further includes“ (emphasis added). Claims 16-20 each fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the contents of the compound contained in the claimed organic electroluminescent light emitting device, as the scope of the protection sought by, and antecedent basis of, “part” is not clear.
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. 2024/0244951, which is the pre-grant publication corresponding to the present application, and
Korean Patent No. KR 102429870 B1, which is considered pertinent to the organometallic compound of the present formula 1, but is missing any teaching and/or suggestion of the phenanthrene/quinoline/phenanthroline substituent in the present formula 1 represented by
PNG
media_image5.png
149
170
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
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