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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7 October 2025 has been entered.
Applicant's arguments filed in the submission have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 18 and 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim for the resons given in the office action of 7 May 2025. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-12, 14-17 and 20 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.
Applicants deletion in the amendment of 2 April 2025, from claim 1 and thus all the claims depending from claim 1, the limitation that the emission intensity increase by temperature rise after photo-irradiation stops, means the claimed emitter is thermoluminescent. Thus the amended claims no longer read on a thermos and persistent luminescent emitter. The amended claims now read on any persistent luminescent emitter which emits light for at least 0.1 second after photoirradiation stops where the emitter comprises at least 70 mol% of an electron donor and less than 30 mol% of an electron acceptor. This newly claimed composition is not described in the originally filed disclosure 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. Therefore, the newly claimed composition is new matter.
Applicants amendment in the submission of 7 October 2025 deleting “molecule” from “electron donor molecule” and “electron acceptor molecule” so as to change the composition of the claimed emitter from one comprising electron donor molecule and electron acceptor molecule to emitters having the originally claimed composition; and emitters comprising a polymer or a molecule having electron donor groups and electron acceptor groups attached to main chain of the polymer or molecule. It is noted lines 26-28 on page 20 and lines 2-5 on page 28 teach that the molecules can be polymer, or monomer, of the molecule. Thus the deletion of “molecule” from “electron donor molecule” and “electron acceptor molecule” in claim 1, and all claims which depend from claim 1, is new matter since it opens the claimed emitters to compositions and embodiments not originally disclosed.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments made in the response of 6 August 2025 with respect to previous new matter rejection, which was presented in the office action mailed 7 May 2025, are not convincing for the reasons given in the Advisory Action mailed 14 August 2025.
Applicants’ arguments made in the submission with respect to previous new matter rejection, which was presented in the office action mailed 7 May 2025, are not convincing. Applicants argue that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize all claimed emitter are thermoluminescent due to the claimed property limitation that the emitter emits light for at least 0.1 seconds after photoirradiation stops means that claimed emitter because thermal energy accelerates recombination process causing emission after photoirradiation stops. This argument is not convincing since the claimed property is exhibited by phosphorescent emitters and delayed-fluorescent emitter, as taught in page 11, lines 5-15 of the specification. The argued teaching on page 12 are silent as to the thermoluminescent and teaches the claimed delays occurs at 20oC, which is considered room temperature, as well as at the cryogenic temperature 10K. It is noted that lines 5-15 on page 11 states that the emission has a greater intensity when heated, but intensity is different from the claimed property which is known as afterglow in the art. These arguments do not overcome the previous new matter rejection and it is maintained.
Applicants’ argue lines 16-23 on page 11; line 26 on page 20-line 4 on page 21 and lines 2-6 on page 28 support the amendment of deleting “molecule” from “electron donor molecule” and “electron acceptor molecule” and that the originally filed specification supports the newly claimed emitter compositions. The only lines 26-28 on page 20 and lines 2-5 on page 28 of the specification expands the definition of “molecule” to include monomers/polymers of the molecules. There is no other redefinition of “molecule” in the originally filed disclosure from its art recognized definition of “a group of atoms bonded together, representing the smallest fundamental unit of a chemical compound that can take part in a chemical reaction” or in other words “the smallest unit of a chemical compound”. Thus the originally filed disclosure does not support the newly claimed and argued embodiments of emitters where the electron donor and electron acceptor are on the same molecule or are pendants on one or more polymers.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1-5, 8-11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. patent application publication 2020/0377534.
This reference teaches a persistent luminescent emitter comprising an cationic electron acceptor molecule and an electron donating, or donor, molecule in a mole ratio of preferably 1:18 to 1:36 (para 8, 22, 108, 133 and 145). Thus the taught emitter comprises about 2.7-5.3 mol% cationic electron acceptor molecule and about 94.7-97.3 mol% electron donor molecule. This composition falls within that of claims 1, 6, 8 and 20. The taught composition emits light for 3-7 hours after photo-irradiation stops (para 156) and thus the taught composition has the property of claim 1. This taught composition falls within the claimed ranges. Since the taught composition has the same afterglow property as that claimed and has a composition that falls within that claimed, the taught emitter inherently has the properties of claims 2-5 and 9-11 absent any showing to the contrary. The reference teaches the claimed emitter.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to the above rejection have been considered but are not convincing. The arguments made in the response of 6 August 2025 are not convincing for the reasons given in the Advisory Action mailed 14 August 2025. Applicants refer to the supplied article for the arguments in the submission of 7 October 2025. This article discloses the example in paragraph [0161] of the reference of the rejection. The article shows, by figure S21, that TPP-3C2B:DMA crystals of the paragraph [0161] has a smaller molar amount of DMA and TPP-3C2B. Thus while the composition discussed in paragraph [0161] does not meet the claimed compositional requirement; these arguments over the teachings in paragraph [0161] do not negate the teachings in the rest of U.S. patent application publication 2020/0377534 of the persistent luminescent emitter comprising an cationic electron acceptor molecule and an electron donating, or donor, molecule in a mole ratio of preferably 1:18 to 1:36 taught in paragraphs [0008], [0022], [0108], [0133] and [0145]. A reference is not limited to its examples, but is good for all it teaches. Applicants did not address any of the other teachings in the reference. The rejection is maintained.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to C. MELISSA KOSLOW whose telephone number is (571)272-1371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues:7:45-3:45 EST;Thurs-Fri:6:30-2:00EST; and Wed:7:45-2:00EST.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1177. 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.
/C Melissa Koslow/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
cmk
12/11/25