Response to Amendment
This action is in response to applicants’ amendment of 15 June 2026. The amendments to the claims have overcome the previous 35 USC 112(a) rejection and the art rejection. In view of the amendments to the claims, new grounds of rejection are being made.
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Claims 18 and 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim for the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. Election was made without traverse.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-12, 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’ have amended claim 1 to now teach that the emission intensity of the persistent luminescent emitter is increased by photostimulation, thermal energy or mechanical energy after photo-irradiation stops. The dependent claims all implicitly include this newly added limitation. While the originally filed disclosure does teach the emission intensity of the persistent luminescent emitter is increased by thermal energy, which is the same as temperature rise or heating, after photo-irradiation stops (original claim 1); there is no teaching in the originally filed disclosure of the newly claimed limitation that the emission intensity of the persistent luminescent emitter is increased by photostimulation or mechanical energy after photo-irradiation stops. Applicants point to paragraphs [0081] and [0139] in the published application as supporting these newly claimed properties.
Paragraph [0081] teaches holes from the electron acceptor molecule which are diffused in the electron donor molecules may be trapped by a hole trap material when containing in the emitter. This paragraph teaches photostimulation can be used to detrap holes from the hole trap material and diffused in the electron donor molecules. This teaching does not support the newly claimed property since there is no indication in this teaching, which is the only teaching of the effect of photostimulation on the emitter, that the applied energy increases the emission intensity after photo-irradiation stops. It is noted that the emitter of claims 1, 3-12, 17 and 20 do not contain a hole trap material.
Paragraph [0139] teaches that the emitter can be used as an element responsive to mechanical energy and exemplifies elements which emit light or where the luminescence state changes when mechanical energy is applied to the emitter in a charge-separated state. This teaching does not support the newly claimed property since there is no indication in this teaching, which is the only teaching of the effect of mechanical energy on the emitter, that the applied energy increases the emission intensity after photo-irradiation stops. Thus these newly limitations that the emission intensity of the persistent luminescent emitter is increased by photostimulation or mechanical energy after photo-irradiation stops is not supported by the originally filed disclosure which means the claimed include new matter.
Claims 1, 3-12, 14-17 and 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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-11, 17 and 20 define the long persistent luminescence emitter composition in terms of the properties of the composition itself and the properties of the components of the composition. While it is known in the art, as shown by the cited art of record including 12,590,245, that combinations of an electron donor molecule and an electron acceptor molecule can form a long persistent luminescence emitter; there is no guidance in the claims to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to determine what combination of known electron donor molecules and known electron acceptor molecules, including known cationic electron acceptor molecules will from a long persistent luminescence emitter composition, which is also thermoluminescent, or also exhibits an emission intensity by photostimulation or mechanical energy. In addition, there is no guidance in the claims to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to determine what combination of known electron donor molecules and known organic photoredox catalyst will from a long persistent luminescence emitter composition, which is also thermoluminescent, or also exhibits an emission intensity by photostimulation or mechanical energy. Finally, there is no guidance in the claims to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to determine what combination of known electron donor molecules, known electron acceptor molecules, and either a luminescent material or a hole trap material will from a long persistent luminescence emitter composition, which is also thermoluminescent, or also exhibits an emission intensity by photostimulation or mechanical energy. Thus the metes and bounds of the claims cannot be determined by one of ordinary skill in the art and therefore, the claims are indefinite.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
7/13/26
Prosecution Insights