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 Invention 1 (Claim 1, a molecule comprising a cerium metal ion and organoboron ligands), and Species A (a molecule represented by formula I or II of claim 1 provided that the molecule is not represented by formula III or IV of claim 4, claims 1-3, 8-19 and 21) in the reply filed on 12/02/2025 is acknowledged.
Upon further consideration, the requirement of species election only is withdrawn because there was no burden. The requirement of restriction is maintained. No claim is withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
One of the NPL references (i.e. item no. 5) of the information disclosure statements filed on 07/22/2022 and 12/02/2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because of the following reason.
Applicant provided a copy of the NPL reference (item no. 5) as reproduced below. The copy only provides the title, author names, and citation information. The copy does not include the English translation of the Abstract or concise explanation of the relevance. Applicant also does not provide the copy of the cited original document or a portion of it; thus, the relevance of the reference to the application cannot be understood.
It is suggested to cite the page of the reference, provide a copy of the original document (or a portion of the document on the relevant page), and provide concise explanation of relevance such as abstract if the document is not written in English.
PNG
media_image1.png
642
747
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because a label of “FIG. 1” is used in the drawing sheet. Where only a single view is used in an application to illustrate the claimed invention, it must not be numbered, and the abbreviation "FIG." must not appear. 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1). It is advised to use “Figure”.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In conjunction with removing the “FIG. 1” label from the drawing, the specification must be amended to replace references to “FIG. 1” (page 4, 5, and 21). If there is only a single figure, the terminology, “FIG. 1” needs to be replaced by appropriate terminology such as “the Figure” or “the figure”.
Applicant recites “Ce[B(pz)3(Cz-tert-Butyl)3]” (page 22, line 4, Example 3). It should be “Ce[B(pz)3(Cz-tert-Butyl)]3”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 14-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 4, Applicant recites the following phrase “being a tetra(cis)pyrazolyl borate ligand or a tetra(cis)triazolyl borate ligand herein.” It is suggested to delete the phrase because the Formula III and Formula IV are each a complex, not a ligand.
In claim 14, Applicant recites “wherein the fluorescent receptor molecule has: wherein the receptor has a decimal molar extinction coefficient …” An amendment to “wherein the fluorescent receptor molecule has a decimal molar extinction coefficient …” reads better.
In claim 15, Applicant recites “A photoelectric device, including the composition according to claim 10, the photoelectric device selected from an organic light emitting diode (OLED), …” An amendment to “A photoelectric device, including the composition according to claim 10, is selected from an organic light emitting diode (OLED), …” or “A photoelectric device, including the composition according to claim 10, wherein the photoelectric device is selected from an organic light emitting diode (OLED), …” reads better.
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.
Claim 6 is 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.
Regarding claim 6, Applicant recites “R2, R3, R4, R6 and R7 are hydrogen and halogen”. It is unclear which one(s) among R2, R3, R4, R6 and R7 is or are hydrogen and which one(s) among R2, R3, R4, R6 and R7 is or are halogen, rendering this claim indefinite.
For the purpose of prosecution, the Examiner interprets the limitation to mean that R2, R3, R4, R6 and R7 are each independently selected from hydrogen or halogen.
Claims 18-19 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.
Regarding claim 18, Applicant recites “the photoelectric device according to claim 17, wherein … the Ce(III) chelate donor molecule”. However, there is no Ce(III) chelate donor molecule is claimed in any of claims 1 and 16-18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purpose of prosecution, the Examiner interprets the limitation to mean that “the photoelectric device according to claim 17, wherein … a Ce(III) chelate donor molecule” (emphasis added).
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is rejected due to the dependency from the rejected claim 18.
Claim 19 is 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.
Regarding claim 19, Applicant recites “the photoelectric device according to claim 18, wherein … the fluorescent receptor molecule”. However, there is no fluorescent receptor molecule is claimed in any of claims 1 and 16-18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purpose of prosecution, the Examiner interprets the limitation to mean that “the photoelectric device according to claim 18, wherein … a fluorescent receptor molecule” (emphasis added).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yersin et al. (US 2010/0117521 A1, hereafter Yersin).
Regarding claims 1 and 4-6, Yersin discloses a complex (Formula (I)) used for a light emitting device ([0001], [0010]). Yersin teaches that Ln is Ce3+; R1 can be an unsubstituted pyrazole group; R2, R3, and R4 can be each hydrogen ([0095]-[0098]). Yersin exemplifies compound Ce[B(pz)4]3 ([0104], hereafter Compound 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
230
627
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Compound 1 of Yersin (i.e. Ce[B(pz)4]3) has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula I and Formula III.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yersin et al. (US 2010/0117521 A1).
Regarding claims 16-18, Yersin discloses a complex (Formula (I)) used for a light emitting device ([0001], [0010]). Yersin teaches that Ln is Ce3+; R1 can be an unsubstituted pyrazole group; R2, R3, and R4 can be each hydrogen ([0095]-[0098]). Yersin exemplifies compound Ce[B(pz)4]3 ([0104], hereafter Compound 1). The Compound 1 of Yersin has identical structure as Applicant’s Formulas I and III.
PNG
media_image2.png
230
627
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Yersin does not disclose a specific organic light emitting diode (OLED) device comprising the Compound 1 of Yersin; however, Yersin does teach that the compound of Yersin can be used as the emitter of the emitter layer of an OLED device ([0001], [0010]).
Yersin teaches the structure of an OLED device (Fig. 1) comprising a substrate (glass), an anode (ITO), a light emitting layer (an emitter and CBP as a host, a cathode (Al). Yersin teaches that the concentration of the emitter material can be 2 to 10 % by weight ([0065], [0067])
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound 1 of Yersin by incorporating it as the emitter of an OLED device having structure of a substrate, an anode, a light emitting layer, and a cathode with the doping concentration of 2 to 10 wt% with a host CBP, as taught by Yersin.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Substitution of the emitters of Yersin in the OLED device of Yersin would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified OLED of Yersin comprising a substrate (glass), an anode (ITO), a light emitting layer (Compound 1 of Yersin as an emitter (2-10 wt%) and CBP as a host), a cathode (Al), wherein the OLED device is a photoelectric device.
With respect to claim 18, the Compound 1 of Yersin is a Ce(III) chelate donor molecule because the compound includes a Ce(III) ion chelated by the pyrazole-containing ligands wherein the nitrogen atoms are electron donors. Applicant claims the doping mass ratio of the Ce(III) chelate donor molecule. The claimed range (99-10 wt%) is overlapped with the prior art range (2-10 wt%).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 10, 14-15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yersin et al. (US 2010/0117521 A1) as applied to claims 16-18 above, further in view of Forrest et al. (US 20020008233 A1, hereafter Forrest) and Lee et al. (KR 2019/0130265 A, the original document is referred to for figures and tables, and the English translation is referred to for the remainder body of the patent, hereafter Lee).
Regarding claims 10, 14-15, and 19, the Modified OLED of Yersin reads on all the features of claim 16 as outlined above.
The device comprises a substrate (glass), an anode (ITO), a light emitting layer (Compound 1 of Yersin as an emitter and a host), a cathode (Al), wherein the OLED device is a photoelectric device.
The light emitting layer does not comprises a fluorescent acceptor material.
Forrest discloses an OLED device comprising a phosphorescent sensitizer and a fluorescent emitter (Fig. 1, [0014]).
Forrest teaches that the phosphorescent sensitizer can trap the triplet excitons and transfer the energy to the fluorescent emitter such that the efficiency of the system increases.
Lee also discloses similar system wherein the light emitting layer contains a phosphorescent sensitizer and a fluorescent emitter (page 4, the section named “Means to solve the problem”). Lee teaches that the light emitting layer can have 45-89 wt% of host, 10-50 wt% of phosphorescent sensitizer, and 1-5 wt% of the fluorescent emitter (page 8) and exemplifies weight ratio of 69:30:1 (page 10, par. 2).
Lee teaches that a delayed fluorescent emitter dabna-1 has excellent color characteristics but low efficiency. Lee further teaches that problem of the dabna-1 emitter can be solved by further including a phosphorescent material (page 7, par. 2).
PNG
media_image3.png
239
418
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The compound dabna-1 has identical structure as Applicant’s formula IX of claim 10.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified OLED of Yersin by incorporating a fluorescent emitter dabna-1 into the light emitting layer of the device such that the weight ratio of host, sensitizer, and the fluorescent emitter is 69:30:1, as taught by Forrest and Lee.
The motivation of doing so would have been to trap the triplet excitons and transfer the energy to the fluorescent emitter such that the efficiency of the device increases, based on the teaching of Forrest, and to provide high efficiency and excellent color characteristics based on the teaching of Lee.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides OLED of Yersin as modified by Forrest and Lee comprising a substrate (glass), an anode (ITO), a light emitting layer (Compound 1 of Yersin as a donor (30 wt%), and dabna-1 as a fluorescent receptor (1 wt%), and a host (69 wt%)), a cathode (Al), wherein the light emitting layer material is a composition; and the OLED device is a photoelectric device, meeting all the limitations of claims 10, 15, and 19.
With respect to claim 14, the OLED of Yersin as modified by Forrest and Lee reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach the properties of the fluorescent receptor (dabna-1) including a decimal molar extinction coefficient being greater than 20,000 Lmol-1cm-1, a FWHM being less than 0.25 eV, an emission quantum efficiency being greater than 70%, emission decay time being less than 10 ns, and maximum emission peak being within a range of 420-480 nm.
It is reasonable to presume that the fluorescent receptor (dabna-1) inherently possesses the properties.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
Applicant discloses that the fluorescent receptor of the invention has the properties including a decimal molar extinction coefficient being greater than 20,000 Lmol-1cm-1, a FWHM being less than 0.25 eV, an emission quantum efficiency being greater than 70%, emission decay time being less than 10 ns, and maximum emission peak being within a range of 420-480 nm (instant specification, page 10-12).
The compound dabna-1 has identical structure as Applicant’s specific embodiment of the fluorescent receptor of the invention, Formula IX (page 12).
Therefore, the compound dabna-1 satisfies all the property limitations of the fluorescent receptor such that the OLED of Yersin as modified by Forrest and Lee meets the limitation of claim 14.
The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once the OLED of Yersin as modified by Forrest and Lee is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977). Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though the rejection is based on Section 103 instead of 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
Claim Objections / Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As outlined above, Yersin is representation of the closest prior art. As described in more detail above, Yersin teaches a Ce complex represented by Applicant’s Formula III of the instant claims; however, Yersin does not teach specific Ce complexes, as required in the instant claims 2-3.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEOKMIN JEON whose telephone number is (571)272-4599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm EST.
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, JENNIFER BOYD can be reached at (571)272-7783. 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.
/SEOKMIN JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786