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.
In the Office Action of 01/13/2026, the requirement of species election only was withdrawn because there was no burden. The requirement of restriction is maintained. No claim is withdrawn.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 04/03/2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 1-9, 11-13, 16, and 20-22 have been canceled.
Claims 23-28 have been added.
Claims 10, 14-15, 17-19, and 23-28 are pending.
Claims 10, 14-15, and 7-18 have been amended.
The amendment of drawings has overcome the objection of the drawings set forth in the last Office Action.
The amendment of specification has overcome the objection of the specification set forth in the last Office Action.
The cancellation of the claims 1-9, 11-13, 16, 20-22 obviates the objections of claim 4 and the rejections of claims 1-9, 11-13, 16, and 20-22 set forth in the last Office Action.
The amendment of claim 18 overcome the rejections of claims 18-19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the last Office Action. The rejections have been withdrawn.
The amendment of claims 10, 14-15, and 7-18 overcome:
the rejections of claims 17-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yersin et al. (US 2010/0117521 A1, hereafter Yersin) and
the rejections of claims 10, 14-15, and 19 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 ‘265) set forth in the last Office Action.
The rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see page 17-19 of the reply filed 04/03/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 17-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yersin and the rejections of claims 10, 14-15, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yersin/ Forrest/Lee ‘265 set forth in the Office Action of 01/13/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the amended claims are allowable.
The rejections refer to the Composition of Yersin as modified by Forrest and Lee ‘265 comprising the Compound 1 of Yersin and dabna-1. The compound dabna-1 has been deleted from the claimed composition such that the composition does not read on the claimed composition. The rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 10, there are redundant structural formulas. It appears that the structural formulas on page 7 have identical structures as the structural formulas on page 8.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 10, 14-15, 17-19, and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yersin et al. (US 2010/0117521 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2007/0015006 A1, hereafter Lee ‘006) and Sakaguchi et al. (US 2013/0270994 A1, hereafter Sakaguchi).
Regarding claims 10, 14-15, 17-19, and 25-27, 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_image1.png
230
627
media_image1.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.
The Modified OLED of Yersin is not a white emitting device. However, Yersin teaches the Compound 1 of Yersin is a blue emitting material ([0104]).
Lee ‘006 discloses a white OLED (Abstract). Lee ‘006 teaches that by mixing a blue dopant compound and a yellow dopant compound with each other, white emitting OLED can be formed ([0019]). Lee ‘006 teaches that the 3:2 ratio of the blue to yellow dopants can be used to make white emitting device ([0022]).
Rubrene (see the structural formula below) is a known yellow emitting dopant as taught by Sakaguchi ([0047]).
PNG
media_image2.png
358
377
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 yellow emitting material rubrene (1.3-6.6 wt%. e.g. 2/3 of the blue dopant), as taught by Lee ‘006 and Sakaguchi.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide white light emitting device, based on the teaching of Lee ‘006 and Sakaguchi.
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 the OLED device of Yersin as modified by Lee ‘006 and Sakaguchi comprising a substrate (glass), an anode (ITO), a light emitting layer (Compound 1 of Yersin (2-10 wt%) as a neutral donor molecule, rubrene (1.3-6.6 wt%) as a fluorescent receptor molecule, and CBP as a host), a cathode (Al), wherein the OLED device is a photoelectric device; the light emitting materials are equated with a composition, meeting all the limitations of claims 10, 15, 17-19, and 25-27.
The claim limitations “donor molecule” and “receptor molecule” specify intended uses or fields of use, and are treated as non-limiting since it has been held that in device claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Alternatively, donating property is inherent to the Compound 1 of Yersin and the receptor property is inherent to rubrene, since the Compound 1 of Yersin has identical structure as Applicant’s invention represented by Formula I, and the rubrene has identical structure as Applicant’s specific embodiment of the fluorescent receptor molecule (page 16 of the instant specification). Thus, the Compound 1 of Yersin is a neutral donor molecule and the compound rubrene is a fluorescent receptor molecule.
With respect to claim 14, the OLED of Yersin as modified by Lee ‘006 and Sakaguchi reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach the properties : 1) the fluorescent receptor (rubrene) 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 OLED device of Yersin as modified by Lee ‘006 and Sakaguchi possesses the properties 1)
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).
Rubrene has identical structure as Applicant’s specific embodiment of the fluorescent receptor of the instant invention (page 16).
Therefore, the compound rubrene satisfies all the property limitations of the fluorescent receptor such that the OLED of Yersin as modified by Lee ‘006 and Sakaguchi 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 Lee ‘006 and Sakaguchi 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 23-24 and 28 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 26-27. Yersin does not teach a specific composition consisting of the compound of Yersin and the specific Formula VII or VIII as required in the claim 28.
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 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
Prosecution Insights