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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Response to Amendment
The applicant's reply of 12/23/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1, 2-5, 9-12, 16, and 18-19 are amended due to the applicant's amendment.
Claims 1-6 and 9-20 are pending.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are each overcome due to the applicant's amendment.
However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made, necessitated by amendment.
Response to Arguments
Insofar as the arguments apply to the new grounds of rejection outlined below, the applicant's arguments on pages 13-18 of the reply dated 12/23/2025 with respect to the rejections of record have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument – The applicant argues on page 17 that the homogenous mixture of the Shi reference and the homogenous mixture of the Ghosh reference are both taught as being formed from at least one host and at least one dopant and because such a mixture would necessarily include a dopant, it would fail to correspond with the organic alloy recited in the instant claim 1, which does not include a dopant.
Examiner's response – The invention of the prior art is not limited to or defined by only those embodiments disclosed in the examples. A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. See MPEP § 2123. While Shi and Gosh teaches examples wherein the method is applied to a light emitting layer formed from a host and dopant, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the technique of Shi in view of Gosh (vaporize the compounds, solidify the vapor, and grind the solidified mixture into a powder) to two host compounds in order to obtain a device with strongly bonded components that is consistent and avoids problems associated with co-evaporation, as taught by Shi and Gosh, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim Interpretation
It is noted that the applicant's specification does not appear to provide a special definition for "organic alloy." Since there is a presumption that claim terms are given their plain meaning, and the use of special definitions is an exception, the applicant must point to where the specification as filed provides a clear and intentional use of a special definition for the claim term to be treated as having a special definition. See MPEP 2173.01(I). To act as their own lexicographer, the applicant must clearly set forth a special definition of a claim term in the specification that differs from the plain and ordinary meaning it would otherwise possess. See MPEP 2111.01(IV).
For purposes of examination, "organic alloy" is interpreted with the broadest reasonable interpretation as an intimate mixture, such as a mixture formed from solidifying a melt, a solution, or vapor mixture, of organic molecules that has at least one property that is improved in comparison to its individual constituents. See Patent Board Decision of 12/16/202 in parent application no. 14/903,197, pages 5-9.
It is further noted that the recitation “organic alloy…, which is a material obtained by pre-treating at least two kinds of organic compounds, wherein: the at least two kinds of organic compounds includes a first organic compound and a second organic compound… the pre-treating includes heating the first organic compound and the second organic compound together to form a melted first organic compound and second organic compound and then cooling and solidifying the melted first organic compound and second organic compound to form the organic alloy" is a process limitation that only limits the organic alloy material in so far as the process step of pretreating limits the composition and structure of the organic alloy material. The focus remains on the composition or product.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 9-20 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 18, the claims recite "the organic alloy does not include a dopant". The claim is indefinite because it is unclear what is and is not encompassed by a dopant. One having ordinary skill in the art recognizes "a dopant" in the art of organic electroluminescent devices as a compound introduced in a smaller amount into another compound. Would any compound in a minority amount read on a dopant? Or because the first and second organic compounds are now required to be host compounds, does a dopant refer to a light emitting dopant, such as a phosphorescent dopant as recited on page 51 of the specification?
For purposes of examination, the claim is being interpreted as excluding a light emitting dopant from the organic alloy.
Claims 2-6 and 10-17 are rejection as being dependent on indefinite claim 1.
Claims 19-20 are rejection as being dependent on indefinite claim 18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-2, 9-10, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al. US-20040016907-A1 (hereinafter "Shi") in view of Gosh et al. US-20050056960-A1 (hereinafter "Gosh").
Regarding claims 1-2 and 9-10, Shi teaches manufacturing an organic light emitting device by providing a homogeneous solid mixture capable of being deposited which includes two organic materials; and depositing the homogeneous solid mixture to form a layer in an organic light emitting device (Abstract, ¶ [0014]-[0015]). Shi teaches that this method uses a single evaporation deposition source and therefore the organic layer can be formed in an organic light-emitting device that is consistent from device to device (¶ [0017]). Shi teaches wherein the organic layer is formed by heat-treating a mixture of first and second organic compounds, cooling the mixture to ambient temperatures to solidify, and evaporative dry coating employing the solid mixture as a source to form the organic layer (FIG. 1, ¶ [0021]-[0022], [0026], [0040], [0053]). According to Shi, the evaporation temperature of the mixture constituents must be identical or relatively closely matched to prevent separation during evaporation (¶ [0037]-[0039]). Shi teaches mixing first and second organic compounds at amounts within the claimed ratios and comprising host compound with electron characteristics together with a host compound with hole characteristics (see examples 1 to 4 on pages 4-5).
Shi does not specifically teach grinding the solidified organic mixture to form a powder. However, Ghosh teaches forming homogeneous mixtures of organic compounds to serve as evaporative coating sources in the production of organic layers for organic light emitting devices and teaches melting the mixture under vacuum, solidifying the mixture, and pulverizing the mixture into a powder (Abstract; ¶ [0002], [0026]-[0034]). Gosh teaches that the powder materials possess strongly bonded components and allows for single-source vaporization, which avoids problems associated with co-evaporation (¶ [0036]-[0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have ground solidified mixtures of Shi into a powder material as taught by Gosh. The motivation for doing so would have been to avoid problems associated with co-evaporation during formation of an organic layer of an organic light-emitting device and to obtain strongly bonded components, as taught by Gosh.
Given that Shi and Gosh teach evaporation of the two organic materials to vaporize them, solidifying the vapor, and grinding the solidified mixture into a powder, the process results in a blended powder product, i.e., an intimate mixture of the two compounds. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the intimate mixture is an organic alloy with the same or substantially the same properties as the claimed organic alloy. The burden is shifted to the applicant to show with objective evidence that, in fact, the prior art process does not produce an organic alloy inherently having the claimed properties. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP 2112.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elizabeth M. Dahlburg whose telephone number is 571-272-6424. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET, and alternate Fridays.
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 on 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.
/ELIZABETH M. DAHLBURG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786