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 05/14/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 16, and 18-19 are amended and claim 3 is cancelled due to the applicant's amendment.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, and 9-20 are pending.
The rejection of claims 1-6 and 9-20 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 is overcome due to the applicant's amendment. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-2, 9-10, and 16-17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al. US-20040016907-A1 in view of Gosh et al. US-20050056960-A1 is overcome due to the applicant's amendment. The rejection is withdrawn.
However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made 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.
Response to Arguments
The applicant's arguments on pages 14-15 of the reply dated 05/14/2026 with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and under 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth in the previous Office Action have been considered but are moot because each of the rejections have been withdrawn.
However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made 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.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the chemical structures and associated text in Group 1 on page 17, Group 2 on pages 27-35, Group 3, page 38, Group 5 on pages 40-48, Group A and Group B on page 49, Reaction Scheme 1 on page 54, Reaction Scheme 2 on page 55, Reaction Scheme 3 on page 56, Reaction Scheme 4 on page 57, Reaction Scheme 5 on page 57, Reaction Scheme 6 on page 59, Reaction Scheme 7 on page 61 are of poor resolution.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 11-12, 14, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: the resolution of the chemical structures is of poor resolution.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9-10, and 16-17 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.
Regarding claims 1-2, 4-6, 9-10, and 16-17, the claims recite an organic alloy for an organic optoelectric device, which is a material obtained by pre-treating at least two kinds of organic host compounds, wherein the at least two kinds of organic host compounds includes a first organic host compound and a second organic host compound wherein
a difference between an evaporation temperature of the first organic host compound and an evaporation temperature of the second organic host compound is less than or equal to 20 degrees C determined at a same pressure at less than or equal to 10-3 torr,
the pre-treating includes heating the first organic host compound and the second organic host compound together to form a melted first organic host compound and second organic host compound and then cooling and solidifying the melted first organic host compound and second organic host compound to form the organic alloy,
a maximum light emitting wavelength of the organic alloy in solid form is different from maximum light emitting wavelengths of the first organic host compound, the second organic host compound, and a simple mixture of the first organic host compound and the second organic host compound in solid form, the maximum light emitting wavelengths being determined at a same condition, and
the maximum light emitting wavelength of the organic alloy is shifted greater than or equal to 20 nm compared with a maximum light emitting wavelength of the simple mixture of the first organic host compound and the second organic host compound.
Per MPEP 2163(II)(A)(3)(a)(ii), the written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by (A) actual reduction to practice, (B) reduction to drawings, or (C) by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the applicant was in possession of the claimed genus. A "representative number of species" means that the species which are adequately described are representative of the entire genus. Thus, when there is substantial variation within the genus, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus.
The instant disclosure does not adequately reflect the structural diversity of the claimed genus of an "organic alloy" comprising a "first organic host compound" and a "second organic host compound" wherein each of the properties recited above are met. The instant specification describes only two specific examples of the organic alloy comprising the first organic host compound and the second organic host compound (see specification page 62). However, both of these examples are small molecules of substantially similar structure. The disclosure does not adequately represent the full scope of the organic alloy comprising the first organic host compound and the second organic host compound having each of the above properties, wherein each of the first organic host compound and the second organic host compound may be of many varied classes of compounds including those comprising polymers and organometallics, among others. Finally, the disclosure only provides exceptionally broad guidance on what materials that might be useable as the first organic host compound and the second organic host compound to meet the claimed organic alloy, and it is primarily by using the property itself to guide the selection.
Claims 2, 4-6, 9-10, and 16-17 are dependent on claim 1 and therefore, for the reasons outlined above with respect to claim 1, these claims also contain 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-15 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: The closest prior art, exemplified by Shi et al. US-20040016907-A1, 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]) using a single evaporation deposition source (¶ [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]). However, Shi does not specifically teach grinding the solidified organic mixture to form a powder, and does not teach wherein the first organic compound is a compound represented by the claimed Chemical Formula 1 and the second organic compound is a compound represented by the claimed Chemical Formula 2. Further, the prior art does not provide a reason to modify the organic layer of the organic light emitting device of Shi such that the solidified organic mixture formed is a powder, and such that the first organic compound is a compound represented by the claimed Chemical Formula 1 and the second organic compound is a compound represented by the claimed Chemical Formula 2 to arrive at the claimed organic alloy with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 18-20 allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art, exemplified by Shi et al. US-20040016907-A1, 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]) using a single evaporation deposition source (¶ [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]). However, Shi does not specifically teach grinding the solidified organic mixture to form a powder and does not teach wherein the first organic compound is a compound of Group A and the second organic compound is a compound of Group B. Further, the prior art does not provide a reason to modify the organic layer of the organic light emitting device of Shi such that the solidified organic mixture formed is a powder, and such that the first organic compound is a compound of Group A and the second organic compound is a compound of Group B to arrive at the claimed organic alloy with a reasonable expectation of success.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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
Prosecution Insights