DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 12/23/2025.
3. Claims 1-13, 15-19 are pending. Claims 1-13, 15-19 are under examination on the merits. Claims 1, 15-16 are amended. Claim 14 is cancelled.
4. The objections and rejections not addressed below are deemed withdrawn.
5. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-13 , 15-19 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-9, 12-13, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchiya et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0397921 A1, hereinafter “’921”) in view of Cao et al. (US Pub. No. 2011/0031430 A1, hereinafter “’430”).
Regarding claim 1: ‘921 teaches a method of preparing light-emission organic nanoparticles (Page 1, [0001]), comprising: (S1) preparing a first mixture by mixing mCP as a host material (melting point: 178° C), 4CzIPN as an organic luminescent material (i.e., an organic phosphor), and DSPE-PEG2K (distearoylphophatidyl ethanolamine-polyethylene glycol 2000) as a surfactant, and (S2) preparing a dispersion solution by mixing a first mixture with the first solvent which is an anti-solvent for the organic phosphor to obtain particles have an average particle diameter of 517 nm, and a polydispersion index of 0.213 (Page 18, [0128], Example 1; Page 22, Claim 1), wherein micelles, in which a hydrophobic portion of the surfactant surrounds the organic phosphor, are dispersed in the first solvent (Page 8, [0095]). ‘921 does not expressly teach wherein the number of moles of the surfactant is 200 to 1000 times based on the number of moles of the organic phosphor.
However, ‘430 teaches novel water soluble paramagnetic organic nanoparticles (NPs) are formed by a modified reprecipitation method where an organic solution of an organic compound is injected into water under agitation that is maintained for a desired period of time for nanoparticle growth followed by termination of the growth by the addition of an aqueous surfactant solution, wherein micelles, in which a hydrophobic portion of the surfactant surrounds the organic phosphor (Page 2, [0022]-[0023]). The size of the nanoparticles depends on the time between injection and addition of the surfactant solution (Page 2, [0022]). ‘430 teaches to control the final size of organic NPs by choosing the particle-growth time and rapidly quenching the particle growth by rapid addition of the surfactant. Nanoparticles of about 50 to about 1,000 nm can be prepared (Page 2, [0022]-[0023]).
Thus, 430‘s disclosure would have indicated to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the time and the amount of surfactant (variables) in each the NPs solution (affect) determine the final size of organic NPs, establishing that the time and the amount of surfactant in each the NPs composition are result-effective variables. In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("A recognition in the prior art that a property is affected by the variable is sufficient to find the variable result-effective."), and the final size of organic NPs is recognized as a result-effective variable before determining that optimum ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.").
Regarding claim 2: The disclosure of ‘921 in view of ‘430 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘921 teaches the method of preparing light-emission type organic nanoparticles (Page 1, [0001]), further comprising dialyzing the dispersion solution and drying the dialyzed dispersion solution (Page 18, [0128], Example 1; Page 22, Claim 9).
Regarding claim 3: The disclosure of ‘921 in view of ‘430 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘921 teaches the method of preparing light-emission type organic nanoparticles (Page 1, [0001]), wherein the organic phosphor is one selected from the group consisting of a green phosphor such as 4CzIPN which is thermally activated delayed fluorescence (TADF) green emitter material (Page 4, [0060]; Page 18, [0128], Example 1).
Regarding claim 4: The disclosure of ‘921 in view of ‘430 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘921 teaches the method of preparing light-emission type organic nanoparticles (Page 1, [0001]), wherein the organic phosphor is a delayed fluorescence material (Page 4, [0060]; Page 18, [0128], Example 1).’921 in view of ‘430 does not expressly teach the organic phosphor has a luminescence efficiency of 80% or more.
However, since ‘921 in view of ‘430 discloses the identical or substantially identical a method of preparing light-emission type organic nanoparticles (Page 1, [0001]), comprising: (S1) preparing a first mixture by mixing mCP as a host material (melting point: 178° C), 4CzIPN as an organic luminescent material (i.e., an organic phosphor), and DSPE-PEG2K (distearoylphophatidyl ethanolamine-polyethylene glycol 2000) as a surfactant, and (S2) preparing a dispersion solution by mixing the first mixture with the first solvent which is an anti-solvent for the organic phosphor, wherein micelles, in which a hydrophobic portion of the surfactant surrounds the organic phosphor, are dispersed in the first solvent (Page 8, [0095]), and the number of moles of the surfactant is an excess of the number of moles of the organic phosphor as the recited claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have expected that the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. a luminescence efficiency, would be the same as claimed (i.e., the organic phosphor has a luminescence efficiency of 80% or more). “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP 2112.01(I). Absent an objective showing to the contrary, the addition of the claimed physical properties to the claim language fails to provide patentable distinction over the prior art.
Where ... the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical ... the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977) (citations and footnote omitted). The mere recitation of a property or characteristic not disclosed by the prior art does not necessarily confer patentability to a composition or a method of using that composition. See In re Skoner, 51 7 F .2d 94 7, 950 ( CCP A 197 5).
Regarding claim 5: The disclosure of ‘921 in view of ‘430 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘921 teaches the method of preparing light-emission type organic nanoparticles (Page 1, [0001]), wherein the delayed fluorescence material is a 4CzIPN compound as an organic luminescent material (Page 10, [120]; Page 18, [0128], Example 1), wherein L is an aryl group, A is a cyano group disubstituted on the aryl group, and D is a substituent tetra-substituted on the aryl group, wherein each of the substituents is independently a heteroaryl group containing a nitrogen atom substituted with a hydrocarbon group having 12 carbon atoms as shown below (Page 10, [120]; Page 18, [0128], Example 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
298
268
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6: The disclosure of ‘921 in view of ‘430 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘921 teaches the method of preparing light-emission type organic nanoparticles (Page 1, [0001]), wherein the delayed fluorescence material is a 4CzIPN compound as an organic luminescent material (Page 10, [120]; Page 18, [0128], Example 1) which is identical to the instant Chemical Formula T-9 of claim 6.
Regarding claims 7-8 : The disclosure of ‘921 in view of ‘430 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘921 teaches the method of preparing light-emission type organic nanoparticles (Page 1, [0001]), wherein the organic phosphor having a boron compound as a main structure such as DABNA2 (Page 21, [0150, Example 6, Page 22, DABNA2 compound).’921 is silent regarding the organic phosphor has a luminescence efficiency of 80% or more, and having a boron compound as a main structure.
PNG
media_image2.png
244
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, since ‘921 in view of ‘430 discloses the identical or substantially identical a method of preparing light-emission type organic nanoparticles (Page 1, [0001]), comprising: (S1) preparing a first mixture by mixing mCP as a host material (melting point: 178° C), 4CzIPN as an organic luminescent material (i.e., an organic phosphor), and DSPE-PEG2K (distearoylphophatidyl ethanolamine-polyethylene glycol 2000) as a surfactant, and (S2) preparing a dispersion solution by mixing the first mixture with the first solvent which is an anti-solvent for the organic phosphor, wherein micelles, in which a hydrophobic portion of the surfactant surrounds the organic phosphor, are dispersed in the first solvent (Page 8, [0095]), and the number of moles of the surfactant is an excess of the number of moles of the organic phosphor as the recited claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have expected that the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. a luminescence efficiency, would be the same as claimed (i.e., the organic phosphor has a luminescence efficiency of 80% or more). “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP 2112.01(I). Absent an objective showing to the contrary, the addition of the claimed physical properties to the claim language fails to provide patentable distinction over the prior art.
Where ... the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical ... the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977) (citations and footnote omitted). The mere recitation of a property or characteristic not disclosed by the prior art does not necessarily confer patentability to a composition or a method of using that composition. See In re Skoner, 51 7 F .2d 94 7, 950 ( CCP A 197 5).
Regarding claim 9: The disclosure of ‘921 in view of ‘430 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘921 does not expressly teach the boron compound is any one of compounds represented by the Chemical Formulas D-1 to D-30.
However, ‘921 teaches the method of preparing light-emission type organic nanoparticles (Page 1, [0001]), wherein the organic phosphor having a boron compound as a main structure such as DABNA2 (Page 21, [0150, Example 6, Page 22, DABNA2 compound). The DABNA2 compound is different with respect to substituents as compared to the instant Chemical Formulas D-1 or D-7. Since both the present invention and ‘921 pertain to luminescent particles prepared by using the delayed fluorescent material, a person skilled in the art could readily derive the differences through changes in terminal substituents.
PNG
media_image2.png
244
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, since it is held to be a prima facie case of obviousness since a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the interchangeability of the element (i.e. functional group) shown in the prior art for the corresponding element disclosed in the specification wherein the side chains syntheses merely done by routine experimentation. Caterpillar Inc. v. Deere & Co., 224 F.3d 1374, 56 USPQ2d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
Regarding claim 12: The disclosure of ‘921 in view of ‘430 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘921 teaches the method of preparing light-emission type organic nanoparticles (Page 1, [0001]), wherein the first solvent is one selected from the group consisting of an aqueous solvent (Page 18, [0128], Example 1).
Regarding claim 13: The disclosure of ‘921 in view of ‘430 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘921 teaches the method of preparing light-emission type organic nanoparticles (Page 1, [0001]), wherein the surfactant is one selected from the group consisting of an anionic surfactant (Page 5, [0065]), and a nonionic surfactant (Page 5, [0064]).
Regarding claim 15: The disclosure of ‘921 in view of ‘430 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘921 teaches light-emission type organic nanoparticles prepared by the method of preparing light-emission type organic nanoparticles (Page 18, [0128], Example 1; Page 22, Claim 1).
Claims 15 is viewed as product-by-process claims and hence the methods they are created by are not pertinent, unless applicant can show a different product is produced. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” See MPEP 2113.
8. Claims 10-11, 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchiya et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0397921 A1, hereinafter “’921”)in view of Cao et al. (US Pub. No. 2011/0031430 A1, hereinafter “’430”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0251663 A1, hereinafter “’663”).
Regarding claims 10-11: The disclosure of ‘921 in view of ‘430 is adequately set forth in paragraph 7 above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘921 teaches the method of preparing light-emission type organic nanoparticles (Page 1, [0001]), wherein the organic phosphor having a boron compound as a main structure such as DABNA2 (Page 21, [0150, Example 6, Page 22, DABNA2 compound). ‘921teaches the type or the structures of delayed fluorescent material can be used as the assist dopant are not particularly limited (Page 2, [0028]-[0029]; Page 6, [0079]). ‘921 in view of ‘430 does not expressly teach the phosphor having the boron compound as the main structure is represented by Chemical Formulas 3 as set forth.
However, ‘663 teaches an organic electroluminescence device including an emission layer between a first electrode and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer includes a first host represented by Formula 1 as set forth such as D1-1 compound (Page 7, [0026], Page 8, D1-1 compound), a first dopant which is a thermally activated delayed fluorescence material having an electron donor and an electron acceptor (Page 30, [0130]), a second host which is different from the first host, and a second dopant represented by Formula 2 as set forth such as D2-1 compound (Page 12, [0033], D2-1 compound, identical to instant B-3 compound) with benefit of providing an organic electroluminescence device having long life and high color purity, and a display device including the same (Page 1, [0005]). Accordingly, because singlet excitons produced by the first dopant which is a thermally activated delayed fluorescence dopant, rapidly emit light via the second dopant which is a fluorescence dopant, the deterioration of a device may decrease and device efficiency may increase. Further, because a thermally activated delayed fluorescence dopant of an electron donor-electron acceptor type has relatively short life when compared with an existing fluorescence dopant, the defects of the first dopant may be compensated for by the second dopant, which is the fluorescence dopant having long life (Page 42, [0162]).
PNG
media_image3.png
310
392
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
180
268
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In an analogous art of the organic electroluminescence device, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the phosphor having the boron compound by ‘921, so as to include the phosphor having the boron compound as the main structure is represented by Chemical Formulas 3 as set forth as taught by ‘633, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing an organic electroluminescence device having long life and high color purity, and a display device including the same (Page 1, [0005]). Accordingly, because singlet excitons produced by the first dopant which is a thermally activated delayed fluorescence dopant, rapidly emit light via the second dopant which is a fluorescence dopant, the deterioration of a device may decrease and device efficiency may increase. Further, because a thermally activated delayed fluorescence dopant of an electron donor-electron acceptor type has relatively short life when compared with an existing fluorescence dopant, the defects of the first dopant may be compensated for by the second dopant, which is the fluorescence dopant having long life as suggested by ‘663 (Page 42, [0162]).
Regarding claims 16-19: The disclosure of ‘921 in view of ‘430 is adequately set forth in paragraph 7 above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘921 teaches mCP as a host material (melting point: 178° C.), 4CzIPN as an organic luminescent material, and DSPE-PEG2K (distearoylphophatidyl ethanolamine-polyethylene glycol 2000) as a surfactant are placed in a vial to prepare a liquid mixture. The contents of the respective materials, in terms of the final concentrations in an emulsion to be prepared, are as follows: mCP, 0.52 mM; 4CzIPN, 0.019 mM (6% by weight based on the total amount of mCP and 4CzIPN); and DSPE-PEG2K, 0.053 mM (Page 18, [0128]; Example 1). ‘921 teaches a bioimaging composition comprising the luminescent particles (Page 22, Claim 21). ‘921 in view of ‘430 does not expressly teach a color conversion film coated with the composition for a color conversion film on a substrate, a display device comprising the color conversion film, and a light emitting diode device comprising the color conversion film.
However, ‘633 teaches the organic electroluminescence device (Page 1, 0005]) comprising the emission layer EML may include a first host, a second host, a first dopant, and a second dopant (Page 20, [0059], Fig. 3; Page 21, [0072]; Page 44, [0179]; Page 44, [0183]) with benefit of providing an organic electroluminescence device having long life and high color purity, and a display device including the same (Page 1, [0005]).
In an analogous art of the organic electroluminescence device, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply the luminescent particles by ‘921 to a color conversion film in display device of a light emitting diode device as taught by ‘633, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing an organic electroluminescence device having long life and high color purity, and a display device including the same (Page 1, [0005]).
9. Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchiya et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0397921 A1, hereinafter “’921”) in view of Cao et al. (US Pub. No. 2011/0031430 A1, hereinafter “’430”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shikauchi et al. (US Pub. No. 2016/0293893 A1, hereinafter “’893”).
Regarding claims 16-17: The disclosure of ‘921 in view of ‘430 is adequately set forth in paragraph 7 above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘921 teaches mCP as a host material (melting point: 178° C.), 4CzIPN as an organic luminescent material, and DSPE-PEG2K (distearoylphophatidyl ethanolamine-polyethylene glycol 2000) as a surfactant are placed in a vial to prepare a liquid mixture. The contents of the respective materials, in terms of the final concentrations in an emulsion to be prepared, are as follows: mCP, 0.52 mM; 4CzIPN, 0.019 mM (6% by weight based on the total amount of mCP and 4CzIPN); and DSPE-PEG2K, 0.053 mM (Page 18, [0128]; Example 1). ‘921 in view of ‘430 does not expressly teach a composition for a color conversion film, comprising the light-emitting organic nanoparticles and a water-soluble polymer resin.
However, ‘893 teaches an organic electroluminescent element, which is provided with a light scattering film obtained by curing a composition for light scattering film formation containing, for example, a triazine ring-containing polymer, a crosslinking agent and a light-diffusing agent (Page 1, [0019]). ‘921 teaches the composition comprising 0.01 to 20 parts by weight of a crosslinking agent (Page 12, [0132]), 1 to 20 parts by weight of a light scattering agent based on 100 parts by weight of the water-soluble polymer resin (Page 15, [0183]), wherein the crosslinking agent is selected from the group consisting of dianhydrides such as pyromellitic anhydride (Page 11, [0114], and the light scattering agent is selected from the group consisting of TiO2 (Page 15, [0174]), wherein the inorganic metal oxide particles have an average particle size of 200 to 400 nm (Page 15, [0181]) with benefit of providing a crosslinking agent to enhance the alkali resistance of the resulting cured film (Page 12, [0129]; Page 12, [0131]), and further to provide a light diffusing agent in order to increase the light diffusing properties of the resulting cured film (Page 15, [0148]).
In an analogous art of the organic electroluminescence device, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition for a color conversion film by ‘921, so as to include a water-soluble polymer resin, a crosslinking agent and a light-diffusing agent as taught by ‘893, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing a crosslinking agent to enhance the alkali resistance of the resulting cured film (Page 12, [0129]; Page 12, [0131]), and further to provide a light diffusing agent in order to increase the light diffusing properties of the resulting cured film as suggested by ‘893 (Page 15, [0148]).
Regarding claims 17-19: The disclosure of ‘921 in view of ‘430 is adequately set forth in paragraph 7 above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘921 in view of ‘430 does not expressly teach a color conversion film manufactured using the composition for a color conversion film, a display device comprising the color conversion film, and a light-emitting diode device comprising the color conversion film.
However, ‘893 teaches the light-scattering film-forming composition comprising a specific triazine ring-containing polymer, a crosslinking agent, and a light diffusing agent, and is therefore able to efficiently produce a cured film having good light diffusing properties (Page 3, [0022]). ‘893 teaches the resulting cured film can be advantageously used as a component in the fabrication of electronic devices such as liquid-crystal displays, organic EL devices (organic EL displays and organic EL lighting), optical semiconductor (LED) devices, solid-state image sensors, organic thin-film solar cells, dye-sensitized solar cells and organic thin-film transistors (TFTs). In particular, such cured films have excellent light-diffusing properties, and thus can be advantageously used as a light scattering layer (light extraction layer) material for organic EL devices and LEDs (Page 3, [0023]).
In an analogous art of the organic electroluminescence device, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply the composition for a color conversion film by ‘921, so as to include the color conversion film into a display device or a light-emitting diode device as taught by ‘893, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing cured films have excellent light-diffusing properties, and thus can be advantageously used as a light scattering layer (light extraction layer) material for organic EL devices and LEDs as suggested by ‘893 (Page 3, [0023]).
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-13, 15-19 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
11. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Examiner Information
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bijan Ahvazi, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-3449. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9.00 A.M. -7 P.M..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Del Sole can be reached on 571-272-1130. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Bijan Ahvazi/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
01/22/2026
bijan.ahvazi@uspto.gov