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, 3-20 are pending. Claims 1, 3-20 are under examination on the merits. Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 17 are amended. Claim 2 is cancelled.
4. The objections and rejections not addressed below are deemed withdrawn.
5. The terminal disclaimer filed on 12/23/2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US copending Application No.18/280,488 has been reviewed and is NOT accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
6. Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, thus claims 1, 3-20 stand rejected as set forth in Office action dated 09/23/2025 and further discussed in the Response to Arguments below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. Claims 1, 3-7,10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchiya et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0397921 A1, hereinafter “’921”).
Regarding claim 1: ‘921 teaches light-emitting organic nanoparticles (Page 1, [0001]), comprising 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, wherein the light-emitting organic nanoparticles have an average particle diameter of 517 nm, and a polydispersion index of 0.213 (Page 18, [0128], Example 1; Page 22, Claim 1). ‘921 teaches the surfactant is present in the water and on the surfaces of the luminescent particles, wherein the surfactant contributes to stabilization of the luminescent particles (Page 8, [0095]), which would result in the light- emitting organic nanoparticles have a core-shell structure in which the organic phosphor is surrounded by a surfactant (Page 8, [0095]). ’921 does not expressly teach the organic phosphor has a lumine- scence efficiency of 80% or more.
However, since ‘921 discloses the identical or substantially identical light-emitting organic nanoparticles (Page 1, [0001]) comprising 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, wherein the light-emitting organic nanoparticles 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 the surfactant is present in the water and on the surfaces of the luminescent particles, which would result in the light- emitting organic nanoparticles have a core-shell structure in which the organic phosphor is surrounded by a surfactant (Page 8, [0095]) 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 3: ‘921 teaches the light-emitting organic nanoparticles (Page 1, [0001]), wherein the organic phosphor is a delayed fluorescence material (Page 4, [0060]; Page 18, [0128], Example 1).
Regarding claim 4: ‘921 teaches the light-emitting 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 5: ‘921 teaches the light-emitting 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 5.
Regarding claim 6: ‘921 teaches the light-emitting 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).
PNG
media_image2.png
244
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7: The disclosure of ‘921 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 light-emitting 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 10: ‘921 teaches the light-emitting 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]).
9. Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchiya et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0397921 A1, hereinafter “’921”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0251663 A1, hereinafter “’663”).
Regarding claims 8-9: The disclosure of ‘921 is adequately set forth in paragraph 8 above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘921 teaches the light-emitting 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 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]).
10. Claims 11-14, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchiya et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0397921 A1, hereinafter “’921”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shikauchi et al. (US Pub. No. 2016/0293893 A1, hereinafter “’893”).
Regarding claims 11-14,16-17: The disclosure of ‘921 is adequately set forth in paragraph 8 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 does not expressly teach a composition for a color conversion film, comprising the light-emitting organic nanoparticles and a water-soluble polymer resin, wherein the composition comprising 0.01 to 20 parts by weight of a crosslinking agent, 1 to 20 parts by weight of a light scattering agent based on 100 parts by weight of the water-soluble polymer resin, wherein the crosslinking agent is selected from the group consisting of dianhydrides, and the light scattering agent is selected from the group consisting of TiO2, the inorganic metal oxide particles have an average particle size of 200 to 400 nm.
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 18-20: The disclosure of ‘921 is adequately set forth in paragraph 15 above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘921 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]).
11. Claims 11, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchiya et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0397921 A1, hereinafter “’921”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0079271 A1, hereinafter “’271”).
Regarding claims 11,15: The disclosure of ‘921 is adequately set forth in paragraph 8 above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘921 does not expressly teach a composition for a color conversion film, comprising the light-emitting organic nanoparticles and a water-soluble polymer resin, wherein the water-soluble polymer resin has a weight average molecular weight of 5,000 to 100,000 g/mol and a degree of hydration of 70 to 100%, and is one or more polymers or copolymers selected from the group consisting of a nonionic water-soluble polymer, an anionic water-soluble.
However, ‘271 teaches the acrylic emulsion pressure-sensitive adhesive (PSA) composition comprising a modified polyvinyl alcohol emulsifier of the Chemical Formula 1 (Page 4, [0067]) having a number average molecular weight of 6,000 g/mol and a degree of hydration of 78% (Page 5, [0075], Example 4) or a modified polyvinyl alcohol emulsifier having a number average molecular weight of 7500 g/mol and a degree of hydration of 95% (Page 5, [0076], Example 5), thereby being applied to pressure-sensitive adhesive sheets. The pressure-sensitive adhesive sheets may include a pressure-sensitive adhesive film or sheet for interior /exterior materials of buildings, interior design materials, advertising films, or labels (Page 4, [0065]) with benefit of providing PSA which exhibits an enhanced adhesive force to hydrophobic base materials while maintaining the adhesive force to hydrophilic materials without leaving residues (Page 1, [0010]).
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, wherein the water-soluble polymer resin has a weight average molecular weight of 5,000 to 100,000 g/mol and a degree of hydration of 70 to 100%, and is one or more polymers or copolymers selected from the group consisting of a nonionic water-soluble polymer, an anionic water-soluble as taught by ‘271, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing PSA which exhibits an enhanced adhesive force to hydrophobic base materials while maintaining the adhesive force to hydrophilic materials without leaving residues as suggested by ‘271 (Page 1, [0010]).
Response to Arguments
12. Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive,
The rejection of claims on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 15-19 of copending Application No.18/280,488 (US Pub. No. 2024/0191131 A1, hereinafter ”’131”) is NOT withdrawn, since the terminal disclaimer was disapproved.
The rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kwon et al. (US Pub. No. 2024/0191131 A1, hereinafter “’’131”) is withdrawn since the Applicant relied upon the certified English translation of applicants' priority papers dated 12/23/2025 to overcome the rejection because a translation of said papers has been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. See MPEP § 201.15, in which case “477 reference is removed as prior art.
Furthermore, Applicant indicated that the subject matter disclosed in U.S. App. 18/280,488 (i.e., Kwon et al. US Pub. No. 2024/0191131)) and the claimed invention of the present application were made by or on behalf of one or more the parties to a joint research agreement, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. IO0(h) and 37 C.F.R. 1.9(e), that was in effect on or before the effective filing date the claimed invention, and the claimed invention was made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of the joint research agreement. The parties to the joint research agreement are NDMATERIALS CORP. and CLAP CO.,LTD. As such, Kwon et al. (US Pub. No.2024/0191131) is not prior art under 102(a)(2) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §103(c).
(3) As such, Kwon et al. (US Pub. No. 2024/0191131 Al, hereinafter ""131 ") has been
disqualified as both of 102(a)(l) prior art and 102(a)(2) prior art, and the rejections are rendered
moot.
In response to the Applicant’s argument that there is a fundamental difference in the manufacturing method and the resulting particle structure between the present invention and '921. '921 employs a high-temperature melt emulsion method, resulting in relatively large
particles (e.g., 517 nm in Example 1). Structurally, '921 forms "oil droplets" where the host
material is melted, effectively creating particles where the phosphor is dispersed inside a host
matrix. In contrast, the present invention utilizes a room-temperature reprecipitation method,
achieving ultra-fine and uniform particles (100-170 nm). Crucially, the present invention forms a
micelle structure where the hydrophobic part of the surfactant directly surrounds the organic
phosphor.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The instant claim 1 is product claim, and not manufacturing method. In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the method of producing light-emitting organic nanoparticles) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181,26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir.1993).
13. 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
14. 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
01/21/2026
bijan.ahvazi@uspto.gov