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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12 April 2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the Office.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9 May 2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the Office.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 22 August 2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the Office.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for a triplet sensitizer containing a platinum atom and an organic luminescent material as defined in claim 8, does not reasonably provide enablement for all triplet sensitizers and organic luminescent materials. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. The breadth of the claims is significantly broader than what is disclosed in the specification and covers a nearly unlimited amount of compounds and therefore combinations of the two compounds. The nature of the invention is very complex, requiring specific compounds with specific and often unreported properties. The state of the prior art is limited regarding up-conversion materials and the claimed properties. However, the compounds are known outside of the recited use and could be combined for other purposes without regard for the ratios of the triplet and singlet energy. A person with ordinary skill in the art would have an advanced chemistry, physics or materials science degree. The level of unpredictability is high due to the massive range of compounds and the specific properties of each compound. The applicant provides limited direction and only a couple working examples in the specification to provide guidance to the scope of the claim. Which would result in excessive need for trial and error and undue experimentation in order for a person having ordinary skill in the art to understand the scope of the claims and what is considered to read on the instant claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (CN103320123, from the IDS dated 22 August 2025, hereinafter referred to as “Wang”).
As to Claims 1 and 7-9: Wang teaches a composition consisting of DNACN an anthracene derivative having the structure:
PNG
media_image1.png
507
471
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and PdOEP which is a metal organic complex [0106].
As to Claim 2: Wang teaches the material of claim 1 (supra).
Wang does not expressly teach the triplet sensitizer absorbs excitation light to generate excited triplet excitons and the organic luminescent material emits light having a maximum peak in a shorter wavelength region relative to a local maximum peak wavelength closest to a long-wavelength region in an absorption spectrum of the triplet sensitizer. Consequently, the Office recognizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by Wang. However, Wang teaches a product prepared with all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process. According to the original specification, the properties are the result of the materials used which include the recited compounds of claim 1. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the triplet sensitizer absorbs excitation light to generate excited triplet excitons and the organic luminescent material emits light having a maximum peak in a shorter wavelength region relative to a local maximum peak wavelength closest to a long-wavelength region in an absorption spectrum of the triplet sensitizer, would naturally flow from a composition with all the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts prepared by a similar process. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2111.01 (I)(II). If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process.
As to Claim 3: Wang teaches the material of claim 1 (supra).
Wang does not expressly teach a molar volume of the organic luminescent material in the organic solid up-conversion material is 360 cm3/mol or more. Consequently, the Office recognizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by Wang. However, Wang teaches a product prepared with all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process. According to the original specification, the properties are the result of the materials used which include the recited compounds of claim 1. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. a molar volume of the organic luminescent material in the organic solid up-conversion material is 360 cm3/mol or more, would naturally flow from a composition with all the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts prepared by a similar process. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2111.01 (I)(II). If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process.
As to Claim 4: Wang teaches the material of claim 1 (supra). Wang further teaches that the molar concentration of the sensitizer o the luminescent material can be 1:1 which is above 1.0 x 10-5 mol/L [0017].
As to Claim 5: Wang teaches the material of claim 1 (supra).
Wang does not expressly teach a difference between a maximum peak wavelength of a solution absorption spectrum of the triplet sensitizer alone and a maximum peak wavelength of a solid absorption spectrum of a mixture containing the organic luminescent material and the triplet sensitizer is 5 nm or less. Consequently, the Office recognizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by Wang. However, Wang teaches a product prepared with all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process. According to the original specification, the properties are the result of the materials used which include the recited compounds of claim 1. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. a difference between a maximum peak wavelength of a solution absorption spectrum of the triplet sensitizer alone and a maximum peak wavelength of a solid absorption spectrum of a mixture containing the organic luminescent material and the triplet sensitizer is 5 nm or less, would naturally flow from a composition with all the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts prepared by a similar process. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2111.01 (I)(II). If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process.
As to Claim 6: Wang teaches the material of claim 1 (supra).
Wang does not expressly teach the organic luminescent material has a triplet excitation lifetime of 1 ms or more. Consequently, the Office recognizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by Wang. However, Wang teaches a product prepared with all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process. According to the original specification, the properties are the result of the materials used which include the recited compounds of claim 1. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the organic luminescent material has a triplet excitation lifetime of 1 ms or more, would naturally flow from a composition with all the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts prepared by a similar process. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2111.01 (I)(II). If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process.
As to Claim 10: Wang teaches the material of claim 1 (supra). Wang further teaches that the triplet sensitizer can contain a platinum atom [0015].
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J OYER whose telephone number is (571)270-0347. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at (571)272-1197. 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.
/Andrew J. Oyer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights