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 .
Response to Amendment
In the response filed 05/01/2026, the claims, specification, and drawings were amended.
These amendments are hereby entered.
In light of Applicant’s amendments to the specification and drawings, the objection to the drawings is withdrawn by the Office.
In light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claims 1-16 as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention is withdrawn by the Office.
Claims 1-16 are originally filed.
Claim 1 is instantly amended.
Claims 1-16 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that none of the compounds of Numata Formulae 3-1 to 3-4 are encompassed by instant Chemical Formulae 1 to 3, Examiner agrees. However, Examiner points out that no compound of Numata Formulae 3-1 to 3-4 is used in the rejection of record because it is not required to reject the instant claims. The instantly claimed composition is not limited to just compounds of Chemical Formulae 1 through 3. Thus, the composition of Numata meets the requirements of the instant claims because including an additional compound of Numata Formulae 3-1 to 3-4 is within the scope of the instant claims.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that Numata teaches several general formulae from which to form the second compounds, and there is no guidance, other than the instant specification, that would have led the ordinary skilled artisan to use two compounds of Formula 2-4, rather than using two compounds derived from different formulae, Examiner disagrees.
The office has held that it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Further, it is Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to pick any two second compounds taught by Numata, regardless of the compounds parent formula(e).
With respect to Applicant’s argument that the combination of HT-Host-D and HT-Host-A as the second compounds in the composition of Numata is not obvious because Numata does not teach any embodiments with two second compounds, Examiner disagrees.
Though the combination of HT-Host-D and HT-Host-A was not demonstrated in any of the embodiments of Numata, and were instead picked from a list of 36 possible compounds under the guidance of paragraph [0156], it has been held that though a specific embodiment is not taught as preferred makes it no less obvious, also, that the mere fact that a reference suggests a multitude of possible combinations does not in and of itself make any one of those combinations less obvious, see Merck v. Biocraft, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed Cir 1985), see also MPEP 2123. HT-Host-D and HT-Host-A do not need to be used together in a specific preferred embodiment of the prior art to be taught. Paragraph [0156] teaches that more than one second compound may be included, and any possible combination of the taught second compounds is equally obvious.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that there is no teaching nor guidance from which to derive the instantly claimed compound ratios because Numata does not give any examples using two second compounds, Examiner disagrees.
While it is true that Numata does not give any examples using two second compounds, there is indeed guidance from which to derive the instantly claimed compound ratios. In Table 4 of Numata, Example 25 uses a 1 : 1 : 1 ratio of the first, second, and third compounds, respectively. It is therefore Examiner’s position that a person having ordinary skill in the art would seek to preserve this ratio between the two second compounds, and arrive at a ratio of 1 : 0.5 : 0.5 : 1 of the first compound, two second compounds, and third compound of Numata, or a 0.5 : 0.5 : 1 ratio of the instantly claimed first, second, and third compounds. When faced with a mixture, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated by common sense to select a 1:1 ratio, a ratio that falls within the presently claimed amount, absent evidence of unexpected or surprising results. Case law holds that "[h]aving established that this knowledge was in the art, the examiner could then properly rely... on a conclusion of obviousness, 'from common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art within any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference.'" In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969) (See MPEP 2143).
For at least these reasons, the claims remain rejected over Numata et al. (US 2020/0212314 A1).
However, a reinterpretation of the prior art is given below to incorporate how the newly claimed compound ratio is taught by the prior art.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Numata et al. (US 2020/0212314 A1).
With respect to independent claim 1, Numata discloses an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, a cathode, a light emitting layer, and an electron blocking layer between the anode and the light emitting layer and a hole transport layer between the electron blocking layer and the anode (paragraph 0201) (paragraph 0196 and paragraphs 0198 and 0225), and the light emitting layer comprises a first compound which is an electron transport compound (paragraph 0146) and two second compounds which are hole transport compounds (paragraph 0156).
Numata gives an example of the first compound (page 80), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image1.png
354
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This compound is analogous to the instant third compound of Chemical Formula 3 when B is a benzene ring, X1 to X3 are nitrogen atoms, Ar5 and Ar6 are both a C6 aryl (phenyl) group, Y is NAr7 and Ar7 is an unsubstituted C18 aryl (terphenyl), d is 8 and R4 is a hydrogen atom.
Numata gives examples of the two second compounds, HT-Host-A and HT-Host-D (pages 97 and 98, respectively), which are pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
570
496
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
544
506
media_image3.png
Greyscale
HT-Host-A is analogous to the instant second compound represented by Chemical Formula 2 when Ar3 and Ar4 are both a C12 aryl (biphenyl) group, b and c are both 7 and R2 and R3 are both hydrogen atoms.
HT-Host-D is analogous to the instant first compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 when A is a benzene ring, Ar1 and Ar2 are both a C18 aryl (terphenyl) group, a is 8 and R1 is a hydrogen atom.
Numata teaches that when the compounds of the invention are used in the emission layer of an organic light-emitting device, the organic light-emitting device shows improved efficiency and lifespan characteristics (paragraph 0294).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the compounds of Numata in the emission layer of an organic light-emitting device in order to obtain and organic light-emitting device with improved efficiency and lifespan characteristics, as taught by Numata.
However, Numata does not specifically teach that the compounds of instant Chemical Formula 1, Chemical Formula 2, and Chemical Formula 3 are present in the instantly claimed ratio.
In Table 4 of Numata, Example 25 uses a 1 : 1 : 1 ratio of the first, second, and third compounds, respectively. It is Examiner’s position that a person having ordinary skill in the art would seek to preserve this ratio between the two second compounds, and arrive at a ratio of 1 : 0.5 : 0.5 : 1 of the first compound, two second compounds, and third compound of Numata, or a 0.5 : 0.5 : 1 ratio of the instantly claimed first, second, and third compounds.
This is because, when faced with a mixture such as the two second compounds, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated by common sense to select a 1:1 ratio of each of the second compounds of Numata, a ratio that falls within the presently claimed amount, absent evidence of unexpected or surprising results. Case law holds that "[h]aving established that this knowledge was in the art, the examiner could then properly rely... on a conclusion of obviousness, 'from common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art within any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference.'" In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969) (See MPEP 2143).
Such a ratio of 0.5 : 0.5 : 1 meets the requirements of the instantly claimed ratio.
With respect to claim 2, Numata teaches the device of claim 1, and Chemical Formula 1 is represented by Chemical Formula Chemical Formula 1-4, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 3, Numata teaches the device of claim 1, and Ar1 is terphenyl, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 4, Numata teaches the device of claim 1, and Ar2 is terphenyl, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 5, Numata teaches the device of claim 1, and R1 is hydrogen, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 6, Numata teaches the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
HT-Host-D, pictured and discussed above is derived from Numata Formula 2-4 (paragraph 0056), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image4.png
242
470
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Numata also teaches L16 can be a single bond (paragraph 0019), which forms the embodiment on page 21 of the instant claims.
Numata includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Numata being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known linking group from each of the finite lists of possible linking groups to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a compound which, when used in the emission layer of an organic light-emitting device, result in an organic light-emitting device with improved efficiency and lifespan characteristics (paragraph 0294), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 7, Numata teaches the device of claim 1, and Chemical Formula 2 is represented by Chemical Formula 2-1, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 8, Numata teaches the device of claim 1, and Ar3 and Ar4 are both biphenyl, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 9, Numata teaches the device of claim 1, and R2and R3 are hydrogen atoms, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 10, Numata teaches the device of claim 9, as discussed above.
Numata also teaches that the second compound can be the compound below (page 99).
PNG
media_image5.png
468
450
media_image5.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of the instant claim when one of R2 is phenyl and the other is hydrogen.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use any combination of the compounds of Numata in the emission layer of an organic light-emitting device in order to obtain and organic light-emitting device with improved efficiency and lifespan characteristics, as taught by Numata.
With respect to claim 11, Numata teaches the device of claim 1, and the compound of Chemical Formula 2 is pictured on page 29 of the instant claims.
With respect to claim 12, Numata teaches the device of claim 1, and the compound of Chemical Formula 3 is represented by Chemical Formula 3-1.
With respect to claim 13, Numata teaches the device of claim 1, and Ar5 and Ar6 are phenyl, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 14, Numata teaches the device of claim 1, and Ar7 is terphenyl, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 15, Numata teaches the device of claim 1, and R4 is hydrogen, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 16, Numata teaches the device of claim 1, and the compound of Chemical Formula 3 is pictured on page 41 of the instant claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL SIMBANA whose telephone number is (571)272-2657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 A.M. - 4:30 P.M..
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 at 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.
/R.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1786
/JENNIFER A BOYD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights