DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 12- and 4-12 in the reply filed on 7/6/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Suh et al does not disclose: (a) a blue host compound represented by Formula II where L is a single bond; (b) a hole transport compound represented by Formula I where m is one (1); or (c) the recited intermolecular distance between the HOMO unit of the hole material and the LUMO unit of the blue host material is more than or equal to 4 angstroms. This is not found persuasive forth e following reasons.
In the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections set forth below, Cha et al( KR 20170136915 (A), cited on IDS filed on 11/6/2023, see English language translation filed on 11/6/2023) discloses an organic light emitting diode where the light emitting layer comprises a host compound encompassed by Formula (II) and the electron blocking layer comprises a compound encompassed by Formula (I) of the claims.
Regarding the recited intermolecular distance, as discussed in the rejections below the Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference. However, the reference teaches an organic light emitting device, where the light emitting and electron blocking layer comprise the compound recited in the present claims. The original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed compounds. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. intermolecular distance between the HOMO unit of the hole material and the LUMO unit of the blue host material is more than or equal to 4 angstroms, would naturally arise and be achieved by an organic light emitting device with the claimed compounds. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). 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. 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 that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed compounds.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 13-16 and 18-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 7/6/2026.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
(a) Pages 3 and 9 disclose the term “soccer olefin” and “soccer olefins”, respectively. It would appear that is a potential mistranslation of the term “cyclic olefin”.
(b) Pages 4, 7, and 11 disclose the phrase “4 amies”, Page 13 discloses the term “about 5 amies”, and Page 12 discloses the term “about 2.3 amies”. Based on Figure 5 of the Specification, the term “amies” would appear to be a mistranslation of the term “angstrom”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the phrase “R1-R4 are each independently selected from”. Applicants are advised to amend this term to recite “R1-R4 are each independently selected from the group consisting of”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the phrase “at least one of R1 and R2”. Applicants are advised to amend this term to recite “at least one of R1 or R2”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2 recites the phrase “a difference between HOMO of the hole material and HOMO of the blue light host material, and a difference between LUMO of the hole material and LUMO of the blue light host material”. Applicants are advised to amend this term to recite “a difference between the HOMO of the hole material and the HOMO of the blue light host material, a difference between the LUMO of the hole material and the LUMO of the blue light host material”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 5 recites the phrase “R1 to R4 are each independently selected from”. Applicants are advised to amend this term to recite “R1 to R4 are each independently selected from the group consisting of”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 6 recites the phrase “at least one group selected from”. Applicants are advised to amend this term to recite “at least one group selected from the group consist of”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9 recites the phrase “one of R3 and R4 is H and another one of R3 and R4”. Applicants are advised to amend this term to recite “one of R3 or R4 is H and the other of R3 or R4”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 11 recites the phrase “with C number not less than 18”. In other to avoid potential confusion as to what is encompassed by this term, Applicants are advised to amend this phrase to recite “with a carbon number not less than 18”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-6 are rejected 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites that R1 to R4 are each independently selected from H, C6-C20 aryl, C6-C20 aromatic heterocyclic, C6-C20 alkyl, etc. which renders the scope of the claim indefinite for the following reasons. Claim 5 depends from claim 1, and claim 1 requires that at least one of R1 or R2 is a large steric hindrance group and R3 and R4 are not simultaneously H. However, in claim 5, R1 to R4 can all be H, thereby not meeting either of the provisions required by claim 1. Accordingly, it is unclear how one can simultaneously possess a compound represented by Formula I, where R1 to R4 are all hydrogen (H) and still meet the requirements in claim 1 that at least one of R1 or R2 is a large steric hindrance group and R3 and R4 are not simultaneously H.
Claim 6 recites the term “soccer olefin” which renders the scope of the claim indefinite given that that is unclear what kind of olefin is encompassed by this term. For example does “soccer olefin” a cyclic olefin or some other kind of olefin?
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-2 and 4-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha et al( KR 20170136915 (A), cited on IDS filed on 11/6/2023, see English language translation filed on 11/6/2023).
Regarding claim 1, Cha et al discloses the following organic light emitting device, i.e. an organic light emitting diode (see [0001] and ([0020] of translation and Fig. 2 of KR 0170136915):
PNG
media_image1.png
320
498
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
This device comprises: an anode (2); a cathode (7); a light emitting layer (3); and an electron blocking layer (8) facing the anode (2) in a direction away from the light emitting layer (3).
The light emitting layer (3) comprises the following host compound (see [0114] – Formula 4, [0131], and [0134] of translation; and [0130] of KR 20170136915):
PNG
media_image2.png
318
200
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This compound corresponds to Formula (II) of the claims:
PNG
media_image3.png
152
184
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
where:
A1 and A2 are both C18 aryls; and
L is a single bond.
While the reference does not explicitly disclose the compound as a blue host, given that the reference discloses the identical compound recited in the instant claims as a blue host, it is the Office’s position that the compound disclosed by the reference is necessarily as blue host.
The electron blocking layer (8) comprises the following compound (see [0141] – Formula 1 of translation and [0062] of KR 20170136915):
PNG
media_image4.png
222
274
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to Formula (I) of the claims:
PNG
media_image5.png
110
292
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
where:
m is one (1);
R5 is phenyl; and
R1 and R2 are biphenyl groups, i.e. large steric hindrance groups with 12 carbon atoms.
In the compound disclosed by the reference, p and q are both one (1) and R3 and R4 are necessarily hydrogen, while the claims require that R3 and R4 are both not hydrogen at the same time. However, the compound disclosed by the reference is but one embodiment and attention is directed to the following formula (see [0010] of KR 20170136915):
PNG
media_image6.png
552
814
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
where R1 and R2 can be a C1-20 alkyl or a C6-30 aryl. Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses an embodiment where in Formula (I) of the claims, R3 and R4 can both be C6-30 aryl or one of R3 or R4 is a C6-30 aryl.
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed organic light emitting device nor can the claimed organic light emitting device be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed organic light emitting device and the organic light emitting device disclosed by the reference, absent a showing of criticality for the presently claimed organic light emitting device, it is urged that it would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the host and electron blocking compounds which are both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding the recited intermolecular distance, the Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference. However, the reference teaches an organic light emitting device, where the light emitting and electron blocking layer comprise the compounds recited in the present claims. The original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed compounds. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. intermolecular distance between the HOMO unit of the hole material and the LUMO unit of the blue host material is more than or equal to 4 angstroms, would naturally arise and be achieved by an organic light emitting device with the claimed compounds. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). 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. 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 that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed compounds.
Regarding claim 2, Cha et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference. However, the reference teaches an organic light emitting device, where the light emitting and electron blocking layer comprise the compounds recited in the present claims. The original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed components. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the difference between the HOMO of the hole material and the HOMO of the blue light host material , and the difference between the LUMO of the hole material and the LUMO of the blue light host material satisfy: DHOMO ≤ 0.3eV and DLUMO ≥ 0.4eV, would naturally arise and be achieved by an organic light emitting device with the claimed compounds. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). 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. 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 that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed components.
Regarding claim 4, Cha et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference. However, the reference teaches an organic light emitting device, where the light emitting and electron blocking layer comprise the compounds recited in the present claims. The original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed components. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the ratio of the hole mobility of the hole material to the electron mobility of the blue light host is not less than 10, would naturally arise and be achieved by an organic light emitting device with the claimed compounds. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). 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. 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 that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed components.
Regarding claim 5, Cha et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, R1 and R2 are C12 aryls; and R3 and R4 are C1-20 alkyls.
Regarding claim 6, Cha et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, R1 and R2 are biphenyl.
Regarding claim 7, Cha et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, R1 and R2 are biphenyl, i.e. both R1 and R2 are large steric hindrance groups.
Regarding claim 8, Cha et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, p + q is two (2).
Regarding claim 9, Cha et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses that in the formula:
PNG
media_image6.png
552
814
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
R1 or R2 can be can aryl such as substituted fluorine where adjacent substituents are bonded to each other to form a ring, thereby obtaining a spirofluorene group (see [0028]-[0030] of translation and [0031] of KR 20170136915):
PNG
media_image7.png
176
202
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses an embodiment where in Formula (I) of the claims one of R3 or R3 is H and the other of R3 or R4 is a spirofluorene.
Regarding claim 10, Cha et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, R1 and R2 are biphenyl groups.
Regarding claim 11, Cha et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above A1 and A2 are:
PNG
media_image8.png
118
130
media_image8.png
Greyscale
,
i.e. fused aromatic rings with a carbon number of 18.
Regarding claim 12, Cha et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the reference discloses the following organic light emitting device:
PNG
media_image1.png
320
498
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
where from the anode to the cathode the device comprises: a hole injection layer (5), an electron blocking layer (8); a light emitting layer (3), and an electron transport layer (7). The device further comprises an electron injection layer that transports electrons from the cathode, i.e. the electron injection layer is stacked between the electron transport layer and the cathode ([0153], [0041] and [0093]). The light emitting layer comprises a host to dopant ratio of 25:1 ([0167]), i.e. the dopant is 3.86 wt. %, within the recite range of 1 to 5 %..
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Cha et al (US 2018/0269401) discloses subject matter substantially similar to Cha et al ( KR 20170136915) cited on the IDS filed on 11/6/2023 and utilized in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections set forth above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER C. KOLLIAS whose telephone number is (571)-270-3869. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00AM – 5:00 PM EST.
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 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.
/ALEXANDER C KOLLIAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights