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 .
All outstanding objections and rejections, except for those maintained below, are withdrawn in light of applicant's amendment filed on 8/31/2026.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior office action.
The new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant's amendment filed on 8/31/2026. In particular, original Claims 1, 11, 16, and 21 have been amended to recite limitations not previously presented. Thus, the following action is properly made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-17, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al (US 2022/0059793) in view of Conley et al (US 2005/0211958) and Lee et al (KR 10-2022-0092362, cited on IDS filed on 7/26/2026, see English language equivalent 2023/0083073).
Regarding claim 1, Kang et al discloses the following organic light emitting device (Figure 1):
PNG
media_image1.png
732
801
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
This device comprises:
a first electrode ([0060] - 110);
a second electrode ([0060] - 150);
m emitting units (Abstract and [0060] – 130-1, 130-2, and 130-m), i. m emitting parts; and
m-1 charge generation layers (Abstract and [0060] – 134-1, 134-2, and 134-m-1),
where m is an integer of two (2) or more ([0011]). Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses m = 4, i.e. the device comprises four (4) emitting units and three (3) charge generation layers. Each emission unit or part (130-1, 130-2, etc.) comprises an emission layer ([0068] - 132-1, 131-2, and 131-m), where emission layers 132-1, 132-2 and 133-m can be patterned into a red emission layer, a green emission layer and/or a blue emission comprising a host and dopant ([0245] and [0247]).
Thus, the reference discloses an organic light emitting device comprising: a first electrode (110); a second electrode (150) facing the first electrode (110); and an emissive layer, i.e. emission units 130-1 to 130-m, disposed between the first electrode (110) and second electrode (150).
The emissive layer comprises:
(a) a first emitting part, i.e. emission layer (132-1) disposed between the first electrode (110) and the second electrode (150);
(b) a second emitting part, i.e. emission layer (132-2), disposed between the first emitting part (132-1) and the second electrode (150);
(c) a third emitting part, i.e. emission part, i.e. emission layer (132-3), disposed between the second emitting part (132-2) and the second electrode (150); and
(d) a fourth emitting part, i.e. emission layer (132-4), disposed between the third emitting part (132-3) and second electrode (150).
The device further comprises:
(a) a first charge generation layer (134-1) disposed between the first (132-1) and second (132-2) emitting parts;
(b) a second charge generation layer (134-2) disposed between the second (132-2) and third (132-3) emitting parts; and
(c) a third charge generation layer (134-3) disposed between the third (132-3) and fourth (132-4) emitting parts.
The first emission part (130-1) can comprise a red emitting material layer, i.e. light emitting layer 132a-1, disposed between the first electrode (110) and the second electrode (150); and a blue emitting material layer, i.e. light emitting layer 13b-1, disposed between the red emitting layer (132a-1) and the second electrode (150) resulting in the recited red-blue emitting material layer. The light emitting layers comprise a dopant and host compound ([0247]), and therefore, it is clear that the blue emitting material layer or blue light emitting layer comprises a blue emitter as recited in the present claim,
While the reference discloses that the blue light emitting layer comprises anthracene hosts ([0272]), the reference does not disclose that the host is PADN, i.e.
PNG
media_image2.png
256
192
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
as recited in the present claims.
Conley et al discloses an organic light emitting device where the light emitting layer emits blue light and comprises am anthracene host useful for blue light emitters (Abstract, [0001], and [0020]-[0021]). Specifically, the reference discloses anthracene host compounds such as (Page 5 – Inv-5):
PNG
media_image3.png
330
254
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
corresponding to the host PADN of the present claims. This host provides high luminance yield, improved operational stability, and a desirable hue ([0011] and [0172]).
Given that both Kang et al and Conley et al are drawn to organic light devices where the light emitting layers comprise anthracene host compound, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the anthracene host compound as taught by Conley et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such host compounds in the blue light emitting layer of the device disclosed by Kang et al with a reasonable expectation of success.
The combined disclosure of Kang et al and Conley et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. While Kang et al discloses that the light emitting layers comprise host compounds ([0147]), the reference does not disclose that the blue emitting material layer comprises the first host compound represented by Chemical Formula 2 as recited in the present claims.
Lee et al disclose a blue organic light emitting device (Abstract and [0158]) where the light emitting layer of the device comprises the following host compound ([0158], [0166] and Page 11 – Compound 1-1):
PNG
media_image4.png
456
442
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1:
PNG
media_image5.png
232
250
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
where:
R1 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl;
R2 is an unsubstituted C18 aryl amino group; and
the integers m and n are both zero (0).
The reference discloses that the compound has an increased thermal stability which results in the improvement of the lifetime of the organic light emitting device ([0072]).
Given that both Kang et al and Lee et al are drawn to organic light emitting devices comprising blue light emitting layers, and given that Kang et al does not explicitly prohibit other host compounds in the blue light emitting layer, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the host compound as taught by Lee et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such host compounds in the blue light emitting layer of the device disclosed by Kang et al with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, the combined disclosures of Kang et al, Conley et al, and Lee et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the recited first emitting part comprises the red-blue emitting material layer.
Regarding claim 3, the combined disclosures of Kang et al, Conley et al, and Lee et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Kang et al discloses that the first electrode is a reflective electrode ([0185]) and the second electrode is a transmissive electrode ([0375]).
Regarding claim 5, the combined disclosures of Kang et al, Conley et al, and Lee et al teach 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 references. However, the references disclose an organic light emitting device comprising the claimed first and second host compounds. The original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed first and second host compounds. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the first host has a LUMO higher than the LUMO of the second host, would naturally arise and be achieved by an organic light emitting device comprising the claimed host 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 ingredients.
Regarding claim 6, the combined disclosures of Kang et al, Conley et al, and Lee et al teach 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 references. However, the references disclose an organic light emitting device comprising the claimed first and second host compounds. The original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed first and second host compounds. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the LUMO of the first host compound (LUMOH1) and the LUMO of the second host compound (LUMOH2) satisfy the equation: 0.4eV ≤ LUMOH1 – LUMOH2 ≤ 0.8 eV, would naturally arise and be achieved by an organic light emitting device comprising the claimed first and second host 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 ingredients.
Regarding claim 7, the combined disclosures of Kang et al, Conley et al, and Lee et al teach 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 references. However, the references disclose an organic light emitting device comprising the claimed first and second host compounds. The original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed first and second host compounds. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the HOMO of first host compound is higher than the HOMO of the second host compound, would naturally arise and be achieved by an organic light emitting device comprising the claimed first and second host 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 ingredients.
Regarding claim 8, the combined disclosures of Kang et al, Conley et al, and Lee et al teach 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 references. However, the references disclose an organic light emitting device comprising the claimed first and second host compounds. The original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed first and second host compounds. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the HOMO of the first host compound (HOMOH1) and the HOMO of the second host compound (HOMOH2) satisfy the equation: 0.2eV ≤ HOMOH1 – HOMOH2 ≤ 0.6 eV, would naturally arise and be achieved by an organic light emitting device comprising the claimed first and second host 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 ingredients.
Regarding claim 10, the combined disclosures of Kang et al, Conley et al, and Lee et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. The combined disclosures of Kang et al, Conley et al, and Lee et al do not disclose that the ratio of the first to second host is about 3:7 to about 7:3 or about 1:[2.5 – 0.428]. However, 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).
Regarding claim 11, the combined disclosures of Kang et al, Conley et al, and Lee et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Kang et al discloses that the red light-emitting layer comprises a dopant and a host compound, i.e. third host, such as CBP ([0245], [0247] and [0272]).
.
Regarding claim 12, the combined disclosures of Kang et al, Conley et al, and Lee et al teach 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 references. However, the references teach an organic light emitting device comprising the claimed first and third host compounds. The original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed host compounds. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the first host has a LUMO higher than the LUMO of the third host, would naturally arise and be achieved by an organic light emitting device comprising the claimed first and third host 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 ingredients.
Regarding claim 13, the combined disclosures of Kang et al, Conley et al, and Lee et al teach 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 references. However, the references teach an organic light emitting device comprising the claimed first and third host compounds. The original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed host compounds. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the LUMO of the first host compound (LUMOH1) and the LUMO of the third host compound (LUMOH3) satisfy the equation: 0.4eV ≤ LUMOH1 – LUMOH3 ≤ 0.8 eV, would naturally arise and be achieved by an organic light emitting device comprising the claimed first and third host 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 ingredients.
Regarding claim 14, the combined disclosures of Kang et al, Conley et al, and Lee et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. the combined disclosures of Kang et al, Conley et al, and Lee et al teach 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 references. However, the references teach an organic light emitting device comprising the claimed first and third host compounds. The original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed host compounds. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the HOMO of first host compound is higher than the HOMO of the third host compound, would naturally arise and be achieved by an organic light emitting device comprising the claimed first and third host 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 ingredients.
Regarding claim 15, the combined disclosures of Kang et al, Conley et al, and Lee et al teach 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 references. However, the references teach an organic light emitting device comprising the claimed first and third host compounds. The original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed host compounds. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the HOMO of the first host compound (HOMOH1) and the HOMO of the third host compound (HOMOH3) satisfy the equation: 0.2eV ≤ HOMOH1 – HOMOH3 ≤ 0.6 eV, would naturally arise and be achieved by an organic light emitting device comprising the claimed first and third host 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 ingredients.
Regarding claim 16, Kang et al discloses the following organic light emitting device (Figure 1):
PNG
media_image1.png
732
801
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
This device comprises:
a first electrode ([0060] - 110);
a second electrode ([0060] - 150);
m emitting units (Abstract and [0060] – 130-1, 130-2, and 130-m), i.e. m emitting parts; and
m-1 charge generation layers (Abstract and [0060] – 134-1, 134-2, and 134-m-1), where m is an integer of two (2) or more ([0011]).
Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses m = 4, i.e. the device comprises four (4) emitting units and three (3) charge generation layers.
Each emission unit or part (130-1, 130-2, etc.) comprises an emission layer ([0068] - 132-1, 131-2, and 131-m). Emission layers 132-1, 132-2 and 133-m can each be patterned into a red emission layer, a green emission layer and/or a blue emission layer comprising a host and a dopant ([0245 and [0247]).
Thus, the reference discloses an organic light emitting device comprising a first electrode (110), a second electrode (150) facing the first electrode (110), an emissive layer, i.e. emission units 130-1 to 130-m, disposed between the first electrode (110) and the second electrode (150).
The emissive layer comprises:
(a) a first emitting part, i.e. emission layer (132-1) disposed between the first electrode (110) and the second electrode (150);
(b) a second emitting part, i.e. emission layer (132-2), disposed between the first emitting part (132-1) and the second electrode (150);
(c) a third emitting part, i.e. emission part, i.e. emission layer (132-3), disposed between the second emitting part (132-2) and the second electrode (150); and
(d) a fourth emitting part, i.e. emission layer (132-4), disposed between the third emitting part (132-3) and the second electrode (150).
The device further comprises:
(a) a first charge generation layer (134-1) disposed between the first (132-1) and second (132-2) emitting parts;
(b) a second charge generation layer (134-2) disposed between the second (132-2) and third (132-3) emitting parts; and
(c) a third charge generation layer (134-3) disposed between the third (132-3) and fourth (132-4) emitting parts.
The first emission part (130-1) can comprise a red emitting material layer, i.e. light emitting layer 132a-1, disposed between the first electrode (110) and second electrode (150); and a blue emitting material layer, i.e. light emitting layer 13b-1, disposed between the red emitting layer (132a-1) and the second electrode (150), forming the recited red-blue emitting material layer. The emitting layers comprise a dopant and host compound ([0247]), and therefore, it is clear that the blue emitting material layer or blue light emitting layer comprises a blue emitter as recited in the present claim.
Furthermore, the second emitting part (130-2) can comprise a green emitting material layer or light emitting layer (132a-2 or 132b-2) and a blue emitting layer (132a-2 or 132b-2); and the fourth emitting part (130-4) can comprise a blue emitting layer (134-4).
While the reference discloses that the blue light emitting layer comprises anthracene hosts ([0272]), the reference does not disclose that the host is PADN, i.e.
PNG
media_image2.png
256
192
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
as recited in the present claims.
Conley et al discloses an organic light emitting device where the light emitting layer emits blue light and comprises am anthracene host useful for blue light emitters (Abstract, [0001], and [0020]-[0021]). Specifically, the reference discloses anthracene host compounds such as (Page 5 – Inv-5):
PNG
media_image3.png
330
254
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
corresponding to the host PADN of the present claims. This host provides high luminance yield, improved operational stability, and a desirable hue ([0011] and [0172]).
Given that both Kang et al and Conley et al are drawn to organic light devices where the light emitting layers comprise anthracene host compound, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the anthracene host compound as taught by Conley et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such host compounds in the blue light emitting layer of the device disclosed by Kang et al with a reasonable expectation of success.
The combined disclosures of Kang et al and Conley et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. While Kang et al discloses that the light emitting layers comprise host compounds ([0147]), the reference does not disclose that the blue emitting material layer comprises the first host compound represented by Chemical Formula 2 as recited in the present claims.
Lee et al disclose a blue organic light emitting device (Abstract and [0158]) where the light emitting layer of the device comprises the following host compound ([0158], [0166] and Page 11 – Compound 1-1):
PNG
media_image4.png
456
442
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1:
PNG
media_image5.png
232
250
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
where:
R1 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl;
R2 is an unsubstituted C18 aryl amino group; and
the integers m and n are both zero (0).
The reference discloses that the compound has an increased thermal stability which results in the improvement of the lifetime of the organic light emitting device ([0072]).
Given that both Kang et al and Lee et al are drawn to organic light emitting devices comprising blue light emitting layers, and given that Kang et al does not explicitly prohibit other host compounds in the blue light emitting layer, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the host compound as taught by Lee et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such host compounds in the blue light emitting layer of the device disclosed by Kang et al with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 17, the combined disclosures of Kang et al, Conley et al, and Lee et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Kang et al discloses that the first electrode is a reflective electrode ([0185]) and the second electrode is a transmissive electrode ([0375]).
Regarding claim 19, the combined disclosures of Kang et al, Conley et al, and Lee et al teach 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 references. However, the references teach an organic light emitting device comprising the claimed first and second host compounds. The original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed host compounds. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the LUMO of the first host compound (LUMOH1) and the LUMO of the third host compound (LUMOH2) satisfy the equation: 0.4eV ≤ LUMOH1 – LUMOH2 ≤ 0.8 eV, would naturally arise and be achieved by an organic light emitting device comprising the claimed first and second host 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 ingredients.
Regarding claim 20, the combined disclosures of Kang et al, Conley et al, and Lee et al teach 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 references. However, the references disclose an organic light emitting device comprising the claimed first and second host compounds. The original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed first and second host compounds. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the HOMO of the first host compound (HOMOH1) and the HOMO of the second host compound (HOMOH2) satisfy the equation: 0.2eV ≤ HOMOH1 – HOMOH2 ≤ 0.6 eV, would naturally arise and be achieved by an organic light emitting device comprising the claimed first and second host 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 ingredients.
Regarding claim 21, Kang et al discloses the following organic light emitting device (Figure 1):
PNG
media_image1.png
732
801
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
This device comprises:
a first electrode ([0060] - 110);
a second electrode ([0060] - 150);
m emitting units, i.e. emitting parts (Abstract and [0060] – 130-1, 130-2, and 130-m); and
m-1 charge generation layers (Abstract and [0060] – 134-1, 134-2, and 134-m-1),
where m is an integer of two (2) or more ([0011]). Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses m = 4, i.e. the device comprises four (4) emitting units and three (3) charge generation layers. Each emission unit (130-1, 130-2, etc.) comprises an emission layer ([0068] - 132-1, 131-2, and 131-m), where emission layers 132-1, 132-2 and 133-m can be patterned into a red emission layer, a green emission layer and/or a blue emission comprising a host and dopant ([0245] and [0247]).
Thus, the reference discloses an organic light emitting device comprising: a first electrode (110); a second electrode (150) facing the first electrode (110); and an emissive layer, i.e. emission units 130-1 to 130-m, disposed between the first electrode (110) and second electrode (150).
The emissive layer comprises:
a first emitting part, i.e. emission layer (132-1) disposed between the first electrode (110) and the second electrode (150);
a second emitting part, i.e. emission layer (132-2), disposed between the first emitting part (132-1) and the second electrode (150);
a third emitting part, i.e. emission part, i.e. emission layer (132-3), disposed between the second emitting part (132-2) and the second electrode (150); and
a fourth emitting part, i.e. emission layer (132-4), disposed between the third emitting part (132-3) and second electrode (150).
The device further comprises:
(a) a first charge generation layer (134-1) disposed between the first (132-1) and second (132-2) emitting parts;
(b) a second charge generation layer (134-2) disposed between the second (132-2) and third (132-3) emitting parts; and
(c) a third charge generation layer (134-3) disposed between the third (132-3) and fourth (132-4) emitting parts.
The first emission part (130-1) can comprise a red emitting material layer, i.e. light emitting layer 132a-1, disposed between the first electrode (110) and the second electrode (150); and a blue emitting material layer, i.e. light emitting layer 13b-1, disposed between the red emitting layer (132a-1) and the second electrode (150) resulting the recited red-blue emitting material layer. The light emitting layers comprise a dopant and host compound ([0247]), and therefore, it is clear that the blue emitting material layer or blue light emitting layer comprises a blue emitter as recited in the present claim.
While the reference discloses that the blue light emitting layer comprises anthracene hosts ([0272]), the reference does not disclose that the host is PADN, i.e.
PNG
media_image2.png
256
192
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
as recited in the present claims.
Conley et al discloses an organic light emitting device where the light emitting layer emits blue light and comprises am anthracene host useful for blue light emitters (Abstract, [0001], and [0020]-[0021]). Specifically, the reference discloses anthracene host compounds such as (Page 5 – Inv-5):
PNG
media_image3.png
330
254
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
corresponding to the host PADN of the present claims. This host provides high luminance yield, improved operational stability, and a desirable hue ([0011] and [0172]).
Given that both Kang et al and Conley et al are drawn to organic light devices where the light emitting layers comprise anthracene host compound, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the anthracene host compound as taught by Conley et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such host compounds in the blue light emitting layer of the device disclosed by Kang et al with a reasonable expectation of success.
The combined disclosures of Kang et al and Conley et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. While Conley et al discloses that the light emitting layers comprise host compounds ([0147]), the reference does not disclose that the blue emitting material layer comprises the first host compound represented by Chemical Formula 2 as recited in the present claims.
Lee et al disclose a blue organic light emitting device (Abstract and [0158]) where the light emitting layer of the device comprises the following host compound ([0158], [0166] and Page 11 – Compound 1-1):
PNG
media_image6.png
450
442
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
identical to compound 1-1 of the claims.
The reference discloses that the compound has an increased thermal stability which results in the improvement of the lifetime of the organic light emitting device ([0072]).
Given that both Kang et al and Lee et al are drawn to organic light emitting devices comprising blue light emitting layers, and given that Kang et al does not explicitly prohibit other host compounds in the blue light emitting layer, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the host compound as taught by Lee et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such host compounds in the blue light emitting layer of the device disclosed by Kang et al with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In light of the amendments to the claims the claim objections and 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections set forth in the previous Office Action are withdrawn.
Applicants argue that Kang et al does not disclose the first host presented by Chemical 1 or the second host represent as defined in claims 1, 16, and 21. However, it is recognized that the reference does not disclose either the first or second host compounds and it is for this reason, that as discussed in the rejections above, Kang et al is modified by Lee et al and Conley et al as these references disclose the recited first and second host compounds, respectively.
Applicants argue that the motivation to incorporate the host compound of Lee into the blue emitting layer of Kang does not provide a motivation to further select or substitute one of the specifically recited second host compounds required by the amended claims. However, while Kang et al requires host compounds, the reference does not require that the hosts are necessarily one of host compounds disclosed therein, e.g., Paragraph [0272] which discloses that “[i]n embodiments the host may include (emphasis added) one of Compounds H1 to H125”. Thus, from this disclosure it is clear that the reference is not limited to the disclosed compounds, and the reference is open to the inclusion of other host compounds such as those disclosed by Lee et al and Conley et al.
Applicants argue that neither Kang nor Lee teaches or suggests selecting PADN, PTA, 1-NTA, 2-NTA, m-PPDF, or p-PPDF as the second host to be used in combination with the first host represented by Chemical Formula 1. However, in the rejection set forth above, the deficiency of Kang et al is remedied by Conoley et al which discloses the host compound PADN and the benefits thereof as a host in organic light emitting devices.
Regarding the rejection of claim 10, Applicants argue that the Examiner’s position n that the claimed weight ratio of the first host to the second host devolves from common senses is inappropriate given that no prior art reference is cited to support the assertion that such formulation knowledge in the art and would be part of the common knowledge and common senses of the ordinary skill in the art. Applicants further point to MPEP 2144.03(A) which states that:
It would not be appropriate for the examiner to take official notice of facts without
citing a prior art reference where the facts asserted to be well known are not
beyond dispute, or are not capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration
as being well-known. See Ahlert, 424 F.2d at 1091, 165 USPQ at 420 (emphasis
in original; referring to In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091, 165 USPQ 418, 420
(CCPA 1970)).
However, it is noted that as set forth in the previous Office Action, the Examiner did not take Office Notice, but rather cited a rationale under KSR that 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. It is noted that MPEP 2143 sets out rationales under KSR, including rationale (E), obvious to try – choosing for a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success which is the rationale utilized in setting forth the rejection. Furthermore, it is noted that this section of the MPEP states the following regarding the above rationale:
The Federal Circuit pointed out that application of common sense is not really an innovation in the law of obviousness when it stated, "Common sense has long been recognized to inform the analysis of obviousness if explained with sufficient reasoning." Perfect Web, 587 F.3d at 1328, 92 USPQ2d at 1853 (emphasis added). The Federal Circuit then provided a review of a number of precedential cases that inform the understanding of common sense, including In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969) (explaining that a patent examiner may rely on "common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference").
Thus, it is clear that the rejection of claim did not rely on official Notice, but rather, one of the rationales set forth under KSR.
Finally, regarding the ratios of the host compounds recited in claim, it is noted that generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Conclusion
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.
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