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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the phrase “wherein one of the first emitting part, the second emitting part, the third emitting part, and the fourth emitting part”. Applicants are advised to amend this phrase to recite “wherein one of the first emitting part, the second emitting part, the third emitting part, or the fourth emitting part” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the phrases “wherein one of R1 and R2” and “and another of R1 and R2” Applicants are advised to amend this phrase to recite “wherein one of R1 or R2” and “and another of R1 or R2”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 16 recites the phrase “wherein one of the first emitting part, the second emitting part, the third emitting part, and the fourth emitting part”. Applicants are advised to amend this phrase to recite “wherein one of the first emitting part, the second emitting part, the third emitting part, or the fourth emitting part”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 21 recites the phrase “wherein one of the first emitting part, the second emitting part, the third emitting part, and the fourth emitting part”. Applicants are advised to amend this phrase to recite “wherein one of the first emitting part, the second emitting part, the third emitting part, or the fourth emitting part”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 21 does not end in a period (.), see Page 101 of the claims. Applicants are advised to insert a period (.) at the end of claim 21. Appropriate correction is required.
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 5-8 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 specific second host compounds such that the first host has a LUMO higher than the LUMO of the second host, does not reasonably provide enablement for any second host such that the first host has a LUMO higher than the LUMO of the second host. 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.
Case law holds that applicant's specification must be "commensurately enabling [regarding the scope of the claims]" Ex parte Kung, 17 USPQ2d 1545, 1547 (Bd. Pat. App. Inter. 1989) otherwise undue experimentation would be involved in determining how to practice and use applicant's invention. Although the statute itself does not use the phrase "undue experimentation", it has been interpreted to require that the claimed invention be enabled so that any person skilled in the art can make and use the invention without undue experimentation as stated in Ex parte Forman, 230 USPQ 546, 547 (Bd. Pat. App. Inter. 1986) and in In re Wands, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Specifically, in In re Wands the Court set forth a non-exhaustive list of factors to be considered in determining whether undue experimentation would be involved in making and/or using the claimed invention. These factors include, but are not limited to : (a) the breadth of the claims; (b) the nature of the invention; (c) the state of the prior art; (d) the level of one of ordinary skill; (e) the level of predictability in the art; (f) the amount of direction provided by the inventor; (g) the existence of working examples; and (h) the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
Applying these factors to claim 5, it is noted that the specification provides no direction or working examples (cf. factors (f) and (g)) for any other second host other than host compounds encompassed by Chemical Formula 3:
PNG
media_image1.png
340
350
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus, the only portions of the specification that describe the second host recited in claim 5 are Paragraphs [0017], [0114], [0116], and [0129] and these paragraphs disclose only second host compound encompassed by Chemical Formula 3, e.g. MADN as disclosed in [0116] and [0129] – Example 1, and not any other second host compounds.
Furthermore, in view of the breadth of claim 5 (cf. factor (a)) which encompasses innumerable host compounds such CBP, mCP-CN, PPT, DPEPO, etc. all of which are mutually structurally different, it is urged that the quantity of experimentation (cf. factor (h)) involved in order to reach a usable embodiment would be great. In light of the above factors, it is concluded that undue experimentation would be involved to make and use the invention as presently claimed.
Claim 6 is 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 specific second host compounds such that 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, does not reasonably provide enablement for any second host compound such that 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. 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.
Case law holds that applicant's specification must be "commensurately enabling [regarding the scope of the claims]" Ex parte Kung, 17 USPQ2d 1545, 1547 (Bd. Pat. App. Inter. 1989) otherwise undue experimentation would be involved in determining how to practice and use applicant's invention. Although the statute itself does not use the phrase "undue experimentation", it has been interpreted to require that the claimed invention be enabled so that any person skilled in the art can make and use the invention without undue experimentation as stated in Ex parte Forman, 230 USPQ 546, 547 (Bd. Pat. App. Inter. 1986) and in In re Wands, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Specifically, in In re Wands the Court set forth a non-exhaustive list of factors to be considered in determining whether undue experimentation would be involved in making and/or using the claimed invention. These factors include, but are not limited to : (a) the breadth of the claims; (b) the nature of the invention; (c) the state of the prior art; (d) the level of one of ordinary skill; (e) the level of predictability in the art; (f) the amount of direction provided by the inventor; (g) the existence of working examples; and (h) the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
Applying these factors to claim 6, it is noted that the specification provides no direction or working examples (cf. factors (f) and (g)) for any other second host other than host compounds encompassed by Chemical Formula 3:
PNG
media_image1.png
340
350
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus, the only portions of the specification that describe the second host recited in claim 6 are Paragraphs [0017], [0114], [0116], and [0129] and these paragraphs disclose only second host compound encompassed by Chemical Formula 3, e.g. MADN as disclosed in [0116] and [0129] – Example 1, and not any other second host compounds.
Furthermore, in view of the breadth of claim 6 (cf. factor (a)) which encompasses innumerable host compounds such CBP, mCP-CN, PPT, DPEPO, etc. all of which are mutually structurally different, it is urged that the quantity of experimentation (cf. factor (h)) involved in order to reach a usable embodiment would be great. In light of the above factors, it is concluded that undue experimentation would be involved to make and use the invention as presently claimed.
Claim 7 is 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 specific second host compounds where the HOMO of first host compound is high than the HOMO of the second host compound, does not reasonably provide enablement for any second host compound where the where the HOMO of first host compound is high than the HOMO of the second host compound. 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.
Case law holds that applicant's specification must be "commensurately enabling [regarding the scope of the claims]" Ex parte Kung, 17 USPQ2d 1545, 1547 (Bd. Pat. App. Inter. 1989) otherwise undue experimentation would be involved in determining how to practice and use applicant's invention. Although the statute itself does not use the phrase "undue experimentation", it has been interpreted to require that the claimed invention be enabled so that any person skilled in the art can make and use the invention without undue experimentation as stated in Ex parte Forman, 230 USPQ 546, 547 (Bd. Pat. App. Inter. 1986) and in In re Wands, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Specifically, in In re Wands the Court set forth a non-exhaustive list of factors to be considered in determining whether undue experimentation would be involved in making and/or using the claimed invention. These factors include, but are not limited to : (a) the breadth of the claims; (b) the nature of the invention; (c) the state of the prior art; (d) the level of one of ordinary skill; (e) the level of predictability in the art; (f) the amount of direction provided by the inventor; (g) the existence of working examples; and (h) the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
Applying these factors to claim 7, it is noted that the specification provides no direction or working examples (cf. factors (f) and (g)) for any other second host other than host compounds encompassed by Chemical Formula 3:
PNG
media_image1.png
340
350
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus, the only portions of the specification that describe the second host recited in claim 7 are Paragraphs [0017], [0114], [0116], and [0129] and these paragraphs disclose only second host compound encompassed by Chemical Formula 3, e.g. MADN as disclosed in [0116] and [0129] – Example 1, and not any other second host compounds.
Furthermore, in view of the breadth of claim 7 (cf. factor (a)) which encompasses innumerable host compounds such CBP, mCP-CN, PPT, DPEPO, etc. all of which are mutually structurally different, it is urged that the quantity of experimentation (cf. factor (h)) involved in order to reach a usable embodiment would be great. In light of the above factors, it is concluded that undue experimentation would be involved to make and use the invention as presently claimed.
Claim 8 is 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 specific second host compounds such that 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, does not reasonably provide enablement for any second host compound such that 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. 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.
Case law holds that applicant's specification must be "commensurately enabling [regarding the scope of the claims]" Ex parte Kung, 17 USPQ2d 1545, 1547 (Bd. Pat. App. Inter. 1989) otherwise undue experimentation would be involved in determining how to practice and use applicant's invention. Although the statute itself does not use the phrase "undue experimentation", it has been interpreted to require that the claimed invention be enabled so that any person skilled in the art can make and use the invention without undue experimentation as stated in Ex parte Forman, 230 USPQ 546, 547 (Bd. Pat. App. Inter. 1986) and in In re Wands, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Specifically, in In re Wands the Court set forth a non-exhaustive list of factors to be considered in determining whether undue experimentation would be involved in making and/or using the claimed invention. These factors include, but are not limited to : (a) the breadth of the claims; (b) the nature of the invention; (c) the state of the prior art; (d) the level of one of ordinary skill; (e) the level of predictability in the art; (f) the amount of direction provided by the inventor; (g) the existence of working examples; and (h) the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
Applying these factors to claim 8, it is noted that the specification provides no direction or working examples (cf. factors (f) and (g)) for any other second host other than host compounds encompassed by Chemical Formula 3:
PNG
media_image1.png
340
350
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus, the only portions of the specification that describe the second host recited in claim 8 are Paragraphs [0017], [0114], [0116], and [0129] and these paragraphs disclose only second host compound encompassed by Chemical Formula 3, e.g. MADN as disclosed in [0116] and [0129] – Example 1, and not any other second host compounds.
Furthermore, in view of the breadth of claim 8 (cf. factor (a)) which encompasses innumerable host compounds such CBP, mCP-CN, PPT, DPEPO, etc. all of which are mutually structurally different, it is urged that the quantity of experimentation (cf. factor (h)) involved in order to reach a usable embodiment would be great. In light of the above factors, it is concluded that undue experimentation would be involved to make and use the invention as presently claimed.
Claim 12 is 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 specific third host compounds such that the first host has a LUMO high than the LUMO of the third host, does not reasonably provide enablement for any third host such that such that the first host has a LUMO high than the LUMO of the third host. 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.
Case law holds that applicant's specification must be "commensurately enabling [regarding the scope of the claims]" Ex parte Kung, 17 USPQ2d 1545, 1547 (Bd. Pat. App. Inter. 1989) otherwise undue experimentation would be involved in determining how to practice and use applicant's invention. Although the statute itself does not use the phrase "undue experimentation", it has been interpreted to require that the claimed invention be enabled so that any person skilled in the art can make and use the invention without undue experimentation as stated in Ex parte Forman, 230 USPQ 546, 547 (Bd. Pat. App. Inter. 1986) and in In re Wands, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Specifically, in In re Wands the Court set forth a non-exhaustive list of factors to be considered in determining whether undue experimentation would be involved in making and/or using the claimed invention. These factors include, but are not limited to : (a) the breadth of the claims; (b) the nature of the invention; (c) the state of the prior art; (d) the level of one of ordinary skill; (e) the level of predictability in the art; (f) the amount of direction provided by the inventor; (g) the existence of working examples; and (h) the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
Applying these factors to claim 12, it is noted that the specification provides no direction or working examples (cf. factors (f) and (g)) for any third host compound other than the host compounds disclosed in Paragraph [0119]. Thus, the only portions of the specification that describe the host compound recited in claim 12 is Paragraph [0119] and this paragraph names only host compounds such as mCP-CN, CBP, mCBP, DPEPOm PPT, etc., and not any other third host compounds.
Furthermore, in view of the breadth of claim 12 (cf. factor (a)) which encompasses innumerable host compounds all of which are mutually structurally different, it is urged that the quantity of experimentation (cf. factor (h)) involved in order to reach a usable embodiment would be great. In light of the above factors, it is concluded that undue experimentation would be involved to make and use the invention as presently claimed.
Claim 13 is 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 third host compounds such that 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, does not reasonably provide enablement for any third host compound such that the LUMO of the first host compound (LUMOH1) and the LUMO of the third host compound (LUMOH3) satisfy the equation: 0.4 eV ≤ LUMOH1 – LUMOH3 ≤ 0.8 eV. 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.
Case law holds that applicant's specification must be "commensurately enabling [regarding the scope of the claims]" Ex parte Kung, 17 USPQ2d 1545, 1547 (Bd. Pat. App. Inter. 1989) otherwise undue experimentation would be involved in determining how to practice and use applicant's invention. Although the statute itself does not use the phrase "undue experimentation", it has been interpreted to require that the claimed invention be enabled so that any person skilled in the art can make and use the invention without undue experimentation as stated in Ex parte Forman, 230 USPQ 546, 547 (Bd. Pat. App. Inter. 1986) and in In re Wands, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Specifically, in In re Wands the Court set forth a non-exhaustive list of factors to be considered in determining whether undue experimentation would be involved in making and/or using the claimed invention. These factors include, but are not limited to : (a) the breadth of the claims; (b) the nature of the invention; (c) the state of the prior art; (d) the level of one of ordinary skill; (e) the level of predictability in the art; (f) the amount of direction provided by the inventor; (g) the existence of working examples; and (h) the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
Applying these factors to claim 13, it is noted that the specification provides no direction or working examples (cf. factors (f) and (g)) for any third host compound other than the host compounds disclosed in Paragraph [0119]. Thus, the only portions of the specification that describe the host compound recited in claim 12 is Paragraph [0119] and this paragraph names only host compounds such as mCP-CN, CBP, mCBP, DPEPOm PPT, etc., and not any other third host compounds.
Furthermore, in view of the breadth of claim 13 (cf. factor (a)) which encompasses innumerable host compounds all of which are mutually structurally different, it is urged that the quantity of experimentation (cf. factor (h)) involved in order to reach a usable embodiment would be great. In light of the above factors, it is concluded that undue experimentation would be involved to make and use the invention as presently claimed.
Claim 14 is 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 third host compounds where the HOMO of first host compound is higher than the HOMO of the third host compound, does not reasonably provide enablement for any third host compound where the HOMO of first host compound is higher than the HOMO of the third host compound. 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.
Case law holds that applicant's specification must be "commensurately enabling [regarding the scope of the claims]" Ex parte Kung, 17 USPQ2d 1545, 1547 (Bd. Pat. App. Inter. 1989) otherwise undue experimentation would be involved in determining how to practice and use applicant's invention. Although the statute itself does not use the phrase "undue experimentation", it has been interpreted to require that the claimed invention be enabled so that any person skilled in the art can make and use the invention without undue experimentation as stated in Ex parte Forman, 230 USPQ 546, 547 (Bd. Pat. App. Inter. 1986) and in In re Wands, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Specifically, in In re Wands the Court set forth a non-exhaustive list of factors to be considered in determining whether undue experimentation would be involved in making and/or using the claimed invention. These factors include, but are not limited to : (a) the breadth of the claims; (b) the nature of the invention; (c) the state of the prior art; (d) the level of one of ordinary skill; (e) the level of predictability in the art; (f) the amount of direction provided by the inventor; (g) the existence of working examples; and (h) the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
Applying these factors to claim 14, it is noted that the specification provides no direction or working examples (cf. factors (f) and (g)) for any third host compound other than the host compounds disclosed in Paragraph [0119]. Thus, the only portions of the specification that describe the host compound recited in claim 12 is Paragraph [0119] and this paragraph names only host compounds such as mCP-CN, CBP, mCBP, DPEPOm PPT, etc., and not any other third host compounds.
Furthermore, in view of the breadth of claim 14 (cf. factor (a)) which encompasses innumerable host compounds all of which are mutually structurally different, it is urged that the quantity of experimentation (cf. factor (h)) involved in order to reach a usable embodiment would be great. In light of the above factors, it is concluded that undue experimentation would be involved to make and use the invention as presently claimed.
Claim 15 is 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 specific third host compounds such that 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, does not reasonably provide enablement for any third host compound such that 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. 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.
Case law holds that applicant's specification must be "commensurately enabling [regarding the scope of the claims]" Ex parte Kung, 17 USPQ2d 1545, 1547 (Bd. Pat. App. Inter. 1989) otherwise undue experimentation would be involved in determining how to practice and use applicant's invention. Although the statute itself does not use the phrase "undue experimentation", it has been interpreted to require that the claimed invention be enabled so that any person skilled in the art can make and use the invention without undue experimentation as stated in Ex parte Forman, 230 USPQ 546, 547 (Bd. Pat. App. Inter. 1986) and in In re Wands, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Specifically, in In re Wands the Court set forth a non-exhaustive list of factors to be considered in determining whether undue experimentation would be involved in making and/or using the claimed invention. These factors include, but are not limited to : (a) the breadth of the claims; (b) the nature of the invention; (c) the state of the prior art; (d) the level of one of ordinary skill; (e) the level of predictability in the art; (f) the amount of direction provided by the inventor; (g) the existence of working examples; and (h) the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
Applying these factors to claim 15, it is noted that the specification provides no direction or working examples (cf. factors (f) and (g)) for any third host compound other than the host compounds disclosed in Paragraph [0119]. Thus, the only portions of the specification that describe the host compound recited in claim 12 is Paragraph [0119] and this paragraph names only host compounds such as mCP-CN, CBP, mCBP, DPEPOm PPT, etc., and not any other third host compounds.
Furthermore, in view of the breadth of claim 15 (cf. factor (a)) which encompasses innumerable host compounds all of which are mutually structurally different, it is urged that the quantity of experimentation (cf. factor (h)) involved in order to reach a usable embodiment would be great. In light of the above factors, it is concluded that undue experimentation would be involved to make and use the invention as presently claimed.
Claim 19 is 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 specific second host compounds such that 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, does not reasonably provide enablement for any second host compound such that 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. 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.
Case law holds that applicant's specification must be "commensurately enabling [regarding the scope of the claims]" Ex parte Kung, 17 USPQ2d 1545, 1547 (Bd. Pat. App. Inter. 1989) otherwise undue experimentation would be involved in determining how to practice and use applicant's invention. Although the statute itself does not use the phrase "undue experimentation", it has been interpreted to require that the claimed invention be enabled so that any person skilled in the art can make and use the invention without undue experimentation as stated in Ex parte Forman, 230 USPQ 546, 547 (Bd. Pat. App. Inter. 1986) and in In re Wands, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Specifically, in In re Wands the Court set forth a non-exhaustive list of factors to be considered in determining whether undue experimentation would be involved in making and/or using the claimed invention. These factors include, but are not limited to : (a) the breadth of the claims; (b) the nature of the invention; (c) the state of the prior art; (d) the level of one of ordinary skill; (e) the level of predictability in the art; (f) the amount of direction provided by the inventor; (g) the existence of working examples; and (h) the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
Applying these factors to claim 19, it is noted that the specification provides no direction or working examples (cf. factors (f) and (g)) for any other second host other than host compounds encompassed by Chemical Formula 3:
PNG
media_image1.png
340
350
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus, the only portions of the specification that describe the second host recited in claim 19 are Paragraphs [0017], [0114], [0116], and [0129] and these paragraphs disclose only second host compound encompassed by Chemical Formula 3, e.g. MADN as disclosed in [0116] and [0129] – Example 1, and not any other second host compounds.
Furthermore, in view of the breadth of claim 19 (cf. factor (a)) which encompasses innumerable host compounds such CBP, mCP-CN, PPT, DPEPO, etc. all of which are mutually structurally different, it is urged that the quantity of experimentation (cf. factor (h)) involved in order to reach a usable embodiment would be great. In light of the above factors, it is concluded that undue experimentation would be involved to make and use the invention as presently claimed.
Claim 20 is 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 specific second host compounds such that 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, does not reasonably provide enablement for any second host compound such that 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. 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.
Case law holds that applicant's specification must be "commensurately enabling [regarding the scope of the claims]" Ex parte Kung, 17 USPQ2d 1545, 1547 (Bd. Pat. App. Inter. 1989) otherwise undue experimentation would be involved in determining how to practice and use applicant's invention. Although the statute itself does not use the phrase "undue experimentation", it has been interpreted to require that the claimed invention be enabled so that any person skilled in the art can make and use the invention without undue experimentation as stated in Ex parte Forman, 230 USPQ 546, 547 (Bd. Pat. App. Inter. 1986) and in In re Wands, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Specifically, in In re Wands the Court set forth a non-exhaustive list of factors to be considered in determining whether undue experimentation would be involved in making and/or using the claimed invention. These factors include, but are not limited to : (a) the breadth of the claims; (b) the nature of the invention; (c) the state of the prior art; (d) the level of one of ordinary skill; (e) the level of predictability in the art; (f) the amount of direction provided by the inventor; (g) the existence of working examples; and (h) the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
Applying these factors to claim 20, it is noted that the specification provides no direction or working examples (cf. factors (f) and (g)) for any other second host other than host compounds encompassed by Chemical Formula 3:
PNG
media_image1.png
340
350
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus, the only portions of the specification that describe the second host recited in claim 20 are Paragraphs [0017], [0114], [0116], and [0129] and these paragraphs disclose only second host compound encompassed by Chemical Formula 3, e.g. MADN as disclosed in [0116] and [0129] – Example 1, and not any other second host compounds.
Furthermore, in view of the breadth of claim 8 (cf. factor (a)) which encompasses innumerable host compounds such CBP, mCP-CN, PPT, DPEPO, etc. all of which are mutually structurally different, it is urged that the quantity of experimentation (cf. factor (h)) involved in order to reach a usable embodiment would be great. In light of the above factors, it is concluded that undue experimentation would be involved to make and use the invention as presently claimed.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al (US 2022/0059793) in view of 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_image2.png
732
801
media_image2.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 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_image3.png
456
442
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1:
PNG
media_image4.png
232
250
media_image4.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 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 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 4, the combined disclosures of Kang et al and Lee et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Kang et al discloses that the blue light emitting layer comprises a host compound such as ([0272] – H1):
PNG
media_image5.png
180
266
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
corresponding to the recite second host.
Regarding claim 5, the combined disclosures of Kang 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 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 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 high 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 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 9, the combined disclosures of Kang et al and Lee et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Kang et al discloses that the blue light emitting layer comprises a host compound such as ([0272] – H1):
PNG
media_image6.png
259
266
media_image6.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to Chemical Formula 3 of the claims:
PNG
media_image7.png
216
224
media_image7.png
Greyscale
where:
R11 and R12 are unsubstituted C10 aryls;
R13 and R14 are hydrogen; and
the integers p and q are zero (0).
Regarding claim 10, the combined disclosures of Kang et al and Lee et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. The combined disclosures of Kang 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 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 ([0245], [0247] and Page 33 Compound H39):
PNG
media_image8.png
372
346
media_image8.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 12, the combined disclosures of Kang 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 high 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 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 and Lee et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. the combined disclosures of Kang 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 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_image2.png
732
801
media_image2.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 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_image3.png
456
442
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1:
PNG
media_image4.png
232
250
media_image4.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 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 18, the combined disclosures of Kang et al and Lee et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Kang et al discloses that the blue light emitting layer comprises a host compound such as ([0272] – H1):
PNG
media_image5.png
180
266
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
corresponding to the recited second host.
Regarding claim 19, the combined disclosures of Kang 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 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_image2.png
732
801
media_image2.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 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_image9.png
450
442
media_image9.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.
Conclusion
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