Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-18 of S. Kim et al., US 18/509,807 (Nov. 15, 2023) are pending and under examination on the merits. Claims 1-18 are rejected.
Claim Interpretation
Examination requires claim terms first be construed in terms in the broadest reasonable manner during prosecution as is reasonably allowed in an effort to establish a clear record of what applicant intends to claim. See, MPEP § 2111. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP § 2111.01.
Interpretation of the Claim 1 Mathematical Relationship
Claim 1 recites the following mathematical relationship:
Claim 1 . . . the organic light-emitting device satisfies the equations:
T1(EML) [Symbol font/0xB3] T1(AXL1) + 0.3 eV, and
T1(AXL2) [Symbol font/0xB3] T1(AXL1) + 0.5 eV
wherein T1 (EML) is a highest triplet energy level (eV) among triplet energy levels (eV) of a compound comprised in the emission layer,
. . .
T1(AXL1) is a lowest triplet excitation energy (eV) of the first compound,
T1(AXL2) is a lowest triplet excitation energy level (eV) of the second compound
T1(EML), T1(AXL1), and T1(AXL2) are calculated using a density functional theory (DFT) method
wherein the compound comprised in the emission layer, the first compound, and the second compound are structurally optimized at a level of B3LYP/6-31G* (d,p)
The terms “T1(EML)”, “T1(AXL1)”, and “T1(AXL2)” are defined within claim 1. The specification does not define the term “density functional theory (DFT) method”. The art teaches that the basic foundation of DFT is the Hohenberg-Kohn theorem, which states that the external potential is a functional of the ground-state density. In other words, the density (an observable in 3D space) is used to describe the complicated physics behind the interactions between electrons and, therefore, determines everything about the system. A. Cohen et al., 112 Chemical Reviews, 289-320 (2012) (“Cohen”) (see page 290, col. 2). The theory and equations of density functional theory for determining triplet excitation energies are known in the art. See Cohen at page 290, col. 2; see also, N. Argaman et al., American Journal of Physics, 69-79 (2000); D. Boese et al., 116 Journal of Chemical Physics, 9559-9569 (2002).
Claim 1 further recites “B3LYP/6-31G* (d,p)”. However, the specification does not define the meaning of “B3LYP/6-31G* (d,p)”; therefore this term is interpreted in view of the art. The art teaches that the B3LYP/6-31G density functional theory approach (B3LYP hybrid density function with 6-31G basis sets) is suitable for calculating molecular properties, such as heats of formation, HOMO and LUMO energies and for studying the geometry optimization (bond lengths / angles) for organic molecules. J. Tirado-Rives et al., 4 Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, 297-306 (2008); H. Kruse et al., 77 The Journal of Organic Chemistry, 10824-10834 (2012) (discussing the “B3LYP/6-31G*” level of theory); Torres et al., 3 The Journal Physical Chemistry Letters, 1738-1744 (2012) (discussing B3LYP density functional theory used in conjunction with 6-31+G(2d,2p) basis sets); see also, H. Hassan et al., International Journal of Current Engineering and Technology, 2342-2345 (2014); M. Bendikov et al., Journal of the American Chemical Society, 7416-7417 (2004) (see footnote 9).
As noted above, the claim 1 mathematical relationship further recites:
wherein the compound comprised in the emission layer, the first compound, and the second compound are structurally optimized at a level of B3LYP/6-31G* (d,p)
The 6-31G* basis set has been shown effective for calculation molecular geometries (bond lengths / angles). See e.g., S. Kahn et al., 109 The Journal of the American Chemical Society, 1871-8173 (1987) (referencing Table 1 and noting the “UHF/6-31G* geometries for 24-electron 1,3-dipoles are in reasonable accord with the limited experimental structural data. The calculated CN bond length (1.360 Å) and CNC bond angle (128.3°)”).
In view of the forgoing, the above cited claim 1 mathematical relationship is broadly and reasonably interpreted, consistently with the specification, to mean that the values in eV of “T1(EML)” (highest triplet energy level of the compound comprised in the emission layer) , “T1(AXL1)” (lowest triplet excitation energy of the first compound), and “T1(AXL2)” (lowest triplet excitation energy of the second compound) are calculated by plugging in the bond angles and bond lengths of the “structurally optimized” compound into a “density functional theory (DFT) method” calculation. And where the claim 1 term “structurally optimized” requires that the that the compound’s optimal molecular geometry is first calculated/predicted using the B3LYP/6-31G* (d,p)” level of theory (i.e., B3LYP density functional theory used in conjunction with 6-31+G*(d,p) basis sets). As noted in the specification, this can be accomplished using available software, such as a Gaussian program. Specification at page 5, [0037]; Id. at page 7, [0051]; Id. at page 112 [00429] (Gaussian 09 (manufactured by Gaussian Inc., U.S.A.)). Upon such calculation of “T1(EML)”, “T1(AXL1)”, and “T1(AXL2)” after “structural optimization”, then claim 1 requires:
the organic light-emitting device satisfies the equations:
T1(EML) [Symbol font/0xB3] T1(AXL1) + 0.3 eV, and
T1(AXL2) [Symbol font/0xB3] T1(AXL1) + 0.5 eV
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) (Written Description)
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.
35 U.S.C. 112(a) requires that the specification shall contain a written description of the invention demonstrate that the inventor was in possession of the invention that is claimed. MPEP § 2163(I). The written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by actual reduction to practice, reduction to drawings (see i)(B) above), or by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the inventor was in possession of the claimed genus (see i)(C) above). MPEP § 2163(II)(A)3(a)(ii) (citing Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406). A “sufficient description . . . requires the disclosure of either a representative number of species falling within the scope of the genus or structural features common to the members of the genus so that one of skill in the art can ‘visualize or recognize’ the members of the genus.” Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2010). For genus claims using functional language, the written description "must demonstrate that the applicant has made a generic invention that achieves the claimed result and do so by showing that the applicant has invented species sufficient to support a claim to the functionally-defined genus." Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349.
The OLED Device of Independent Claim 1
The claims, per independent claim 1, are directed to an organic light emitting device comprising three different compounds. The claim 1 device structure is schematically summarized by the Examiner as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The three compounds required in the claim 1 device are:
(1) “a first compound” represented by formula 1-11 comprises in the first auxiliary layer;
(2) “a second compound”, represented by formula 1-2, comprised in the second auxiliary layer; and
(3) “a compound comprised in the emission layer”, the compound comprised in the emission layer is selected from compounds GH, ADN (9,10-di(2-naphthyl)anthracene), MADN (2-methyl-9,10-bis(naphthalen-2-yl)anthracene), TBADN (9, 1 0-di-(2-naphthyl)-2-t-butyl-anthracene), CBP (4,4'bis(N-carbazolyl)-1,1'-biphenyl), mCP (1,3-di-9-carbazolylbenzene), TCP (1,3,5-tri(carbazol-9-yl)benzene) and H1 to H55.
Claim 1 requires that the organic light-emitting device meet the following functional requirements:
Claim 1 . . . the organic light-emitting device satisfies the equations
T1(EML) [Symbol font/0xB3] T1(AXL1) + 0.3 eV, and
T1(AXL2) [Symbol font/0xB3] T1(AXL1) + 0.5 eV
wherein T1 (EML) is a highest triplet energy level (eV) among triplet energy levels (eV) of a compound comprised in the emission layer,
. . .
T1 (AXL 1) is a lowest triplet excitation energy (eV) of the first compound,
T1 (AXL2) is a lowest triplet excitation energy level (eV) of the second compound,
and T1 (EML), T1 (AXL1), and T1 (AXL2) are calculated using a density functional theory (OFT) method,
wherein the compound comprised in the emission layer, the first compound, and the second compound are structurally optimized at a level of B3LYP/6-31G* (d,p) . . .
The § 112(a) rejection
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement because:
(1) the application as filed does not disclose sufficient species (where each species is a combination of: (1) a first compound (2) a second compound; and (3) a compound comprised in the emission layer) that perform the claim 1 function of:
Claim 1 . . . the organic light-emitting device satisfies the equations
T1(EML) [Symbol font/0xB3] T1(AXL1) + 0.3 eV, and
T1(AXL2) [Symbol font/0xB3] T1(AXL1) + 0.5 eV
wherein T1 (EML) is a highest triplet energy level (eV) among triplet energy levels (eV) of a compound comprised in the emission layer,
. . .
T1 (AXL 1) is a lowest triplet excitation energy (eV) of the first compound,
T1 (AXL2) is a lowest triplet excitation energy level (eV) of the second compound,
and T1 (EML), T1 (AXL1), and T1 (AXL2) are calculated using a density functional theory (OFT) method,
wherein the compound comprised in the emission layer, the first compound, and the second compound are structurally optimized at a level of B3LYP/6-31G* (d,p) . . .
such that one of skill in the art would recognize that the inventor was in possession of the necessary common attributes or features possessed by the members of the genus (in view of the species disclosed) that perform the claim 1 function (i.e., satisfies the claim 1 equations). MPEP § 2163(II)(A)3(a)(ii); and
(2) neither the application as filed, nor the art, discloses a correlation between the structure required by each of the three compounds within a species, such that one of skill can recognize Applicant was in possession of those particular three-compound species, (each compound otherwise falling within the claim 1 genera) that interact within the claimed device so as meet the claim 1 functional recitations. MPEP § 2163(II)(A)3(a)(ii).
Breadth of the Claims with Respect to Compounds Claimed
The claims cover an essentially uncountable number of three-compound combinations (species) of a first compound of Formula 1-11, a second compound of formula 1-2 and a compound comprised in the emission layer that form each species.
The Claim 1 First Compound
Claim 1 recites a first compound as follows:
the first auxiliary layer comprises a first compound, the first compound is a compound represented by Formula 1-11 . . .
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where, per claim 1, in Formula 1-11, variable L111 can essentially be any cyclic group, substituted or unsubstituted or a single bond and Ar111 can essentially be any cyclic group, substituted or unsubstituted, and R111 can essentially be any organic group. The fact, that claim 1 provides for periphery groups that can be substituted with any group, the number of compounds encompassed by formula 1-11 borders on infinite; and would encompass at least billions of compounds.
The Claim 1 Second Compound
Claim 1 recites a second compound as follows:
the second auxiliary layer comprises a second compound, the second compound is a compound represented by Formula 1-2,
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
where, per claim 1, in Formula 1-2, X21, X22, and X23 are all N, variables L21-L23 can essentially be any cyclic group, substituted or unsubstituted or a single bond and Ar21-Ar23 can essentially be any cyclic group, substituted or unsubstituted. The fact, that claim 1 provides for periphery groups that can be substituted with any group, the number of compounds encompassed by formula 1-2 borders on infinite; and would encompass at least billions of compounds.
The Claim 1 Compound Comprised in the Emission Layer
With respect to the claim 1 “compound comprised in the emission layer”, claim 1 recites:
Claim 1 . . . the compound comprised in the emission layer is selected from compounds GH, ADN (9,10-di(2-naphthyl)anthracene), MADN (2-methyl-9,10-bis(naphthalen-2-yl)anthracene), TBADN (9,10-di-(2-naphthyl)-2-t-butyl-anthracene), CBP (4,4'-bis(N-carbazolyl)-1,1'-biphenyl), mCP (1,3-di-9-carbazolylbenzene), TCP (1,3,5-tri(carbazol-9-yl)benzene) and H1 to H55 . . .
Thus, the claim 1 “compound comprised in the emission layer” can be one of sixty-one compounds.
Supporting Disclosure in the Specification Body
With respect to the claim 1 “first compound”, the specification provides a number of Markush genera from which the claim 1 “first compound” may be selected. Specification at pages 8-34. The specification specifically teaches that the first compound may be a compound represented by Formula 1-11 as now incorporated into claim 1. Specification at page 29, [00133]. The specification further teaches twenty-seven example compound species of formula 1-11 that may serve as the claim 1 “first compound”. Specification at pages 35, [00163] (first twenty-seven listed compounds in paragraph [00163]).
With respect to the claim 1 “second compound”, the specification teaches that the second compound may be formula 1-2, as recited claim 1. Specification at page 9, [0060]. The specification further teaches eleven compound species that may serve as the claim 1 “second compound”. Specification at pages 36, [00164].
With respect to the “compound comprised in the emission layer” claim 1 limits selected to the following alternatives.
Claim 1 . . . the compound comprised in the emission layer is selected from compounds GH, ADN (9,10-di(2-naphthyl)anthracene), MADN (2-methyl-9,10-bis(naphthalen-2-yl)anthracene), TBADN (9, 1 0-di-(2-naphthyl)-2-t-butyl-anthracene), CBP (4,4'bis(N-carbazolyl)-1,1'-biphenyl), mCP (1,3-di-9-carbazolylbenzene), TCP (1,3,5-tri(carbazol-9-yl)benzene) and H1 to H55:
What the specification body fails to teach is which three-compound combinations of the “first compound”, the “second compound”, and the “compound comprised in the emission layer” (i.e., species) satisfy the claimed mathematical relationships.
Specification Working Examples
To summarize what is discussed in more detail below, the specification discloses twelve three-compound species (working Examples 1-1 through 1-6 and 2-1 through 2-6) based on combinations of: (1) three examples of the claimed first compound (i.e., compounds ET-1, ET-2, and ET-3); (2) two examples of the claimed second compound (i.e., compounds ET-4 and ET-5); and (3) two examples the compound comprised in the emission layer (i.e., BH (aka H8 in claim 1) or GH). Specification at pages 116 (Table 2); see page 113 for compound structures. In Table 2, the specification summarizes the evaluation data for twelve three-compound combinations (i.e., twelve species). Specification at pages 116-117 (Table 2).
Evaluation Example 1 teaches that quantum chemical calculation was performed on Compounds BH, BD, GH, and ET-1 to ET-5 used in the present Examples by using a quantum chemical calculation program Gaussian 09 (manufactured by Gaussian Inc., U.S.A.). Specification at page 112, [00429]. In the calculation, the B3L YP hybrid functional was used as for structural optimization in a ground state, and the 6-31 G* (d,p) basis set was used as a set of functions. Id. Information about structural/electronic characteristics for the optimized structure was obtained, and a structural optimization was performed by using a time dependent density functional theory (TD-OFT) so as to obtain characteristics of singlet and triplet excited states of the compound, and a calculated value of the triplet energy was obtained. Id. Specification Table 1 reports the calculated value of the triplet energy (T1(ev)). Specification at page 112 (Table 1).
The specification teaches that the organic light emitting devices of Examples 1, 1-1 through 1-6, 2-1 through 2-6 were manufactured as follows. Compound HT-1 was vacuum-deposited on the ITO glass substrate to form a first hole transport layer having a thickness of 100 nm and compound HT-2 was vacuum-deposited on the first hole transport layer to form a second hole transport layer having a thickness of 10 nm. Specification at page 109, [00432].
Compounds HT-1 and HT-2 were respectively used as the first- and second-hole transport layers in all examples.
Compounds Used as First and Second Hole Transport Layers of All Examples
PNG
media_image4.png
200
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With respect to the claimed compound comprised in the emission layer, the specification further teaches that host BH (i.e. claim 1 emission compound H8,) and compound dopant BD (Examples 1 through 1-6) or host GH (a claim 1 emission compound) and dopant GD (dopant) (Examples 2-1 through 2-6) were simultaneously vacuum-deposited on the second hole transport layer at a dopant concentration of 3 wt% to form the respective emission layers having a thickness of 20 nm. Specification at page 110, [00433].
PNG
media_image5.png
200
400
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Per claim 1, within each emission layer compound pair, BH or GH must satisfy the following bolded functional mathematical limitations:
T1(EML) [Symbol font/0xB3] T1(AXL1) + 0.3 eV, and
T1(AXL2) [Symbol font/0xB3] T1(AXL1) + 0.5 eV
wherein T1 (EML) is a highest triplet energy level (eV) among triplet energy levels (eV) of a compound comprised in the emission layer,
T1 (AXL 1) is a lowest triplet excitation energy (eV) of the first compound,
T1 (AXL2) is a lowest triplet excitation energy level (eV) of the second compound,
and T1 (EML), T1 (AXL1), and T1 (AXL2) are calculated using a density functional theory (OFT) method,
wherein the compound comprised in the emission layer, the first compound, and the second compound are structurally optimized at a level of B3LYP/6-31G* (d,p) . . .
With respect to the claimed first compound of the first auxiliary layer and the claimed second compound of the second auxiliary layer, specification working Example 1 teaches that compound ET-1 was deposited on the emission layer to form a first auxiliary layer having a thickness of 5 nm, and compound ET-4 was deposited on the first auxiliary layer to form a second auxiliary layer having a thickness of 5 nm. Specification at page 110, [00434].
In working Examples 1-1 through 1-6 and 2-1 through 2-6, the specification teaches that various two-compound combinations of ET-1 through ET-5 were respectively used as the first and second auxiliary layers.
The claimed First Compound Used as First Auxiliary Layer of All Examples
PNG
media_image6.png
200
400
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The claimed Second Compound Used as the Second Auxiliary Layer of All Examples
PNG
media_image7.png
200
400
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Per claim 1, the claimed first and second compounds must satisfy the following bolded functional mathematical limitations:
T1(EML) [Symbol font/0xB3] T1(AXL1) + 0.3 eV, and
T1(AXL2) [Symbol font/0xB3] T1(AXL1) + 0.5 eV
wherein T1 (EML) is a highest triplet energy level (eV) among triplet energy levels (eV) of a compound comprised in the emission layer,
T1 (AXL 1) is a lowest triplet excitation energy (eV) of the first compound,
T1 (AXL2) is a lowest triplet excitation energy level (eV) of the second compound,
and T1 (EML), T1 (AXL1), and T1 (AXL2) are calculated using a density functional theory (OFT) method,
wherein the compound comprised in the emission layer, the first compound, and the second compound are structurally optimized at a level of B3LYP/6-31G* (d,p) . . .
To complete the organic light emitting device, the specification teaches that compound ET-6 and Liq (Liq is compound ET-D1) were simultaneously vacuum-deposited on the second auxiliary layer to a weight ratio of 5:5 to form an emission transport layer having a thickness of 20 nm, and also that Liq was vacuum-deposited on the electron transport layer to form an electron injection layer having a thickness of 1 nm, and Mg:Ag were vacuum-deposited to form a cathode having a thickness of 10 nm, thereby completing the manufacture of an organic light-emitting device of Example 1-1 Specification at page 110, [00435].
Compounds Used as The Emission Transport Layer and Electron Injection Layer in All Examples
PNG
media_image8.png
200
400
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The specification further teaches that the organic light-emitting devices of Examples 1-2 to 1-6 were manufactured in substantially the same manner as in Example 1-1, except that Compounds shown in Table 2 were respectively used in forming a first auxiliary layer and a second auxiliary layer. Specification at page 110, [00436].
The specification teaches comparative Examples 1-1 to 2-3 that do not satisfy the claim 1 structural requirements for one of claimed compound 1 or compound 2. Specification at pages 115-116; data in Table 2.
Per the currency efficiency (cd/A) and half lifespan (hr) data in Table 2, the specification teaches that the organic light-emitting devices of Examples 1-1 to 1-6 and 2-1 to 2-6 have excellent current efficiency and lifespan, as compared with the organic light-emitting devices of Comparative Examples 1-1, 1-2, and 2-1 to 2-3. Specification at page 117, [00445].
Guidance in the Art of Record
What is conventional or well known to one of ordinary skill in the art need not be disclosed in detail. MPEP § (II)(A)(3)(a). Thus, the state of and predictability in the art is a relevant consideration in determining compliance with § 112(a), written description. MPEP § (II)(A)(3)(a) (citing Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357, 76 USPQ2d 1078, 1085 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("The ‘written description’ requirement must be applied in the context of the particular invention and the state of the knowledge…. As each field evolves, the balance also evolves between what is known and what is added by each inventive contribution”).
No art of record is cited by Applicant or identified in searches that discloses a correlation between the structure required by each of the three compounds within a species, such that one of skill can recognize Applicant was in possession of those particular three-compound species, (each compound otherwise falling within the claim 1 genera) that interact within the claimed device so as meet the claim 1 functional recitations.
Applicant Is Not in Possession of the Claimed Invention
Original claims 1-18 lack adequate written description support under § 112(a) as of the effective filing date because:
(1) the application as filed does not disclose sufficient species (where each species is a combination of: (1) a first compound (2) a second compound; and (3) a compound comprised in the emission layer) that perform the claim 1 function of:
Claim 1 . . . the organic light-emitting device satisfies the equations
T1(EML) [Symbol font/0xB3] T1(AXL1) + 0.3 eV, and
T1(AXL2) [Symbol font/0xB3] T1(AXL1) + 0.5 eV
wherein T1 (EML) is a highest triplet energy level (eV) among triplet energy levels (eV) of a compound comprised in the emission layer,
. . .
T1 (AXL 1) is a lowest triplet excitation energy (eV) of the first compound,
T1 (AXL2) is a lowest triplet excitation energy level (eV) of the second compound,
and T1 (EML), T1 (AXL1), and T1 (AXL2) are calculated using a density functional theory (OFT) method,
wherein the compound comprised in the emission layer, the first compound, and the second compound are structurally optimized at a level of B3LYP/6-31G* (d,p) . . .
such that one of skill in the art would recognize that the inventor was in possession of the necessary common attributes or features possessed by the members of the genus (in view of the species disclosed) that perform the claim 1 function (i.e., satisfies the claim 1 equations). MPEP § 2163(II)(A)3(a)(ii); and
(2) neither the application as filed, nor the art, discloses a correlation between the structure required by each of the three compounds within a species, such that one of skill can recognize Applicant was in possession of those particular three-compound species, (each compound otherwise falling within the respective claim 1 genera) that interact within the claimed device so as meet the claim 1 functional recitations. MPEP § 2163(II)(A)3(a)(ii).
Here, the specification discloses twelve three-compound species (working Examples 1-1 through 1-6 and 2-1 through 2-6) based on combinations of: (1) three examples of the claimed first compound (i.e., compounds ET-1, ET-2, and ET-3); (2) two examples of the claimed second compound (i.e., compounds ET-4 and ET-5); and (3) two examples the compound comprised in the emission layer (i.e., BH (aka H8 in claim 1) or GH) that presumably meet the claim 1 functional requirements. Specification at pages 116 (Table 2); see page 113 for compound structures.
The twelve disclosed species are not representative such that that one of skill in the art can ‘visualize or recognize’ three-compound combinations selected from within the Formula 1-11 genus (the claimed first compound); Formula 1-2 genus (the claimed second compound); and sixty-six claimed alternatives of “a compound comprised in the emission layer”, where their combination satisfies the claim 1 formulaic equations. This is particularly apparent under the current facts where their respective “lowest triplet excitation energies” of the claimed first and second compounds are interdependent as to whether the claim 1 equation “T1(AXL2) [Symbol font/0xB3] T1(AXL1) + 0.5 eV” is met.
Functional claim language can meet the written description requirement when the art has established a correlation between structure and function. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2010), see also, Bos. Scientific Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson, 647 F.3d 1353, 99 U.S.P.Q.2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Here is not art of record establishing a correlation between the structural required to perform the claimed function.
In this regard, it is recognized that one of ordinary skill can presumably test whether particular combinations of “a first compound”, “a second compound” and “a compound comprised in the emission layer” can satisfy the claim 1 mathematical functional limitations by randomly selecting compounds from each group disclosed in the specification and testing the selected combination by way of computer software. But this is not the standard for written description. For genus claims using functional language, the written description "must demonstrate that the applicant has made a generic invention that achieves the claimed result and do so by showing that the applicant has invented species sufficient to support a claim to the functionally-defined genus." Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349. In the current case, while species are disclosed, there is insufficient disclosure for of ordinary skill to envision which three-compound combinations will satisfy the claim 1 mathematical relationships.
Here, the claims cover an essentially uncountable number of compound combinations. The identities of claimed compounds within each species are intertwined as to whether the combination as a whole satisfies the claim 1 mathematical limitations. In view of the generic nature and breadth of the claim 1 chemical structures representing the claimed first and second compounds, the claims are found to recite very minimal structure coupled with the mathematical formula functional limitation. For genus claims using functional language, the written description "must demonstrate that the applicant has made a generic invention that achieves the claimed result and do so by showing that the applicant has invented species sufficient to support a claim to the functionally-defined genus." Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349. Here, insufficient species are disclosed that meet the claim 1 mathematical limitations so as to support the claims pursuant to § 112(a). MPEP § 2163(II)(A)3(a)(ii) (citing Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406); see also, Idenix Pharms. LLC v. Gilead Scis. Inc., 941 F.3d 1149, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2019)
Dependent claims 2-6 and 10-18 do not narrow the scope of the claimed first or second compound such that one of skill would understand that Applicant possessed the invention claimed as of the filing date.
Dependent claims 7 and 8 further require that the emission layer comprises a host and a dopant where:
Claim 7 . . . the emission layer satisfies at least one equation selected from T1 (host) [Symbol font/0xB3] T1 (AXL1) + 0.3 eV and T1 (dopant) [Symbol font/0xB3]T1 (AXL 1) + 0.3 eV
. . . T1 (host) and T1 (dopant) are calculated using a DFT method, wherein the host and dopant are structurally optimized at a level of B3L YP/6-31 G* (d,p).
The specification discloses two species of host-dopant combinations that meet this additional functional language; i.e. compounds BH:BD and GH:GD. Specification at page 116 (Table 2). The underlying rationale still applies to rejection of claims 7 and 8. Further, the additional functional language is clearly not supported by only two species.
Claim 9 further requires
Claim 9 . . . the electron transport layer comprises a third compound that comprises at least one [Symbol font/0x70] electron-depleted nitrogen-containing ring, and the second compound and the third compound are different from each other.
The underlying rationale still applies to rejection of claim 9.
Claim Rejections – Improper Markush Grouping
Relevant MPEP Discussion
“A Markush grouping is proper if the members of a group share a single structural similarity and a common use”. MPEP § 2117(I). A Markush claim may be rejected under judicially approved "improper Markush grouping" principles when the claim contains an improper grouping of alternatively useable members. A Markush claim contains an "improper Markush grouping" if either: (1) the members of the Markush group do not share a "single structural similarity" or (2) the members do not share a common use. MPEP § 2117(II) (citing 76 Federal Register 7162-7175 (2011); In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 721-22, 206 USPQ 300, 305 (CCPA 1980)).
Members of a Markush group share a "single structural similarity" when they belong to the same recognized physical or chemical class or to the same art-recognized class. MPEP § 2117(II)(A). A recognized physical class, a recognized chemical class, or an art-recognized class is a class wherein there is an expectation from the knowledge in the art that members of the class will behave in the same way in the context of the claimed invention. MPEP § 2117(II)(A).
Where a Markush grouping describes alternative chemical compounds, whether by words or chemical formulas, and the compounds do not appear to be members of a recognized physical or chemical class or members of an art-recognized class, the members are considered to share a "single structural similarity" and common use when the alternatively usable compounds share a “substantial structural feature” that is essential to a common use. MPEP § 2117(II)(B).
The Improper Markush Rejection
Claims 1-18 are rejected on the judicially created basis that they are directed to an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. MPEP § 2117(II). Claim 1 recites three Markush genera: (1) Markush genus of “a first compound”; the Markush genus of “a second compound”; and (3) a Markush genus “a compound comprised in the emission layer” per the claim 1 recitation of:
Claim 1 . . . the first auxiliary layer comprises a first compound, the first compound is a compound represented by Formula 1-11 . . .
PNG
media_image9.png
200
400
media_image9.png
Greyscale
. . .
the second auxiliary layer comprises a second compound, the second compound is a compound represented by Formula 1-2 . . .
PNG
media_image10.png
200
400
media_image10.png
Greyscale
. . .
the compound comprised in the emission layer is selected from compounds GH, ADN (9,10-di(2-naphthyl)anthracene), MADN (2-methyl-9,10-bis(naphthalen-2-yl)anthracene), TBADN (9,10-di-(2-naphthyl)-2-t-butyl-anthracene), CBP (4,4'bis(N-carbazolyl)-1,1'-biphenyl), mCP (1,3-di-9-carbazolylbenzene), TCP (1,3,5-tri(carbazol-9-yl)benzene) and H1 to H55:
[STRUCTURES H1-H55] . . .
where upon the correctly selected three-compound combination, employed in an organic light-emitting device, meets the claim 1 functional requirements of:
Claim 1 . . . and the organic light-emitting device satisfies the equations:
T1 (EML) [Symbol font/0xB3]T1 (AXL1) + 0.3 eV, and
T1 (AXL2) [Symbol font/0xB3]T1 (AXL1) + 0.5 eV,
. . . .
wherein the compound comprised in the emission layer, the first compound, and the second compound are structurally optimized at a level of B3LYP/6-31G* (d,p) . . .
The rejection is on the grounds that the species within each respective Markush genus at least do not share a "single structural similarity”.
The Members of Each Claimed Markush Group Do Not Belong a Recognized Physical or Chemical Class or Members of an Art-Recognized Class
Members of a Markush group share a "single structural similarity" when they belong to the same recognized physical or chemical class or to the same art-recognized class. MPEP § 2117(II)(A). A recognized physical class, a recognized chemical class, or an art-recognized class is a class wherein there is an expectation from the knowledge in the art that members of the class will behave in the same way in the context of the claimed invention. MPEP § 2117(II)(A).
The common structural component of the Markush genus of the first claim 1 compound:
Claim 1 . . . the first auxiliary layer comprises a first compound, the first compound is a compound represented by Formula 1-11 . . .
PNG
media_image9.png
200
400
media_image9.png
Greyscale
is anthracene. The remaining portion of Formula 1-11 is generic because L111 can essentially be any cyclic group, substituted or unsubstituted or a single bond and Ar111 can essentially be any cyclic group, substituted or unsubstituted, and R111 can essentially be any organic group. Compounds comprising anthracene are not members of a recognized physical or chemical class or members of an art-recognized class.
The common structural component of the Markush genus of the second claim 1 compound:
Claim 1 . . . the second auxiliary layer comprises a second compound, the second compound is a compound represented by Formula 1-2 . . .
PNG
media_image10.png
200
400
media_image10.png
Greyscale
. . .
X21 is N, X22 is N, and X23 is N,
is triazine. In claim 1, variables L21-L23 can essentially be any cyclic group, substituted or unsubstituted or a single bond and Ar21-Ar23 can essentially be any cyclic group, substituted or unsubstituted. Compounds comprising triazine are not members of a recognized physical or chemical class or members of an art-recognized class.
The Markush genus of a compound comprised in the emission layer:
a compound comprised in the emission layer,
the compound comprised in the emission layer is selected from compounds GH, ADN (9,10-di(2-naphthyl)anthracene), MADN (2-methyl-9,10-bis(naphthalen-2-yl)anthracene), TBADN (9,10-di-(2-naphthyl)-2-t-butyl-anthracene), CBP (4,4'bis(N-carbazolyl)-1,1'-biphenyl), mCP (1,3-di-9-carbazolylbenzene), TCP (1,3,5-tri(carbazol-9-yl)benzene) and H1 to H55:
[STRUCTURES]
has no common structural feature, or at best the common structural feature of a benzene ring. For example, claim 1 lists the following three species of “a compound comprised in the emission layer”: (1) ADN (9,10-di(2-naphthyl)anthracene); RN 122648-99-1:
PNG
media_image11.png
200
400
media_image11.png
Greyscale
;
(2) mCP (1,3-di-9-carbazolylbenzene); RN 550378-78-4;
PNG
media_image12.png
200
400
media_image12.png
Greyscale
; and (3) H49
PNG
media_image13.png
200
400
media_image13.png
Greyscale
.
At best, the only common structural feature is a benzene ring. Compounds comprising a benzene ring are not members of a recognized physical or chemical class or members of an art-recognized class.
The Members of Each Claimed Group do not Share a “substantial structural feature” that is Essential to a Common Use
Where a Markush grouping describes alternative chemical compounds, whether by words or chemical formulas, and the compounds do not appear to be members of a recognized physical or chemical class or members of an art-recognized class, the members are considered to share a "single structural similarity" and common use when the alternatively usable compounds share a “substantial structural feature” that is essential to a common use. MPEP § 2117(II)(B).
The specification working examples are consulted here because nowhere does the specification body teach or provide guidance as to how to correctly select each of the three required compounds (based on structure) from each respective genus such that the common use in an OLED device and/or the use of meeting the claim 1 mathematical limitations is met. As discussed above in the § 112(a) rejection, the specification discloses twelve three-compound species (working Examples 1-1 through 1-6 and 2-1 through 2-6). Specification at pages 116 (Table 2); see page 113 for compound structures.
In working Examples 1-1 through 1-6 and 2-1 through 2-6, the specification teaches that various two-compound combinations of ET-1 through ET-5 were respectively used as the first and second auxiliary layers.
The claimed First Compound Used as First Auxiliary Layer of All Examples
PNG
media_image6.png
200
400
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The claimed Second Compound Used as the Second Auxiliary Layer of All Examples
PNG
media_image7.png
200
400
media_image7.png
Greyscale
With respect to the claimed compound comprised in the emission layer, the specification further teaches that host BH (i.e. claim 1 emission compound H8,) and compound dopant BD (Examples 1 through 1-6) or host GH (a claim 1 emission compound) and dopant GD (dopant)
(Examples 2-1 through 2-6), where employed. Specification at page 110, [00433].
PNG
media_image5.png
200
400
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The specification working examples, limited to somewhat divergent structures, and not representative of the full scope of compounds claimed does not evidence that the respective common structure components of each of the three Markush genera (i.e., anthracene, triazine, and benzene) are a “substantial structural feature” essential to the common use of their employment in the respect layers of an OLED device and/or the use of meeting the claim 1 mathematical limitations.
The specification teaches no associated structure within each respective genus that can be correlated with the claim 1 requirement that the organic light-emitting device satisfies the recited mathematical equations. That is, the additive sums of triplet energies among the three compounds within the organic light-emitting device are not associated with any particular structure. Stated differently, while claim 1 recites large generic Markush groups for the first and second compounds from within which a choice of a first and second compound can be made, there is no guidance in the art or specification as to which compounds will structurally satisfy the claim 1 mathematical relationships. Rather, the presumable test based on the specification as to whether a particular combination of “a first compound”, “a second compound” and “a compound comprised in the emission layer” can satisfy the claim 1 mathematical functional limitations is random selection of compounds from each group disclosed in the specification and testing the selected combination by way of computer software.
Dependent Claims 2-18
Dependent claims 2-18 do not narrow the scope of the claimed Markush genera in a meaningful way, and the same rationale discussed above for claim 1 applies to claims 2-18 as well.
The Markush Groupings Are Improper
In view of the foregoing, the instantly claimed compound alternatives falling within the scope of instant claims 1-18 do not: (1) share a "single structural similarity" because they do not belong to the same recognized physical or chemical class or to the same art-recognized class; or (2) share a “substantial structural feature” that is essential to a common use because the claimed generic formulae do not comprise a “substantial structural feature”.
This is a rejection on the merits and may be appealed to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §134 and 37 CFR 41.31(a)(1). MPEP 2117(III).
Prior Art Is Not Cited Against the Examined Claims
Due to the functional (basis of the § 112(a) rejection) and highly generic nature (basis of the Markush rejection) of claims 1-18, they cannot be fully searched. Due to the generic nature of the claim 1 Markush genera, it is not possible to fully electronically search claim 1 in CAS by chemical structure. That is, searching claim 1 formula 1-11 in file Registry so as to obtain a first answer set, then searching claim 1 formula 1-2 to obtain a second answer set, followed by a CAPLUS search for references that disclose both the claim 1 compound of formula 1-11 and the compound of formula 1-2, is not possible because the file Registry answer sets are too large to crossover in file CAPLUS. There is a limit of 500,000 answers for a single crossover of CAS Registry Numbers.
Moreover, there is no way for the Office to determine whether an OLED device comprising a particular set of prior art compounds (in an electron transport region) and otherwise meeting the claim 1 limitations “a first compound” and the “a second compound” and “compound comprised in the emission layer will meet the claim 1 mathematical concept of:
Claim 1 . . . and the organic light-emitting device satisfies the equations:
T1 (EML) [Symbol font/0xB3]T1 (AXL1) + 0.3 eV, and
T1 (AXL2) [Symbol font/0xB3]T1 (AXL1) + 0.5 eV,
. . . .
wherein the compound comprised in the emission layer, the first compound, and the second compound are structurally optimized at a level of B3LYP/6-31G* (d,p) . . .
because the computer software is not available to the Office. Further, such information is generally not obtainable from the reference. During examination, no references were identified in searches disclosing the instantly claimed mathematical relationship with respect to the claimed Markush genera. A complete search cannot be performed (or even conceptually developed) because the chemical structure variables within the claims are too vast and generic and are coupled to a functional limitation that cannot be evaluated by the tools available to the Office. The above written description and Markush rejections are a result of this claim breadth and generic nature.
Y. Cha et al., US 2021/0050528 (2021) (“Cha”)
The closest art identified in searches is Y. Cha et al., US 2021/0050528 (2021) (“Cha”). Cha teaches an organic light emitting device including: a positive electrode; a negative electrode provided to face the positive electrode; a light emitting layer provided between the positive electrode and the negative electrode; a first organic material layer provided between the negative electrode and the light emitting layer; and a second organic material layer provided between the negative electrode and the first organic material layer, in which the first organic material layer comprises a compound of Formula 1, and the second organic material layer comprises at least one compound of Formulae 2 and 3. Cha at page 1, [0006]. With reference to Fig. 2, Cha teaches the following organic light emitting device (11):
PNG
media_image14.png
200
400
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
200
400
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Cha at page 2, col. 1. Cha light emitting layer (40)
Respecting comparison of Cha’s device with the device of claim 1, the instant specification teaches that:
[00323] The electron transport region 170 may further include at least one selected from a buffer layer, a hole blocking layer, an electron control layer, an electron transport layer 173, and an electron injection layer, but embodiments of the present disclosure are not limited thereto.
Specification at page 83, [00323] (emphasis added). The specification further teaches that
[00321] The electron transport region 170 may have i) a single-layered structure including a single layer including a single material, ii) a single-layered structure including a single layer including a plurality of different materials, or iii) a multi-layered structure having a plurality of layers including a plurality of different materials.
Specification at page 83, [00321] (emphasis added).
Thus, Cha’s device layers of light emitting layer (40); hole blocking layer (80); and electron transport layer (90), corresponds to the instant claim 1 “electron transport region” and Cha meets the claim 1 device limitations.
Instant claim 1. An organic light-emitting device comprising:
a first electrode;
a second electrode facing the first electrode;
an organic layer between the first electrode and the second electrode and comprising an emission layer; and
an electron transport region between the emission layer and the second electrode,
wherein the electron transport region comprises a first auxiliary layer and a second auxiliary layer,
the first auxiliary layer is between the emission layer and the second auxiliary
Cha teaches that the compound of Formula 1 may be either of the following compounds (among about 145 total species of Formula 1):
PNG
media_image16.png
200
400
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Cha at page 13. These two Cha species are species of the instantly claimed “the second auxiliary layer comprises a second compound” specifically disclosed in the instant specification. Specification at page 36.
Cha teaches that according to an exemplary embodiment of the present specification, the light emitting layer comprises a compound of Formula 5. Cha at page 69, [0169]. Cha teaches species of Formula 5 that are the same species disclosed in the instant specification as “the first auxiliary layer comprises a first compound”. Cha at pages 70-75.
For example, Cha discloses the following two species of Cha Formula 5 (among about 80 disclosed species).
PNG
media_image17.png
200
400
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Chat pages 70-71. These two Cha species are species of the instantly claimed “the first auxiliary layer comprises a first compound” specifically disclosed in the instant specification. Specification at page 35.
Cha further teaches that according to an exemplary embodiment, the light emitting layer comprises a compound of Formula 4. Cha at pages 61-69, [0168]. Cha teaches species of Formula 4 that are the same species listed in claim 1 as “the compound comprised in the emission layer”. Cha at page 62. For example, Cha discloses the following two species of Cha Formula 4 (in a listing of about 71 compounds).
PNG
media_image18.png
200
400
media_image18.png
Greyscale
Cha at page 62. These two Cha species are specifically listed in claim 1 as “the compound comprised in the emission layer”.
Note that Cha’s working Examples 1-15 do not employ any of the above cited Cha species. Cha at page 83, [0259]; data in Cha Table 1 at pages 85-86.
Differences between Cha and Claim 1
Cha teaches every structural limitation of claim 1, but not in a single embodiment. That is, one of ordinary skill must select (mix and match) from among Cha’s disclosed species of Formula 1, Formula 5, and Formula 4 (for example Cha’s species listed above) so as to arrive at an organic light emitting device where, per claim 1:
Claim 1 . . . the first auxiliary layer comprises a first compound, the first compound is a compound represented by Formula 1-11,
the second auxiliary layer comprises a second compound, the second compound is a compound represented by Formula 1-2,
. . . .
the compound comprised in the emission layer [is one of sixty-six species listed in claim 1] . . .
Instant Claim 1 is not Obvious in view of Cha
One of ordinary skill is not motivated to select the particular combination of the above-cited Cha compounds of Formula 1, Formula 5, and Formula 4, which are also instantly disclosed species, so as to meet the chemical structure limitations of instant claim 1. For example, if one of ordinary skill selects each of the following Cha compounds:
PNG
media_image19.png
200
400
media_image19.png
Greyscale
for use in the light emitting layer of the Cha device, this would meet the claim 1 limitations of:
Claim 1 . . . an electron transport region between the emission layer and the second electrode,
wherein the electron transport region comprises a first auxiliary layer and a second auxiliary layer,
the first auxiliary layer is between the emission layer and the second auxiliary
the first auxiliary layer comprises a first compound, the first compound is a compound represented by Formula 1-11,
the second auxiliary layer comprises a second compound, the second compound is a compound represented by Formula 1-2,
. . . .
the compound comprised in the emission layer [is one of sixty-six species listed in claim 1] . . .
where the specification teaches that
[00321] The electron transport region 170 may have i) a single-layered structure including a single layer including a single material, ii) a single-layered structure including a single layer including a plurality of different materials, or iii) a multi-layered structure having a plurality of layers including a plurality of different materials.
Specification at page 83, [00321] (emphasis added). The specification further teaches that the first auxiliary layer may be in direct contact with the emission layer and may be an interface between the emission layer and second auxiliary layer. Specification at page 5, [0040].
Articulable motivation is lacking because Cha teaches that Formula 1 may be selected from a listing of about 145 total species. Cha at pages 10-31. Cha teaches that Formula 5 may be selected from a listing of about 80 disclosed species. Cha at pages 70-75. And Cha teaches that Formula 4 may be elected from a listing of about 71 compounds. Cha at pages 61-69, [0168]. There is no particular teaching in Cha or secondary art motivating one of ordinary skill to make the above-proposed compound-combination selection from among Cha’s disclosed compounds. For example, Cha’s working examples do not employ any of the above cited species. Cha at page 83, [0259]; data in Cha Table 1 at pages 85-86.
Even upon such selection of three correct Cha species the Office cannot assert that each and every limitation of claim 1 would be met. This is, it cannot be asserted by the Office that one of ordinary skill also meets the claim 1 limitation of:
Claim 1 . . . and the organic light-emitting device satisfies the equations:
T1 (EML) [Symbol font/0xB3]T1 (AXL1) + 0.3 eV, and
T1 (AXL2) [Symbol font/0xB3]T1 (AXL1) + 0.5 eV,
. . . .
wherein the compound comprised in the emission layer, the first compound, and the second compound are structurally optimized at a level of B3LYP/6-31G* (d,p) . . .
because this requires plugging the data for each compound into the appropriate software, which is not available to the Office. As noted in the specification, this can be accomplished using available software, such as a Gaussian program. Specification at page 5, [0037]; Id. at page 7, [0051]; Id. at page 112 [00429] (Gaussian 09 (manufactured by Gaussian Inc., U.S.A.)).
Note Regarding Non-Statutory Double Patenting Rejection over Parent S. Kim et al., US 12,150,376 (2024) [Double Patenting Rejection Not Made]
Instant claims 1-18 are not rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of parent case S. Kim et al., US 12,150,376 (2024) for the following reasons. The instant claims are a continuation of US 12,150,376
The first part of conflicting claim 1 recites:
Conflicting claim 1. An organic light-emitting device comprising:
a first electrode;
a second electrode facing the first electrode;
an organic layer between the first electrode and the second electrode and comprising an emission layer; and
an electron transport region between the emission layer and the second electrode, wherein the electron transport region comprises a first auxiliary layer and a second auxiliary layer, the first auxiliary layer is between the emission layer and the second auxiliary
the first auxiliary layer comprises a first compound, the first compound is a compound represented by Formula 1-11,
the second auxiliary layer comprises a second compound, the second compound is a compound represented by Formula 1-2,
and the organic light-emitting device satisfies the equations:
T1 (EML) [Symbol font/0xB3]T1 (AXL1) + 0.3 eV, and
T1 (AXL2) [Symbol font/0xB3]T1 (AXL1) + 0.5 eV,
wherein T1 (EML) is a triplet energy level (eV) of a compound comprised in the emission layer . . .
This is the same language as the first part of instant claim 1.
Conflicting claim 1 teaches that the “first compound” may be the following species, which falls within the instant claim 1 genus of Formula 1-11, and which is the same compound ET-1 comprised in the first auxiliary layer of the instant specification’s working Example 1-1:
PNG
media_image20.png
200
400
media_image20.png
Greyscale
.
See instant specification at page 116 (Table 2).
Conflicting claim 1 teaches that the “second compound” may be the following species, which falls within the instant claim 1 genus of Formula 1-2, and which is compound ET-4 comprising in the second auxiliary layer of the instant specification’s working Example 1-1:
PNG
media_image21.png
200
400
media_image21.png
Greyscale
.
See instant specification at page 116 (Table 2).
Differences between Instant and Conflicting Claim 1
Instant and conflicting claim 1 differ in that different species are claimed for “compound comprised in the emission layer”.
Conflicting claim 1 teaches that the “compound comprised in the emission layer” may be one of twenty-three species as follows:
Conflicting claim 1 . . . the compound comprised in the emission layer is selected from compounds BD and FD1 to FD22 . . .
On the other hand, instant claim 1 teaches that the “compound comprised in the emission layer” may be one of sixty-six species as follows.
Instant claim 1 . . . the compound comprised in the emission layer is selected from compounds GH, ADN (9,10-di(2-naphthyl)anthracene), MADN (2-methyl-9,10-bis(naphthalen-2-yl)anthracene), TBADN (9,10-di-(2-naphthyl)-2-t-butyl-anthracene), CBP (4,4'bis(N-carbazolyl)-1,1'-biphenyl), mCP (1,3-di-9-carbazolylbenzene), TCP (1,3,5-tri(carbazol-9-yl)benzene) and H1 to H55 . . .
Instant and conflicting claim 1 have no compounds in common for the mutually claimed “compound comprised in the emission layer”.
Instant Claim 1 Is Patentably Distinct from the Conflicting Claims
The conflicting claims fail to teach the instantly claimed “compound comprised in the emission layer”. It is noted that secondary art teaches that the instant claim 1 species of “compound comprised in the emission layer” are alternatives for use in the emission layer of organic light emitting devices. For example, as discussed above, Y. Cha et al., US 2021/0050528 (2021) (“Cha”) teaches an organic light emitting device, where according to an exemplary embodiment, the light emitting layer comprises a compound of Formula 4. Cha at pages 61-69, [0168]. Cha teaches species of Formula 4 that are the same species listed in claim 1 as “the compound comprised in the emission layer”. Cha at page 62. For example, Cha discloses the following two species of Cha Formula 4 (in a listing of about 71 compounds).
PNG
media_image18.png
200
400
media_image18.png
Greyscale
Cha at page 62. These two Cha species are specifically listed in claim 1 as “the compound comprised in the emission layer”. However, there is insufficient motivation to select either of these particular Cha species (from within Cha’s listing of about 71 compounds) for use in the OLED device of conflicting claim 1 so as to meet the limitations of instant claim 1. As such, while the combination of Cha and Conflicting claim meets the limitations of instant claim 1, there is insufficient motivation for one of ordinary skill to make this reference combination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER R PAGANO whose telephone number is (571)270-3764. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM through 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scarlett Goon can be reached at 571-270-5241. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
ALEXANDER R. PAGANO
Examiner
Art Unit 1692
/ALEXANDER R PAGANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692
Prosecution Insights