DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
In the response filed 08/04/2026, the claims were amended.
These amendments are hereby entered.
In light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claims 1-3, 6-7, and 9-20 as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention, and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 1-3, 6-7, 10-12, and 15-19 as being unpatentable over Okada et al. (JP 2000/282025 A) in view of Seki et al. (JP 2010/062442 A), claim 9 as being unpatentable over Okada and Seki as applied above, and further in view of Fennimore et al. (US 2016/0315259 A1), claims 13 and 14 as being unpatentable over Okada and Seki as applied above and further in view of Tomotsugu et al. (JP 2017/066289 A), and claim 20 as being unpatentable over Okada and Seki as applied above and further in view of Matsudate et al. (US 2005/0236970 A1), are withdrawn by the Office.
Claims 1-20 were originally filed.
Claims 4 and 5 are canceled.
Claims 1, 6, 8, 15, and 16 are instantly amended.
Claims 1-3 and 6-20 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 8 over Okada et al. (JP 2000/282025 A) in view of Seki et al. (JP 2010/062442 A) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s amendments do not overcome the prior art because the prior art still reads on the claimed invention.
A reinterpretation of the prior art is given below to explain how the prior art still reads on the claimed invention.
Applicant’s remaining arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, and 9-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (CN 105778058 A, using the NEW provided translation for references) in view of Fennimore et al. (US 2016/0315259 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Cheng discloses polymer compound (I-VI) (page 5 of the original document), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image1.png
452
514
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This compound is derived from Formula I (page 2 of the original document), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
242
666
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In this formula, Cheng also teaches that R is a C1 alkyl (methyl, paragraph 0048) and n is an integer of 1 to 200 (paragraph 0014).
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of the instant claim when X is represented by Formula 2e, m is 1, k is 0 and R1 is not present, Ar is a (n-butyl) substituted C6 aryl (phenyl) group, l is 0 and R2 is not present, and n is an integer greater than 30. In Formula 2e, a1 is 1 and R16 is -C(=O)(Q1) wherein Q1 is a hydrogen atom.
Cheng teaches this compound may be used in combination with a toluene solvent (paragraph 0213).
However, Cheng does not teach nor fairly suggest that the polymer is used in combination with a non-arylamine small molecule of instant Formula 2.
In analogous art, Fennimore teaches a composition for use in an electronic device comprising an electroactive material (a high-molecular weight polymer, paragraphs 0074 and 0099), a facilitation additive, and a liquid medium such as toluene (paragraph 0254) (abstract).
Fennimore teaches that the facilitation additive is a small molecule which aids in the formation of the electroactive layer (paragraph 0175).
Fennimore gives an example of a suitable facilitation additive, FA-13, on page 28, which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image3.png
480
603
media_image3.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of instant Formula 2 when Y is a substituted or unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group and o is an integer of 2 or more.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the facilitation additive of Fennimore in the hole transport layer of Mizuki in order to prevent mixing of the layers (paragraphs 0405-0410) and aid in the formation of the electroactive layer (paragraph 0175), as taught by Fennimore.
With respect to claim 2, Cheng and Fennimore teach the composition of claim 1, as discussed above.
Examiner notes that the repeating unit of Cheng and Fennimore, which is discussed above, has a molecular weight of approximately 612 Daltons. Guided by the number of repeating units taught by Cheng, a polymer of between 1 and 200 of the repeating units discussed above has a molecular weight of between 612-122,400 Da.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions. In the instant case, the claimed molecular weight range and the range of the prior art overlap. Thus, as the ranges overlap, a prima facie case of obviousness is present.
With respect to claim 3, Cheng and Fennimore teach the composition of claim 1, and the non-arylamine based small molecule has a molecular weight of 522 Da.
With respect to claim 6, Cheng and Fennimore teach the composition of claim 1 and Ar is represented by Formula 3a when a2 is 1 and R16 is a C4 (n-butyl) alkyl group, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 7, Cheng and Fennimore teach the composition of claim 1, and Y is represented by Formula 4a when a3 is 4 and R19 is, in two instances, a C12 aryl (biphenyl) group and, in the other two instances, a C6 alkyl (n-hexyl) group, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 9, Cheng and Fennimore teach the composition of claim 1, as discussed above.
The MPEP teaches us that a prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and utilities. The office has held that when compounds are homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties (see MPEP 2144.09).
The facilitative additive of Fennimore has two n-hexyl substituents on the center phenylene group, while Compound A1 of the instant claim has two n-octyl group on the center phenylene group.
It is examiner’s position that the two compounds, being homologs, are of sufficiently close structural similarity, differing only in the successive addition of the same chemical group, and possessing the same utility as an additive in the hole transport layer of an electronic device, that they represent a prima facie case of obviousness.
Given the formula and teachings of Fennimore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make a homolog of the facilitative additive FA-13 in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the homolog to also be useful as a facilitative additive in the hole transport layer of the electroluminescent device of Cheng and possess the properties taught by Fennimore.
With respect to claim 10, Cheng and Fennimore teach the composition of claim 1, and the solvent is toluene, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 11, Cheng and Fennimore teach the composition of claim 1, as discussed above.
Fennimore also teaches that the non-arylamine low molecular weight compound should be included in a ratio of high-molecular weight compound to low-molecular weight compound of about 1:99 to 99:1 (paragraph 0267).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the facilitation additive in the high-molecular weight polymer composition of Cheng in the claimed ratio as taught by Fennimore.
With respect to claim 12, Cheng and Fennimore teach the composition of claim 1, as discussed above.
Fennimore also teaches that in the composition containing the electroactive composition, facilitative additive, and solvent, the total solids is in the range of 1-10% by weight.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions. In the instant case, the range of possible solids concentrations overlaps in scope with the instantly claimed range of possible polymer concentrations. Thus, as the ranges overlap, a prima facie case of obviousness is present.
With respect to claims 13 and 14, Cheng and Fennimore teach the composition of claim 1, as discussed above.
Fennimore also teaches that the composition comprising the electroactive polymer, facilitation additive, and toluene should be baked at 250 °C for 10 or 15 minutes (see Tables 1 and 2 on page 30).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cure the composition for 10 or 15 minutes at 250 °C as taught by Fennimore.
With respect to claims 15 and 16, Cheng discloses a high molecular weight compound for use as a semiconductor material in a light emitting diode (paragraph 0006), such as polymer compound (I-VI) (page 5 of the original document), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image1.png
452
514
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This compound is derived from Formula I (page 2 of the original document), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
242
666
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In this formula, Cheng also teaches that R is a C1 alkyl (methyl, paragraph 0048) and n is an integer of 1 to 200 (paragraph 0014).
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of the instant claim when X is represented by Formula 2e, m is 1, k is 0 and R1 is not present, Ar is a (n-butyl) substituted C6 aryl (phenyl) group, l is 0 and R2 is not present, and n is an integer greater than 30. In Formula 2e, a1 is 1 and R16 is -C(=O)(Q1) wherein Q1 is a hydrogen atom.
Cheng teaches this compound may be used in combination with a toluene solvent (paragraph 0213).
However, Cheng does not teach nor fairly suggest that the polymer is used in combination with a non-arylamine small molecule of instant Formula 2.
In analogous art, Fennimore teaches a composition for use in a hole transport layer (paragraphs 0074-0079) of an organic electronic device comprising an anode (110) and a cathode (160) (paragraph 0338 and FIG. 4), the composition comprising an electroactive material (a high-molecular weight polymer, paragraphs 0074 and 0099), a facilitation additive, and a liquid medium such as toluene (paragraph 0254) (abstract).
Fennimore teaches that the facilitation additive is a small molecule which aids in the formation of the electroactive layer (paragraph 0175).
Fennimore gives an example of a suitable facilitation additive, FA-13, on page 28, which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image3.png
480
603
media_image3.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of instant Formula 2 when Y is a substituted or unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group and o is an integer of 2 or more.
Fennimore also teaches a process for forming an electroactive layer comprising an electroactive polymer (paragraph 0067), a facilitation additive, and a liquid medium, wherein the facilitation additive is able to prevent the electroactive layer from mixing with a second liquid medium (paragraph 0008-0011), such as a hole transport layer and an emissive layer (paragraph 0192).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the electroactive polymer of Cheng with the facilitation additive of Fennimore and a toluene solvent to form a hole transport layer of an electroluminescent device (paragraph 0006) in order to prevent mixing of two liquid layers (paragraph 0011), and aid in the formation of the electroactive layer (paragraph 0175), as taught by Fennimore.
Examiner is interpreting the E-type fluorescent polymer of Cheng to satisfy the requirements of the hole transport polymer of Fennimore as Fennimore teaches that any material having hole transport properties can be used in the hole transport system (paragraph 0075), and the polymer of Cheng necessarily has hole transport properties as evidenced by its ability transport and receive holes in order to emit fluorescent light.
With respect to claim 17, Cheng and Fennimore teach the device of claim 16, as discussed above.
Fennimore also teaches that the first electrode is anode, the second electrode is a cathode, and organic layer comprises a hole injection layer (120), a hole transport layer (130), a photoactive layer (140, paragraph 0348, a light-emitting layer), and an electron transport layer (250) (paragraph 0339).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a device with the claimed layer structure, as taught by Fennimore.
With respect to claims 18 and 19, Cheng and Fennimore teach the device of claim 17, and the polymer of Formula 1, and the non-arylamine small molecule of Formula 2 are located in the hole transport layer of the hole transport region, as discussed above.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (CN 105778058 A, using the NEW provided translation for references) in view of Fennimore et al. (US 2016/0315259 A1) as applied above, and further in view of Matsudate et al. (US 2005/0236970 A1).
With respect to claim 20, Cheng and Fennimore teach the organic light-emitting device of claim 16, as discussed above. However, neither Cheng nor Fennimore teach nor fairly suggest a source electrode, a drain electrode, an active layer, and a gate electrode, and the first electrode of the organic light-emitting device is electrically connected to one selected from the source electrode and the drain electrode of the thin-film transistor, although this is how active-matrix OLED displays are typically implemented.
Cheng, Fennimore and Matsudate are of analogous art as they are all drawn to organic light emitting devices. Matsudate teaches a design for an organic electroluminescent display which allows the device to be controlled and driven (abstract, and paragraphs 0003 and 0062). Matsudate teaches that the taught configuration of a source electrode, a drain electrode, an active layer, and a gate electrode, wherein the first electrode of the organic light-emitting device is electrically connected to one selected from the source electrode and the drain electrode of the thin-film transistor is applicable to general organic electroluminescent displays to achieve high manufacturing yields (paragraphs 0062-0069, and Fig. 11)
In view of the motivation of using the display component configuration of Matsudate as described above, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to configure the display device of Cheng and Fennimore using the component configuration of Matsudate in order to provide an organic electroluminescent display and achieve high manufacturing yields and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. Further, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). See MPEP 2143.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada et al. (JP 2000/282025 A, using the provided translation for references) in view of Seki et al. (JP 2010/062442 A, using the provided translation for references).
With respect to claim 8, Okada discloses Example 302 in Table 3 (paragraphs 0110 and 0111), which is a light-emitting element (paragraph 0113, line 1) formed from a composition comprising blue light-emitting material B, the solvent 1,2-dichloromethane (methylene chloride), and an exemplary polymer, which are pictured below.
PNG
media_image4.png
206
412
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
179
182
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
532
976
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The blue light-emitting material B meets the requirements of instant Formula 2 when Y is a substituted C6 aryl group and o is 2. The methylene chloride solvent mees the requirements of the solvent of the instant claim.
Okada also discloses the polymer of the composition may be represented by general equation (IV), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image7.png
498
574
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In this formula, R4e is a substituent (paragraph 0028), such as alkyl-substituted phenyl (paragraph 0021, line 1, see also compound 65 in paragraph 0077), 4r, 4p and 4q are 0 so that R4f, R4c and R4d are not present, m4 is an integer of 30 or more (paragraph 0048) and L4 is preferably an arylamine group (-N(R1)-, arylene, and combinations thereof, paragraph 0041, lines 2-3).
Okada includes each element above, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Okada being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known polymer combination from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the polymer of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a composition which is capable of forming a light-emitting element with low-voltage, high brightness light emission, good planar luminescence, and good white luminescence (paragraph 0113), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
However, while Okada teaches that L4 can be an arylamine, Okada does not fairly suggest such a selection.
In analogous art, Seki teaches an organic light-emitting element with high efficiency, high brightness, and extremely high lifetime light output (paragraph 0008) as a result of including an arylamine polymer with a fluorenyl substituent (paragraph 0059).
Seki teaches that fluorenyl skeletons have high charge transport capacity as basic skeletons, and when included in an arylamine polymer, such structures have excellent charge injection and transportability, which improves luminous efficiency. Additionally, the fluorenyl skeleton has a high glass transition temperature on an amino moiety which is part of the main chain of the polymer. In this way, the film forming properties of the polymer are improved, and crystallization is less likely to occur when organic light-emitting elements are fabricated, improving the service life of the devices (paragraph 0059).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the fluorenyl-substituted amine moiety of Seki as the amine moiety in the polymer component of the composition of Okada in order to obtain a polymer which has excellent charge injection and transportability, which improves luminous efficiency, high glass transition temperature, which improves the film forming properties of the composition, and decrease the likelihood of crystallization during fabrication, which improves the service life of devices comprising the film, as taught by Seki.
Such a modification produces instant Compound 10.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL SIMBANA whose telephone number is (571)272-2657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 A.M. - 4:30 P.M..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RACHEL SIMBANA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
