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 .
Summary of Claims
Claims 1 and 13 are amended, and claim 23 is new due to Applicant's amendment dated 02/17/2026. Claims 1-2, 10-11, 13-16, 18-20, and 22-23 are pending.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claims 1-2, 10-11, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2022/0140240 A1) in view of Kanno (US 2020/0216696 A1) and Yamamoto (US 2009/0115310 A1) is modified to no longer rely on Kanno. However, the rejection is maintained.
The rejection of claims 13-16 and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Kanno, Yamamoto, and Tetsuji (English translation of JP 2006114844 A obtained from Espacenet) is modified to no longer rely on Kanno. However, the rejection is maintained.
The rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Kanno, Yamamoto, Tetsuji and Uetani (US 2016/0111669 A1) is modified to no longer rely on Kanno. However, the rejection is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Insofar as the arguments apply to the grounds of rejection below, Applicant’s arguments on pages 8-11 of the reply dated 02/17/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-2, 10-11, 13-16, 18-20, and 22 as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument –On pages 8-11, Applicant argues against the combination of Wang and Kanno to arrive at an ink composition comprising a second solvent of ethylene glycol monohexyl ether, as Kanno expressly teaches against this combination.
Examiner's response –The rejection below no longer relies on the teachings of Kanno and thus Applicant’s arguments with respect to the combination of Wang and Kanno are moot. However, the rejection below still relies on the same teachings of Yamamoto discussed in the previous rejection to arrive at an ink composition comprising a second solvent of ethylene glycol monohexyl ether. As discussed below and in the previous rejection, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute methanol with ethylene glycol monohexyl ether, because Yamamoto teaches ethylene glycol monohexyl ether is easily available and can provide reduced leak current and improved light-emitting efficiency when used as a solvent in a coating liquid for a charge transporting layer of an organic electroluminescent element. As Applicant has not argued against the combination of Wang and Yamamoto, the rejection of Wang in view of Yamamoto is maintained.
Applicant's argument –Applicant argues on page 11 that the cited references fail to read on the new claim 23 which requires a solvent represented by Formula 2-2 or 2-3.
Examiner's response –It should be noted that in Formula 2-2 and 2-3, n may be 0. As such, ethylene glycol monohexyl ether reads on both Formulas 2-2 and 2-3 wherein R11 is a C2 alkyl group; R13 is a C6 alkyl group; n is 0; and a is 1 and b is 0. Accordingly, Wang in view of Yamamoto teach the limitations of newly added claim 23.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 11/13/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
No English translation has been provided for the Korean Notice of Allowance issued September 26, 2025, in corresponding KR Patent Application No. 10-2020-0103434.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 10-11, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2022/0140240 A1) in view of Yamamoto (US 2009/0115310 A1), as evidenced by Ethylene glycol, PubChem, 2025; and Glycol monohexyl ether, Pub-Chem, 2025.
Regarding claims 1-2, 10-11, and 22-23, Wang teaches an organic light emitting diode including an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, a light emitting layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode layer, in that order (abstract and ¶ [0024]).The hole injection layer, the hole transport layer and the light emitting layer are formed by inkjet printing (¶ [0017]). The electron transport layer comprises a soluble organic electron transport material, wherein the electron transport layer is formed by ink and inkjet printing (abstract and ¶ [0017]). In particular, Wang teaches an embodiment wherein the ink is configured by dissolving the soluble organic electron transport material using a polar mixed solvent, and the soluble organic electron transport material is C49H34O2P2 (¶ [0010] and [0014]). Such an electron transport layer has characteristics of not damaging the light emitting layer and can be prepared by printing to further reduce the material and process cost (¶ [0020]).
C49H34O2P2:
PNG
media_image1.png
180
374
media_image1.png
Greyscale
C49H34O2P2 reads on the claimed Compound 101 (claim 22).
Wang teaches a specific embodiment of the ink wherein the polar mixed solvent is a mixed solvent of methanol and ethylene glycol, wherein the proportion of methanol is 15% (¶ [0031]).
Ethylene glycol has the same structure as the claimed Compound 11 (claim 10) and thus reads on the claimed Formula 1 wherein:
R1 and R2 are each a C1 alkylene group; and
m is 0.
Ethylene glycol:
PNG
media_image2.png
91
375
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Methanol fails to read on the claimed Formula 2. However, Wang does teach the first solvent is a polyol, and the second solvent may be at least one of a phenol, a ketone, an ether, an ester, an amide, and a combination thereof (¶ [0012]-[0013]).
Yamamoto teaches ethylene glycol monohexyl ether is easily available and can provide reduced leak current and improved light-emitting efficiency when used as a solvent in a coating liquid for a charge transporting layer of an organic electroluminescent element (¶ [0009] and [0025]).
Therefore, given the teachings of Wang, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute methanol with ethylene glycol monohexyl ether, because Yamamoto teaches ethylene glycol monohexyl ether is easily available and can provide reduced leak current and improved light-emitting efficiency when used as a solvent in a coating liquid for a charge transporting layer of an organic electroluminescent element.
Ethylene glycol monohexy ether has the structure below2 and thus reads on the claimed Formula 2 and Formula 2-1 (claim 11) wherein:
R11 is a C2 alkyl group;
R12 is not required to be present;
R13 is a C6 alkyl group;
n is 0; and
a is 1 and b is 0.
Ethylene glycol monopropyl ether:
PNG
media_image3.png
29
203
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Additionally, ethylene glycol monohexy ether reads the claimed Formula 2-2 (claim 23) wherein:
R11 is a C2 alkyl group;
R13 is a C6 alkyl group;
n is 0; and
a is 1 and b is 0.
Wang in view of Yamamoto appear silent with respect to: 1) a difference between boiling points of ethylene glycol and ethylene glycol monohexyl ether between 10°C or lower; 2) a Hansen parameter dP value of a mixed solvent of ethylene glycol and ethylene glycol monohexyl ether being 9 or higher; 3) a Hansen parameter dH value of a mixed solvent of ethylene glycol and ethylene glycol monohexyl ether being 9 or higher; 4) a viscosity of a mixed solvent of ethylene glycol and ethylene glycol monohexyl ether at room temperature being 30 cP or lower; 5) a surface tension of a mixed solvent of ethylene glycol and ethylene glycol monohexyl ether being about 30 dyn/cm to about 38 dyn/cm; and 6) a Hansen parameter dH value of C49H34O2P2 being 5 or higher.
The instant specification recites that: 1) Compound 1 has a boiling point of 197°C and Compound 52 has a boiling point of 205°C; 2) a Hansen parameter dP value of a mixed solvent of Compound 1 and Compound 52 is 10.5; 3) a Hansen parameter dH value of a mixed solvent of Compound 1 and Compound 52 is 24.5; 4) a viscosity of a mixed solvent of Compound 1 and Compound 52 at room temperature is 12.9; 5) a surface tension of a mixed solvent of Compound 1 and Compound 52 is 30.9 dyn/cm; and 6) a Hansen parameter dH value of Compound 101 is 7.3. (see instant Tables 1 and 2 on pgs. 76-77).
Since Wang in view of Yamamoto teach the solvent ethylene glycol (which is the same structure as the instant Compound 1), the solvent ethylene glycol monohexyl ether (which is the same structure as the instant Compound 52), and the compound C49H34O2P2 (which is the same structure as the instant Compound 101), the limitations of 1)-6) discussed above are considered to be inherent (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise (see structures on instant pgs. 7-8). When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP 2112.
Claim 13-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2022/0140240 A1) in view of Yamamoto (US 2009/0115310 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tetsuji (English translation of JP 2006114844 A obtained from Espacenet).
Regarding claims 13-16 and 19-20, Wang in view of Yamamoto teach the organic light emitting diode comprising the ink of claim 1, as described above.
As discussed above, the organic light emitting diode including an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, a light emitting layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode layer, in that order (claim 16) (abstract and ¶ [0024]).The hole injection layer, the hole transport layer and the light emitting layer are formed by inkjet printing (claim 19) (¶ [0017]). The electron transport layer comprises a soluble organic electron transport material, wherein the electron transport layer is formed by ink and inkjet printing (claims 14-15) (abstract and ¶ [0017]).
While the light emitting layer may include a host and a light emitting material (¶ [0029]), Wang is silent as to the molecular weights of the host and light emitting material.
Tetsuji teaches the light emitting characteristics of organic EL devices are affected by the molecular weights of both the host material and dopant material used in the light emitting layer (¶ [0012]). Tetsuji teaches it is preferable that the molecular weight of both the host material and dopant material is within the range of 500 to 1,500 from the viewpoint of improving light emitting characteristics and improving film formability (¶ [0040]-[0041]). If less than 500, film formation tends to be poor and carrier injection and transport properties tend to decrease (¶ [0046] and [0062]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a host and light emitting material such that they each have a molecular weight of 500 to 1,500, based on the teaching of Tetsuji. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve light emitting characteristics and improve film formability, as taught by Tetsuji.
Accordingly, with respect to the molecular weight of the host and dopant, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Per claim 20, although the instant claim is drawn to an electronic apparatus, the only positive limitation of the claimed electronic apparatus is organic light-emitting device of claim 13. Claim 20 does not add any further structural or functional limitations to the device. Wang in view of Yamamoto and Tetsuji teaches the organic light emitting device according to claim 13, as described above, and does not include any components that would make it unfit for use as an apparatus. Therefore, the OLED of Wang in view of Yamamoto and Tetsuji according to claim 13 may be considered an electronic apparatus.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2022/0140240 A1) in view of Yamamoto (US 2009/0115310 A1), and Tetsuji (English translation of JP 2006114844 A obtained from Espacenet) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Uetani (US 2016/0111669 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Wang in view of Yamamoto and Tetsuji teach the organic light emitting diode comprising the ink of claim 1, as described above.
Wang is silent as to the ink further comprising a metal-containing material.
Uetani teaches an electron transporting layer containing an electron transporting material formed by coating solution (¶ [0067]-[0068]). The coating solution containing an electron transporting material preferably contains at least one selected from the group consisting of a complex or salt of alkali metal and alkaline earth metal to enhance electron injection efficiency (¶ [0069]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a complex or salt of alkali metal and alkaline earth metal in the ink of Wang in view of Yamamoto and Tetsuji to enhance electron injection efficiency, as taught by Uetani.
The resulting ink comprises a complex or salt of alkali metal and alkaline earth metal, which are metal-containing materials.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRAELYN R WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5pm.
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 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 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.
/BRAELYN R WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1786
1 Ethylene glycol, PubChem, 2025. See pg. 2.
2 Glycol monohexyl ether, Pub-Chem, 2025.
Prosecution Insights