Response to Amendment
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is responsive to the amendment received March 9, 2026. Claims 1, 10, 13, and 21 were amended. Claims 1-21 are pending.
The rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (US 2021/0408386 A1) in view of Hatakeyama et al. (US 2019/0207112) is withdrawn due to the amendment of claim 21.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 13 recites compound “1-118” having a deuterium substituted phenyl substituent and a naphthyl-deuterium substituted phenyl substituent upon an anthracene core. The compound does not appear to be within the limitation “when Ar1 and Ar2 are each independently a substituted or unsubstituted C6-C60 aryl group, then at least one of Ar1 or Ar2 is not a substituted or unsubstituted C6 aryl group or a substituted or a substituted or unsubstituted C10 aryl group” now recited in parent claim 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
88
158
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 1, 3-15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (US 2021/0408386 A1) in view of Hatakeyama et al. (US 2019/0207112).
Song et al. teaches an OLED light emitting device may comprise an organic emitting layer, which may have a host according to Formula 1 (see par. 71-72) per instant Formula 1:
PNG
media_image2.png
172
270
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Definitions for R1 and R2 are C6-C30 aryl or C5-C30 heteroaryl and L1 and L2 are C6-C30 arylene (see par. 73). Subscripts a and b are 0 or 1 (par. 73). The definitions of the groups correspond to instant L1-Ar1 and L2-Ar2 groups, respectively. With further respect to specific Formula 1 compounds in instant claim 13, “C6-C30” aryl includes phenyl, naphthyl, and phenanthrene among others and “C5-C30” includes at least dibenzofuran (see par. 73 and 74 and representative groups within shown compounds of par. 75). For instance, an anthracene host may be the same as at least instant compounds 1-53 or 1-54 in instant claim 13 of instant Formula 1 of parent claim 1 when R1 is selected as aryl phenyl, a is 0, b is 1, L2 is selected as aryl naphthyl, and R2 is selected as heteroaryl dibenzofuran:
PNG
media_image3.png
88
282
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[Instant 1-53 and 1-54].
Blue dopant material for a light emitting layer may be according to following Formula 5-1 where X1 and X2 may independently be oxygen or NR14 (see par. 80-81) per instant Formula 2:
PNG
media_image4.png
154
244
media_image4.png
Greyscale
More specifically, exemplary blue dopant of Formula 5-1 may include at least Dopant 167 (see par. 83), which is identical to instant compound “2-5” (shown in instant claim 14):
PNG
media_image5.png
168
302
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding host and dopant compounds of claims 1 and 8-15, Song et al. teaches using host and dopant material the same as compounds set forth within the instant claims as discussed above.
Regarding the instant devices including a hole transport region with a “first hole transport layer” and a “second transport layer”, Song et al. teaches a device may include electron blocking layer, hole transporting layer, and hole injecting layer in a corresponding region(see par. 67-69); however, Song et al. does not appear to specifically teach a first hole transport layer with a hole transport compound and a p-type dopant. In analogous art, Hatakeyama et al. teaches a device structure comprising anthracene host and boron compounds in a light emitting layer and further include a hole transport region. Hatakeyama et al. teaches an organic electroluminescent element may include a positive electrode, hole injection layer, hole transport layer, light emitting layer, electron transport layer, electron injection layer and a negative electrode (see Hatakeyama par. 160). With respect to the “hole transport region” of instant claims 1, hole injection layer and hole transport layer are taught and are formed by one or more kinds of hole injecting or hole transport material (see Hatakeyama par. 171-174). A p-type material may be included (see Hatakeyama par. 173-174). Regarding claim 3, Hatakeyama et al. Table 2A device “HI” layer material may include the following (see Hatakeyama par. 552) per a first hole transport compound:
PNG
media_image6.png
169
266
media_image6.png
Greyscale
and “HT” layer material per a second compound may include arylamines (see Hatakeyama par. 171-174, 552). Regarding claims 4 and 5, a dopant that may be included in the hole injection/transport region may be at least cyano-containing 2,3, 5, 6-teterfluorotetracyano-1,4-benzoquinonedimethane (F4TCNQ) (see Hatakeyama par. 174). Further regarding claim 4, F4-TCNQ is a preferred material disclosed in the instant application as having the desired property requirement (see Hatakeyama published instant application at par. 112). Regarding claims 6 and 7, an organic electroluminescent element may include a positive electrode, hole injection layer, hole transport layer, light emitting layer, electron transport layer, electron injection layer and a negative electrode (see Hatakeyama par. 162-163). With respect to the “hole transport region” of instant claims 1, the hole injection layer may include hole transport material (see Hatakeyama par. 171-172) and a p-dopant (see Hatakeyama par. 173-174) per instant “first hole transport layer” and the hole transport layer may include hole transport material (see Hatakeyama par. 170-174). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected materials for hole injection and hole transport layers as taught by Hatakeyama for making an organic light emitting device with light emitting layer material as taught by Song et al. to form a display device, because one would expect the hole transport region layers to be similarly useful for the function of hole injection and hole transport in the operation of a light emitting device according to Song et al. One would expect to achieve a device including known hole transport region layers as taught by Hatakeyama with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success. Further, applicant claims a combination that only unites old elements with no change in the respective functions of those old elements, and the combination of those elements yields predictable results; absent evidence that the modifications necessary to effect the combination of elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d at 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396).
Regarding claims 17, Song et al. teaches layers corresponding to an electron transport region (see par. 70). Regarding claim 18, it is not seen where specific metal-containing material is taught by Song et al. for an electron transport region. In analogous art, Hatakeyama et al. teaches a device structure comprising electron injection layer and/or electron transport layer (see Hatakeyama par. 182-188) that may include metal-containing material (see Hatakeyama par. 186, 188). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected materials for electron injection and/or electron transport layers as taught by Hatakeyama for making an organic light emitting with light emitting layer material as taught by Song et al. to form a display device, because one would expect the electron injection layer and/or electron transport layer to be similarly useful for the function of electron injection and electron transport in the operation of a light emitting device according to Song et al. One would expect to achieve a device including known electron injection and/or electron transport layers as taught by Hatakeyama with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success. Further, applicant claims a combination that only unites old elements with no change in the respective functions of those old elements, and the combination of those elements yields predictable results; absent evidence that the modifications necessary to effect the combination of elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d at 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song (US 2021/0408386 A1) in view of Hatakeyama et al. (US 2019/0207112), and in further view of Yu (US 2007/0082226 A1).
Song et al. and Hatakeyama et al. are relied upon as set forth above for the rejection of claim 1.
Song et al. teaches including a hole transport “region” comprising layers discussed above and secondary reference Hatakeyama et al. describes hole injection and hole transport layer regions comprising arylamine compounds (see Hatakeyama par. 172-173) and that a layer may be doped (see Hatakeyama par. 173-174). It is not seen where Hatakeyama et al. specifically describes HOMO energy relationship of first and second layers as recited in instant claim 2. In analogous art, Yu describes a hole injection layer of an organic light emitting device may be formed of arylamine compound m-MTDATA and F4-TCNQ and a hole transport layer selected as NPB (see Yu claims 1-6). The combination of layers are comprised of materials the same as instant preferred hole transport region layer materials (see instant application as published par. 404). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected materials for hole injection and hole transport layers as taught by Yu for an organic light emitting element as taught by Song et al. in view of Hatakeyama et al. to form a display device, because one would expect the hole transport region layers to be similarly useful for the function of hole injection and hole transport in the operation of a light emitting device according to Song et al. in view of Hatakeyama et al. One would expect to achieve a device including known hole transport region layers as taught by Yu with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success. Further, applicant claims a combination that only unites old elements with no change in the respective functions of those old elements, and the combination of those elements yields predictable results; absent evidence that the modifications necessary to effect the combination of elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d at 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (US 2021/0408386 A1) in view of Hatakeyama et al. (US 2019/0207112), and in further view of Jeong et al. (US 2017/0098686 A1).
Song et al. and Hatakeyama et al. are relied upon as set forth above.
Song et al. and Hatakeyama et al. teach a light emitting device, but do not specifically teach a capping layer on an outer surface of an electrode of the device which has a refractive index of 1.6 or higher. In analogous art, Jeong et al. teaches providing a capping layer on an OLED (see abstract) having a refractive index in a range of 1.6 to about 2.6 (see claim 2 on page 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a capping layer according to Jeong et al. as part of a sealing layer for protecting a device according to Song et al. in view of Hatakeyama et al., because one would expect the Jeong et al. capping layer to be similarly beneficial for protecting a device display according to Song et al. in view of Hatakeyama et al. One would expect to achieve an operational device within the disclosures of Song et al. in view of Hatakeyama et al. and in further view of Jeong et al. with a predictable result and reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (US 2021/0408386 A1) in view of Hatakeyama et al. (US 2019/0207112), and in further view of Park (US 2014/0353619 A1).
Song et al. and Hatakeyama et al. are relied upon as set forth above
Song et al. and Hatakeyama et al. does not appear to specifically teach a transistor in the light emitting device structure as recited in instant claim 20. In analogous art, Park teaches including a thin film transistor in an organic light emitting display apparatus (see abstract and full description). The transistor includes an active layer, gate, source and drain electrodes, first insulating layer, a second insulating layer (see abstract and claims). A buffer layer may be included on the substrate (see par. 64, per instant “first insulating layer”). The active layer may be comprised of an oxide semiconductor (see par. 65 per instant “oxide semiconductor”). It would have been obvious to have included a thin film transistor as taught by Park including known layers of a thin film transistor connected to an organic light emitting element as taught by Song et al. in view of Hatakeyama et al. to form a display device, because using a thin film transistor with a device to form an operational light emitting display was known in the art by Park before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. One would expect to achieve a device further including known layers of a thin film transistor with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success. Applicant claims a combination that only unites old elements with no change in the respective functions of those old elements, and the combination of those elements yields predictable results; absent evidence that the modifications necessary to effect the combination of elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d at 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (US 2021/0408386 A1) in view of Hatakeyama et al. (US 2019/0207112), and in further view of Liao et al. (US 6,881,502 B2).
Song et al. and Hatakeyama et al. are relied upon as set forth above for the rejection of claim 1.
Song et al. in view of Hatakeyama et al. does not appear to teach specifically a layer consisting only the anthracene compound of Formula 1 adjacent a light emitting layer per the instant “non-doped” region. In analogous art, Liao et al. teaches an electroluminescent device may contain a “buffer layer” adjacent a light emitting layer comprised of an anthracene derivative the same as a host material of a light emitting layer to improve device performance (see Liao col. 3, lines 2, 3, and 25-34, abstract, and claims 1, 8, 10, and 11 in col. 13-14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a layer adjacent a light emitting layer comprising an anthracene material the same as host material for the light emitting layer as taught by Song et al., because one would expect adding the layer to be similarly useful in the function of an organic light emitting device. One would expect to achieve a device including an additional “buffer” layer as taught by Liao consisting of the same anthracene host taught by Song et al. in a device according to Song et al. in view of Hatakeyama et al. with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success. Further, applicant claims a combination that only unites old elements with no change in the respective functions of those old elements, and the combination of those elements yields predictable results; absent evidence that the modifications necessary to effect the combination of elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d at 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (US 2021/0408386 A1) in view of Hatakeyama et al. (US 2015/0236274; listed on 04/08/2024 PTO-892).
Song et al. teaches an OLED light emitting device may comprise an organic emitting layer, which may have a host according to Formula 1 (see par. 71-72) per instant Formula 1:
PNG
media_image2.png
172
270
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Definitions for R1 and R2 are C6-C30 aryl or C5-C30 heteroaryl and L1 and L2 are C6-C30 arylene (see par. 73). Subscripts a and b are 0 or 1 (par. 73). The definitions of the groups correspond to instant L1-Ar1 and L2-Ar2 groups, respectively. With respect to specific compounds in instant claim 13, “C6-C30” aryl includes phenyl, naphthyl, and phenanthrene among others and “C5-C30” includes at least dibenzofuran see par. 73 and 74 and representative groups within shown compounds of par. 75). For instance, an anthracene host may be the same as at least instant compounds 1-53 or 1-54 disclosed by applicant as a specific instant Formula 1 when Hatakeyama ‘274 R1 is aryl phenyl, a is 0, b is 1, L2 is aryl naphthyl, and R2 is heteroaryl dibenzofuran:
PNG
media_image3.png
88
282
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[Instant 1-53 and 1-54]
Blue dopant material for a light emitting layer may be a boron-containing heterocyclic dopant (see par. 80-81), but it is not seen where a specific heterocyclic dopant the same as in instant claim 21 is described by Song et al. In analogous art, Hatakeyama ‘274 discloses the following formula 2 for a light emitting layer of a light emitting device:
PNG
media_image7.png
196
282
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(see Hatakeyama ‘274, par. 24 and definitions).
Y1 may be selected as B, P, P=O, or P=S (par. 26) and X1 and X2 may be O, N-R, S or Se (see par. 27). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a light emitting dopant as taught by Hatakeyama with Y1 selected as B, P, P=O, or P=S and X1 and X2 selected as at least S as defined, because one would expect the light emitting material to be useful in a Song et al. device as a heterocyclic dopant in the light emitting layer with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding the instant devices including a hole transport region with a “first hole transport layer” and a “second transport layer”, Song et al. teaches a device may include electron blocking layer, hole transporting layer, and hole injecting layer in a corresponding region(see par. 67-69); however, Song et al. does not appear to specifically teach a first hole transport layer with a hole transport compound and a p-type dopant. In analogous art, Hatakeyama et al. ‘274 teaches a device structure comprising anthracene host and boron compounds in a light emitting layer and further include a hole transport region. Hatakeyama et al. teaches an organic electroluminescent element may include a positive electrode, hole injection layer, hole transport layer, light emitting layer, electron transport layer, electron injection layer and a negative electrode (see Hatakeyama ‘274, par. 104-106). With respect to the “hole transport region” of instant claim 21, hole injection layer and hole transport layer are taught and are formed by one or more kinds of hole injecting or hole transport material (see Hatakeyama ‘274, par. 112-115). A p-type material may be included such as F4TCNQ (see Hatakeyama ‘274, par. 115). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected materials for hole injection and hole transport layers as taught by Hatakeyama for making an organic light emitting device with light emitting layer material as taught by Song et al. to form a display device, because one would expect the hole transport region layers to be similarly useful for the function of hole injection and hole transport in the operation of a light emitting device according to Song et al. One would expect to achieve a device including known hole transport region layers as taught by Hatakeyama with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success. Further, applicant claims a combination that only unites old elements with no change in the respective functions of those old elements, and the combination of those elements yields predictable results; absent evidence that the modifications necessary to effect the combination of elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d at 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues one of ordinary skill in the art would not select groups the same as claimed for an anthracene derivative. The office maintains one of ordinary skill in the art is knowledgeable with respect to specific aryl groups or heteroaryl groups within the range of groups explicitly defined within “C6-C30 aryl” or “C5-C30 heteroaryl”. The reference provides for selecting any of the aryl groups or heteroaryl groups within the defined groups. As stated in MPEP 2123, “"[t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004).” Applicant has provided no experimental evidence commensurate in scope with the claims that specific selection of substituent groups upon an anthracene as claimed provide unexpectedly, superior results over other possible anthracene derivatives also taught by Song et al.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning on page 36 of the remarks, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). As noted above, groups the same as claimed for an anthracene derivative are expressly defined for a Song et al. formula 1 compound and hindsight reasoning has not been used in selecting groups as defined within the reference.
With respect to claim 2, as noted in the rejection, it would have been obvious to select materials the same as claimed for forming a device. Properties of a device would be expected to naturally flow from the combination of these same materials. The office notes that “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” (MPEP 2112.01).
With respect to claim 16, applicant argues the difference in terms “buffer layer” versus “a non-doped region of the emission layer itself”. The office submits the composition of a layer and position within a device as described in the rejection meet the structure claimed. The difference in terms to describe the layers (i.e. “buffer” vs. “non-doped”) is not considered a persuasive argument.
In the absence of persuasive evidence of unexpected, superior results commensurate in scope with the devices claimed with specific materials, obviousness rejection(s) are respectfully maintained.
The argument with respect to claim 21 is now moot, because a rejection over a different combination of art is set forth above in light of the amended claim.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dawn Garrett whose telephone number is (571)272-1523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday (Eastern Time).
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.
/DAWN L GARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights