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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/14/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In the response filed 07/14/2026, the claims were amended.
These amendments are hereby entered.
In light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims, the objection to claims 25 and 33 is withdrawn by the Office.
In light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 25-33, 36-39, 41-43, 45, and 47-48 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (US 2018/0301629 A1) and Kim et al. (US 2016/0028014 A1) in view of Kwon et al. (WO 2013/032304 A2), and of claim 46 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama, Kim, and Kwon above, and further in view of Hatwar et al. (US 2010/0288362 A1) are withdrawn by the Office.
Claims 1-24 were originally filed.
Claims 25-48 have been added.
Claims 34-35, 40, and 44 are canceled.
Claim 25 is instantly amended.
Claims 25-33, 36-39, 41-43, and 45-48 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
At the outset, any of applicant's arguments which argue against the references individually are not found persuasive because one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
With respect to Applicant’s argument that modification of compound HT6 to a compound of instant formula L-1-1-1-1 is not obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, Examiner disagrees.
Compound HT6 of Kim differs from instant formula L-1-1-1-1 in the inclusion of a substituent on the spirobifluorene group. Kim teaches that a spirobifluorene group at R201 may be substituted (paragraph 0067). Applicant argues that it is not obvious to modify compound HT6 to include a substituent without presenting any data or reason other than “formula 201 is defined very broadly” (MPEP 2145 - I). It has been held that 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 combination from a finite list of possible combinations if the combination of elements would have yielded a reasonable expectation of achieving success. In the instant case, the success is a hole transport region which increases charge balance in the emission layer by facilitating injection of holes into the emission layer, increases organic light emitting device efficiency, and decreases roll-off phenomenon (paragraph 0360), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to Applicant’s arguments that Kim discloses a different composition for the emitting layer and a different composition for the hole injection layer, these remarks are not found persuasive as Kim is not relied upon for these teachings, nor are the compositions of these layers required to achieve the benefits of the disclosed hole transport region which include increased charge balance in the emission layer by facilitating injection of holes into the emission layer, increases organic light emitting device efficiency, and decreases roll-off phenomenon (paragraph 0360).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the structures taught by Kwon 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On at least page 192 of the instant specification, underneath the table comprising data from OLEDs l5 to l10, compound HTL-3 has been mistakenly referred to as HTML-3. Please replace any instances of “HTML” with the correct compound reference label.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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 25-33, 36-39, 41-43, 45 and 47-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (US 2018/0301629 A1) and Kim et al. (US 2016/0028014 A1) and further in view of Pflumm et al. (US 2011/0092701 A1).
With respect to claim 25, Hatakeyama teaches an electronic device (an organic EL element), comprising a first electrode (a positive electrode), a second electrode (a negative electrode), and between the electrodes is an emitting layer comprising a compound of the invention (paragraph 0003), such as Compound 1-2619 (page 27) which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image1.png
277
379
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of instant formula (E-1) when T is boron, p is 0 and o is 1 so that two of X are present. Both of X are the same and are NRE2, wherein RE2 is an aromatic ring system having 6 ring atoms, substituted by RE4 when the RE4 radicals are a branched alkyl group having 4 carbon atoms (t-butyl). C1-C3 are the same and are a ring system having 6 ring atoms (benzene) which are substituted by RE3 radicals which are substituted by RE4 radicals. RE3 is, on two occasions a branched alkyl having 4 carbon atoms (t-butyl), and on one occasion a straight-chain alkyl having 1 carbon atom (methyl), all substituted by RE4 when RE4 represents hydrogen atoms.
Hatakeyama teaches that the devices of the invention emit blue light (paragraph 0547).
However, while Hatakeyama teaches the compound may be comprised in the emitting layer of a device with two hole transport layers (paragraph 0545 and Table 4A), Hatakeyama does not teach nor fairly suggest the claimed dual hole transport layer composition.
In analogous art, Kim teaches an organic light-emitting device including a first electrode, a second electrode, an emission layer between the electrodes, and a hole transport region between the first electrode and the emission layer (abstract) wherein the hole transport region comprises a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, and an auxiliary layer sequentially stacked from the first electrode in that order (paragraph 0048).
The hole transport layer of Kim is analogous to instantly claimed layer H1 and may comprise compound HT6, which is pictured below (paragraph 0092 and page 9).
PNG
media_image2.png
426
377
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This compound is derived from Formula 201 (paragraph 0092), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image3.png
106
416
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Kim also teaches that when L202 is a spirofluorenylene group (paragraph 0061, line 2), then R202 may be a phenyl group (paragraphs 0065-0066, line 1).
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of instant formula L-1-1-1-1 when all Z characters are carbon atoms, n is 0 and Ar1 is not present, Ar2 is different in each instance and in one instance is a C6 aromatic system with an R3 substituent, and in the other instance is a C6 aromatic system with a different R3 substituent, the first R3 substituent is a C6 aromatic system, and the second R3 substituent is a C12 heteroaromatic ring system, and R1-1 is an aromatic ring system having 6 aromatic ring atoms (phenyl).
The auxiliary layer of Kim is analogous to instantly claimed layer H2 and may comprise compound 44, which is pictured below (paragraph 0197 and page 36).
PNG
media_image4.png
327
378
media_image4.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of instant Formula L-4 when Y is an oxygen atom, m is 0 and Ar1 is not present, each Ar2 is different and on one occasion is an aromatic ring system which has 12 aromatic ring atoms (fluorene), and is substituted by R3 radicals, and on the other occasion is an aromatic ring system which has 24 aromatic ring atoms (spirobisfluorene), and R3 is a C1 alkyl (methyl) group.
Kim teaches that the hole transport region of the invention increases charge balance in the emission layer by facilitating injection of holes into the emission layer, and thus, when an organic light-emitting device includes the amine compound of the invention, the efficiency of the organic light-emitting device is increased and the roll-off phenomenon is decreased.
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 hole transport layer and auxiliary layer of Kim as the hole transport region of Hatakeyama in order to increase charge balance in the emission layer by facilitating injection of holes into the emission layer, and increasing the efficiency of the organic light-emitting device while decreasing the roll-off phenomenon, as taught by Kim.
However, neither Hatakeyama nor Kim teach a hole injection layer comprising a p-dopant and one compound of formulae (L-3).
In analogous art, Pflumm teaches an organic electronic device including a hole injection material for use in a hole injection layer (abstract), which gives lower operating voltage and significantly higher power efficiency to the organic electronic device (paragraph 0066). The hole-injection layer is also doped with an electron-acceptor material such as F4-TCNQ (paragraph 0059, lines 11-14).
Pflumm gives an example of the inventive hole injection material in structure (1), which is pictured below (page 5).
PNG
media_image5.png
251
552
media_image5.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of instant formula L-3 when one of Z is CR1, wherein R1 is a C1 alkyl (methyl) group, each other Z is CH, k is 1 and each of n is 0, each of Ar2 is a C6 aryl (phenyl) group, and each R2 is a C1 alkyl (methyl) group.
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 p-doped hole injection material of Pflumm as the hole injection material in the organic electronic device of Kim in order to obtain a hole injection material which gives lower operating voltage and significantly higher power efficiency to the organic electronic device, as taught by Pflumm.
With respect to claim 26, Hatakeyama and Kim in view of Pflumm teach the device of claim 25, and T is boron, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 27, Hatakeyama and Kim in view of Pflumm teach the device of claim 25, and the X group is the same at each instance and is NRE2 as discussed above.
With respect to claim 28, Hatakeyama and Kim in view of Pflumm teach the device of claim 25, and RE2 is the same at each instance and is an aromatic ring system with 6 aromatic ring atoms each substituted by RE4 radicals, as discussed above.
With respect to claims 29 and 30, Hatakeyama and Kim in view of Pflumm teach the device of claim 25, and RE3 is, on two occasions a branched alkyl having 4 carbon atoms (t-butyl), and on one occasion a straight-chain alkyl having 1 carbon atom (methyl), each substituted by RE4, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 31, Hatakeyama and Kim in view of Pflumm teach the device of claim 25, and RE4 is, at each instance, either hydrogen, or an alkyl group having 4 carbon atoms (t-butyl), as discussed above.
With respect to claim 32, Hatakeyama and Kim in view of Pflumm teach the device of claim 25, and p is 0 and o is 1, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 33, Hatakeyama and Kim in view of Pflumm teach the device of claim 25, and the compound of formula (E-1) conforms to formula (E-1-1-1-1-2), when two of RE3-1 are a t-butyl group, RE3-2 is a methyl group, and two of RE4-1 are a t-butyl group, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 36, Hatakeyama and Kim in view of Pflumm teach the device of claim 25, and all of R1 are hydrogen atoms, R2 is a methyl group, R3 is either a C6 aromatic system, a C12 heteroaromatic ring system, or a methyl group, and R4 is a phenyl group, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 37, Hatakeyama and Kim in view of Pflumm teach the device of claim 25, and Ar1 is not present (n is 0).
With respect to claim 38, Hatakeyama and Kim in view of Pflumm teach the device of claim 25, and each Ar2 is phenyl.
With respect to claim 39, Hatakeyama and Kim in view of Pflumm teach the device of claim 25, and Kim teaches that layer H2 (the auxiliary layer) adjoins the emitting layer directly on the anode side (paragraph 0048), as discussed above.
With respect to claim 41, Hatakeyama and Kim in view of Pflumm teach the device of claim 25, and Kim teaches that the electronic device comprises a hole injection layer, hole transport layer 1 (H1), an auxiliary layer (H2), an emitting layer (paragraph 0048 and Figure 1), and one or more electron transport layers (paragraph 0045 and Figure 1), laminated in that order, directly adjoining each other.
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 claimed device structure in the device of Hatakeyama, as taught by Kim.
With respect to claim 42, Hatakeyama and Kim in view of Pflumm teach the device of claim 25, and Hatakeyama also teaches that the light emitting layer comprises an anthracene matrix compound (paragraph 0065).
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 an anthracene matrix compound in combination with the compound of formula (E-1) in the light emitting layer, as taught by Hatakeyama.
With respect to claim 43, Hatakeyama and Kim in view of Pflumm teach the device of claim 25, and Hatakeyama teaches the electronic device is an organic electroluminescent device (paragraph 0009).
With respect to claim 45, Hatakeyama and Kim in view of Pflumm teach the device of claim 25, and Hatakeyama teaches the cathode may be transparent and the device may emit light through the cathode (paragraph 0361, lines 5-8).
With respect to claim 47, Hatakeyama and Kim in view of Pflumm teach the device of claim 25, and Hatakeyama describes a process wherein an anode is formed, followed by a first hole transport layer, followed by a second hole transport layer, followed by an emitting layer, and later applying an anode, in that order in the manufacture of device Example 19 (paragraphs 0543-0546).
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 claimed process to manufacture a device of the claimed order layer, as demonstrated by Hatakeyama.
With respect to claim 48, Hatakeyama and Kim in view of Pflumm teach the device of claim 25, and Hatakeyama teaches the inventive organic electroluminescent element has applications as a lighting apparatus (paragraph 0061).
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 electroluminescent device of Hatakeyama, Kim, and Pflumm in a lighting application, as taught by Hatakeyama.
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (US 2018/0301629 A1), Kim et al. (US 2016/0028014 A1) and Pflumm et al. (US 2011/0092701 A1) as applied above, and further in view of Hatwar et al. (US 2010/0288362 A1).
With respect to claim 46, Hatakeyama and Kim in view of Pflumm teach the device of claim 25, however, neither Hatakeyama, Kim, nor Pflumm teach a tandem device with two or three identical layer sequences stacked on one another.
In analogous art, Hatwar teaches a tandem OLED device featuring an anode, a cathode, and at least two phototransducing units which are separated by an intermediate conducting region (abstract).
Hatwar teaches that each layer of the phototransducing unit may include a hole injection layer, hole transport layers, an electron blocking layer (exciton blocking layer), an emitting layer, and an electron transport layer (paragraph 0085).
Hatwar teaches that tandem OLED devices provide good luminance efficiency, good operational stability, and reduced drive voltages (paragraph 0131).
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 incorporate compound (E-1) into the emitting layer, a compound of formula (L-1-1-1) into a first hole transport layer, and a second hole transport layer adjacent to the emitting layer, as taught by Hatakeyama and in view of Kim, into a tandem OLED device in order to provide good luminance efficiency, good operational stability, and reduced drive voltages, as taught by Hatwar.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights