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 .
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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10 August 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 10 August 2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 2-7 and 9-19 are cancelled.
Claim 20 is new.
Claims 1, 8, and 20 are pending.
The amendment to claim 1 has overcome the rejections of claims 1, 8, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montenegro et al. (US 2018/0019405 A1) (hereafter “Montenegro”) in view of Kato et al. (US 2019/0077754 A1) (hereafter “Kato”) set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn. However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 8, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montenegro et al. (US 2018/0019405 A1) (hereafter “Montenegro”) in view of Kato et al. (US 2019/0077754 A1) (hereafter “Kato”) set forth in the last Office action 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montenegro et al. (US 2018/0019405 A1) (hereafter “Montenegro”) in view of Mun et al. (KR 2013-0106255 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Mun”).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 20: Montenegro discloses an organic light emitting device comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and an organic material layer provided between the positive electrode and the negative electrode {Device E5 described in Table 6 and paragraph [0187]-[0190]}.
The organic material layer comprises a hole transport layer {(Device E5 described in Table 6 and paragraph [0187]-[0190]), (Device E5: The hole transport layer comprises compound HIL3, which can be equated with a hole transport material, because it transports holes.), (p. 196, Compound HIL3)}.
The organic material layer comprises an electron blocking material, having the structure shown below {(Device E5 described in Table 6 and paragraph [0187]-[0190]), (Device E5: The electron blocking layer comprises compound HTM4, which can be equated with an electron blocking material, because it is the material of the electron blocking layer.), (p. 198, Compound HTM4)}.
PNG
media_image1.png
512
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Montenegro does not teach a similar device except not comprising a compound having the structure of the instant EB11.
However, Montenegro teaches a compound similar to the compound shown above except for having methyl substituents as shown below {paragraph [0093] showing the compound above on p. 21 and the compound below on p. 89}.
PNG
media_image2.png
606
552
media_image2.png
Greyscale
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device of Montenegro by using the compound of Montenegro having methyl substituents shown above as the material of the electron blocking layer, based on the teaching of Montenegro. The substitution would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). The selection of the compound of Montenegro shown above would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (the exemplified compounds of the disclosure of Montenegro), with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and beneficial combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce good performing organic light-emitting devices.
Montenegro does not teach a similar device except for having a hole transport material that is not the instant Compound EB25.
However, Montenegro teaches for the hole-injection or hole-transport layers, any suitable charge transport materials can be used {paragraph [0135]}.
Mun teaches compounds for use in hole injection layers and/or hole transporting layers of organic light emitting devices {paragraph bridging pp. 67-68 and Table 6: Example 8 comprising compound P1-21 in the hole transport layer.}.
Mun exemplifies the compound shown below {paragraph bridging pp. 67-68 and Table 6: Example 8 comprising compound P1-21 in the hole transport layer.}.
PNG
media_image3.png
774
852
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Mun teaches that the compounds of the disclosure of Mun enable devices having low driving voltage, high efficiency, and long lifetime {p. 69, 1st and 2nd paragraphs}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device of Montenegro such that each instance of compound HIL3 of Montenegro was replaced with the compound of Mun, shown above, as the hole transport material of Montenegro and doped hole injection material of Montenegro, based on the teaching of Mun. The substitution would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Furthermore, the motivation for doing so would have been to use a compound known to enable organic light-emitting devices having low driving voltage, high efficiency, and long lifetime, as taught by Mun.
In the resultant device, the only hole transporting material is the compound of Mun, and the only electron blocking material is the compound of Montenegro comprising methyl substituents shown above.
Montenegro as modified by Mun teaches the claimed invention above but fails to teach that the hole transport material has a HOMO absolute value of 4.30 eV to 4.60 eV, and a reversibility value (Ir/If) of 0.83 or higher within an oxidation range at a scan rate of 100 mV/s at the time of measuring cyclic voltage current, and the electron blocking material has a reversibility value (Ir/If) of more than 0.5 within an oxidation range at a scan rate of 100 mV/s at time of measuring cyclic voltage current. It is reasonable to presume that the hole transport material having a HOMO absolute value of 4.30 eV to 4.60 eV, and a reversibility value (Ir/If) of 0.83 or higher within an oxidation range at a scan rate of 100 mV/s at the time of measuring cyclic voltage current, and the electron blocking material having a reversibility value (Ir/If) of more than 0.5 within an oxidation range at a scan rate of 100 mV/s at time of measuring cyclic voltage current is inherent to Montenegro as modified by Mun. Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials and like processes which would result in the claimed property.
The compound of Mun a structure similar to Compounds EB3 to EB5 of the instant specification {p. 77}. Table 2 of the specification teaches that compounds EB3 to EB5 have a HOMO energy level of 4.58 eV to 4.60 eV. Table 2 of the specification additionally teaches that compounds EB3 to EB5 have a reversibility value (Ir/If) of 0.948 to 0.979 within an oxidation range at a scan rate of 100 mV/s at the time of measuring cyclic voltage current. Given the similarity to these three compounds, the HOMO energy level of the compound of Mun would be within range of 4.58 eV to 4.60 eV and the reversibility (Ir/If) would be within a range of 0.948 to 0.979 within an oxidation range at a scan rate of 100 mV/s at the time of measuring cyclic voltage current.
The compound of Montenegro having the methyl substituents shown above differs from the instant compound EB11 only in the presence of the methyl substituents {p. 77}. Table 2 of the specification teaches that compound EB11 has a reversibility value (Ir/If) of 0.97 within an oxidation range at a scan rate of 100 mV/s at time of measuring cyclic voltage current. Given the structural similarity with the instant compound EB11, the compound of Montenegro having the methyl substituents shown above would have a reversibility value (Ir/If) of approximately 0.97 within an oxidation range at a scan rate of 100 mV/s at time of measuring cyclic voltage current.
Thus, given the ranges and values described above, the difference between the reversibility values for each compound is less than 0.15.
The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once the Montenegro as modified by Mun product is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977). Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though the rejection is based on Section 103 instead of 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DYLAN CLAY KERSHNER whose telephone number is (303)297-4257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm (Mountain).
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.
/DYLAN C KERSHNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights