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.
Response to Amendment
The reply filed 19 May 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.
Examiner’s Note
The amendment of 12 December 2025 overcame the rejections set forth in the Non-Final Office action of 22 September 2025. Thus, the Office action is made final, because the new grounds of rejection are necessitated by the amendment of 12 December 2025 and are replacing the erroneous rejections of the Office action of 24 March 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 2-7, filed 19 May 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 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 Nomura et al. (US 2009/0160323 A1) (hereafter “Nomura”) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly cited reference Kato et al. (US 2019/0077754 A1).
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 Kato et al. (US 2019/0077754 A1) (hereafter “Kato”).
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 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]}.
Kato teaches compounds for use in hole injection layers and/or hole transporting layers of organic light emitting devices {paragraphs [0015]-[0017], [0036], [0069], [0072]}.
Kato exemplifies the compound shown below {paragraphs [0067]}.
PNG
media_image2.png
664
728
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kato teaches that the compounds of the disclosure of Kato enable devices having low driving voltage, high efficiency, and long lifetime {paragraphs [0014]-[0015] and [0024]}.
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 Kato, shown above, as hole transport material of Montenegro and doped hole injection material of Montenegro, based on the teaching of Kato. 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 Kato.
In the resultant device, the only hole transporting material is the compound of Kato, and the only electron blocking material is the compound HTM4 of Montenegro.
Montenegro as modified by Kato 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 Kato. 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 Kato has the structure of Compound EB3 of the instant specification {p. 77}. Table 2 of the specification teaches that compound EB3 has a HOMO energy level of 4.58 eV. Table 2 of the specification additionally teaches that compound EB3 has a reversibility value (Ir/If) of 0.979 within an oxidation range at a scan rate of 100 mV/s at the time of measuring cyclic voltage current. Thus, the HOMO energy level of the compound of Kato would be the same as that of the instant Compound HTL1 and the compound of Kato would have a reversibility (Ir/If) of 0.979 within an oxidation range at a scan rate of 100 mV/s at the time of measuring cyclic voltage current.
The compound HTM4 of Montenegro has the structure of the instant compound EB11 {p. 77}. Table 2 of the specification teaches that compound EB11—which has the structure of HTM4 of Montenegro—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.
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 Kato 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
Applicant's amendment of 12 December 2025 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 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