DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Amendment filed 03/09/26.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The objection to Claims 1-20 as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 12/11/25 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The objection to Claim 13 as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 12/11/25 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 12/11/25 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2018/0053898 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 12/11/25 is NOT withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2018/0053898 A1) and Nakamura (US 2006/0113905 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 12/11/25 is NOT withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendments.
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.
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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2018/0053898 A1).
Regarding Claims 1-15, 17, and 18, Kim et al. discloses an organic electroluminescent (EL) device (light-emitting device) comprising the following layers: capping layer (210), anode (110), organic layer (150), cathode (190), and capping layer (220) (Fig. 4); the organic layer comprises the following layers (in this order): hole-transporting layer, light-emitting layer, and electron-transporting layer ([0154]). The light-emitting layer comprises a mixture of host and dopant materials, the latter of which includes at least one selected from phosphorescent and fluorescent dopants ([0210]). The host material is in excess relative to the amount of dopant material ([0211]). The light-emitting layer comprises red, green, and blue-emitting (dopant) materials for the production of white light ([0209]). The dopant and host materials include in the following, respectively:
PNG
media_image1.png
256
408
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 27) and
PNG
media_image2.png
194
390
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 48). Kim et al. discloses that the hole-transporting layer comprises “at least one compound selected from Compounds HT1 to HT39” ([0193]); such compounds include the following:
PNG
media_image3.png
444
434
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 39) (second compound) such that a15 = a16 = 1, L15-16 = unsubstituted carbocyclic group (phenylene), a17 = 1, L17 = single bond, b16-17 = 1, R16-17 = hydrogen, X11 = N(E11) (with E11 = unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group (phenyl)), and X12 = C(E13)(E14) (with E13-14 = unsubstituted C1 alkyl group (methyl)) of Applicant’s Formula 1-11 and
PNG
media_image4.png
192
418
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(page 39) (first compound) such that a13 = 2, L13 = unsubstituted carbocyclic group (phenylene), b13 =1, R13 = hydrogen, a11-12 = 1, L11-12 = single bond, b11-12 = 1, and R11-12 = unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group (phenyl) of Applicant’s Formula 1-12. However, Kim et al. does not explicitly disclose an organic EL device comprising a hole-transporting layer comprising the first and second compounds satisfying Condition 1. Nevertheless, it is the position of the Office such a composition can easily be produced via the selection of compounds HT13 and H16 (with the simplest case being of equal amounts) as disclosed by Kim et al. for the hole-transporting layer. The motivation is provided by the fact that Kim et al. explicitly discloses that the hole-transporting region (layer) comprises “at least one compound” selected from a highly finite list of hole-transporting materials (i.e., containing only 39 compounds), and wherein “at least one” corresponds to the existence of, at a minimum, two compounds if the hole-transporting layer comprises a plurality of materials, thus rendering the selection of compounds HT13 and HT16 (which appear on the same page) for the hole-transporting layer during the normal course of experimentation predictable with a reasonable expectation of success.
Notice that the production would result in EHOMO(C1) – EHOMO(C2) = -5.025 – (-5.249) eV (see Table 1 of the present national phase publication) = 0.224 eV.
Regarding Claim 16, it is the position of the Office that host material H1 and dopant material PD1 would inherently read on Condition 2 as recited in the claim. Evidence is provided by the fact that compounds H1 and PD1 are exactly identical to the Applicant’s preferred anthracene and platinum-based host and dopant materials (see pages 39 and 55, respectively, of the present national phase publication).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2018/0053898 A1) as applied above and in further view of Nakamura (US 2006/0113905 A1).
Kim et al. discloses the organic electroluminescent (EL) device (light-emitting device) of Claim 1 as shown above. Jeong et al. discloses the use of organic electroluminescent (EL) devices for the construction of (display) devices with wide viewing angles and high contrast ratios ([0003]). However, Kim et al. does not explicitly disclose the specific electronic apparatus as recited in the claims.
Nakamura discloses a method of display device construction utilizing organic EL devices which can suppress degradation and realize high display quality and long lifetime (Abstract; [0008]). The construction comprises a thin-film transistor (20) comprising a source electrode (20S) and a drain electrode (20D) electrically connected to the anode (41) of an organic EL device (40); a polarizer plate PL further exists on the display to suppress ambient light reflection (Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to utilize the method as disclosed by Nakamura for the construction of displays comprising the organic EL device as disclosed by Kim et al. The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Nakamura, which is directed to a known and viable method of display device construction utilizing organic EL devices, the use of which results in the suppression of degradation and high display quality and long lifetime.
Response to Arguments
12. The Applicant argues on page 16 that “the number of unique binary combinations in a set of 39 is in fact considerably larger, standing at 741”; the Applicant further argues on pages 17-18 that Kim et al. nowhere discloses the inter-compound HOMO energy level gas as a result-effective variable, and that there is no motivation to combine compounds H13 and H16 to produce the recited gap via routine experimentation as proposed by the Office. The Applicant argues that there has been hindsight bias in rejecting the claims. The Applicant further argues on pages 18-19 that there is a “technical effect of Condition 1” that “is non-trivial, and supported experimentally,” and that “the specific structural distinctions remain unaddressed by the Office.” Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Firstly, Kim et al. discloses that the hole-transporting region (which can be a single-layered structure) which directly contacts the first electrode (anode) comprise a plurality of compounds (“plurality of different materials”) selected from HT1 to HT39 ([0153]-[0156], [0193]). It is the position of the Office that producing such a composition that would read on the extremely broad limitation of Condition 1 would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation of success as it would merely involve the selection of a plurality of compounds from a highly finite list (i.e., of only 39 compounds) which can be accomplished during the normal course of experimentation. This is particularly reasonable considering the total universe of viable, hole-transporting compounds for use in a an organic electroluminescent (EL) device known in the prior art. Moreover, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the fact that Kim et al. does not explicitly disclose the inter-compound HOMO energy gap as recited in the claims is not necessary as an alternative motivation to produce the composition exists (i.e., “obvious to try” based on a highly finite list of compounds combined with the explicitly disclosure that a plurality of such compounds can be used in the hole-transporting layer). Furthermore, it should be noted that, in fact, there not even be a need to select and choose the two compounds (compounds H13 and H16) as proposed by the Office in the above rejection to arrive as the Applicant’s invention. Due to the open-ended language of Claim 1 wherein “the hole transport layer comprises a first compound and a second compound,” the use of a substantial portion (or even all such that there is no need for choosing and selection) of the explicitly disclosed compounds HT1 to H39 (as “plurality of different materials”) in the hole-transporting layer in the device as disclosed by Kim et al. would arrive at the composition reading on Condition 1.
Secondly, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, 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).
Thirdly, the Office finds the Applicant’s general arguments in regards to the technical effects of Condition 1 unpersuasive as the data i presented in Table 2 (i.e., Examples 1 and 2) is not commensurate with the scope of the claims, particularly in view of the extremely broad scope of Claim 1 which can encompass a nearly finite variety of first and second compounds.
Conclusion
13. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY L YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1137. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 6am-3pm.
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 A 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.
/JAY YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights