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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 03/10/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) under Nakano et al (US 20200111968 A1, and US 10763441 B2) and Kim998 (US 20210053998 A1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kim549 (US 20110278549 A1).
Applicant's arguments filed 03/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues and attempts to show in the Affidavit filed 3/11/2026 that OLEDs comprising HIL having the claimed HI-A compound and HATCN have superior results in the form of increased lifetime over the OLEDs having only HATCN as the HIL or HTL layer. This argument is not convincing. Kim549 (US 20110278549 A1) teaches improvements in performance, efficiency and stability of the OLEDs when using HI-A in the hole injection layer. So the results are not unexpected. Even if Applicant argues that Kim549 does not explicitly disclose increased lifetime in the OLEDs, increased lifetime is nearly synonymous with stability, and nevertheless improved efficiency leads to improved lifetime.
The fact that applicant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Although the record may establish evidence of secondary considerations which are indicia of nonobviousness, the record may also establish such a strong case of obviousness that the objective evidence of nonobviousness is not sufficient to outweigh the evidence of obviousness. Newell Cos. V. Kenney Mfg. Co., 864 F.2d 757, 769, 9 USPQ2d 1417, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 814 (1989); Richardson-Vicks, Inc., v. The Upjohn Co., 122 F.3d 1476, 1484, 44 USPQ2d 1181, 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Furthermore, the prior art explicitly states that improved lifespan results including similar compounds with a spiro-fluorene-acridine core molecule in the organic layers, including explicitly the hole injection layer, see for example Park et al (US 9299935 B2) [col 4 lines 33-35, 39-41] and Park et al (US 9540374 B2) [col 4 lines 28-31, 36-39].
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5 and 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Nakano et al (US 20200111968 A1, and US 10763441 B2) in view of Kim549 (US 20110278549 A1).
Nakano discloses an OLED with the claimed anode, cathode, and light emission layer [1472 et seq] wherein the light emission layer includes an anthracene compound [abstract] having the generic structure:
PNG
media_image1.png
207
216
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
204
226
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[0015-0052]
Wherein R1 to R8 include deuterium, the L groups may be a single bond or arylene group, Ar1 is a phenyl or napthyl group, Ar2 has the structure above on the right [0015-0052, claim 1]. Specific embodiment include a fully deuterated anthracene group [claim 2]. R11 to R14 include a single bond to L2 [0050] and R15 to R20 include hydrogen atom [0052] which by definition includes deuterium atoms [0262-0263].
Specific examples include positions isomers of the claimed compounds:
PNG
media_image3.png
523
382
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) or homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). See also In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978).
The light emitting layer includes the anthracene compound as a host and also includes a fluorescent dopant comprising a boron-based compound [1467, claim 1].
Nakano does not disclose the claimed compound HI-A in the hole injection layers.
Kim549 disc loses an OLED comprising an emitting layer and a hole injection layer [abstract, claim 7]. Kim549 discloses the OLED comprising in the hole injection layer a compound of the formula:
PNG
media_image4.png
326
528
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[claim 6 p44, claim 7 p56].
Kim549 teaches that the compound used in a hole injection layer provides OLEDs with improved stability, efficiency, and performance [0008, 0020].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of Applicant’s invention to have used the claimed compound HI-A in the hole injection layer of the OLED of Nakano because Kim549 teaches that a hole injection layer with the compound HI-A provides OLEDs with improved stability, efficiency, and performance.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5 and 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim998 (US 20210053998 A1) in view of Kim549 (US 20110278549 A1).
Kim998 discloses an OLED with the claimed anode, cathode, and light emission layer [0003] wherein the light emission layer includes an anthracene compound [0014] that is preferably deuterated [0091]
PNG
media_image5.png
231
288
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[claim 1, 0014] wherein the substituents include those of the claims and the claimed benzodibenzofuran [0034], fully deuterated anthracene and napthyl group [0094, claim 9 p159 et seq]. The groups Ar1 and Ar2 of the formula may each independently be substituted with one or more substituents selected from the group including deuterium [0079, 0024, clm 1].
Kim998 also discloses that the OLED may include hole transporting and electron transporting layers [1470-1471], and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use an emitting layer host as a transporting layer host in the same device, and furthermore Kim teaches that the hole transporting layer may preferably be based on anthracene compounds [1492]
An example has the structure:
PNG
media_image6.png
496
276
media_image6.png
Greyscale
[p59]. Although excluded from claim 1, this compound is a position isomer of many compounds of the claims. Compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) or homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). See also In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978).
A prima facie case for obviousness of chemical composition is established if there is structural similarity between claimed and prior art subject matter, proved by combining references or otherwise, and if prior art gives reason or motivation to make claimed composition; burden and opportunity then falls on applicant to rebut prima facie case through showing that claimed composition possesses unexpectedly improved properties or properties lacking in prior art, that prior art is so deficient that there is no motivation to make changes that otherwise appear obvious, or by any other pertinent argument or presentation of evidence. (In re Dillon 16 USPQ2d 1897).
The light emitting layer includes the anthracene compound as a host and also includes a fluorescent dopant comprising a boron-based compound [0292, Table 1, claim 1].
Kim998 does not disclose the claimed compound HI-A in the hole injection layers.
Kim549 disc loses an OLED comprising an emitting layer and a hole injection layer [abstract, claim 7]. Kim549 discloses the OLED comprising in the hole injection layer a compound of the formula:
PNG
media_image4.png
326
528
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[claim 6 p44, claim 7 p56].
Kim549 teaches that the compound used in a hole injection layer provides OLEDs with improved stability, efficiency, and performance [0008, 0020].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of Applicant’s invention to have used the claimed compound HI-A in the hole injection layer of the OLED of Kim998 because Kim549 teaches that a hole injection layer with the compound HI-A provides OLEDs with improved stability, efficiency, and performance.
Other References
Other relevant references include Suh et al (US 20190198766 A1) which includes the claimed compound HI-A used in a HIL [p86, 0159] in OLEDs with anthracene compounds similar to the claimed Chemical Formula 1-4 and 1-5 [Chemical formula 1, 0016, p1, abstract], and similarly Suh et al (US 20190296243 A1).
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 MICHAEL M DOLLINGER whose telephone number is (571)270-5464. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6:30pm M-F.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached on 571-272-1302. 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.
MICHAEL M. DOLLINGER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1766
/MICHAEL M DOLLINGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights