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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/14/2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
After reconsideration of the requirement of election of species set forth in the Office action dated 05/15/2025 and in an effort to further prosecution, the requirement of election of species is hereby withdrawn.
Response to Amendment
The applicant's amendment of 05/14/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-2, 6-8, 11, and 16 are amended and claims 3-5 are cancelled due to the applicant's amendment.
Claims 1-2 and 6-24 are pending.
The rejection of Claims 1-2 and 8-24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voges et al. US-20150270506-A1 in view of Hatwar et al. US-20100288362-A1 and Li et al. CN-108033886-A as set forth in the previous Office action is overcome due to the applicant's amendment.
The rejection of claims 6-7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voges et al. US-20150270506-A1 in view of Hatwar et al. US-20100288362-A1 and Li et al. CN-108033886-A as set forth in the previous Office action is incorporated into the rejection of claims 1-2 and 8-24 and maintained.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments on pages 22-27 of the reply dated 05/14/2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voges et al. US-20150270506-A1 in view of Hatwar et al. US-20100288362-A1 and Li et al. CN-108033886-A as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument – The applicant argues on page 25 that neither Voges nor Hatwar teaches a first compound represented by Formula 4.
Examiner's response – In the rejection of record and in the rejection below, the Li reference is relied upon to teach the first compound, not Voges or Hatwar.
Applicant's argument – The applicant argues on page 25 that the cited compound of Li does not meet the claimed Formula 4.
Examiner's response – While Li does not specifically disclose a compound that meets the claimed Formula 4, the positional isomer of the cited compound of Li meets claimed Formula 4, as discussed in the rejection of record and in the rejection below.
Applicant's argument – The applicant argues bridging pages 25-26 that there is no motivation or suggestion for one having ordinary skill in that art to modify the compound of Li to have the different bonding position required to mee the claimed Formula 4 based on the data present in the Li reference.
Examiner's response – Absent a showing of unexpected results, it is respectfully submitted that one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been motivated to produce the positional isomer of the compound of Li in order to pursue the known options within their technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful in the hole transport layer of the device of Voges in view of Hatwar and Li and possess the properties taught by Li. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP § 2144.09 I. When compounds which are position isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity, there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP § 2144.09 II.
Applicant's argument – The applicant argues on pages 26-27 of the reply that the data in Example 136 recites in the specification and in Supplementary Example shown the reply demonstrate that the claimed invention achieves unexpected results as compared with the prior art Li. Specifically, the applicant argues that Example 136 (comprising compound P-3, which meets the claimed Formula 4) exhibits significantly superior performance compared with the Supplementary Example (comprising the compound of Li, which is a positional isomer of the claimed Formula 4).
Examiner's response – Objective evidence which must be factually supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration to be of probative value includes evidence of unexpected results. Arguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See MPEP § 716.01(c). Because the new data of the Supplementary Example shown in the reply of 05/14/2026 does not appear to be presented in the original filing, it must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration to be considered in determining the issue of obviousness. However, there does not appear to be an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed. Therefore, the applicant's arguments are based on data that is not supported by the specification or an appropriate affidavit or declaration and are found not persuasive.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 6-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voges et al. US-20150270506-A1 (hereinafter "Voges") in view of Hatwar et al. US-20100288362-A1 (hereinafter "Hatwar") and Li et al. CN-108033886-A (hereinafter "Li-CN", see also the English language machine translation referred to herein as "Li-MT").
It is noted that Voges et al. US-20150270506-A1 is equivalent to KR-20180034692-A, which is cited in the IDS of 01/31/2022.
Regarding claims 1-2 and 6-24, Voges teaches an organic light emitting device comprising the layer structure: anode / a p-doped hole-transport layer A', comprising at least one p-dopant and a hole-transport material matrix / at least one hole-transport layer A, comprising at least one hole-transport material / at least one p-doped hole-transport layer B, comprising at least one p- dopant and at least one hole-transport material matrix / at least one hole-transport layer C, comprising at least one hole-transport material / at least one emitting layer / electron-transport layer / electron-injection layer / cathode (¶ [0012]-[0016], ¶ [0023]-[0024], ¶ [0026], ¶ [0111]).
Voges teaches that the hole-transport layer B preferably has a thickness of 5 to 50 nm (¶ [0052]), the p-dopant is preferably present in hole-transport layer B in a concentration of 0.1 to 20% by vol. (¶ [0051]), the hole-transport layer C preferably has a thickness of 5 to 50 nm (¶ [0057]), and that the hole-transport layer B comprises the same compound as hole-transport material matrix as hole-transport layer C does as hole-transport material (¶ [0063]). Voges teaches that the p-dopant may be a compound D-10
PNG
media_image1.png
163
201
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(¶ [0050]), which meets the claimed Formula E.
The p-doped hole-transport layer B corresponds to the claimed first dopant material-doped layer and the hole-transport layer C corresponds to the first dopant material undoped layer and one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that their combination corresponds to the first hole transport layer and overlaps with the claimed ranges of wherein the thickness of the first hole transport layer ranges from 250 Å to 700 Å, and 10% to 50% of the thickness of the first hole transport layer is doped with a first doping material and wherein the first doping material-based layer comprises the first compound and 5 to 15 parts by weight of the first dopant material. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Voges does not disclose a device wherein an additional first auxiliary emission layer is present between the hole-transport layer C and the emitting layer. However, Voges teaches that additional layers may be present including additional hole-transport layers (¶ [0112]-[0113]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form an additional hole transport layer in the device of Voges between the hole-transport layer C and the emitting layer, because this would have been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
This additional hole-transport layer corresponds to the claimed first auxiliary emission layer.
Voges does not disclose a device wherein the organic material layer between the anode and cathode comprises a first stack, a second stack, a third stack, and a fourth stack, wherein each stack comprises the duplicate layers as discussed above.
However, in the analogous art of OLEDs, Hatwar teaches an organic light-emitting device (Figure 1 and ¶ [0098]) comprising a first electrode (“anode 110”), a second electrode (“cathode 170”), a plurality of light-emitting units in the number of m disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode (“Nth EL units”) comprising at least one emission layer (¶ [0092]), and a plurality of charge generation layers in the number of m-1 disposed between two neighboring light-emitting units (“(N-1)th intermediate connector regions”) wherein m is an integer of 2 or more (“N is an integer greater than 1” see [0098]). Hatwar teaches wherein each Nth EL Unit may comprise a hole transport region, emission layer(s), and an electron transport region (Figure 3 and ¶ [0100]). Hatwar also teaches that the colors of the emission layers may be selected so as to obtain the desired properties. For example, Hatwar suggests that a white OLED can be achieved by including blue light emitting layers in combination with red and green emitting layers (¶ [0100]-[0101]). Hatwar teaches the device provides improvement in features such as drive voltage, voltage stability during operation, efficiency and long device lifetime (¶ [0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a device comprising the stacked structure including light-emitting units of different colors and connector regions disclosed by Hatwar wherein each Nth EL Unit comprises the layer structure of Voges including blue light emitting layers in combination with red and green emitting layers, based on the teaching of Hatwar. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain desired white light emission with improvement in features such as drive voltage, voltage stability during operation, efficiency and long device lifetime, as taught by Hatwar.
Voges does not disclose a device wherein the hole-transport material is a compound that meets the claimed Formula 4. However, Voges teaches that the hole-transport material is preferably a monotriarylamine compound.
Li teaches a fluorene compound that is a monotriarylamine compound for use in the hole transport layer of an organic light emitting device (Li-MT, page 1 of 9, line 37 and Li-CN, page 6; and Li-MT, page 3 of 9, lines 3-4). Li teaches that an organic light emitting device comprising the fluorene compound exhibits high efficiency and long service life (Li-MT, page 3 of 9, lines 6-7). Li teaches specific examples of the fluorene compound including
PNG
media_image2.png
176
173
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Li-CN, page 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Voges by forming the hole transport material out of the monotriarylamine fluorene compound as taught by Li. One would have been motivated to do so because Voges teaches that the hole transport material is preferably a monotriarylamine compound and Li teaches a monotriarylamine fluorene compound. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Additionally, Li teaches an organic light emitting device comprising the fluorene compound exhibits high efficiency and long service life and therefore forming the hole transport material in the device of Voges out of the compound of Li would yield the benefit of high efficiency and long service life, as described above.
Finally, the compound of Li
PNG
media_image2.png
176
173
media_image2.png
Greyscale
is a positional isomer of the claimed compound of Formula 4 and claimed compound P-3.
Given the teachings of Li, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the positional isomer of the compound
PNG
media_image2.png
176
173
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the amine nitrogen is meta-substituted instead of para-substituted and thereby arrive at a compound that meets the claimed Formula 4. One of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been motivated to produce the positional isomer of the compound of Li in order to pursue the known options within their technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful in the hole transport layer of the device of Voges in view of Hatwar and Li and possess the properties taught by Li. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP § 2144.09 I. When compounds which are position isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity, there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP § 2144.09 II.
The modified compound meets claimed Formula 4 and corresponds to claimed compound P-3.
Therefore, the modified device of Voges in view of Hatwar and Li meets claims 1-2 and 6-24.
Claims 1-2 and 6-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voges et al. US-20150270506-A1 (hereinafter "Voges") in view of Hatwar et al. US-20100288362-A1 (hereinafter "Hatwar") and Cha et al. KR-20170134132-A (hereinafter "Cha-KR", see also the English language machine translation referred to herein as "Cha-MT").
It is noted that Voges et al. US-20150270506-A1 is equivalent to KR-20180034692-A, which is cited in the IDS of 01/31/2022.
It is noted that KR-20170134132-A was previously cited on the PT-892 of 10/01/2025.
Regarding claims 1-2, 6-7, and 9-24, Voges teaches an organic light emitting device comprising the layer structure: anode / a p-doped hole-transport layer A', comprising at least one p-dopant and a hole-transport material matrix / at least one hole-transport layer A, comprising at least one hole-transport material / at least one p-doped hole-transport layer B, comprising at least one p- dopant and at least one hole-transport material matrix / at least one hole-transport layer C, comprising at least one hole-transport material / at least one emitting layer / electron-transport layer / electron-injection layer / cathode (¶ [0012]-[0016], ¶ [0023]-[0024], ¶ [0026], ¶ [0111]).
Voges teaches that the hole-transport layer B preferably has a thickness of 5 to 50 nm (¶ [0052]), the p-dopant is preferably present in hole-transport layer B in a concentration of 0.1 to 20% by vol. (¶ [0051]), the hole-transport layer C preferably has a thickness of 5 to 50 nm (¶ [0057]), and that the hole-transport layer B comprises the same compound as hole-transport material matrix as hole-transport layer C does as hole-transport material (¶ [0063]). Voges teaches that the p-dopant may be a compound D-10
PNG
media_image1.png
163
201
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(¶ [0050]), which meets the claimed Formula E.
The p-doped hole-transport layer B corresponds to the claimed first dopant material-doped layer and the hole-transport layer C corresponds to the first dopant material undoped layer and one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that their combination corresponds to the first hole transport layer and overlaps with the claimed ranges of wherein the thickness of the first hole transport layer ranges from 250 Å to 700 Å, and 10% to 50% of the thickness of the first hole transport layer is doped with a first doping material and wherein the first doping material-based layer comprises the first compound and 5 to 15 parts by weight of the first dopant material. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Voges does not disclose a device wherein an additional first auxiliary emission layer is present between the hole-transport layer C and the emitting layer. However, Voges teaches that additional layers may be present including additional hole-transport layers (¶ [0112]-[0113]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form an additional hole transport layer in the device of Voges between the hole-transport layer C and the emitting layer, because this would have been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
This additional hole-transport layer corresponds to the claimed first auxiliary emission layer.
Voges does not disclose a device wherein the organic material layer between the anode and cathode comprises a first stack, a second stack, a third stack, and a fourth stack, wherein each stack comprises the duplicate layers as discussed above.
However, in the analogous art of OLEDs, Hatwar teaches an organic light-emitting device (Figure 1 and ¶ [0098]) comprising a first electrode (“anode 110”), a second electrode (“cathode 170”), a plurality of light-emitting units in the number of m disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode (“Nth EL units”) comprising at least one emission layer (¶ [0092]), and a plurality of charge generation layers in the number of m-1 disposed between two neighboring light-emitting units (“(N-1)th intermediate connector regions”) wherein m is an integer of 2 or more (“N is an integer greater than 1” see [0098]). Hatwar teaches wherein each Nth EL Unit may comprise a hole transport region, emission layer(s), and an electron transport region (Figure 3 and ¶ [0100]). Hatwar also teaches that the colors of the emission layers may be selected so as to obtain the desired properties. For example, Hatwar suggests that a white OLED can be achieved by including blue light emitting layers in combination with red and green emitting layers (¶ [0100]-[0101]). Hatwar teaches the device provides improvement in features such as drive voltage, voltage stability during operation, efficiency and long device lifetime (¶ [0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a device comprising the stacked structure including light-emitting units of different colors and connector regions disclosed by Hatwar wherein each Nth EL Unit comprises the layer structure of Voges including blue light emitting layers in combination with red and green emitting layers, based on the teaching of Hatwar. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain desired white light emission with improvement in features such as drive voltage, voltage stability during operation, efficiency and long device lifetime, as taught by Hatwar.
Voges does not disclose a device wherein the hole-transport material is a compound that meets the claimed Formula 4. However, Voges teaches that the hole-transport material is preferably a monotriarylamine compound.
Cha teaches a compound of a formula (1) that is a monotriarylamine compound (Cha-MT, page 2 of 30, lines 1-2) for use in a hole transporting layer of an organic light emitting device (Cha-MT, page 10 of 30, lines 1-3). Cha teaches when used in an organic light emitting device, the compound can lower driving voltage, improve light efficiency and improve lifespan (Cha-MT, page 1 of 30, lines 6-8). Cha teaches specific examples of the compound of formula (1) including
PNG
media_image3.png
167
148
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Cha-KR, page 29).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Voges by forming the hole transport material out of the monotriarylamine compound of formula (1) as taught by Cha. One would have been motivated to do so because Voges teaches that the hole transport material is preferably a monotriarylamine compound and Cha teaches a monotriarylamine compound. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Additionally, Cha teaches when used in an organic light emitting device, the compound can lower driving voltage, improve light efficiency and improve lifespan and therefore forming the hole transport material in the device of Voges out of the compound of Cha would yield the benefit of lowered driving voltage, improved light efficiency and improved lifespan, as described above.
The compound of Cha meets the claimed Formula 4.
Therefore, the modified device of Voges in view of Hatwar and Cha meets claims 1-2, 6-7, and 9-24.
Regarding claim 8, Voges in view of Hatwar and Cha teaches the modified device as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
The compound of Cha
PNG
media_image3.png
167
148
media_image3.png
Greyscale
is a positional isomer of the claimed compound P-41
PNG
media_image4.png
163
155
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
Given the teachings and general formula of Cha, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the positional isomer of the compound
PNG
media_image3.png
167
148
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein the fluorenyl groups is substituted at the 3-position instead of the 2-position and thereby arrive at claimed compound P-41. One of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been motivated to produce the positional isomer of the compound of Cha in order to pursue the known options within their technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful in the hole transport layer of the device of Voges in view of Hatwar and Cha and possess the properties taught by Cha. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP § 2144.09 I. When compounds which are position isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity, there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP § 2144.09 II.
The modified compound meets claimed compound P-41.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: KR-20170088650-A teaches
PNG
media_image5.png
159
158
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(page 16).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elizabeth M. Dahlburg whose telephone number is 571-272-6424. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET, and alternate Fridays.
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.
/ELIZABETH M. DAHLBURG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights