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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/01/2026 has been entered.
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 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al (CN109824659A) (Tang) in view of Kim (US 2015/0318511) (Kim).
In reference to claims 1 and 4-5, Tang teaches an organic EL device comprising an anode layer, a hole transport layer, a light emitting layer, an electron transport layer, a cathode layer and a capping layer (Tang Fig 1, [0070]) wherein the capping layer can comprise a compound 133 as shown below and exemplifies that such a layer has a thickness of 70 nm that is prepared through a process as described therein (Tang [0105] to [0110]; table 4) that meets the instant claims.
PNG
media_image1.png
126
172
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Compound 110 is identical to compound 1-7 as described in the instant specification to meet the refractive index requirements (See e.g instant spec table 1) and therefore is expected to have a refractive index within the claimed range as such a property is inherent to the material. Further, Compound 110 is a positional isomer of the instantly claimed compound 1-6. Furthermore, it is noted that compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) 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) (stereoisomers prima facie obvious). In light of the case law cited above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the compound disclosed in the present claims is but an obvious variant of the compound presently claimed, and thereby one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Tang exemplifies a material HT-1 as a possible material for the hole transport layer but does not limit the material in the hole transport layer in any way and does not specifically point to a material as instantly claimed that comprises an arylamine compound having two triphenylamine structures in a molecule and having a structure in which the two triphenylamine structures are linked by a single bond or a divalent group not containing a heteroatom.
With respect to the difference, Kim teaches, in analogous art, organic EL devices and structures and compositions thereof including hole transport layers and teaches known materials for hole transport layers that include both monoamines (such as the HT-1 of Tang) and diamines for example compound TPD as shown below.
PNG
media_image2.png
238
494
media_image2.png
Greyscale
That is, the substitution of the TPD of Kim for the HT-1 of Tang, absent unexpected results, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application with the predictable result forming a hole transport layer. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (See MPEP § 2143, B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In reference to claims 1 and 4-5, Applicant argues that the Tang does not teach that the capping layer of the device includes the claimed materials. However, Tang specifically teaches compound 110 that is identical to compound 1-7 of the instant specification and a positional isomer of compound 1-6 as instantly claimed. While Tang does not exemplify this exact device, it is taught therein (see e.g. formula I-1 that allows for a variety of positional isomers) and would be immediately obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to use a preferred compound in a taught device structure. Further, the prior art is not limited only to examples.
Applicant argues that the inclusion of dibenzofuran and instead of dibenzothiophene and the specific positional isomers is not obvious and results in unpredictable superior properties beyond the level of routine optimization. This argument has been fully considered but not found convincing. Initially, Tang specifically teaches dibenzofuran compounds as pointed to herein above. The only difference between the capping layer materials of the instant claims and those of Tang is the selection of a specific positional isomer. Such a change is expected to result in sufficiently similar properties that those selections are obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan. The data in the instant specification seems to support such a finding. Tables 1 and 2 of the instant specification provide refractive index values for both positional isomers 1-6 (currently claimed) and 1-7 (compound 110 of Tang) that demonstrate that they are functionally comparable. Further, device data (in unclaimed devices) described in table 3 demonstrates that the resulting devices comprising these materials have very similar properties in terms of driving voltage, luminance, efficiency and lifetime. Taken together, the difference between the positional isomers appears to be sufficiently similar to be an obvious modification.
Applicant argues that devices 12 and 13 in table 3 as described in the instant specification demonstrate unexpected results from the use of the claimed device. This argument is not convincing at least because the devices in table 3 are not a device of the instantly claimed invention. That is, the hole transport layer material of chemical formula 17 is not a claimed material that comprises an arylamine compound having two triphenylamine structures in a molecule and having a structure in which the two triphenylamine structures are linked by a single bond or a divalent group not containing a heteroatom. Chemical formula 17 has one triphenylamine structure and a biphenyl, fluorenyl amine structure and does not comprise, as required in claim 1, two triphenylamine structures. That is, the data is not data corresponding to the claimed invention. This was previously mentioned in the final office action mailed 03/09/2026 but Applicant has not addressed this issue.
Applicant is further advised that for a finding of unexpected results, the results presented need to be of both statistical and practical significance and be commensurate in scope with the subject matter claimed (See MPEP 716.02).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sean M DeGuire whose telephone number is (571)270-1027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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.
/Sean M DeGuire/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights