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 .
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 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. Compound 133 is identical to compound 1-1 and therefore is expected to have a refractive index within the claimed range as such a property is inherent to the material.
PNG
media_image1.png
194
264
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 01/15/2026 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 133 that is identical to compound 1-1 of the instant claims. While Tang does not exemplify this exact device, it is specifically taught therein 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 further argues that Tang does not teach the inclusion of a hole transport layer material as 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.
This argument has been fully considered but not found convincing for at least the following reasons. Tang does not make any teaching requiring specific materials in a hole transport layer but only exemplifies one material for this layer. The prior art in this art area teaches many materials that are commonly used in hole transport layers such as tetraphenyl benzidines such as TPD shown above. In the absence of unexpected results, the use of a known material for its known function ion the device of Tang would be obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan.
Applicant argues that the device 14 as described in the instant specification demonstrates unexpected results from the use of the claimed device. This argument is not convincing at least because device 14 is 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 not two triphenylamine structures.
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 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