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 .
Summary of Claims
Claims 1, 4, 12, and 16 are amended. Claims 16-–20 were withdrawn due to the restriction dated 02/04/2026. Claims 1–20 are pending.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claims 1–9 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wen et al. (CN 109369891 A, hereinafter “Wen”) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 06/22/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen in view of Kim et al. (US 2019/0157596 A1, hereafter “Kim ‘596”) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 06/22/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 12–14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen in view of Kim et al. (US 2021/0217964 A1, hereafter “Kim ‘964”) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 06/22/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen in view of Kim ‘964 and further in view of Lederer et al. (US 2020/0032093 A1, hereinafter “Lederer”) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 06/22/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 20–21 of the reply dated 06/22/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1–9 as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered and they are persuasive.
Applicant's argument – Applicant has amended claim 1 to now recite “consist of” the first repeating unit represented by Chemical Formula 1. Therefore, Wen does not disclose each and every element of the amended claim 1.
Examiner's response – Although Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 to now recite “consist of the first repeating unit represented by Chemical Formula 1” overcomes the rejection set forth in the previous Office Action relying upon Polymer 2 since it comprises four different repeating units, Wen teaches the polymer may have a single repeating unit. Therefore, the rejections relying upon Polymer 2 are withdrawn, but new grounds of rejection relying upon a different embodiment taught by Wen are discussed below.
PNG
media_image1.png
225
500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s arguments on page 22 of the reply dated 06/22/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 10–11 as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered and they are persuasive.
Applicant's argument – Applicant argues that claims 10–11 depend upon claim 1 and therefore should be withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to claim 1.
Examiner's response – The rejections relying upon Polymer 2 are withdrawn, but new grounds of rejection relying upon a different embodiment taught by Wen are discussed below.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 22–23 of the reply dated 06/22/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 12–14 as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered and they are persuasive.
Applicant's argument – Applicant has amended claim 12 in a similar manner to claim 1, as described above.
Examiner's response – The rejections relying upon Polymer 2 are withdrawn, but new grounds of rejection relying upon a different embodiment taught by Wen are discussed below.
Applicant’s arguments on page 23 of the reply dated 06/22/2026 with respect to the rejection of claim 15 as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered and they are persuasive.
Applicant's argument – Applicant argues that claim 15 depend upon claim 12 and therefore should be withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to claim 12.
Examiner's response – The rejections relying upon Polymer 2 are withdrawn, but new grounds of rejection relying upon a different embodiment taught by Wen are discussed below.
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 1–9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen et al. (CN 109369891 A, provided in Applicants’ IDS filed on 09/23/2025, hereafter “Wen”). An English translation of Wen was provided in the Office Action dated 03/25/2026.
Regarding Claims 1–9, Wen teaches Polymer 1 [0158] (shown below).
However, Polymer 1 fails to read on Applicant’s Formula 1 since it is not symmetric (i.e. it has more than one repeating unit).
Polymer 1 is represented by Wen’s Formula (I) wherein B1 is represented by
PNG
media_image2.png
193
171
media_image2.png
Greyscale
while B2 is represented by
PNG
media_image3.png
186
182
media_image3.png
Greyscale
([0072] and [0088]). Wen teaches the polymers of present disclosure may be used to realize high-performance printed organic electroluminescent devices through solution processing, thus providing a low-cost, high-efficiency manufacturing technology solution [pg. 5–6 of the English translation of Wen].
PNG
media_image4.png
276
313
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
255
282
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Wen, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute
PNG
media_image2.png
193
171
media_image2.png
Greyscale
with
PNG
media_image3.png
186
182
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, because Wen teaches the variable may suitably be selected as
PNG
media_image6.png
101
388
media_image6.png
Greyscale
. The substitution would have been one preferred element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as a hole transport polymer in the hole transport layer of the organic light emitting device of Wen and possess the benefits taught by Wen. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute
PNG
media_image2.png
193
171
media_image2.png
Greyscale
with
PNG
media_image3.png
186
182
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, because it would have been choosing between
PNG
media_image6.png
101
388
media_image6.png
Greyscale
, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the hole transport polymer in the hole transport layer of the organic light emitting device of Wen and possessing the benefits taught by Wen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by/devices comprising Polymer 1 having the benefits taught by Wen in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Wen does not explicitly disclose an organic light emitting device comprising the modified version of Polymer 1, as described above.
Wen teaches exemplified organic light emitting devices comprising a substrate, an anode (indium tin oxide, ITO), a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an emission layer, an electron injection layer (barium), and a cathode (aluminum), wherein the hole transport layer comprises a polymer represented by Wen’s Formula (1) [0275] – [0284]. Note that since the layers are stacked, each layer including the cathode is disposed on the substrate. Additionally, Wen teaches the polymers of present disclosure may be used to realize high-performance printed organic electroluminescent devices through solution processing, thus providing a low-cost, high-efficiency manufacturing technology solution [pg. 5–6 of the English translation of Wen].
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 use the modified version of Polymer 1 in the hole transport layer of the organic light emitting device taught by Wen, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Wen according to known methods to yield predictable results of an organic light emitting device with the low-cost, high-efficiency benefits, as taught by Wen. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Per Claim 1, the organic light emitting device, as described above (hereinafter “Device 1”) reads on Applicant’s limitation since it includes a substrate, an anode (indium tin oxide, ITO), a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an emission layer, an electron injection layer (barium), and a cathode (aluminum) wherein the hole transport layer comprises the modified version of Polymer 1 (hereinafter “Modified 1”) which reads on Applicant’s Formula 1 and Formula 1-1 (shown below),
PNG
media_image7.png
251
353
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
206
184
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
411
343
media_image9.png
Greyscale
wherein:
Ar11 and Ar12 are each a C6 arylene group (phenylene),
Ar13 are each a C6 carbocyclic group (phenylene),
n11–n13 are each 1,
L11 is *-O-*,
R11 is represented by Formula 1-1, wherein:
R12 is a binding site to a neighboring atom in Formula 1,
R13 and R15 are each a hydrogen,
R14 is a C1 alkyl group (methyl).
In this case, the hole transport region is the hole injection layer and the hole transport layer, while the electron transport region is the electron injection layer. Note that since the layers are stacked, each layer including the cathode is disposed on the substrate. Additionally, a hole transport region comprising a compound with a repeating unit represented by Formula 1 reads on Applicants’ claim as the second compound represented by Formula 2 and fifth compound represented by Formula 5 are optional.
Per Claim 2, Ar11–Ar13 are each a phenylene in Modified 1.
Per Claim 3, Device 1 reads on Applicants’ limitation as a second compound represented by Formula 2 (which includes Ar21 and Ar22) is not present. Therefore, Applicants’ limitation of further limiting an optional compound is satisfied.
Per Claim 4, Ar11–Ar13 are each represented by Formula 1A-3 in Modified 1 (shown below).
PNG
media_image10.png
147
133
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
411
343
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Per Claim 5, Device 1 reads on Applicants’ limitation as a second compound represented by Formula 2 (which includes Ar21 and Ar22) is not present. Therefore, Applicants’ limitation of further limiting an optional compound is satisfied.
Per Claim 6, (L11)a11 is represented by Formula 1L in Modified 1 (shown below), wherein n1L is 3 and Z1L is hydrogen.
PNG
media_image11.png
149
157
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
411
343
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Per Claim 7, Device 1 reads on Applicants’ limitation as a second compound represented by Formula 2 (which includes L21) is not present. Therefore, Applicants’ limitation of further limiting an optional compound is met.
Per Claim 8, R11 is the group represented by Formula 1-1 in Modified 1.
Per Claim 9, R14 is a C1 alkyl group (methyl), R15 is a hydrogen, while R1a and R1b are not present in Modified 1.
Claims 10–11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen et al. (CN 109369891 A) as applied to claims 1–9 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2019/0157596 A1, hereafter “Kim ‘596”).
Regarding Claims 10 and 11, Wen teaches the organic light-emitting device of Device 1, as described above, including a substrate, an anode (indium tin oxide, ITO), a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an emission layer, an electron injection layer (barium), and a cathode (aluminum) [0275] – [0284], wherein the hole transport layer comprises Modified 1.
However, Wen does not teach that the electron transport region comprises a compound represented by Formula 3 of claim 10 and/or a compound represented by Formula 3-1 of claim 11 (shown below).
PNG
media_image12.png
80
193
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Kim ‘596 teaches a light emitting device including an electron auxiliary layer comprising a first nanoparticle represented by Chemical Formula 1 and a second nanoparticle including ZnO [0034]. Kim ‘596 further teaches Example 1 which include a Zn0.85Mg0.15O nanoparticles electron auxiliary layer and a ZnO nanoparticles electron auxiliary layer [0229]. Comparative Example 1 is the same as Example 1 except the Zn0.85Mg0.15O nanoparticles auxiliary layer is missing [0235]. Comparative Example 2 is the same as Example 1 except the ZnO nanoparticle auxiliary layer is missing [0236]. Kim ‘596 teaches Example 1 exhibits reduced leakage currents and improved efficiency compared to Comparative Examples 1 and 2 [0242].
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 add the Zn0.85Mg0.15O nanoparticles electron auxiliary layer and the ZnO nanoparticles electron auxiliary layer taught by Kim ‘596 to the electron transport region of Device 1 taught by Wen, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Kim ‘596 and Wen according to known methods to yield predictable results of an organic light-emitting device with reduced leakage currents and improved efficiency, as taught by Kim ‘596. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Per Claim 10, the organic light-emitting device, as described above, including zinc oxide nanoparticles in the electron transport region reads on Applicants’ Formula 3 (shown below), wherein M is Zn, p and q are each 1.
PNG
media_image13.png
103
161
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Per Claim 11, the organic light-emitting device, as described above, including Zn0.85Mg0.15O nanoparticles in the electron transport region reads on Applicants’ Formula 3-1 (shown below), wherein M’ is Mg, while r is 0.15.
PNG
media_image14.png
94
147
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Claims 12–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen et al. (CN 109369891 A) as applied to claims 1–9 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2021/0217964 A1, provided in Applicants’ IDS filed on 09/23/2025, hereafter “Kim ‘964”).
Regarding Claim 12–14, Wen teaches the organic light-emitting device of Device 1, as described above, including a substrate, an anode (indium tin oxide, ITO), a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an emission layer, an electron injection layer (barium), and a cathode (aluminum) [0275] – [0284], wherein the hole transport layer comprises Modified 1.
However, Wen does not teach two emission units which are stacked with a charge generation layer between the two emission units.
Kim ‘964 teaches an organic light-emitting device having a low driving voltage, high efficiency, and long lifespan comprising a first and second electrode, m emission units stacked between the two electrodes, and m-1 charge generation layers between the two emission units, wherein m is an integer of 2 or more [0005] – [0010]. The charge generation layer includes an n-type charge generation layer and a p-type charge generation layer comprising an inorganic material which may be a metalloid [0012]. Specifically, Kim ‘964 teaches Example 1 wherein the p-type charge generation layer comprises compound HT3 and Bi2Te3 [0425]. Kim ‘964 further teaches the organic light-emitting devices of present disclosure have a low driving voltage, high efficiency, and lifespan [0005].
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 use the organic light-emitting diode taught by Wen as the emission units in the device taught by Kim ‘964, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Wen and Kim ‘964 according to known methods to yield predictable results of an organic light-emitting device with a low driving voltage, high efficiency, and lifetime, as taught by Kim ‘964. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Per Claim 12, the organic light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation of a substrate, a cathode, an anode facing the cathode, x emitting units arranged between the cathode and the anode, x-1 charge generation layers, wherein x is 2. The emitting units include an electron transport region, an emission layer, and a hole transport region comprising Modified 1, which has a repeating unit that reads on Applicants’ Formula 1 and Formula 1-1 (shown below),
PNG
media_image7.png
251
353
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
206
184
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
411
343
media_image9.png
Greyscale
wherein:
Ar11 and Ar12 are each a C6 arylene group (phenylene),
Ar13 are each a C6 carbocyclic group (phenylene),
n11–n13 are each 1,
L11 is *-O-*,
R11 is represented by Formula 1-1, wherein:
R12 is a binding site to a neighboring atom in Formula 1,
R13 and R15 are each a hydrogen,
R14 is a C1 alkyl group (methyl).
In this case, the hole transport region is the hole injection layer and the hole transport layer, while the electron transport region is the electron injection layer. Note that since the layers are stacked, each layer including the cathode is disposed on the substrate. Additionally, a hole transport region comprising a compound with a repeating unit represented by Formula 1 reads on Applicants’ claim as the second compound represented by Formula 2 and fifth compound represented by Formula 5 are optional.
Per Claim 13, the organic light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation as x is 2.
Per Claim 14, the organic light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation as the charge generation layer comprises Compound HT3 (shown below), which is a hole-transport material [0195].
PNG
media_image15.png
380
306
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen et al. (CN 109369891 A) in view of Kim et al. (US 2021/0217964 A1) as applied to claims 12–14 above, and further in view of Lederer et al. (US 2020/0032093 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Wen in view of Kim ‘964 teaches an organic light-emitting device comprising a substrate, a cathode, an anode facing the cathode, x emitting units arranged between the cathode and the anode, x-1 charge generation layers, wherein x is 2. The emitting units include an electron transport region, an emission layer, and a hole transport region comprising Modified 1. Additionally, the charge generation layer comprises compound HT3 and Bi2Te3.
However, Wen in view of Kim ‘964 does not teach that the charge generation layer comprises a compound represented by Formula 4 (shown below).
PNG
media_image16.png
257
220
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Lederer teaches p-type dopants used as guest compounds in mixtures with host compounds commonly increase the conductivity of this compound in comparison to the neat compound [0138]. Leader teaches that p-type dopants may be used in charge generation layers to electrically connect two or more organic electronic devices with low or negligible electrical loss [0128]. Lederer further teaches the p-type dopant P25 [0156].
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 substituted the p-type dopant from Bi2Te3, taught by Wen in view of Kim ‘964, to Dopant P25, taught by Lederer, in charge generation layer of the organic light-emitting device taught by Wen in view of Kim ‘964, as described above. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase the conductivity of the layer, as taught by Lederer.
Per Claim 15, the organic light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation as the charge generation layer comprises Dopant P25 which reads on Applicants’ Formula 4 (shown below),
PNG
media_image16.png
257
220
media_image16.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image17.png
327
262
media_image17.png
Greyscale
wherein:
E is boron (B),
R41–R44 are each a C6 carbocyclic group substituted with five R10a,
R10a is -F.
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 JAMES RICHARD FORTWENGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-5433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am - 5 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571) 270-7692. 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.
/J.R.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights