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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on April 8, 2026.
Applicant’s amendment to the specification, filed April 8, 2026, is hereby entered.
Claims 1 – 4, 6, 7, 9 and 10 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claim 5 has been cancelled.
Claims 1 – 4 and 6 – 10 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Amendments
Applicant's amendments to the specification, filed April 8, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the objection to the specification as set forth in the office action filed January 12, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed April 8, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the objection to claim 9 as set forth in the office action filed January 12, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed April 8, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1 – 10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention as set forth in the office action filed January 12, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed April 8, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1 – 7 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen as set forth in the office action filed January 12, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed April 8, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1 – 3, 5, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchiwaki as set forth in the office action filed January 12, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed April 8, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1 – 5, 8 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ham as set forth in the office action filed January 12, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed April 8, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ham in view of Suh as set forth in the office action filed January 12, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 – 4, and 6 – 10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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 – 4, 6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uehara (US20210210693A1).
As per claims 1 – 4, Uehara teaches:
An organic electroluminescence device, between an anode and a cathode, comprising at least, a first hole transport layer, a second hole transport layer, a light-emitting layer, and an electron transport layer in this order from the anode side ([0075]: “The organic EL device of the present invention may have a structure in which an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, a light emitting layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode are sequentially formed on a substrate.” In [0084], Uehara teaches that the hole transport layer may be formed of two or more compounds, formed in a stacked layer system, which is interpreted as the claimed first and second hole transport layer.)
The second hole transport layer contains a triarylamine compound represented by
PNG
media_image1.png
154
136
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Uehara teaches triarylamine compounds of Formula A-1
PNG
media_image2.png
72
216
media_image2.png
Greyscale
([0027]) for use in the hole transport layer ([0049]). A specific compound taught by Uehara is compound 1
PNG
media_image3.png
326
338
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, which reads on the claimed Formula wherein A represents a group represented by general formula (2-1) wherein n is an integer of 0 so that R1 does not exist, L1 represents a n unsubstituted aromatic hydrocarbon, m represents an integer of 1, Ar1 and Ar2 represent an unsubstituted aromatic hydrocarbon group; The group is represented by general formula (2-1) in claim 2 and general formulae (2-3) and (2-4) in claims 3 and 4 wherein p is 0 ; B and C both represent a substituted phenyl group.)
The first hole transport layer contains a triarylamine compound represented by general formula (3)
PNG
media_image4.png
164
166
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(Another compound taught by Uehara is compound 2
PNG
media_image5.png
326
312
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, which reads on the claimed Formula wherein D and E represent a substituted aromatic hydrocarbon group; F represents a group represented by general formula 4-1) wherein q is an integer of 0 so that L2 does not exist; r and s represent 0 so that R2 and R3 do not exist; X1 represents CR5R6.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a multilayer hole transport layer with the claimed layer compositions based on the desire to predictably practice the invention of Uehara and based on the totality of the teachings of Uehara, as Uehara teaches that the hole transport layer can be formed of individual stacks together of single compounds within Formula A-1 ([0084]).
Since the prior art combination teaches substantially the same structures as disclosed by Applicant, the property of the absolute value of a difference between a HOMO level of the second hole transport layer and a HOMO layer of the first hole transport layer is considered to naturally flow from the product of the prior art combination (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be present. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. Examiner further notes that the structures above are sufficiently similar that it is reasonable to expect that they would have similar HOMO levels, such as those required by the claimed relationship.
As per claim 6, Uehara additionally teaches compound 37
PNG
media_image6.png
342
342
media_image6.png
Greyscale
, with two fluorenyl groups. Therefore it would have been obvious to modify compound 2 to replace the biphenyl substituent with a fluorenyl group and arrive at a compound with two groups represented by general formula (4-1) and both of the X1 groups are CR5R6 as claimed.
Uehara includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Uehara being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of high light emission efficiency, low voltage and long lifespan in organic electronic devices containing them in the hole transport layer ([0024]), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
As per claim 10, Uehara teaches:
Wherein the light-emitting layer contains an anthracene derivative having an anthracene backbone (In the Example devices as described in [0150], the compound EMH-1 was used as a host material for the light emitting layer
PNG
media_image7.png
280
262
media_image7.png
Greyscale
. This material contains the anthracene backbone as claimed.)
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uehara (US20210210693A1) as applied to claims 1 – 4, 6, and 10 above, and further in view of Suh (WO2019164331A1, using US20210184121A1 as the official English language translation).
As per claims 8 and 9, Uehara teaches anthracene based host materials, such as
PNG
media_image7.png
280
262
media_image7.png
Greyscale
used in the emission layer ([0150]). Uehara does not teach:
Wherein the light-emitting layer comprises a blue light emitting dopant and the blue light-emitting dopant is a compound represented by general formula (5-1)
PNG
media_image8.png
238
232
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Suh teaches OLED devices with similar anthracene-based host materials,
PNG
media_image9.png
270
322
media_image9.png
Greyscale
, and similar triarylamine hole transport layer materials
PNG
media_image10.png
258
328
media_image10.png
Greyscale
([0178]). Suh teaches that the devices contain blue dopants such as
PNG
media_image11.png
174
318
media_image11.png
Greyscale
, which reads on Formula 5-1 wherein Q1 and Q3 are unsubstituted aromatic hydrocarbons and Q2 is a substituted aromatic heterocyclic ring; X2 represents B; Y1 represents O, and Y2 and Y3 represent N-R7 wherein R7 is a substituted aromatic hydrocarbon group.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the OLED of Uehara with the blue dopant of Suh, which reads on the claimed formula because the dopants of Suh are taught to be predictably suitable for use in emission layers with anthracene-based host materials and triarylamine hole transport layers.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 7, Uehara does not specifically teach a triarylamine hole transporting material with multiple groups represented by (4-1) wherein one of the plurality of X1 is NR4 and the other X1 is CR5R6 as required by claim 7.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA N CHANDHOK whose telephone number is (571)272-5780. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 6:30 - 3:30.
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 on (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.
/JENNA N CHANDHOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights