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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 05/05/2026 has been entered.
Claims 4, 6, 7-14, 18, 20-29, 31-35, and 38 amended, claims 39-42 new, and claims 1-2, 5, 15-16, and 19 are cancelled due to the applicant's amendment.
Claims 3-4, 6-14, 17-18, and 20-42 are pending.
The rejection(s) of claims 1-2, 5, 15-16, and 19 is/are moot because the claims have been cancelled.
The rejection of claims 11 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention as set forth in the previous Office action is overcome due to the applicant's amendment.
The rejection of claims 3-4, 6-12, 14, 17-18, 20-26, 28-31, and 33-38 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. US-20210234098-A1 in view of Forrest et al. US-20030230980-A, the rejection of claims 13 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. US-20210234098-A1 in view of Forrest et al. US-20030230980-A1 and further in view of X. Han et al. / Organic Electronics 14 (2013) 1116–1121, and the rejection of claim 32 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. US-20210234098-A1 in view of Forrest et al. US-20030230980-A1 and further in view of Hatwar et al. US-20100288362-A1 are herein revised to reflect the amended claim language due to the applicant's amendment and maintained.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments on pages 10-13 of the reply dated 05/05/2026 with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument – The applicant argues on pages 11-12 that the examiner is relying on an inherency argument, but has not met the examiner's burden of reliance on inherency. Specifically, the applicant argues that the examiner's conclusion of inherency rests on the premise that Lee's amine compounds are structurally substantially similar to the compound mmtBuBichPAF represented by structural formula (101) of the present application, which has a glass transition temperature of 102 °C (see specification at paragraph [0505]) and this is incorrect. The applicant argues that Lee's compounds are not structurally similar to mmtBuBichPAF because Lee consistently teaches amine compounds that include at least two bulky sp3 substituents (adamantyl and/or cyclohexyl) appended to its core amine structure while the compound mmtBuBichPAF contains only one cyclohexyl group and no adamantyl group.
Examiner's response -- The instant specification recites that when including a cyclic saturated hydrocarbon group (e.g. a cyclohexane group) or a rigid tertiary hydrocarbon group, the first organic compound can maintain its glass transition temperature high and can have high heat resistance (see paragraph [0060]), and that the glass transition temperature of the compound mmtBuBichPAF
PNG
media_image1.png
208
204
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, is 102 °C (specification paragraph [0505]). Lee teaches amine compound 83, which has two cyclic saturated hydrocarbon group (cyclohexane groups), which are noted as capable of maintaining high glass transition temperature and having high heat resistance. The compound mmtBuBichPAF also has one cyclohexane group. The compound of Lee is identical to the compound dchPAF of the specification, which has a number of sp3 carbon out of total carbon of 38.5%. The compound mmtBuBichPAF has a number of sp3 carbon out of total carbon of 41%. Therefore, the amine compound of Lee cited in the rejection of record is substantially similar to the structure as disclosed by the applicant, and the property of wherein a glass transition temperature of the amine compound is greater than or equal to 90 °C is considered to be inherent and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim, absent evidence otherwise. The inherent characteristic of wherein a glass transition temperature of the amine compound is greater than or equal to 90 °C necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art Lee, that is, the compound of Lee cited in the rejection of record necessarily has a glass transition temperature of the amine compound is greater than or equal to 90 °C due to its structure. It is respectfully submitted that the burden has shifted to the applicant to prove that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP § 2112.
Applicant's argument -- The applicant argues on pages 12-13 that the number, type, and arrangement of bulky sp3 substituents on an amine compound have a material effect on molecular packing, intermolecular interactions, and, accordingly, the glass transition temperature of the resulting compound and the asserted similarity in "proportion of sp3 carbon and molecular weight" is therefore not a meaningful basis on which to conclude that Lee's compounds and mmtBuBichPAF must share the recited thermal property. The applicant argues that two compounds may share a similar overall sp3 fraction and molecular weight while exhibiting markedly different glass transition temperatures, particularly where, as here, the structural distribution of the sp3 character differs significantly (i.e., concentrated in two or more adamantyl/cyclohexyl groups in Lee versus a single cyclohexyl group in mmtBuBichPAF). the applicant argues that, because Lee's amine compounds are structurally distinguishable from mmtBuBichPAF in at least the number of cyclohexyl groups (and the presence or absence of adamantyl groups), there is no proper basis to assert that Lee's compounds inherently exhibit a glass transition temperature of 90 °C or higher.
Examiner's response – The arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence. See MPEP § 2145. The applicant has not demonstrated the Lee compound cited in the rejection of record has a glass transition temperature below 90 °C.
Applicant's argument – The applicant argues on page 13 that Forrest, Han, and Hatwar do not cure the alleged deficiencies of Lee discussed above.
Examiner's response -- The applicant has not provided additional arguments with respect to these references and therefore, for the reasons outlined above, this is not found persuasive.
Applicant's argument – The applicant argues on page 13 that the rejections of the dependent claims 4-5, 8-16, 18-19, and 21-38 are also improper by virtue of their dependence on independent claims 3, 6, 17, and 20 and for the additional features they recite.
Examiner's response -- The applicant has not provided additional arguments with respect to the rejections of these claims and therefore, for the reasons outlined above, this is not found 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 3-4, 6-12, 14, 17-18, 20-26, 28-31, and 33-42 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. US-20210234098-A1 (hereinafter "Lee") in view of Forrest et al. US-20030230980-A1 (hereinafter "Forrest").
Regarding claims 3-4, 6-10, 14, 17-18, 20-24, 28-31, and 33-42, Lee teaches a light emitting diode comprising a first electrode, a hole transport region disposed, an emission layer disposed, an electron transport region disposed, and a second electrode (¶ [0007]), in that order. Lee teaches wherein hole transport region comprising a first hole transport layer disposed adjacent to the first electrode and a second hole transport layer disposed adjacent to the emission layer (¶ [0007]), wherein the first hole transport layer and the second hole transport layer may each independently include an amine compound represented by Formula 1 (¶ [0021]), which is an amine compound. Additionally, Lee teaches that the device has excellent light emission efficiency (¶ [0005]). Lee teaches specific examples of the amine compound represented by Formula 1 in paragraph [0098] including compound 52
PNG
media_image2.png
206
218
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 15), and compound 83
PNG
media_image3.png
203
212
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 21), which are triaryl monoamine compounds that comprise at least one hydrocarbon having 1 to 12 carbon atoms or cycloalkyl group having 6 to 12 carbon atoms.
Lee teaches wherein the device may be part of a small- or medium-sized electronic device such as smart phones, tablets, personal computers, laptop computers, personal digital terminals, car navigation units, game consoles, and cameras or a large-sized electronic device such as televisions, monitors, and external billboards (¶ [0053]), wherein the electronic device may include a display device and a housing (¶ [0054]), which may may receive the display device (¶ [0056]) and which may comprise a circuit layer (¶ [0057]), which includes multiple transistors (¶ [0059]).
Lee does not exemplify a device as discussed above wherein the first hole transport layer further comprises a second compound that comprises a fluorine.
Forrest teaches an OLED having a p-i-n structure has an anode, a p-doped organic layer adapted to transport holes, an emissive layer, an n-doped organic layer adapted to transport electrons, and a cathode (¶ [0015]). Forrest teaches that the p-doped layer has high conductivity and consequently low ohmic losses, and that the injection of carriers into the highly doped transport layer is efficient such that an injection enhancement layer is not necessary (¶ [0038]). Forrest teaches that the p-dopant suitably is F4-TCNQ (¶ [0027]).
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 further modified the device of Lee as discussed above by p-doping the first hole transport layer adjacent to the first electrode with F4-TCNQ, based on the teaching of Forrest. The motivation for doing so would have been to promote high conductivity and consequently low ohmic losses and obtain efficient transport of carriers without an injection enhancement layer, as taught by Forrest.
The modified device of Lee in view of Forrest comprises the first hole transport layer comprising a first compound that is the amine compound represented by Formula 1 and a second compound that is the p-dopant F4-TCNQ, which comprises a fluorine.
A proportion of carbon atoms forming bonds by sp3 hybrid orbitals in a total number of carbon atoms of compound 52 is 35.1% and the molecular weight of compound 52 is 754.06.
A proportion of carbon atoms forming bonds by sp3 hybrid orbitals in a total number of carbon atoms of compound 83 is 38.5%.
Lee appears silent with respect to the property of wherein a refractive index of a layer formed of the amine compound for light with a wavelength of 633 nm is greater than or equal to 1.45 and less than or equal to 1.70.
The instant specification recites that the compound dchPAF having the structure
PNG
media_image4.png
169
205
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(specification paragraph [0431]) has a refractive index of a layer formed of the compound for light with a wavelength of 633 nm of 1.65 (TABLE 5, specification page 98). Since Lee teaches the compound 83
PNG
media_image3.png
203
212
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, the same structure as disclosed by the applicant, the property of wherein a refractive index of a layer formed of the amine compound for light with a wavelength of 633 nm is 1.65 is considered to be inherent and would be expected to fall within the claimed range of greater than or equal to 1.45 and less than or equal to 1.70, 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 inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP § 2112.
Lee appears silent with respect to the property of wherein a glass transition temperature of the amine compound is greater than or equal to 90 °C.
The instant specification recites that to increase the glass transition temperature, the molecular weight of the material needs to be increased (specification paragraph [0050]), a compound to which a saturated hydrocarbon group, especially a chain saturated hydrocarbon group is introduced tends to decrease in the glass transition temperature (specification paragraph [0060]), and finally that the glass transition temperature of the compound mmtBuBichPAF
PNG
media_image1.png
208
204
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, is 102 °C (specification paragraph [0505]).
Since Lee teaches the amine compound as described above, a substantially similar structure as disclosed by the applicant, with a proportion of sp3 carbon and molecular weight that are substantially similar to the compound of formula (101), the property of wherein a glass transition temperature of the amine compound is greater than or equal to 90 °C is considered to be inherent 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 inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP § 2112.
Lee appears silent with respect to the property of an integral value of signals at lower than 4 ppm is larger than an integral value of signals at 4 ppm or higher in a H-NMR measurement result of the amine compound.
The instant specification recites that Considering the difference, the integral value of the signals at lower than 4 ppm larger than the integral value of the signals at 4 ppm or higher in the 1H-NMR measurement results indicates that approximately one-third of all the carbon atoms contained in the molecule exist in the saturated hydrocarbon group (specification paragraph [0071]). Since Lee teaches the amine compound wherein greater than one-third of all the carbon atoms contained in the molecule exist in the saturated hydrocarbon group (the proportion of carbon atoms forming bonds by sp3 hybrid orbitals in a total number of carbon atoms is greater than 33%), the property of an integral value of signals at lower than 4 ppm is larger than an integral value of signals at 4 ppm or higher in a H-NMR is considered to be inherent, 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 inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP § 2112.
Therefore, the device of Lee in view of Forrest meets claims 3-4, 6-10, 14, 17-18, 20-24, 28-29, 30-31, and 33-42.
Regarding claims 11 and 25, Lee in view of Forrest teaches the modified device as discussed above with respect to claims 3 and 17.
Lee in view of Forrest does not specifically exemplify an amine compound represented by Formula 1 comprising an alkyl group having 3 to 8 carbon atoms. However, Lee teaches that in Formula 1, Ra to Rc may be a substituted or unsubstituted alkyl group of 1 to 20 carbon atoms, among others (¶ [0022]), and that alkyl includes methyl, t-butyl (3 carbon atoms), among others (¶ [0103]). In the compound above, one of Ra to Rc is a methyl group, which is substituted on the fluorenyl group.
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Lee, 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 at least one of the methyl substituents on the fluorenyl group in the amine compound with a t-butyl group, because Lee teaches the variable may suitably be selected as such. The substitution would have been one known 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 in the hole transport region of the device of Lee in view of Forrest and possess the beneficial properties of excellent light emission efficiency, taught by Lee. See MPEP § 2143.I.(B).
Regarding claims 12 and 26, Lee in view of Forrest teaches the modified device as discussed above with respect to claims 3 and 17.
Lee in view of Forrest does not specifically exemplify an amine compound represented by Formula 1 comprising a cyano group. However, Lee teaches that in Formula 1, at least two of Ra to Rc are each independently an adamantyl group or a cyclohexyl group, and the remainder of Ra to Rc may be a hydrogen atom, a cyano group, among others (¶ [0022]).
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Lee, 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 at least one of the hydrogen Ra to Rc substituents on the amine compound with a cyano group, because Lee teaches the variable may suitably be selected as such. The substitution would have been one known 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 in the hole transport region of the device of Lee in view of Forrest and possess the beneficial properties of excellent light emission efficiency, taught by Lee. See MPEP § 2143.I.(B).
Claims 13 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. US-20210234098-A1 (hereinafter "Lee") in view of Forrest et al. US-20030230980-A1 (hereinafter "Forrest") as applied to claims 3 and 17 above and further in view of X. Han et al. / Organic Electronics 14 (2013) 1116–1121 (hereinafter "Han et al.").
Regarding claims 13 and 27, Lee in view of Forrest teaches the modified device as discussed above with respect to claims 3 and 17.
Lee in view of Forrest appears silent with respect to the property of wherein a LUMO level of the p-dopant F4-TCNQ is less than or equal to -5.0 eV.
Han et al. recites that F4-TCNQ has a LUMO of -5.2 eV (page 1116, second column). Since Lee in view of Forrest teaches the p-dopant compound F4-TCNQ, the same structure as disclosed by Han et al., the property of wherein the LUMO of F4-TCNQ is -5.2 eV is considered to be inherent and would be expected to fall within the claimed range of wherein a LUMO level of the p-dopant F4-TCNQ is less than or equal to -5.0 eV, 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 inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP § 2112.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. US-20210234098-A1 (hereinafter "Lee") in view of Forrest et al. US-20030230980-A1 (hereinafter "Forrest") as applied to claim 15 above and further in view of Hatwar et al. US-20100288362-A1 (hereinafter "Hatwar").
Regarding claim 32, Lee in view of Forrest teaches the modified device as discussed above with respect to claim 17.
Lee in view of Forrest does not specifically teach a device as discussed above further comprising a first light-emitting layer and a second light-emitting layer, and wherein the first layer is positioned between the first light-emitting layer and the second light-emitting layer.
In the analogous art of OLEDs, Hatwar teaches an organic light-emitting device (see 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 (“N 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 intermediate connector regions”) wherein m is an integer of 2 or more (“N is an integer greater than 1”, see [0098]). Hatwar suggests 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]).
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 white OLED comprising the organic EL device of Lee in view of Forrest such that it includes the stacked emission layer structure including light-emitting units of different colors and connector regions disclosed by Hatwar, based on the teaching of Hatwar. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain the desired white light emission as taught by Hatwar.
The modified device of Lee in view of Forrest and Hatwar comprises a first light-emitting layer and a second light-emitting layer, and a first hole transporting layer is positioned between the first light-emitting layer and the second light-emitting layer due to the stacked structure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Yamada et al. US-20150372238-A1 teaches an aromatic hydrocarbon compound having a ratio of the number of the SP3 carbon atoms to the number of the SP2 carbon atoms of 40% or more (¶ [0018]).
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.
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