DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is responsive to the amendment received May 29, 2026. Claims 1-4 were amended. Claim 5 is a cancelled claim. Claims 1-4 are pending. The amendment of the specification is acknowledged.
The objection to the specification set forth in the last office action is withdrawn due to the specification amendment received May 29, 2026.
The objections to the claims set forth in the last office action are withdrawn due to the claim amendment received May 29, 2026.
The rejections of claims 1-5 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or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention are withdrawn due to the claim amendment received May 29, 2026.
The rejection of claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takada et al. (US 2011/0031877 A1; listed on 01/12/2023 I.D.S.) (as evidenced by Ichimura et al. (US 2010/0109555 A1) with respect to claim 5) as set forth in the last office action is withdrawn due to the claim amendment received May 29, 2026.
The provisional rejection of claims 1-5 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of copending Application No.17/909,100 is withdrawn.
The provisional rejection of claims 1-5 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of copending Application No.17/925,619 is withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada et al. (US 2011/0031877 A1; listed on 01/12/2023 I.D.S.) in view of Yokoyama et al. (EP 3244462 A1).
Takada et al. discloses at least the following compound (1)-1 per instant formula (1), which is used in a hole transporting layer of Takada et al. Example 1 light emitting device (see par. 82-89):
PNG
media_image1.png
368
306
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
The above compound (1)-1 corresponds to instant Formula 1 where instant group A is the formula 2-1 group, group B is a substituted aromatic hydrocarbon group, group C is the formula 2-1 group, variables Ar1 and Ar2 of group 2-1 are aromatic hydrocarbon group (phenyl), n is zero, m is 1, and L1 is divalent aromatic hydrocarbon (phenylene). Regarding claim 2, the position of the corresponding Ar2 group in the compound above is ortho as shown in instant claim 2. Regarding claims 3 and 4, the corresponding group of the compound above is a para-phenylene linking group and the corresponding value of p is zero.
Regarding a “second hole transport layer” of claim 1, Takada et al. teaches a device structure according to Example 1 comprising an ITO anode (par. 83), a layer of an amine-based hole transporting compound per an instant “second hole transport layer” (par. 84), a layer of compound (1)-1 shown above (see par. 85) per instant formula (1), a light emitting layer (see par. 86), an electron transport layer (see par. 87), and a cathode (see par. 88). It is not seen where a hole-transporting amine compound the same as instant compound “HTM-1” was selected as the amine-based compound in place of specific amine-based compound m-MTDATA as taught in the Example 1 structure. In analogous art, Yokoyama et al. teaches a second hole transport layer may include arylamine compound of Formula 5 (see Yokoyama page 7, 27-41):
PNG
media_image2.png
138
428
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
More specifically, Formula (5) may be the following “5-185” compound (see Yokoyama page 97):
PNG
media_image3.png
174
584
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
The compound “5-185” is the same as instant “HTM-1”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a hole transporting material “5-185” as taught by Yokoyama for a layer comprising an arylamine compound in a hole transporting zone of a light emitting device structure as taught by Takada et al., because one would expect the Yokoyama compound to provide a hole transporting function to the operation of a device structure as taught by Takada et al. One would expect to achieve an operational, layered light emitting device comprising materials as taught by Takada et al. and Yokoyama et al. with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 Dawn Garrett whose telephone number is (571)272-1523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday (Eastern Time).
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.
/DAWN L GARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights