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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amended claims comply with the 112a written description requirement. This argument is not convincing. As noted in the previous office action, claim 19 appears to be supported by the written description; not all of claim 19 has been incorporated into the independent claims 5 and 6.
Applicant argues that Arai does not disclose the claimed ordinary refractive index of the claimed organic compound with the ET property. This argument is not convincing. The ET compounds of Arai include the same structure of the organic compound with ET property of the claims, and in particular have the content of sp3 hybrid compound carbons that results in the claimed ordinary refractive index.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 07/07/2026, with respect to Watabe et al (WO 2019053559, hereinafter US 20210384442 A1 is cited) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of 04/07/2026 have been withdrawn. However, the rejections in combination with Arai still apply.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 5-6,10-12, 15, 18, 20-23, 25-26, 38-39 and 41-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 5 require an electron transporting region with a compound having an ordinary refractive index higher than or equal to 1.50 and lower than or equal to 1.75 for light with a wavelength of greater than or equal to 455 nm and less than or equal to 465 nm. No structure of the compounds is required by the claims. The instant specification provides only 5 examples of compounds that meet this requirement and all are of a very similar structure. The specification does not provide guidance to the ordinarily skilled artisan on how to find compounds other than those particularly taught that meet the requirements for electron transporting and refractive index. The limited examples of compounds described in the written description does not provide a representative number of species sufficient to show that Applicant was in possession of the claimed genus (see MPEP 2163-II-A-3-a-ii).
Claim 6 require an electron transporting region with a compound having an ordinary refractive index higher than or equal to 1.45 and lower than or equal to 1.70 for light with a wavelength of 633 nm. No structure of the compound is required by the claims. The instant specification provides only 5 examples of compounds that meet this requirement and all are of a very similar structure. The specification does not provide guidance to the ordinarily skilled artisan on how to find compounds other than those particularly taught that meet the requirements for electron transporting and refractive index. The limited examples of compounds described in the written description does not provide a representative number of species sufficient to show that Applicant was in possession of the claimed genus (see MPEP 2163-II-A-3-a-ii).
Examiner does not see sufficient evidence that Applicant is fairly in possession of every single compound which meets the claimed description. Applicant only appears to be in possession of the compounds of Claims 19, 40 and 46.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 5-6, 10-12, 15, 19-23, 25, 38-46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai et al (US 20160372678 A1) in view of Watabe et al (WO 2019053559, hereinafter US 20210384442 A1 is cited).
Arai discloses an OLED comprising the claimed layers in the claimed order [Fig. 1, 0201-0202] comprising in the electron transport layer (ETL) lithium 8-hydroxyquinolinate (Liq) [0114], which as noted in Applicant’s specification has the claimed refractive indices (see US 20230276700 A1 [0141]). The ETL also comprises an organic compound having a six-membered heteroaromatic ring, two benzene rings, aromatic groups and a plurality of sp3 hybrid orbital carbons, see generic and specific formula A-1 below [p1,7]:
PNG
media_image1.png
444
356
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
257
312
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Compound A-1, for example includes 33 aromatic carbons and 10 sp3 carbons, i.e. 23% carbons formula sp3 orbitals that reads on claim 19, and all the specified embodiments appear read on the claims [p7 et seq]. Arai also teaches that the groups Ar1 and Ar2 groups in the above Formula (1) include may phenyl and pyridine groups that include at least two alkyl substituents including 2,4-dimethyiphenyl group, a 3,5-dimethylphenyl group and countless others [0026]. Arai teaches Arai also teaches that the HTL may include a polyaniline [0103].
Arai does not disclose the hole transporting compound having heteropoly acid, nor the carbazole containing amine compound in the HTL.
Watabe discloses an OLED comprising an anode, a cathode, and an EL layer in between wherein the EL layer comprises a hole-transport region and an electron transport region in the same stacking order as the claims [Table 2, Fig 2] wherein the electron transport region includes an electron transport layer that is a low refractive index layer [0031] comprising an organic compound having a refractive index of less than or equal to 1.70 at a wavelength of light extracted from the light-emitting layer [0015, 0030], light wavelengths that include blue (380nm to 500nm) and red emissions (620 to 750nm) [0237, 0239, 0365]. Examples include ordinary refractive index between 1.65 and 1.70 for the inventive examples measured at 532nm [Fig. 13, 0568]. One exemplified compound is tris(8-quinolinolato)aluminum(III) (abbreviation: Alq) [0247] which has a refractive index of just under 1.75 at 45 about 1.69 at 633nm1, see graph below. The hole transport region includes a hole injection layer [0250] comprising a heteropoly acid such as phosphotungstic acid, organic electron rich heteroaromatic compound such as carbazole, and a polystyrenesulfonic acid compound [0250, 0251, 0253] and tertiary amines such as N-[4-(9H-carbazol-9-yl)phenyl]-N-(4-phenyl)phenylaniline (abbreviation: YGA1BP) [0233]. The light emitting layer includes iridium complex [p66, 0680]. The electron transport region also includes an electron injection layer comprising calcium fluoride, lithium complexes and/or barium [0174-0175, examples].
The OLED comprising the tris(8-quinolinolato)aluminum(III) appears to have the claimed refractive indices, based on Dalasinksi
Watabe, discussed above, teaches that a hole transport region includes a hole injection layer [0250] comprising a heteropoly acid such as phosphotungstic acid, organic electron rich heteroaromatic compound such as carbazole, and a polystyrenesulfonic acid compound [0250, 0251, 0253] and that the heteropoly acid is preferred because they can be easily deposited by a wet process [0250].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of Applicant’s invention to have used the claimed heteropoly acid in the HTL/HIL of Arai because Watabe teaches that the heteropoly acid and other claimed compounds are preferred because they can be easily deposited by a wet process.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai et al (US 20160372678 A1) in view of Watabe et al (WO 2019053559, hereinafter US 20210384442 A1 is cited) and further in view of Patel et al (WO 2005/059951).
Modified Arai, discussed above, discloses iridium complexes as the light emitting dopants in the EL. Modified Arai does not disclose the specific iridium complex of claim 18.
Patel discloses OLEDs with phosphorescent dopants in the EL layer [abstract], similar to Modified Arai, and including iridium compounds [p17] and exemplifies the compound of claim 18:
PNG
media_image3.png
284
221
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[p22, Ex3]. Patel teaches that these iridium complexes have enhanced solubility characteristics [p18].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of Applicant’s invention to have used the claimed Ir complex as the dopant of Modified Arai because Patel teaches enhanced solubility characteristics.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai et al (US 20160372678 A1) in view of Watabe et al (WO 2019053559, hereinafter US 20210384442 A1 is cited) in view of Kambe et al (US 20070148494 A1).
Modified Arai, discussed above, does not disclose the EIL with the claimed compound, however Watabe does disclose the EIL including compounds including a similar phenanthroline compound, 2,9-bis(naphthalen-2-yl)-4,7-diphenyl-1,10-phenanthroline [0058].
Kambe discloses compounds for the EIL in an OLED display device [abstract, 0011-0012, 0036, p3] that tremendously enhance electron injection properties from the cathode into the light emitting layer and to largely lower a driving voltage, including the claimed structure:
PNG
media_image4.png
171
295
media_image4.png
Greyscale
2-phenyl-9-[3-(9-phenyl-1,10-phenanthrolin-2-yl)phenyl]-1,10-phenanthroline.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of Applicant’s invention to have used the compound of claim 26 in the EIL of Modified Arai because Kambe teaches it tremendously enhances electron injection properties from the cathode into the light emitting layer and to largely lower a driving voltage.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai et al (US 20160372678 A1) in view of Watabe et al (WO 2019053559, hereinafter US 20210384442 A1 is cited) in view of Kambe et al (US 20070148494 A1).
Claim(s) 5-6, 10-12, 15, 19-23, 25, 38-46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomura et al (JP 2018145166A) in view of Watabe et al (WO 2019053559, hereinafter US 20210384442 A1 is cited).
Nomura discloses an OLED comprising the claimed layers in the claimed order [Fig. 1, Examples] comprising in the electron transport layer (ETL) lithium 8-hydroxyquinolinate (Liq) [Examples], which as noted in Applicant’s specification has the claimed refractive indices (see US 20230276700 A1 [0141]). The ETL also comprises an organic compound having a six-membered heteroaromatic ring, two benzene rings, aromatic groups and a plurality of sp3 hybrid orbital carbons, such as the general formula (1) [claim 1] below and a specific example:
PNG
media_image5.png
178
239
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
159
177
media_image6.png
Greyscale
wherein R is an alkyl group having 1 to 4 carbon atoms and n is an integer of 1 to 5. In the compound A-9 above, for example, there are 5 sp3 carbon atoms and 37 aromatic carbon atoms, i.e. 11.9% sp3 hybrid carbon atoms. Nomura also disclose the HTL comprising a tertiary amine compound comprising a carbazole group [p26].
Nomura does not disclose HTL comprising the claimed heteropoly acid.
Watabe, discussed above, is combined with Nomura for the same reasons it is combined with Arai.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomura et al (JP 2018145166A) in view of Watabe et al (WO 2019053559, hereinafter US 20210384442 A1 is cited) and further in view of Patel et al (WO 2005/059951).
Patel discussed above, is combined with Modified Nomura for the same reasons it is combined with Modified Arai.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomura et al (JP 2018145166A)in view of Watabe et al (WO 2019053559, hereinafter US 20210384442 A1 is cited) in view of Kambe et al (US 20070148494 A1).
Kambe, discussed above, is combined with Modified Nomura for the same reasons it is combined with Modified Arai.
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.
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 04/23/2026 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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 MICHAEL M DOLLINGER whose telephone number is (571)270-5464. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6:30pm M-F.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-272-1302. 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.
MICHAEL M. DOLLINGER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1766
/MICHAEL M DOLLINGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
1 see Dalasinksi et al (Optical Materials 28 (2006) 98–101), attached
Prosecution Insights