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/Amendment
The amendment of 04/20/2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 1, 9, and 12 have been amended.
Claims 1–20 are pending.
Applicant’s arguments (see page 15 of the reply filed 04/20/2026) regarding the rejections of Claims 1–4 and 12–20 under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hwang et al. (US 2022/0238804 A1, hereafter “Hwang”) set forth in the Office Action of 01/27/2026 have been fully considered and have been withdrawn since independent claims 1 and 12 have been amended to delete “a C2-C60 alkenyl group” from the list recited for R10a making the rejections moot.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of Claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hwang in view of Seo et al. (US 2004/0137270 A1) set forth in the Office Action of 01/27/2026 have been fully considered and have been withdrawn since independent claims 1 and 12 have been amended to delete “a C2-C60 alkenyl group” from the list recited for R10a making the rejection moot.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of Claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Hwang set forth in the Office Action of 01/27/2026 have been fully considered and have been withdrawn since independent claims 1 and 12 have been amended to delete “a C2-C60 alkenyl group” from the list recited for R10a making the rejection moot.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of Claims 6–7 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Hwang in view of Im et al. (US 2006/0113907 A1) set forth in the Office Action of 01/27/2026 have been fully considered and have been withdrawn since independent claims 1 and 12 have been amended to delete “a C2-C60 alkenyl group” from the list recited for R10a making the rejections moot.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of Claims 9–11 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Hwang in view of Kim et al. (US 2015/0185942 A1) set forth in the Office Action of 01/27/2026 have been fully considered and have been withdrawn since independent claims 1 and 12 have been amended to delete “a C2-C60 alkenyl group” from the list recited for R10a making the rejections moot.
Another round of rejections has been necessitated by amendment.
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 1–5, 8, 12–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2016/0260901 A1, hereafter “Kim”) in view of Li et al. (US 2002/0076576 A1, hereafter “Li”).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim teaches the organic light emitting device of Example 8 [Table 1] comprising an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an auxiliary emission layer, an emission layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode [0309] – [0313]. The auxiliary emission layer comprises Compound 7 which nearly reads on Applicant’s Formula 1 (shown below),
PNG
media_image1.png
330
627
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
233
433
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein:
CY1–CY4 are each a C6 carbocyclic group (benzene),
T1–T4 are each a hydrogen atom,
b1 and b3 are each 3, while b2 and b4 are each 4,
L13 and L33 are each an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group (phenylene),
a13 and a33 are each 1,
L11, L12, L31, and L32 are each a single bond since a11, a12, a31, and a32 are each 0,
Ar11, Ar12, Ar31, and Ar32 are each a C6 carbocyclic group (phenyl) substituted with five R10a which are each a hydrogen atom,
n11, n12, n31, and n32 are each 1.
However, Compound 7 does not meet Applicant’s limitation that at least one Ar11, Ar12, Ar31, and Ar32 is substituted with four or more deuterium atoms.
Compound 7 is represented by Kim’s Formula 1A [0006] wherein Ar1, Ar2, Ar5, and Ar6 are represented by Formula 6-123 ([0090] and pg. 25). However, Kim also teaches Ar1, Ar2, Ar5, and Ar6 may be represented by Formula 6-127 ([0090] and pg. 26) (shown below). Note that the only difference between Formula 6-123 and Formula 6-127 is that all the hydrogen atoms are replaced with deuterium atoms.
PNG
media_image3.png
237
569
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
132
156
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
194
195
media_image5.png
Greyscale
However, Kim does not teach a motivation to change Ar1, Ar2, Ar5, and Ar6 in Compound 7 from being represented by Formula 6-123 to Formula 6-127.
Li teaches the carbon-deuterium chemical bond is stronger, more stable, and reacts more
slowly than the carbon-hydrogen chemical bond, so that the deuterated organic system has better
thermal stability, and longer lifetime in optoelectronic devices [0009].
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 change Ar1, Ar2, Ar5, and Ar6 in Compound 7 from being represented by Formula 6-123 to Formula 6-127, based on the teaching of Li. The motivation for doing so would have been to optimize the thermal stability of Compound 7 and increase the operational lifetime of organic light emitting devices comprising Compound 7, as taught by Li.
Per Claim 1 and 12, the organic light emitting device of Example 8 comprising the modified version of Compound 7, as described above, hereafter “Device 1” and “Modified Compound 7”, respectively, reads on Applicant’s limitation since it comprises an anode, a cathode, an emission layer, and an auxiliary emission layer comprising Modified Compound 7 which reads on Applicant’s Formula 1 (shown below),
PNG
media_image1.png
330
627
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
315
474
media_image6.png
Greyscale
wherein:
CY1–CY4 are each a C6 carbocyclic group (benzene),
T1–T4 are each a hydrogen atom,
b1 and b3 are each 3, while b2 and b4 are each 4,
L13 and L33 are each an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group (phenylene),
a13 and a33 are each 1,
L11, L12, L31, and L32 are each a single bond since a11, a12, a31, and a32 are each 0,
Ar11, Ar12, Ar31, and Ar32 are each a C6 carbocyclic group (phenyl) substituted with five R10a which are each a deuterium atom,
n11, n12, n31, and n32 are each 1.
Per Claim 2, Device 1 reads on Applicant’s limitation since it includes an auxiliary emission layer comprising Modified Compound 7.
Per Claim 3 and 4, Device 1 reads on Applicant’s limitation since it includes an anode, a cathode, a hole transport region comprising the combination of a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, and an auxiliary emission layer, and an electron transport region comprising the combination of an electron transport layer, and an electron injection layer. Additionally, the auxiliary emission layer comprises Modified Compound 7.
Per Claim 8, Device 1, as described above, emits blue light as evidenced by Seo et al. (US 2004/0137270 A1, hereafter “Seo”). The emission layer of Device 1, as described above, comprises Compound H1-1a and Compound FD9 [Table 1] (shown below).
PNG
media_image7.png
225
343
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
261
367
media_image8.png
Greyscale
However, Kim appears silent with respect to the property of the emission layer emitting blue light.
Seo recites an emitting layer having a plurality of materials and being a blue emitting material using a chemical formula 1 as a dopant [0017]. Seo’s chemical formula 1 is exemplified by Compound S-25, which is nearly identical to Compound FD9. Seo further recites a material forming the emitting layer together with the material of the chemical formula 1 is formed as a structure of a following chemical formula 2 [0020]. Seo’s chemical formula 2 is exemplified by Compound H-17, which is nearly identical to Compound H1-1a.
PNG
media_image9.png
224
423
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
419
340
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Since Seo teaches a light emitting layer that emits blue light comprised of Compound S-25 and Compound H-17, nearly identical structures as Compound FD9 and Compound H1-1a disclosed by Kim, the property of blue emission 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.
In the alternative, Kim teaches the organic light emitting device may have a stacked structure comprising a red emission layer, a green emission layer, and a blue emission layer [0174].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to produce an organic light emitting device comprising a blue emission layer. The motivation for doing so would have been to make an organic light emitting device comprising a blue emission layer with the high efficiency, long lifespan benefits, as taught by Kim [0159].
Per Claim 13, Modified Compound 7 reads on Applicant’s limitation since CY1–CY4 are each a benzene group.
Per Claim 14, Modified Compound 7 reads on Applicant’s limitation since the group represented by
PNG
media_image11.png
89
164
media_image11.png
Greyscale
is a group represented by Formula 1-5-4(shown below).
PNG
media_image12.png
132
144
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
315
474
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Per Claim 15, Modified Compound 7 reads on Applicant’s limitation since the group represented by
PNG
media_image13.png
88
163
media_image13.png
Greyscale
is a group represented by Formula 1-5-4 (shown below).
PNG
media_image12.png
132
144
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
315
474
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Per Claims 16 and 17, Modified Compound 7 reads on Applicant’s limitations since L13 and L33 are each an unsubstituted benzene group represented by Formula 1-6-1 (shown below), wherein R10a is a hydrogen atom and n10a is 4.
PNG
media_image14.png
157
137
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
315
474
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Per Claims 18 and 19, Modified Compound 7 reads on Applicant’s limitations since Ar11, Ar12, Ar31, and Ar32 are each a benzene group substituted with five deuterium atoms represented by Applicant’s Formula 1-1 (shown below), wherein T5 and T6 are each a deuterium atom.
PNG
media_image15.png
262
159
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
315
474
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, Kim does not teach a device like Device 1 which comprises Modified Compound 7 in the hole transport layer.
However, Kim teaches compound of Kim Formula 1A, such as Modified Compound 7, may be used in the hole transport region [0006]. Kim teaches that hole transport region may comprise a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, a buffer layer, and an auxiliary emission layer [0160]. Kim further teaches that compounds of Formula 1A, such as Modified Compound 7, may have excellent hole transporting ability resulting in an organic light emitting device with high emission efficiency and long lifespan characteristics [0159].
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 Modified Compound 7 in the hole transport layer, based on the teaching of Kim. The motivation for doing so would have been to produce an organic light emitting device with high emission efficiency and long lifespan characteristics [0159], as taught by Kim.
The resulting organic light emitting device comprising Modified Compound 7 in the hole transport layer reads on Applicant’s limitation of claim 5.
Regarding Claim 20, Modified Compound 7 does not meet Applicant’s limitation since it does not have a group represented by Formula 1-3 or Formula 1-4.
Modified Compound 7 is represented by Kim’s Formula 1A [0006] wherein Ar1, Ar2, Ar5, and Ar6 are each represented by Formula 6-127 ([0090] and pg. 25). However, Kim also teaches Ar1, Ar2, Ar5, and Ar6 may be represented by Formula 6-130 ([0090] and pg. 26) (shown below). Kim further teaches compounds represented by Formula 1A have excellent hole transporting ability resulting in an organic light emitting device with high emission efficiency and long lifespan characteristics [0159].
PNG
media_image3.png
237
569
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
194
195
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
163
179
media_image16.png
Greyscale
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 replace one of Ar1, Ar2, Ar5, and Ar6 from being represented by Formula 6-127 to Formula 6-130 in Modified Compound 7, because it would have been choosing from the list of exemplified options for Ar1, Ar2, Ar5, and Ar6 [0090], which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as a hole transport compound in the auxiliary emission layer of the organic light emitting device of Kim and possessing the benefits taught by Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Formula 1A as well as produce additional devices comprising compounds of Formula 1A having the high emission efficiency and long lifespan benefits taught by Kim in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
The resulting compound, hereafter “Further Modified Compound 7”, reads on Applicant’s Formula 1-3 (shown below),
PNG
media_image17.png
281
222
media_image17.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image18.png
285
391
media_image18.png
Greyscale
wherein:
Z1 is O,
CY5 and CY6 are each a C6 carbocyclic group (benzene),
T5a and T6a are each a hydrogen atom, while b5 and b6 are 3.
Claims 6–7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2016/0260901 A1) in view of Li et al. (US 2002/0076576 A1) as applied to claims 1–5, 8, 12–20 above, and further in view of Im et al. (US 2006/0113907 A1, hereafter "Im").
Regarding Claim 6, Kim in view of Li teaches Device 1 comprising Modified Compound 7, as described above.
However, Kim does not teach a capping layer formed on one of the electrodes.
Im teaches an organic light emitting diode display comprising a substrate, a first electrode, an organic layer including at least an organic emission layer, a second electrode, and an organic capping layer formed on the second electrode [0015]. Im further teaches that an organic capping layer having a refractive index of at least 1.7 on a second electrode increases the efficiency and lifetime of an OLED display [0014]. In Embodiment 1, the capping layer is an arylene-diamine derivative having a 1.7 or more refractive index [0053].
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 a capping layer taught by Im to Device 1 taught by Kim in view of Li, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Im and Kim in view of Li according to known methods to yield predictable results of an organic light emitting device with increased efficiency and lifetime [0014], as taught by Im. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
The organic light emitting device, as described above, comprising a capping layer over the second electrode reads on Applicant’s limitation of claim 6.
Regarding Claim 7, the organic light emitting device, as described above, comprising a capping layer over the second electrode does not read on Applicant’s limitation since the capping layer does not comprise a diamine compound represented by Formula 1.
Im teaches the capping layer is formed by stacking an organic material having a refractive index of 1.7 or more [0030]. Im further teaches the capping layer may be formed of an arylene-diamine derivative, a triamine derivative, CBP, and/or aluminum quinolate (Alq3). [0030].
Applicants’ specification recites that each of the first capping layer and the second capping layer may include a material having a refractive index of 1.6 or more (at a wavelength of 589 nm) [0353]. Applicants’ specification further recites that the diamine compound represented by Formula 1 may be included in various suitable films including a capping layer [0358]. It follows that a compound represented by Formula 1, such as Modified Compound 7, would have a refractive index of 1.6 or more at a wavelength of 589 nm.
Additionally, refractive index is wavelength dependent. For example, take Fig. 3 from Im (shown below). Here an arylene-diamine derivative is shown wherein the refractive index increases while the wavelength decreases. Notably, the arylene-diamine derivative has a refractive index above 1.8 at a wavelength of 589 nm.
PNG
media_image19.png
198
572
media_image19.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to use Modified Compound 7 in a capping layer of an organic light emitting device since Im teaches a capping layer comprising an arylene-diamine derivative with a refractive index of 1.7 or more [0053]. Modified Compound 7 is an arylene-diamine derivative with a refractive index of at least 1.6 from Applicant’s specification, as discussed above. Furthermore, Im teaches an arylene-diamine derivate that has a refractive index above 1.8 at 589 nm. Since Modified Compound 7 is an arylene-diamine derivative it will likely also have a refractive index above 1.8 at 589 nm. It would be a simple substitution to use Modified Compound 7 in a capping layer over another arylene-diamine derivative. 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 a capping layer comprising Modified Compound 7 would be useful in an organic light emitting device having the efficiency and lifetime benefits [0014] taught by Im. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
The organic light emitting device, as described above, comprising a capping layer further comprising Modified Compound 7 over the second electrode reads on Applicant’s limitations of claim 7.
Claims 9–11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2016/0260901 A1) in view of Li et al. (US 2002/0076576 A1) as applied to claims 1–5, 8, 12–20 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2015/0185942 A1, hereafter "Kim2").
Regarding Claims 9–11, Kim in view of Li teaches Device 1 comprising Modified Compound 7, as described above.
However, Kim does not teach an electronic apparatus including a light emitting device and a thin-film transistor, wherein the thin-film transistor comprises a source electrode and a drain electrode, and the first electrode of the light emitting device is electrically connected to at least one selected from the source electrode and the drain electrode of the thin-film transistor.
Kim2 teaches an OLED display device with a touch screen including a display panel, an
encapsulation film, and a touch screen. The display panel is an OLED panel and includes a
switching thin-film transistor, a driving thin-film transistor, and an organic light emitting diode
in each pixel region. The organic light emitting diode in the pixel region sequentially emit red,
green, and blue light [0029]. Kim2 further teaches a first electrode is formed on the inter
insulating layer in each pixel region, and the first electrode contacts the drain electrode of the driving thin-film transistor. The first electrode has a double-layered structure including a first
layer as a reflector and a second layer as an anode (of the OLED display device) [0048] – [0051].
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 Device 1 as discussed above,
taught by Kim in view of Li, in the OLED display device with a touch screen, taught by Kim2, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Hwang and Kim2 according to known methods to yield predictable results of an OLED display device with the high efficiency, long lifespan benefits, as taught by Kim [0159]. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Per Claims 9 and 10, the resulting OLED display device with a touch screen, from the combination of Hwang and Kim2 as described above, would read on Applicant’s since it is an electronic apparatus comprising a light emitting device and a thin film transistor wherein the first electrode (anode) of the light emitting device is electrically connected to the drain electrode of the thin-film transistor.
Per Claim 11, the resulting OLED display device with a touch screen, from the combination of Kim in view of Li and Kim2 as described above, reads on Applicant’s limitation since it includes a touch screen. Additionally, Kim2 teaches the OLED display device may further include a polarizing film at an outer surface of the touch screen to prevent reflection due to external light [0030].
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