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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/17/2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 23, 28-29, and 32-33 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 23 and 28-29, “a distributed bragg reflector” should be changed to “a distributed Bragg reflector”.
Regarding claim 32, “a DBR” should be changed to “the DBR” (see claim 23, which claim 32 depends therefrom).
Regarding claim 33, “a stack comprising a semiconducting layer” should be changed to “the stack comprising the at least one semiconductive layer” (see claim 23, which claim 33 depends therefrom).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 23 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fusella et al. (US 2020/0295307 A1; hereinafter “Fusella”).
Regarding claim 23, Fusella teaches an organic light emitting diode (OLED), comprising: an emissive layer stack (350) having an anode side (a bottom side facing 352) and a cathode side (a top side facing 310), comprising at least one emissive layer comprising an organic emissive material (135 including an organic emissive material) (Figs. 1A and 8B and paragraphs 29, 34, 58-59, and 65-66); an anode layer stack (115/352) positioned on the anode side of the emissive layer stack, comprising at least one conductive layer (Fig. 1A and 8B and paragraphs 29, 58, and 65-66); a cathode layer stack (160/310) positioned on the cathode side of the emissive layer stack from the anode layer stack, comprising at least one conductive layer (Fig. 1A and 8B and paragraphs 29, 58, and 65-66); and no more than two reflectors selected from the group consisting of: a distributed bragg reflector (DBR), a metal mirror, and a stack comprising at least one semiconductive layer (320 and 810 formed of DBR) (Fig. 8B and paragraphs 56-57 and 65-66), wherein a first reflector (320) of the no more than two reflectors is positioned on the anode side of the emissive layer stack (Fig. 8B and paragraphs 57 and 65-66), and wherein a second reflector (810) of the no more than two reflectors is positioned on the cathode side of the emissive layer stack (Fig. 8B and paragraphs 65-66).
Regarding claim 32, Fusella teaches wherein the first reflector is a DBR (paragraph 57).
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, 6-8, 10-12, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fusella in view of Choong et al. (US 2006/0066220 A1; hereinafter “Choong”).
Regarding claim 1, Fusella teaches an organic light emitting diode (OLED), comprising: an emissive layer stack (350) having an anode side (a bottom side facing 352) and a cathode side (a top side facing 310), comprising at least one emissive layer comprising an organic emissive material (135 including an organic emissive material) (Figs. 1A and 8B and paragraphs 29, 34, 58-59, and 65-66); an anode layer stack (115/352) positioned on the anode side of the emissive layer stack, comprising at least one conductive layer (Fig. 1A and 8B and paragraphs 29, 58, and 65-66); a cathode layer stack (160/310) positioned on the cathode side of the emissive layer stack from the anode layer stack, comprising at least one conductive layer (Fig. 1A and 8B and paragraphs 29, 58, and 65-66); an anode-side reflector (320) positioned on the anode side of the emissive layer stack (Fig. 8B and paragraphs 57 and 65-66); a substrate (110) positioned on the side of the anode-side reflector opposite the anode (Fig. 1A and paragraphs 29); and a cathode-side reflector (810) positioned on the cathode side of the emissive layer stack (Fig. 8B and paragraphs 65-66); wherein the cathode-side reflector and the at least one conductive layer of the cathode layer stack are distinct layers (Fig. 8B), and wherein the anode-side reflector directly contacts the at least one conductive layer of the anode layer stack (Fig. 8).
Fusella does not explicitly teach that the anode-side reflector also directly contacts the substrate since Fusella does not show a substrate in Fig. 8B. Choong teaches an organic light emitting diode (OLED), comprising: an anode-side reflector (111) directly contacting a substrate (108) (Fig. 3 and paragraph 16). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Fusella with that of Choong for fabricating desired layers such as the reflector on the substrate.
Regarding claim 2, Fusella teaches wherein the emissive layer comprises a blue organic emissive material (paragraphs 29-30 and US 7,279,704, which is incorporated by reference from Fusella).
Regarding claim 3, Fusella teaches wherein the emissive layer stack comprises at least one layer comprising an organic emissive material and a host material, and at least one additional layer comprising a host material (paragraphs 29-30, 40-44, and 50-52).
Regarding claim 4, Fusella teaches wherein the anode-side reflector is a distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) (paragraphs 56-57)
Regarding claim 6, Fusella teaches wherein the cathode-side reflector comprises a metal (Ag) (paragraphs 56 and 65).
Regarding claims 7-8, while Fusella does not explicitly teach that the cathode cathode-side reflector and the anode side reflector comprise semiconductor materials (claim 7) and the cathode side reflector comprises at least one layer of Ag and at least one layer of MgF2 (claim 8), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize various types of alternating high and low refractive index semiconductor materials stack and Ag/MgF2 stack as the DBR stack for obtaining the predictable reflective characteristics for the OLED.
Regarding claim 10, Fusella teaches wherein the cathode layer stack comprises at least one insulating layer (paragraphs 29-30).
Regarding claim 11, Fusella teaches wherein the cathode layer stack comprises at least one layer of Indium Tin Oxide (paragraphs 29-30).
Regarding claim 12, Fusella teaches wherein the anode layer stack comprises at least one layer of Indium Tin Oxide (paragraph 60).
Regarding claim 28, Fusella teaches no more than two reflectors selected from the group consisting of: a distributed bragg reflector (DBR), a metal mirror, and a stack comprising at least one semiconducting layer (320 and 810 formed of DBR) (Fig. 8B and paragraphs 56-57 and 65-66).
Claims 13-17 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fusella in view of Choong and Cheng et al. (US 2022/0013750 A1; hereinafter “Cheng”).
Regarding claim 13, Fusella teaches an electrically-pumped organic light emitting diode (OLED), comprising: a resonant and electrically pumped cavity for ultrastrong coupling formed of first and second reflectors (a resonant cavity between 320 and 810) (Fig. 8B and paragraphs 57 and 65-66); an organic emissive layer (350 having 135) having a peak emission wavelength λ and positioned in the resonant and electrically pumped cavity between the first and second reflectors (paragraphs 29-30 and US 7,279,704, which is incorporated by reference from Fusella, cols. 13-14 for a peak emission wavelength λ); an anode layer stack (115/352) positioned between the first reflector and the emissive layer (Fig. 1A and 8B and paragraphs 29, 58, and 65-66); a substrate (110) positioned on a side of the first reflector opposite the anode layer stack (Fig. 1A and paragraph 29); and a cathode layer stack (160/310) positioned between the second reflector and the emissive layer (Fig. 1A and 8B and paragraphs 29, 58, and 65-66), wherein the first reflector directly contacts the anode layer stack (Fig. 8B), and wherein the second reflector and the cathode-layer stack are distinct layers (Fig. 8B).
Fusella does not explicitly teach that 1) the first reflector directly contacts the substrate and 2) the organic emissive layer is at a distance from the first reflector of about λ/4.
Regarding 1) the first reflector directly contacts the substrate, Choong teaches an organic light emitting diode (OLED), comprising: an anode-side reflector (111) directly contacting a substrate (108) (Fig. 3 and paragraph 16). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Fusella with that of Choong for fabricating desired layers such as the reflector on the substrate.
Regarding 2) the organic emissive layer is at a distance from the first reflector of about λ/4, Cheng teaches an organic light emitting diode (OLED), comprising: an emissive layer having a wavelength λ and having a distance from a DBR of about λ/4 for obtaining the highest reflectivity from the DBR (paragraph 96). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Fusella with that of Cheng in order to obtain the highest/optimal reflectivity from the DBR.
Regarding claim 14, Fusella teaches wherein the organic emissive layer comprises an organic emissive material and an organic host material (paragraphs 35 and 41-44).
Regarding claim 15, Fusella teaches wherein the emissive layer comprises a blue organic emissive material (paragraphs 29-30 and US 7,279,704, which is incorporated by reference from Fusella).
Regarding claim 16, Fusella teaches wherein at least one of the first and second reflectors is a distributed Bragg reflector (paragraphs 56-57 and 65).
Regarding claim 17, while Fusella does not explicitly teach that the first and second reflectors each comprise a plurality of semiconducting sublayers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize various types of alternating high and low refractive index semiconductor materials stack for obtaining the predictable reflective characteristics for the OLED.
Regarding claim 29, Fusella teaches no more than two reflectors selected from the group consisting of: a distributed bragg reflector (DBR), a metal mirror, and a stack comprising at least one semiconducting layer (320 and 810 formed of DBR) (Fig. 8B and paragraphs 56-57 and 65-66).
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fusella.
Regarding claim 33, while Fusella does not explicitly teach that the first reflector and the second reflector each comprises a tack comprising a semiconducting layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize various types of alternating high and low refractive index semiconductor materials stack for obtaining the predictable reflective characteristics for the OLED.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s statements with a declaration under 37 C.F.R. 130(a), invoking the prior art exception based on the inventorship of record under AIA 35 U.S.C 102(b)(1)(A) and U.S.C 102(b)(2)(A) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections by Forrest et al. (US 2021/0020867 A1) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended and newly submitted claims have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection as set forth above in this Office Action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL B WHALEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3418. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8AM-5PM.
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, Sue Purvis can be reached on (571)272-1236. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL WHALEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893