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 Office acknowledges receipt on 31 August 2026 of Applicants’ amendments in which claims 1, 21, 22, 42, and 51 are amended and claims 50, 88, and 114 are cancelled. The Office withdraws the indefiniteness rejections identified in the Office Communication dated 8 June 2026 in view of the amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 31 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue in the second paragraph of page 12 and with respect to independent claim 1 (and similarly with respect to independent claim 42) that “[t]he applied references do not teach or suggest achieving two different output spectra from the same emitter incorporated into two OLEDs within a stacked device that shares a single cavity, as required by the claims.” Claim 1 (and similarly claim 42) is rejected over the combined teachings of Miller, Conway, Levermore, and Ghosh and recites “the first emissive layer and the second emissive layer have at least one same emitter with the same chemical composition, wherein the first OLED is configured to emit a first color light and the second OLED is configured to emit a second color light.” Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. MPEP §2145(VI). As this principle applies to the present circumstance, claim 1 (and similarly claim 42) does not recite “a stacked device that shares a single cavity,” as proposed by Applicants. Regarding the above-identified subject matter recited by claim 1, Miller teaches in Fig. 2 a first OLED (126) is configured to emit a first color light (green) and the second OLED (124) is configured to emit a second color light (blue) {[0110]}. Conway teaches in Fig. 1 and the fourth paragraph of page 12 a first OLED (112), having a first emissive layer (126), and a second OLED (212), having a first emissive layer (226), that are stacked in a tandem configuration are arranged in the same manner and formed of the same materials. Conway further teaches in fifth paragraph of page 12 that the first OLED (112) and the second OLED (212) may be made using the same process. Still further, Conway teaches in the fourth through sixth paragraphs of page 2 that the first OLED (112) and the second OLED (212) are of identical construction and formed at the same time and … [thereafter] assembled by attaching the first and second light-emitting components to one another. The motivation for combining the teachings of Conway with those of Miller is identified below with respect to the rejection of claim 1.
Applicants argue in the second paragraph of page 12 and with respect to independent claim 1 (and similarly with respect to independent claim 42) that “the applied references [do not] teach or suggest independently addressing such OLEDs to permit selective driving of the OLEDs and corresponding tuning of the emitted color or emission spectrum.” Claim 1 (and similarly claim 42) recites “the first electrode, the second electrode, and the third electrode are configured to be independently addressable to permit the first OLED to be separately driven from the second OLED.” Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. MPEP §2145(VI). As this principle applies to the present circumstance, claim 1 (and similarly claim 42) does not recite “independently addressing such OLEDs to permit … corresponding tuning of the emitted color or emission spectrum.” Regarding the above-identified subject matter recited by claim 1, Miller teaches in Fig. 2 a first electrode (122), a second electrode (112), and a third electrode (102) are configured to be independently addressable to permit the first OLED (126) to be separately driven from the second OLED (124) {[0030, 0031]}.
Claim Objections
Claim 51 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 51 recites “a top electrode the third OLED,” which should read “a top electrode of the third OLED.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 42, 44, 46, and 111-113 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. (US20060214596A1) in view of Conway et al. (GB2548161A), Levermore et al. (US20110233528A1), and Ghosh et al. (US20180269260A1).
Regarding claim 1, Miller teaches in Fig. 2 a device comprising:
a first electrode (122) {¶0029, 0110};
a first organic light emitting device (OLED) (126) comprising a first emissive layer (118) disposed between the first electrode (122) and a second electrode (112) that is a transparent or partially transparent, wherein the first electrode (122) is a top electrode of the first OLED (126) and the second electrode (112) is a bottom electrode of the first OLED (126) {¶0029, 0039, 0110};
a second OLED (124) comprising a second emissive layer (108) disposed between the second electrode (112) and a third electrode (102), wherein the second electrode (112) is a top electrode of the second OLED (124) and the third electrode (102) is a bottom electrode of the second OLED (124) {¶0029};
a substrate (98), wherein the third electrode (102) is disposed over the substrate (98) {¶0029},
wherein the first OLED (126) is configured to emit a first color light (green) and the second OLED (124) is configured to emit a second color light (blue) {¶0110},wherein the first electrode (122), the second electrode (112), and the third electrode (102) are configured to be independently addressable to permit the first OLED (126) to be separately driven from the second OLED (124) {¶0029-0031, 0106}.
Miller does not teach wherein the first emissive layer and the second emissive layer have at least one same emitter with the same chemical composition.
In an analogous art, Conway teaches in Fig. 1 and the fourth paragraph of page 12 a first OLED (112), having a first emissive layer (126), and a second OLED (212), having a first emissive layer (226), that are stacked in a tandem configuration are arranged in the same manner and formed of the same materials. Conway further teaches in fifth paragraph of page 12 that the first OLED (112) and the second OLED (212) may be made using the same process. Still further, Conway teaches in the fourth through sixth paragraphs of page 2 that the first OLED (112) and the second OLED (212) are of identical construction and formed at the same time and … [thereafter] assembled by attaching the first and second light-emitting components to one another. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miller’s device based on the teachings of Conway – such that the first emissive layer and the first emissive layer have at least one same emitter with the same chemical composition – to be manufactured more quickly. Conaway, second paragraph of page 2. Moreover, such identical emissive layers may be made using fewer resources (e.g., same materials and process). Still further, such same emitter may be used to fabricate a light blue and a deep blue device [(e.g., different color OLEDS)], due to microcavity differences. Levermore ¶0086.
Miller as modified by Conway and Levermore does not teach the first color light is more saturated than the second color light, wherein a difference between a 1931 CIEx value of the first color light and the second color light is at least one selected from the group consisting of: at least a 0.005 difference, at least a 0.010 difference, at least a 0.015 difference, at least a 0.020 difference, at least a 0.10 difference, at least a 0.15 difference, and less than a 0.20 difference.
In an analogous art, Ghosh teaches in Fig. 6D a green OLED having a 1931 CIEx value of 0.322 and a blue OLED having a 1931 CIEx value of 0.148. Ghosh’s green and blue OLEDs have a 931 CIEx value difference of 0.174, which is at least 0.005 and less than 0.2. And for a circumstance in which a first of two OLEDs emits a deep blue color (e.g., more saturated) and the second OLED emits a light blue color (e.g., less saturated), as described by Levermore in a preceding paragraph, the 1931 CIEx values of the two colors would have even less of a difference than that identified in the preceding sentence with respect to the green and blue OLEDs. Similar smaller differences in 1931 CIEx values may be obtained by selecting slightly different colors anywhere along the 1931 CIEx color spectrum (e.g., for green, red, or blue colors) for the first and second OLEDs. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miller’s device as modified by Conway and Levermore based on the teachings of Ghosh, to acquire the subject matter in the preceding sentences of this paragraph, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Ghosh and Levermore) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Moreover, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. MPEP §2143((I)(E). A consequence of modifying Miller’s device based on the teachings of Levermore is that one of Miller’s first emissive layer and second emissive layer is configured to emit the first color (e.g., deep blue) that is more saturated (e.g., narrower spectrum) than the second color (light blue) emitted by the other emissive layer. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miller’s device – such that Miller’s first emissive layer of the first OLED is configured to emit the first color that is more saturated than the second color for which Miller’s second emissive layer of the second OLED is configured to emit – because Miller teaches in paragraphs [0038, 0121] disposing the narrower spectrum (i.e., more saturated color) OLED emissive layer within the resonant microcavity disposed above the other OLED emissive layer for the purpose of filtering (i.e., quenching, attenuating) undesired light of the broader spectrum (i.e., less saturated color) that enters the microcavity externally and is subsequently reflected out with less intensity than when it entered the microcavity. Moreover, there are only two alternatives (which would be immediately recognized by a person of ordinary skill in the art) by which each of the higher saturation color and the lower saturation color may be assigned respectively to either the first emissive layer of the first OLED or the second emissive layer of the second OLED within Miller’s device; accordingly, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. MPEP §2143((I)(E).
Regarding claim 2, Miller as modified by Conway, Levermore, and Ghosh teaches the device of claim 1, and Miller further teaches wherein at least the first OLED (126) comprises a stacked device (114-120) including at least one emissive layer (118), wherein the stacked device (114-120) is independently addressable {¶0029-0031}.
Regarding claim 4, Miller as modified by Conway, Levermore, and Ghosh teaches the device of claim 1, and Miller further teaches wherein at least one of the first OLED (126) and second OLED (124) emit with at least one selected from the group consisting of:
(i) a peak wavelength selected from the group consisting of: greater than 600 nm, greater than 610 nm, greater than 620 nm, and greater than 630 nm {Fig. 5; ¶0027, 0110}; and
(ii) a spectrum with a 1931 CIEx value of at least one selected from the group consisting of: 0.6, 0.65, and 0.7.
Examiner’s Note: Items (i) and (ii) are recited in the alternative; thus, only one of the alternative items is required by the claim.
Regarding claim 42, Miller teaches a device comprising:
a first organic light emitting device (OLED) (126) comprising a first emissive layer (118) disposed between a first reflective electrode (122) and a first transparent electrode (112), wherein the first reflective electrode (122) is a top electrode of the first OLED (126) and the first transparent electrode (112) is a bottom electrode of the first OLED (126) {¶0029, 0039, 0110};
a second OLED (124) comprising a second emissive layer (108) disposed between the first transparent electrode (112) and a second transparent electrode (102), wherein the first transparent electrode (112) is a top electrode of the second OLED (124) and the second transparent electrode (102) is a bottom electrode of the second OLED (124) {¶0029, 0039, 0104}; and
a substrate (98), wherein the second transparent electrode (102) is disposed over the substrate (98) {¶0029},
wherein the first OLED (126) is configured to emit a first color light (green) and the second OLED (124) is configured to emit a second color light (blue) {¶0110},
wherein the first reflective electrode (122), the first transparent electrode (108), and the second transparent electrode (102) are configured to be independently addressable to permit the first OLED (126) to be separately driven from the second OLED (124) {¶0029-0031, 0106}.
Miller does not teach wherein the first OLED and the second OLED have at least one same emitter with the same chemical composition.
Conway teaches in Fig. 1 and the fourth paragraph of page 12 a first OLED (112) and a second OLED (212) that are stacked in a tandem configuration are arranged in the same manner and formed of the same materials. Conway further teaches in fifth paragraph of page 12 that the first OLED (112) and the second OLED (212) may be made using the same process. Still further, Conway teaches in the fourth through sixth paragraphs of page 2 that the first OLED (112) and the second OLED (212) are of identical construction and formed at the same time and … [thereafter] assembled by attaching the first and second light-emitting components to one another. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miller’s device based on the teachings of Conway – such that the first OLED and the second OLED have at least one same emitter with the same chemical composition – to be manufactured more quickly. Conaway, second paragraph of page 2. Moreover, such identical OLEDS may be made using fewer resources (e.g., same materials and process). Still further, such same emitter may be used to fabricate a light blue and a deep blue device [(e.g., different color OLEDS)], due to microcavity differences. Levermore ¶0086.
Miller as modified by Conway and Levermore does not teach the first color light is more saturated the second color light, wherein a difference between a 1931 CIEx value of the first color light and the second color light is at least one selected from the group consisting of: at least a 0.005 difference, at least a 0.010 difference, at least a 0.015 difference, at least a 0.020 difference, at least a 0.10 difference, at least a 0.15 difference, and less than a 0.20 difference.
Ghosh teaches in Fig. 6D a green OLED having a 1931 CIEx value of 0.322 and a blue OLED having a 1931 CIEx value of 0.148. Ghosh’s green and blue OLEDs have a 931 CIEx value difference of 0.174, which is at least 0.005 and less than 0.2. And for a circumstance in which a first of two OLEDs emits a deep blue color (e.g., more saturated) and the second OLED emits a light blue color (e.g., less saturated), as described by Levermore in a preceding paragraph, the 1931 CIEx values of the two colors would have even less of a difference than that identified in the preceding sentence with respect to the green and blue OLEDs. Similar smaller differences in 1931 CIEx values may be obtained by selecting slightly different colors anywhere along the 1931 CIEx color spectrum (e.g., for green, red, or blue colors) for the first and second OLEDs. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miller’s device as modified by Conway and Levermore based on the teachings of Ghosh, to acquire the subject matter in the preceding sentences of this paragraph, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Ghosh and Levermore) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Moreover, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. MPEP §2143((I)(E). A consequence of this modification is that one of Miller’s first emitter and second emitter is configured to emit the first color that is more saturated than the second color emitted by the other emitter. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miller’s device – such that Miller’s first emitter of the first OLED is configured to emit the first color that is more saturated than the second color for which Miller’s second emitter of the second OLED is configured to emit – because Miller teaches in paragraphs [0038, 0121] disposing the narrower spectrum (i.e., more saturated color) OLED emitter within the resonant microcavity disposed above the other OLED emitter for the purpose of filtering (i.e., quenching, attenuating) undesired light of the broader spectrum (i.e., less saturated color) that enters the microcavity externally and is subsequently reflected out with less intensity than when it entered the microcavity. Moreover, there are only two alternatives (which would be immediately recognized by a person of ordinary skill in the art) by which each of the higher saturation color and the lower saturation color may be assigned respectively to either the first emitter of the first OLED or the second emitter of the second OLED within Miller’s device; accordingly, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. MPEP §2143((I)(E).
Regarding claim 44, Miller as modified by Conway, Levermore, and Ghosh teaches the device of claim 42, and Miller further teaches wherein at least the first OLED (126) comprises a stacked device (114-120) including at least one emissive layer (118), wherein the stacked device (114-120) is independently addressable {¶0029-0031}.
Regarding claim 46, Miller as modified by Conway, Levermore, and Ghosh teaches the device of claim 42, and Miller further teaches wherein at least one of the first OLED (126) and second OLED (124) emit with at least one selected from the group consisting of:
(i) a peak wavelength selected from the group consisting of: greater than 600 nm, greater than 610 nm, greater than 620 nm, and greater than 630 nm {Fig. 5; ¶0027, 0110}; and
(ii) a spectrum with a 1931 CIEx value of at least one selected from the group consisting of: 0.6, 0.65, and 0.7.
Examiner’s Note: Items (i) and (ii) are recited in the alternative; thus, only one of the alternative items is required by the claim.
Regarding claim 111, Miller as modified by Conway, Levermore, and Ghosh teaches the device of claim 1, and Miller further teaches wherein the device is at least one type selected from the group consisting of: a flat panel display, a curved display, a computer monitor, a medical monitor, a television, a billboard, a light for interior or exterior illumination and/or signaling, a heads-up display, a fully or partially transparent display, a flexible display, a rollable display, a foldable display, a stretchable display, a laser printer, a telephone, a cell phone, tablet, a phablet, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a wearable device, a laptop computer, a digital camera, a camcorder, a viewfinder, a micro-display that is less than 2 inches diagonal, a 3-D display, a virtual reality or augmented reality display, a vehicle, an external automotive light, an automotive brake light, an automotive rear light, a video walls comprising multiple displays tiled together, a theater or stadium screen, and a sign {¶0001; [t]he present invention relates to the structure and manufacture of flat-panel, light-emitting displays}.
Regarding claim 112, Miller as modified by Conway, Levermore, and Ghosh teaches the device of claim 1, and Miller further teaches where the at least one same emitter (emitter of modified 126, 124) is selected from the group consisting of: a phosphorescent emissive material, a fluorescent emissive material, and a combination thereof {¶0080, the first and second EL units 124 and 126 include a … fluorescent material}.
Regarding claim 113, Miller as modified by Conway, Levermore, and Ghosh teaches the device of claim 42, and Miller further teaches where the at least one same emitter (emitter of modified 126, 124) is selected from the group consisting of: a phosphorescent emissive material, a fluorescent emissive material, and a combination thereof {¶0080, the first and second EL units 124 and 126 include a … fluorescent material}.
Claim(s) 8 and 49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Conway, Levermore, and Ghosh as applied to claim 1 (for claim 8) and claim 42 (for claim 49) respectively above, and further in view of Forrest et al. (US20100187988A1) and Yamamoto et al. (US20160181560A1).
Regarding claim 8, Miller as modified by Conway, Levermore, and Ghosh teaches the device of claim 1, and Miller further teaches wherein the first OLED (126) is configured to emit light at a different peak wavelength than the second OLED (124) {Fig. 5; ¶0110, 0111}.
But Miller does not teach wherein a difference between the peak wavelength of light emitted from the first OLED and the second OLED is selected from the group consisting of: less than 3 nm, less than 5 nm, less than 10 nm, less than 15 nm, less than 20 nm, less than 30 nm, and less than 50 nm.
In an analogous art, Forrest teaches in Fig. 16 and paragraph [0098] a multicolor LED device including the stacking of up to N individual LEDs, where N is an integer number 1, 2, 3 . . . N. Forrest further teaches in this same material that shorter wavelength (blue) devices must lie lower in the stack than the longer wavelength (red) devices to avoid optical absorption by the red emitting layers, indicating that adjacent emission layers may emit light of the same color. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miller’s device as modified by Conway, Levermore, and Ghosh based on the teachings of Forrest – such that Miller’s device includes adjacent emission layers that emit light of the same color – for the purpose of increasing the luminance of light having a particular color or increasing the reliability (through redundancy) for emitting light of the particular color. Moreover, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07. A natural consequence of modifying Miller’s device such that two emission layers emit light of the same color is that the wavelengths of such two-same colors are also the same (e.g., less than 50 nm difference between the wavelengths of the same color).
Moreover, in an analogous art, Yamamoto teaches in paragraph [0044] that two emissive layers are considered to emit the same color if the difference in emission peaks of the two layers is less than 5 nm, 8 nm, 11 nm, 12 nm, 13 nm, 14 nm, 15 nm, 20 nm, 25 nm, 30 nm, 40 nm, or 50 nm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miller’s device as modified by Conway, Levermore, Ghosh, and Forrest based on the teachings of Yamamoto – such that a difference between the peak wavelength of the same-color light emitted from the first OLED and the second OLED is selected from the group consisting of: less than 3 nm, less than 5 nm, less than 10 nm, less than 15 nm, less than 20 nm, less than 30 nm, and less than 50 nm because [t]he selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. MPEP §2144.07.
Still further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miller’s device as modified by Conway, Levermore, Ghosh, and Forrest based on the teachings of Yamamoto – such that Miller’s device includes adjacent emission layers that emit light of the same color wherein a difference between the peak wavelength of light emitted from the first OLED and the second OLED is selected from the group consisting of: less than 3 nm, less than 5 nm, less than 10 nm, less than 15 nm, less than 20 nm, less than 30 nm, and less than 50 nm – for the purpose of increasing the luminance across a wider bandwidth of light having a particular color.
Regarding claim 49, Miller as modified by Conway, Levermore, and Ghosh teaches the device of claim 42, and Miller further teaches wherein the first OLED (126) is configured to emit light at a different peak wavelength than the second OLED (124) {Fig. 5; ¶0110, 0111}.
Miller does not teach wherein a difference between the peak wavelength of light emitted from the first OLED and the second OLED is selected from the group consisting of: less than 3 nm, less than 5 nm, less than 10 nm, less than 15 nm, less than 20 nm, less than 30 nm, and less than 50 nm.
Forrest teaches in Fig. 16 and paragraph [0098] a multicolor LED device including the stacking of up to N individual LEDs, where N is an integer number 1, 2, 3 . . . N. Forrest further teaches in this same material that shorter wavelength (blue) devices must lie lower in the stack than the longer wavelength (red) devices to avoid optical absorption by the red emitting layers, indicating that adjacent emission layers may emit light of the same color. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miller’s device as modified by Conway, Levermore, and Ghosh based on the teachings of Forrest – such that Miller’s device includes adjacent emission layers emit light of the same color – for the purpose of increasing the luminance of light having a particular color or increasing the reliability for emitting light of the particular color. Moreover, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07. A natural consequence of modifying Miller’s device such that two emission layers emit light of the same color is that the wavelengths of such two-same colors are also the same (e.g., less than 50 nm difference between the wavelengths of the same color).
Moreover, Yamamoto teaches in paragraph [0044] that two emissive layers are considered to emit the same color if the difference in emission peaks of the two layers is less than 5 nm, 8 nm, 11 nm, 12 nm, 13 nm, 14 nm, 15 nm, 20 nm, 25 nm, 30 nm, 40 nm, or 50 nm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miller’s device as modified by Conway, Levermore, Ghosh, and Forrest based on the teachings of Yamamoto – such that a difference between the peak wavelength of the same-color light emitted from the first OLED and the second OLED is selected from the group consisting of: less than 3 nm, less than 5 nm, less than 10 nm, less than 15 nm, less than 20 nm, less than 30 nm, and less than 50 nm because [t]he selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. MPEP §2144.07.
Still further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miller’s device as modified by Conway, Levermore, Ghosh, and Forrest based on the teachings of Yamamoto – such that Miller’s device includes adjacent emission layers that emit light of the same color wherein a difference between the peak wavelength of light emitted from the first OLED and the second OLED is selected from the group consisting of: less than 3 nm, less than 5 nm, less than 10 nm, less than 15 nm, less than 20 nm, less than 30 nm, and less than 50 nm – for the purpose of increasing the luminance across a wider bandwidth of light having a particular color.
Claim(s) 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Conway, Levermore, and Ghosh as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoo et al. (US20210408395A1) and Lee et al. (US20220102660A1).
Regarding claim 21, Miller as modified by Conway, Levermore, and Ghosh teaches the device of claim 1, but Miller does not teach further comprising:
at least one emissive layer of the first OLED or the second OLED is disposed at a distance within 20 nm of a multiple of ¼λ to the first electrode, where λ is the peak wavelength of the light to be emitted by the emitter in the at least one emissive layer.
However, Miller teaches in Fig. 5 and paragraph [0111] that the peak wavelengths of the OLEDS occur at 450 nm, 530 nm, and 610 nm. One-fourth of the peak wavelength of the green light emitted by first OLED (126) is (530 nm/4) = 132.5 nm. Miller further teaches in Fig. 2 and paragraph [0029] that only a second electron transport layer (120) separates an emissive layer of the first OLED (126) from the first electrode (122).
In an analogous art, Yoo teaches in paragraph [0108] an electron transport layer having a thickness of 1 to 150 nm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miller’s device as modified by Conway, Levermore, and Ghosh based on the teachings of Yoo – such that Miller’s electron transport layer, disposed between the emissive layer of the OLED and the first electrode, has a thickness of 1 to 150 nm – because, when the electron transport layer thickness is in this range, the decrease of the electron transporting property may be prevented [and] …a problem of the increase in the driving voltage … may be prevented. Lee ¶0420. Moreover, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. MPEP §2143((I)(E).
Further modifying Miller’s electron transport layer to have a thickness of between 112.5 nm and 150 nm, based on the teachings of Yoo, would have been obvious because [i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP §2144.05(I).
A natural consequence of the above-identified modifications is that Miller’s emissive layer of the first OLED (126) is disposed at a distance (between 112.5 to 150 nm) within 20 nm of a multiple of ¼λ (e.g., a multiple (one) of (530 nm)/4 =132.5 nm to the first electrode (122), where λ is the peak wavelength (530 nm) of the light (green) to be emitted by emitter in the at least one emissive layer.
Regarding claim 22, Miller as modified by Conway, Levermore, and Ghosh teaches the device of claim 1, but Miller does not teach further comprising:
at least one emissive layer of the first OLED or the second OLED is disposed at a distance within 20 nm of a multiple of ¼λ to the second electrode, where λ is the peak wavelength of the light to be emitted by the emitter in the at least one emissive layer.
However, Miller teaches in Fig. 5 and paragraph [0111] that the peak wavelengths of the OLEDS occur at 450 nm, 530 nm, and 610 nm. One-fourth of the peak wavelength of the blue light emitted by second OLED (124) is (610 nm/4) = 152.5 nm. Miller further teaches in Fig. 2 and paragraph [0029] that only a first electron transport layer (110) separates an emissive layer of the second OLED (124) from the second electrode (112).
Yoo teaches in paragraph [0108] an electron transport layer having a thickness of 1 to 150 nm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miller’s device as modified by Conway, Levermore, and Ghosh based on the teachings of Yoo – such that Miller’s electron transport layer, disposed between the emissive layer of the OLED and the second electrode, has a thickness of 1 to 150 nm – because, when the electron transport layer thickness is in this range, the decrease of the electron transporting property may be prevented [and] …a problem of the increase in the driving voltage … may be prevented. Lee ¶0420. Moreover, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Further modifying Miller’s electron transport layer to have a thickness of between 132.5 nm and 150 nm, based on the teachings of Yoo, would have been obvious because [i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP §2144.05(I).
A natural consequence of the above-identified modifications is that Miller’s emissive layer of the second OLED (124) is disposed at a distance (between 132.5 to 150 nm) within 20 nm of a multiple of ¼λ (e.g., a multiple (one) of (610 nm)/4 =152.5 nm to the second electrode (112), where λ is the peak wavelength (610 nm) of the light (blue) to be emitted by emitter in the at least one emissive layer.
Claim(s) 51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Conway, Levermore, and Ghosh as applied to claim 42 above, and further in view of Forrest.
Regarding claim 51, Miller as modified by Conway, Levermore, and Ghosh teaches the device of claim 42, but Miller does not teach further comprising:
a third OLED, wherein the second transparent electrode is a top electrode [of] the third OLED; and
a third transparent electrode that is a bottom electrode of the third OLED.
Forrest teaches in Fig. 16 and paragraph [0098] a multicolor LED device including the stacking of up to N individual LEDs, where N is an integer number 1, 2, 3 . . . N. Forrest further teaches in this same material that each of the N LEDs has an ITO layer disposed above and below the LED. Forrest teaches in paragraph [0047] that each of these ITO layers is both conductive and transparent and the ITO layer may constitute an electrode. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miller’s device as modified by Conway, Levermore, and Ghosh based on the teachings of Forrest – such that Miller’s device includes a third OLED, wherein the second transparent electrode is a top electrode of the third OLED; and a third transparent electrode that is a bottom electrode of the substrate – for the purpose of increasing the number of different color LEDS or increasing the luminance of light of multiple LEDs having the same color. Moreover, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. MPEP §2143((I)(E).
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 DAVID WARD whose telephone number is (703)756-1382. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30-3:30 EST.
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, Matthew Landau can be reached at (571)-272-1731. 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.
/D.W.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2891
/MATTHEW C LANDAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights