DETAILED ACTION
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, 4-5, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mashimo et al. (US 2002/0118271 A1; hereinafter “Mashimo”) in view of Forrest et al. (US 2021/0020867 A1; hereinafter “Forrest”) and Ko et al. (US 2015/0280171 A1; hereinafter “Ko”).
Regarding claim 1, Mashimo teaches an organic light emitting device (OLED), comprising: a substrate layer (1); a sub-electrode microlens array (SEMLA) (2) at least partially embedded in the substrate layer comprising a plurality of microlenses (microlens array); a first electrode layer (3) positioned over the substrate layer, wherein the first electrode layer is configured as an anode (a positive electrode); a light emitting layer (8) positioned over the first electrode layer; and a second electrode layer (6) positioned over the light emitting layer (Fig. 1 and paragraphs 22-53).
Mashimo does not explicitly teach 1) a distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) layer positioned over the substrate layer and 2) the anode comprising a metal alloy sub-layer between first and second ITO sub-layers.
Regarding 1) a distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) layer positioned over the substrate layer, Forrest teaches an organic light emitting device, comprising: a distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) layer (511) positioned over a substrate layer (510) and below a first electrode layer (505) for improving device characteristics of the organic light emitting diode device (Figs. 5 and 14 and paragraphs 19, 138, and 184). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Mashimo with that of Forrest for improving device characteristics of the organic light emitting diode device.
Regarding 2) the anode comprising a metal alloy sub-layer between first and second ITO sub-layers, Ko teaches an organic light emitting device (an OLED), comprising: an anode comprising a metal alloy sub-layer between first and second ITO sub-layers (301 formed of ITO/Ag alloy/ITO or ITO/Ag-Pd-Cu alloy/ITO) (Figs. 1 and 3 and paragraphs 25-27 and 42). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Mashimo with that of Ko in order to utilize a multi-layer configuration of the anode formed of ITO/Ag alloy/ITO or ITO/Ag-Pd-Cu alloy/ITO as a readily available anode electrode material choice known in the art for obtaining the desired conductive and optical properties for the OLED device.
Regarding claim 4, Mashimo teaches wherein the SEMLA is etched into the substrate layer (Fig. 2A and paragraphs 35-36).
Regarding claim 5, Mashimo teaches wherein the SEMLA is fully embedded in the substrate layer (Fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 20, Mashimo teaches an organic light emitting device (OLED) production method, comprising: providing a substrate layer (1); etching a sub-electrode microlens array (SEMLA) (2) into the substrate layer (Fig. 2A and paragraphs 34-37); depositing a first electrode layer (3) over the substrate layer (Fig. 2B and paragraph 38); depositing a light emitting layer (8) over the first electrode (Fig. 2C and paragraphs 39 and 45-53); and depositing a second electrode layer (6) over the light emitting layer (Fig. 2D and paragraph 40).
Mashimo does not explicitly teach 1) depositing a distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) layer over the substrate layer and depositing a Purcell Factor (PF) enhancement layer over the second electrode layer and 2) the first electrode layer comprises a metal alloy sub-layer between first and second ITO sub-layers.
Regarding 1) depositing a distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) layer over the substrate layer and depositing a Purcell Factor (PF) enhancement layer over the second electrode layer, Forrest teaches an organic light emitting device production method, comprising: depositing a distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) layer (511) over a substrate layer (510) and depositing a Purcell Factor (PF) enhancement layer (a top metal/dielectric layer) over a second electrode layer (501) for improving/enhancing device characteristics of the organic light emitting diode (Figs. 5 and 14 and paragraphs 19, 75, 138, 178, and 184). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Mashimo with that of Forrest for improving/enhancing device characteristics of the organic light emitting diode.
Regarding 2) the anode comprising a metal alloy sub-layer between first and second ITO sub-layers, Ko teaches an organic light emitting device (an OLED), comprising: an anode comprising a metal alloy sub-layer between first and second ITO sub-layers (301 formed of ITO/Ag alloy/ITO or ITO/Ag-Pd-Cu alloy/ITO) (Figs. 1 and 3 and paragraphs 25-27 and 42). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Mashimo with that of Ko in order to utilize a multi-layer configuration of the anode formed of ITO/Ag alloy/ITO or ITO/Ag-Pd-Cu alloy/ITO as a readily available anode electrode material choice known in the art for obtaining the desired conductive and optical properties for the OLED device.
Claims 1-6, 10-13, and 16-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forrest et al. (US 2019/0181384 A1; hereinafter “Forrest 384”) in view of Forrest and Ko.
Regarding claim 1, Forrest 384 teaches an organic light emitting device (OLED), comprising: a substrate layer (310); a sub-electrode microlens array (SEMLA) (300) at least partially embedded in the substrate layer comprising a plurality of microlenses (microlens array) (Fig. 4 and paragraphs 47-49); a first electrode layer (115) positioned over the substrate layer, wherein the first electrode layer is configured as an anode (115 is an anode); a light emitting layer (135) positioned over the first electrode layer; and a second electrode layer (160) positioned over the light emitting layer (Figs. 1 and 4 and paragraphs 36 and 47-49).
Forrest 384 does not explicitly teach 1) a distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) layer positioned over the substrate layer and 2) the anode comprising a metal alloy sub-layer between first and second ITO sub-layers.
Regarding 1) a distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) layer positioned over the substrate layer, Forrest teaches an organic light emitting device, comprising: a distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) layer (511) positioned over a substrate layer (510) and below a first electrode layer (505) for improving device characteristics of the organic light emitting diode (Figs. 5 and 14 and paragraphs 19, 138, and 184). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Forrest 384 with that of Forrest for improving device characteristics of the organic light emitting diode.
Regarding 2) the anode comprising a metal alloy sub-layer between first and second ITO sub-layers, Ko teaches an organic light emitting device (an OLED), comprising: an anode comprising a metal alloy sub-layer between first and second ITO sub-layers (301 formed of ITO/Ag alloy/ITO or ITO/Ag-Pd-Cu alloy/ITO) (Figs. 1 and 3 and paragraphs 25-27 and 42). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Forrest 384 with that of Ko in order to utilize a multi-layer configuration of the anode formed of ITO/Ag alloy/ITO or ITO/Ag-Pd-Cu alloy/ITO as a readily available anode electrode material choice known in the art for obtaining the desired conductive and optical properties for the OLED device.
Regarding claim 2, Forrest 384 does not explicitly teach a Purcell Factor (PF) enhancement layer over a second electrode layer. Forrest teaches further comprising a Purcell Factor (PF) enhancement layer (a top metal/dielectric layer) over a second electrode layer (501), comprising at least one sub-layer pair including a silver mirror electrode and a metal-dielectric layer (Ag/dielectric alternating layers) for improving/enhancing device characteristics of the organic light emitting diode (Figs. 5 and 14 and paragraphs 138, 178, and 184). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Forrest 384 with that of Forrest for improving device characteristics of the organic light emitting diode.
Regarding claim 3, Forrest teaches wherein the PF enhancement layer further comprises a plurality of alternating Ag and dielectric sub-layers (Fig. 14 and paragraph 178).
Regarding claim 4, Forrest 384 teaches wherein the SEMLA is etched into the substrate layer (Fig. 4 and paragraphs 49 and 55).
Regarding claim 5, Forrest 384 teaches wherein the SEMLA is fully embedded in the substrate layer (Fig. 4 and paragraph 49).
Regarding claim 6, Forrest 384 in view of Forrest teaches wherein the light emitting layer is disposed within a cavity, wherein the cavity is configured to produce in-plane light an optical cavity between electrodes/reflectors) (Forrest 384, Figs. 1 and 3 and Forrest, Figs. 5 and 14). Furthermore, since the claim does not require any additional limitation structurally and/or compositionally to distinguish over Forrest 384 in view of Forrest teaching the identical OLED device, the functional limitation “wherein the SEMLA is configured to outcouple the in-plane light”, presumed to be inherent: Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) and MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 10, Forrest 384 teaches wherein the SEMLA is configured to modify an index of refraction of the substrate (paragraph 48). While Forrest 384 does not explicitly teach that the modified refractive index is in the range of 1.65 to 1.75 as claimed, Forrest 384 further teaches that the substrate is having a refractive index of 1.4-1.5 and the microlens array is having a refractive index of 1.7-2, which are substantially identical to those of the invention (for example, see paragraph 67 in the instant application and claim 13). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the modified refractive index of the substrate, which has the identical refractive index value to that of the invention, having the microlens array, which has the identical refractive index value to that of the invention, therein would have similar refractive index value compared to that of the claimed range of 1.65 to 1.75 as a material property.
Regarding claim 11, Forrest 384 teaches wherein the SEMLA comprises an array of hemispheres filled with a high-index polymer matching layer (Fig. 4 and paragraphs 48 and 55, 300 having an array of hemispheres made of polymer material having a refractive index 1.7-2).
Regarding claim 12, Forrest 384 teaches wherein the hemispheres have a radius of 1 μm to 20 μm (paragraph 57).
Regarding claim 13, Forrest 384 teaches wherein the high index polymer matching layer has an index of refraction of 1.7 to 2.0 (paragraph 48), and a transmission greater than 90% (paragraph 65), and wherein the high-index polymer matching layer includes a flat surface configured for depositing organics (a flat surface as shown in Fig. 4 configured for depositing 320).
Regarding claim 16, Forrest 384 teaches wherein the device is at least one type selected from the group consisting of: a flat panel 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 laser printer, a telephone, a mobile phone, a tablet, a phablet, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a wearable device, a laptop computer, a digital camera, a camcorder, a viewfinder, a micro-display having an active area with a primary diagonal of 2 inches or less, a 3-D display, a virtual reality or augmented reality display, a vehicle, a video wall comprising multiple displays tiled together, a theater or stadium screen, and a sign (paragraph 43).
Regarding claim 17, Forrest 384 teaches wherein the device has a maximum outcoupling efficiency of about 40% (paragraph 46).
Regarding claim 18, Forrest 384 in view of Forrest teaches each and every limitations of the OLED device identical to that of the claim as discussed above. Furthermore, the claim does not require any additional limitation structurally and/or compositionally to distinguish over Forrest 384 in view of Forrest teaching the identical OLED device. As such claimed property or function, “wherein the device has a Purcell factor about 5”, presumed to be inherent: Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) and MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 19, Forrest 384 teaches wherein the SEMLA layer has a thickness of 1 μm to 20 μm (paragraph 49).
Regarding claim 20, Forrest 384 teaches an organic light emitting device (OLED) production method, comprising: providing a substrate layer (110/310); etching a sub-electrode microlens array (SEMLA) (300) into the substrate layer; depositing a first electrode layer (115) over the substrate layer; depositing a light emitting layer (135) over the first electrode; and depositing a second electrode layer (160) over the light emitting layer (Figs. 1 and 4 and paragraphs 36, 41, 47-49, and 55).
Forrest 384 does not explicitly teach 1) depositing a distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) layer over the substrate layer and depositing a Purcell Factor (PF) enhancement layer over the second electrode layer and 2) the first electrode layer comprises a metal alloy sub-layer between first and second ITO sub-layers.
Regarding 1) depositing a distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) layer over the substrate layer and depositing a Purcell Factor (PF) enhancement layer over the second electrode layer, Forrest teaches an organic light emitting device production method, comprising: depositing a distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) layer (511) over a substrate layer (510) and depositing a Purcell Factor (PF) enhancement layer (a top metal/dielectric layer) over a second electrode layer (501) for improving/enhancing device characteristics of the organic light emitting diode (Figs. 5 and 14 and paragraphs 19, 75, 138, 178, and 184). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Forrest 384 with that of Forrest for improving/enhancing device characteristics of the organic light emitting diode.
Regarding 2) the anode comprising a metal alloy sub-layer between first and second ITO sub-layers, Ko teaches an organic light emitting device (an OLED), comprising: an anode comprising a metal alloy sub-layer between first and second ITO sub-layers (301 formed of ITO/Ag alloy/ITO or ITO/Ag-Pd-Cu alloy/ITO) (Figs. 1 and 3 and paragraphs 25-27 and 42). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Forrest 384 with that of Ko in order to utilize a multi-layer configuration of the anode formed of ITO/Ag alloy/ITO or ITO/Ag-Pd-Cu alloy/ITO as a readily available anode electrode material choice known in the art for obtaining the desired conductive and optical properties for the OLED device.
Regarding claim 21, for the limitation “the light emitting layer comprises a stack of a plurality of light emitting sub-layers”, since Forrest 384 teaches an emissive layer 220 for an OLED 200 and layers having various sublayers (Fig. 2 and paragraphs 38-39), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the emissive layer 220 from Forrest 384 would also include vertically stacked sublayers such as different/same light emitting sublayers in order to provide the desired light emitting color output for the OLED.
Regarding claim 22, Ko teaches wherein the second electrode layer is configured as a cathode comprising an Ag:Cu thin layer (340 formed of Ag would read on the limitation) (Fig. 1 and paragraph 61).
Regarding claim 23, Ko teaches wherein the second electrode layer is configured as a cathode comprising Ag and a thin cathode stabilization material comprising Ti or Al (for example, 340 formed of a mixture of Ag and Al) (Fig. 1 and paragraphs 61). While Forrest 384 in view of Ko does not explicitly teach that the cathode layer is a multilayer formation with the thin cathode stabilization material having a thickness of 2-3 nm adjacent to the Ag layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the multi-layer stack structure for the cathode with readily available cathode materials such as Ag and Ti/Al as discussed above as well-known cathode material choices within the optimal thickness for obtaining the desired conductivity and/or reflectivity for the cathode of the OLED device.
Regarding claim 24, Ko teaches wherein the metal alloy sub-layer of the first electrode comprises an Ag and Cu (301 formed of ITO/Ag-Pd-Cu alloy/ITO) (paragraph 42).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejections with Ko et al. (US 2015/0280171 A1) as set forth above in this Office Action.
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 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
Prosecution Insights