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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/09/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
Acknowledgment is made of the amendment filed March 9th, 2026 (“AMSB”), in which: Claims 1, 10, 13, 18, and 20 are amended; claim 7 is canceled; no new claim are added; and the rejections of the claims are traversed. Claims 1 – 6 and 8 – 20 are currently pending an Office action on the merits as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 – 6 and 8 – 20 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection (Amendments).
Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 – 6 and 8 – 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 18, and 20, the term “identical to” appears to be used as a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “identical to” appears to be a relative term because, to the examiner’s best understanding, applicant’s use of “identical to” does not align with a definition meaning a 100% match and/or an exact match. Ultimately, it is unclear what property between the first and second light emitting layers and the first and second light, respectively, is supposed be identical, i.e., is polarization, wavelength, amplitude, etc. or some combination thereof supposed to be identical? Applicant appears to use the term “identical to” to mean “sharing a quality”. The limitations “a light emitted by the first light emitting layers included in each of the plurality of first light emitting stacks is identical to the first light” and “a light emitted by the second light emitting layers included in each of the plurality of second light emitting stacks is identical to the second light” are not defined by claims 1, 18, and 20, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Considering applicant’s disclosure, a first pixel area (e.g., instant Fig. 2A; PXA-B) and a second pixel area (e.g., instant Fig. 2A; PXA-R/PXA-G) includes color filters (e.g., first through third color filters CF1 – CF3. See [0097] of instant disclosure) such that, as recited in instant claim 1, “a first pixel area configured to emit a first light and a second pixel area configured to emit a second light different from the first light” would definitively imply that a first light and a second light are formed after the light passes through the color filter layer; and thus, the newly amended features of claims 1, 18, and 20 wherein “a light emitted by the first light emitting layers included in each of the plurality of first light emitting stacks is identical to the first light, and ... a light emitted by the second light emitting layers included in each of the plurality of second light emitting stacks is identical to the second light” seems to communicate to the examiner that the light emitting by the light emitting layers is a 100% match and/or an exact match to the light exiting the color filter layer. This would imply that that color filter layer is not modifying the light passing through from the first and second light emitting layers, which the examiner believes is not what the applicant is intending to communicate. Instead, examiner will interpret the term “identical to” to mean that a quality, i.e., color, between the first and second light emitting layers and the first and second light, respectively, are the same. Claims 2 – 6, 8 – 17 depend on claim 1 and claim 19 depends on claim 18; and therefore claims 2 – 6, 8 – 17, and 19 are rejected by virtue under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. 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.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claims 1, 3 – 4, 6, 8 – 11, 14 – 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20180158884 A1), and further in view of Lim et al. (US 20200044178 A1), and Kum et al. (US 20150372250 A1).
Regarding independent Claim 1, Lee teaches a display device comprising:
a base layer (Fig. 5A; substrate 700) comprising a first pixel area (Fig. 5A; color regions 510 over substrate 700 is considered by the examiner to be a first pixel area) configured to emit a first light (e.g., blue light as taught in [0019]. Also see [0022]) and a second pixel area (Fig. 5A; color regions 520 and 530 over substrate 700 is considered by the examiner to be a second pixel area) configured to emit a second light ([0022] and [0044]) different from the first light ([0019] and [0022]);
a first electrode (Fig. 5A; first electrode layer 410) on the base layer;
a second electrode (Fig. 5A; second electrode layer 450) on the first electrode and facing the first electrode (Fig. 5A);
a plurality of first light emitting stacks (Fig. 5A shows the first pixel area including a first organic light emitting layer 110 and second organic light emitting layer 130, each considered to be a light emitting stack. Thus, organic light emitting layers 110 and 130 are considered to be a plurality first light emitting stacks) between the first electrode (Fig. 5A) and the second electrode (Fig. 5A) and in the first pixel area (Fig. 5A);
a first charge generation layer (Fig. 5A; first charge generation unit 120) between the first light emitting stacks (Figs. 5A);
a plurality of second light emitting stacks (Fig. 5A shows the second pixel area including a third organic light emitting layer 210 and a fourth organic light emitting layer 310, each considered to be a light emitting stack. Thus, organic light emitting layers 210 and 310 are considered to be a plurality second light emitting stack) between the first electrode (Fig. 5A) and the second electrode (Fig. 5A) and in the second pixel area (Fig. 5A); and …
wherein the first charge generation layer comprises a first metal ([0015]) …
wherein the first charge generation layer is directly below an uppermost of the first light emitting stacks and (Fig. 5A)… and
wherein each of the first light emitting stacks comprises a first light emitting layer (Fig. 5A; either organic light emitting layer 110 or 130 taught to emit blue light. See [0019]) configured to emit the first light ([0019]), so a light emitted by the first light emitting layers included in each of the plurality of first light emitting stacks is identical to the first light (Blue light as taught in [0019]), and
each of the second light emitting stacks comprises a second light emitting layer (Fig. 5A; either organic light emitting layer 210 (red) or 310 (green) wherein the second pixel area is configured to emit green or red light. See [0022]) configured to emit the second light, so a light emitted by the second light emitting layers included in each of the plurality of second light emitting stacks is identical to the second light (blue or red light as taught in [0019]).
However, Lee remains silent regarding a display device including:
a second charge generation layer between the second light emitting stacks, … the second charge generation layer comprises a second metal different from the first metal, and the second metal has a work function equal to or greater than about 1.7eV and equal to or smaller than about 3.2eV,
… the second charge generation layer is directly below an uppermost of the second light emitting stacks, ...
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lim teaches a similar OLED display device structure (Fig. 2) wherein red and green pixels may share organic layers and charge generation layers separate from the blue pixels (Fig. 2). Further, Lim teaches in Fig. 2 and [0058] that a charge generation layer may be between a plurality of stacks 610 and 630, which include light emitting layers ([0079] and [0088]). Lim teachings provide an example to one of ordinary skill in the art for how they may form a display device including a first and a second charge generation layer in a first and a second pixel area, respectively. Thus, examiner asserts that it would be obvious to modify Lee further in view of Lim to form a display device including a second charge generation layer between the second light emitting stacks wherein the second charge generation layer is directly below an uppermost of the second light emitting stacks.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Lee’s display device structure to include Lim’s second charge generation layer over the second pixel area between the second light emitting stacks wherein the second charge generation layer is directly below an uppermost of the second light emitting stacks, because such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. More specifically, Lee’s display device structure as modified by Lim’s second charge generation layer between can yield a predictable result of appropriately balancing charges in the diode structure since that is a function of a charge generation layer. Since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable before the effective filing date of the instant invention.
Further, in the same field of endeavor, Kum teaches a light emitting device including a first charge generation layer (CGL) 140 formed between light emitting units ([0094]); a second CGL 150 formed between light emitting units ([0139]); and wherein the first and second CGL’s 140 and 150, respectively, are taught to have different metal contents (at least [0161]). Kum states in [0161] that,
“a content of an alkali metal or alkali earth metal in the N-CGL of the first CGL 140 is referred to as “metal content 1”. Further, a content of an alkali metal or alkali earth metal in the N-CGL of the second CGL 150 is referred to as “metal content 2”.”
Examiner understands the above from Kum’s disclosure to teach that the metal content between the charge generation layers are distinct, i.e., metal content 1 and metal content 2. Such that a display device wherein the second charge generation layer comprises a second metal different from the first metal would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention from at least the disclosure of Kum. Examiner asserts that it would have been obvious to modify the display device of Lee and Lim with Kum’s distinct charge generation layers to form the display device wherein the first charge generation layer comprises a first metal the second charge generation layer comprises a second metal different from the first metal.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the charge generation layers of Lee, further in view of Lim, to include Kum’s teaching of different metal contents between charge generation layers because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Kum’s charge generation layers are comparable to the charge generation layers of Lee, further in view of Lim, because they are both formed for OLED pixels. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the charge generation layers of Lee, further in view of Lim, to include Kum’s teaching of different metal contents between charge generation layers with the predictable result of meeting the distinct electrical needs of the different pixel areas, i.e., the first and second pixel areas.
Further, Kum teaches in [0143] that the metal doping in the second CGL 150 may be at least one of alkali metals or alkali earth metals having a work function in the range of 2.2 to 4.1 eV. Examiner asserts that it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention from at least the disclosure of Kum to include a metal in a charge generation layer wherein the metal has a work function equal to or greater than about 1.7eV and equal to or smaller than about 3.2eV.
Therefore, a second charge generation layer including a second metal wherein the second metal has a work function equal to or greater than about 1.7eV and equal to or smaller than about 3.2eV would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention, from at least [0143] of Kum, because absent evidence or disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d454, 105 USQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1995).
Furthermore, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the dimensions claimed or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the claimed dimensions or variable are critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding dependent Claim 3, Lee, further in view of Lim and Kum, teach the display device of claim 1, wherein
the second metal comprises at least one of lithium (Li), potassium (K), rubidium (Rb), cesium (Cs), barium (Ba), europium (Eu), sodium (Na), strontium (Sr), samarium (Sm), calcium (Ca), terbium (Tb), or cerium (Ce) (Kum: [0143]).
Regarding dependent Claim 4, Lee, further in view of Lim and Kum, teach the display device of claim 1; However, Lee remains silent regarding a display device further comprising:
an electron injection doping layer on the first electrode and under the first light emitting stacks and the second light emitting stacks; and
a hole injection doping layer on the first light emitting stacks and the second light emitting stacks and under the second electrode.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kum teaches a white organic light emitting device 200, wherein a first and second light emitting stack, e.g., second light emitting unit 120 and third light emitting unit 130, respectively, are included in the white organic light emitting device 200. Further, Kum teaches in [0140] that the N-CGL is configured to inject electrons to the second light emitting unit 120, and the P-CGL is configured to inject holes into the third light emitting unit 130; such that the examiner is interpreting N-CGL ([0141]), to be an electron injection doping layer on the first electrode (Fig. 3; first electrode 102). As shown in Fig. 3, there are two distinct light emitting units, i.e., second light emitting unit 120 and third light emitting unit 130, either of which may be a first or second light emitting stack. For example, second light emitting unit 120 stack order may be used to modify Lee and Lim’s first or second light emitting stack orders. With this understanding, Kum further teaches an electron injection doping layer on the first electrode and under the first light emitting stacks and the second light emitting stacks
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Lee and Lim’s tandem OLED structure to include Kum’s ordering of layers in their tandem OLED, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Kum’s tandem OLED structure is comparable to Lee and Lim’s tandem OLED structure because they are both viable constructions for a tandem OLED, i.e., they function to emit light. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lee and Lim’s tandem OLED structure to include Kum’s ordering of layers in their tandem OLED with the predictable result of forming a functioning display device.
Similarly, Kum teaches in [0140] that the P-CGL is configured to inject holes into the third light emitting unit 130; such that the examiner is interpreting a P-CGL under the third light emitting unit 130, to be a hole injection doping layer on the first light emitting stacks and the second light emitting stacks and under the second electrode.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Lee and Lim’s tandem OLED structure to include Kum’s ordering of layers in their tandem OLED, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Kum’s tandem OLED structure is comparable to Lee and Lim’s tandem OLED structure because they are both viable constructions for a tandem OLED, i.e., they function to emit light. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lee and Lim’s tandem OLED structure to include Kum’s ordering of layers in their tandem OLED with the predictable result of forming a functioning display device.
Regarding dependent Claim 6, Lee, further in view of Lim and Kum, teach the display device of claim 4, wherein
each of the electron injection doping layer and the hole injection doping layer entirely overlaps the first pixel area and the second pixel area.
The combination of Lee and Lim, as modified by Kum, yields the display device wherein each of the electron injection doping layer and the hole injection doping layer entirely overlaps the first pixel area and the second pixel area (Fig. 2 of Lim and Fig. 5A of Lee).
Regarding dependent Claim 8, Lee, further in view of Lim and Kum, teach the display device of claim 1, wherein
the second charge generation layer does not overlap the first pixel area (Lim: Fig. 2).
Regarding dependent Claim 9, Lee, further in view of Lim and Kum, teach the display device of claim 1; however, Lee remains silent on the display device further comprising:
a pixel definition layer on the base layer and provided with a plurality of openings defined therethrough to respectively correspond to the first pixel area and the second pixel area ; and
a bank on the pixel definition layer and between at least a portion of the first light emitting stacks and at least a portion of the second light emitting stacks.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lim teaches a display device including:
a pixel definition layer (Fig. 2; insulating layer 300) on the base layer (Fig. 2; substrate 100) and provided with a plurality of openings (Fig. 2; trench T) defined therethrough to respectively correspond to the first pixel area and the second pixel area (Fig. 2); and
a bank (Fig. 2; fence structure 500) on the pixel definition layer (Fig. 2) and between at least a portion of the first light emitting stacks (Fig. 2) and at least a portion of the second light emitting stacks (Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Lee’s display device structure to include Lim’s pixel definition layer and bank, because such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. More specifically, Lee’s display device as modified by Lim’s pixel definition layer and bank can yield a predictable result of helping improve the light emission efficiency of the device since pixel definition layers and banks can help reflect light emitted from the diode structure. Since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable before the effective filing date of the instant invention.
Regarding dependent Claim 10, Lee, further in view of Lim and Kum, teach the display device of claim 1, wherein
the first electrode is a reflective electrode (Lee: [0024]), the second electrode is a transflective electrode (Lee: [0024]) or a transmissive electrode (Lee: [0024]), and the first and second lights are configured to be emitted in a direction from the first electrode to the second electrode (Lee: [0044] and Fig. 5A; second electrode 450).
Regarding dependent Claim 11, Lee, further in view of Lim and Kum, teach the display device of claim 1; however, Lee remains silent on the display device further comprising
a circuit layer on the base layer and comprising a transistor electrically connected to the first electrode.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lim teaches a display device including:
a circuit layer (Fig. 2; circuit device layer 200) on the base layer (Fig. 2; substrate 100) and comprising a transistor electrically connected to the first electrode ([0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Lee’s display device structure to include Lim’s circuit layer, because such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. More specifically, Lee’s display device as modified by Lim’s circuit pixel layer can yield a predictable result of providing the necessary driver circuits for operating the display device since the circuit pixel layers includes driving circuitry. Since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable before the effective filing date of the instant invention.
Regarding dependent Claim 14, Lee, further in view of Lim and Kum, teach the display device of claim 1, wherein
the base layer comprises a third pixel area (Lee: Fig. 6A; area where the third light emitting units 300 are disposed) adjacent to the first pixel area (Lee: Fig. 6A) and the second pixel area (Lee: Fig. 6A), and the first light emitting stacks overlap the third pixel area (Lee: Figs. 5A and 6A).
Regarding dependent Claim 15, Lee, further in view of Lim and Kum, teach the display device of claim 14, wherein
the base layer comprises a non- pixel area (Lee: Fig. 6A; area where there are no light emitting units disposed. See Fig. 5A and the structure separating light emitting layers 130, 210, and 310) defined therein to be around each of the first pixel area (Lee: Figs. 5A and 6A), the second pixel area (Lee: Figs. 5A and 6A), and the third pixel area (Lee: Figs. 5A and 6A), and one or more of the first light emitting stacks overlap the non-pixel area (Lee: Figs. 5A and 6A).
Regarding dependent Claim 16, Lee, further in view of Lim and Kum, teach the display device of claim 1, wherein
the second metal has an electrical conductivity higher than an electrical conductivity of the first metal.
From the disclosure of Kum, the metals included in the first and second charge generation layers, i.e., the first and second metals, respectively, may be different metals selected from alkali metal such as lithium (Li), sodium (Na), potassium (K), or cesium (Cs), or an alkali earth metal such as magnesium (Mg), strontium (Sr), barium (Ba), or radium (Ra), or a combination thereof (Kum: [0143]). Thus, a combination implied to be viable by Kum’s disclosure may be, as an example, potassium for the first metal and cesium for the second metal. Examiner asserts by use of Official Notice that the conductivity for metals on the periodic table increases going from the right to the left and from the top to the bottom. As cesium is closer to the bottom of the periodic table than potassium, cesium is more conductive. Therefore, Kum implies that the second metal has an electrical conductivity higher than an electrical conductivity of the first metal through their disclosure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the display device of Lee, Lim, and Kum to include a relationship between the charge generations layers wherein the second metal has an electrical conductivity higher than an electrical conductivity of the first metal, as provided by Kum, because such a modification is taught, suggested, or motivated by the art. More specifically, the motivation to modify the display device of Lee, Lim, and Kum to include a relationship between the charge generations layers wherein the second metal has an electrical conductivity higher than an electrical conductivity of the first metal is expressly provided by Official Notice, because as established in rejection claim 1, Kum teaches that different doping metals may be used in the distinct charge generations layers, wherein Official Notice is taken from the periodic table and the known trends associated with the organization of the periodic table, specifically regarding the trend related to conductivity of metals. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the display device of Lee, Lim, and Kum to include a relationship between the charge generations layers wherein the second metal has an electrical conductivity higher than an electrical conductivity of the first metal with the motivation of meeting the distinct electrical needs of the different pixel areas, i.e., the first and second pixel areas.
Regarding dependent Claim 17, Lee, further in view of Lim and Kum, teach the display device of claim 1, wherein
the first charge generation layer comprises an n-type first charge generation layer (Lee: [0015]), the second charge generation layer comprises an n-type second charge generation layer (yielded from contributions to Lee from Lim and Kum), and the n-type first charge generation layer comprises the first metal (see examiner’s comment below), and then-type second charge generation layer comprises the second metal (see examiner’s comment below).
Lee teaches an overlap of the materials relied upon from the discourse of Kum (Lee: [0015]); such that Lee, further in view of Lim and Kum teach the n-type first charge generation layer comprises the first metal, and then-type second charge generation layer comprises the second metal. See rejection of claim 1 for combination statement regarding modifications of the charge generation layers between Lee, Lim, and Kum.
Regarding independent Claim 20, Lee teaches a display device comprising:
a base layer (Fig. 5A; substrate 700) comprising a first pixel area (Fig. 5A; color regions 510 over substrate 700 is considered by the examiner to be a first pixel area) configured to emit a first light (e.g., blue light as taught in [0019]. Also see [0022]) (Fig. 5A; color regions 520 and 530 over substrate 700 is considered by the examiner to be a second pixel area) configured to emit a second light ([0022] and [0044]) [[,]] different from the first light([0019] and [0022]);
a first electrode (Fig. 5A; first electrode layer 410) on the base layer;
a second electrode (Fig. 5A; second electrode layer 450) on the first electrode and facing the first electrode (Fig. 5A); …
a plurality of first light emitting stacks (Fig. 5A shows the first pixel area including a first organic light emitting layer 110 and second organic light emitting layer 130, each considered to be a light emitting stack. Thus, organic light emitting layers 110 and 130 are considered to be a plurality first light emitting stacks) … and in the first pixel area (Fig. 5A);
a first charge generation layer (Fig. 5A; first charge generation unit 120) between the first light emitting stacks (Fig. 5A);
a plurality of second light emitting stacks (Fig. 5A shows the second pixel area including a third organic light emitting layer 210 and a fourth organic light emitting layer 310, each considered to be a light emitting stack. Thus, organic light emitting layers 210 and 310 are considered to be a plurality second light emitting stack) … and in the second pixel area (Fig. 5A); …
wherein the first charge generation layer comprises a first metal ([0015]), …
wherein the first charge generation layer is directly below an uppermost of the first light emitting stacks (Fig. 5A) … and
wherein each of the first light emitting stacks comprises a first light emitting layer (Fig. 5A; either organic light emitting layer 110 or 130 taught to emit blue light. See [0019]) configured to emit the first light ([0019]), so a light emitted by the first light emitting layers included in each of the plurality of first light emitting stacks is identical to the first light (Blue light as taught in [0019]), and
each of the second light emitting stacks comprises a second light emitting layer (Fig. 5A; either organic light emitting layer 210 (red) or 310 (green) wherein the second pixel area is configured to emit green or red light. See [0022]) configured to emit the second light, so a light emitted by the second light emitting layers included in each of the plurality of second light emitting stacks is identical to the second light (blue or red light as taught in [0019]).
However, Lee remains silent on the display device including:
… an electron injection doping layer on the first electrode; …
a plurality of first light emitting stacks on the electron injection doping layer …
a plurality of second light emitting stacks on the electron injection doping layer … a hole injection doping layer on the plurality of first light emitting stacks and the plurality of second light emitting stacks and under the second electrode, … and a second charge generation layer between the second light emitting stacks; and …
the second charge generation layer comprises a second metal different from the first metal, and
… the second charge generation layer is directly below an uppermost of the second light emitting stacks.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lim teaches a similar OLED display device structure (Fig. 2) wherein red and green pixels may share organic layers and charge generation layers separate from the blue pixels (Fig. 2). Further, Lim teaches in Fig. 2 and [0058] that a charge generation layer may be between a plurality of stacks 610 and 630, which include light emitting layers ([0079] and [0088]). Lim teachings provide an example to one of ordinary skill in the art for how they may form a display device including a first and a second charge generation layer in a first and a second pixel area, respectively. Thus, examiner asserts that it would be obvious to modify Lee further in view of Lim to form a display device including a second charge generation layer between the second light emitting stacks wherein the second charge generation layer is directly below an uppermost of the second light emitting stacks.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Lee’s display device structure to include Lim’s second charge generation layer over the second pixel area between the second light emitting stacks wherein the second charge generation layer is directly below an uppermost of the second light emitting stacks, because such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. More specifically, Lee’s display device structure as modified by Lim’s second charge generation layer between can yield a predictable result of appropriately balancing charges in the diode structure since that is a function of a charge generation layer. Since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable before the effective filing date of the instant invention.
Further, in the same field of endeavor, Kum teaches a light emitting device including a first charge generation layer (CGL) 140 formed between light emitting units ([0094]); a second CGL 150 formed between light emitting units ([0139]); and wherein the first and second CGL’s 140 and 150, respectively, are taught to have different metal contents (at least [0161]). Kum states in [0161] that,
“a content of an alkali metal or alkali earth metal in the N-CGL of the first CGL 140 is referred to as “metal content 1”. Further, a content of an alkali metal or alkali earth metal in the N-CGL of the second CGL 150 is referred to as “metal content 2”.”
Examiner understands the above from Kum’s disclosure to teach that the metal content between the charge generation layers are distinct, i.e., metal content 1 and metal content 2. Such that a display device wherein the second charge generation layer comprises a second metal different from the first metal would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention from at least the disclosure of Kum. Examiner asserts that it would have been obvious to modify the display device of Lee and Lim with Kum’s distinct charge generation layers to form the display device wherein the first charge generation layer comprises a first metal the second charge generation layer comprises a second metal different from the first metal.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the charge generation layers of Lee, further in view of Lim, to include Kum’s teaching of different metal contents between charge generation layers because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Kum’s charge generation layers are comparable to the charge generation layers of Lee, further in view of Lim, because they are both formed for OLED pixels. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the charge generation layers of Lee, further in view of Lim, to include Kum’s teaching of different metal contents between charge generation layers with the predictable result of meeting the distinct electrical needs of the different pixel areas, i.e., the first and second pixel areas.
Further, in the same field of endeavor, Kum teaches in [0140] that the N-CGL is configured to inject electrons to the second light emitting unit 120, and the P-CGL is configured to inject holes into the third light emitting unit 130; such that the examiner is interpreting first charge generation layer (CGL) 140, which includes N-CGL ([0141]), to be an electron injection doping layer on the first electrode (Fig. 3; first electrode 102). As shown in Fig. 3, there are two distinct light emitting units, i.e., second light emitting unit 120 and third light emitting unit 130, either of which may be a first or second light emitting stack. For example, second light emitting unit 120 may be used as a first or second light emitting stack, further in view of Lee and Lim. With this understanding, Kum further teaches a plurality of first light emitting stacks on the electron injection doping layer and a plurality of second light emitting stacks on the electron injection doping layer
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Lee’s OLED structure to include Kum’s ordering of layers in their tandem OLED, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Kum’s tandem OLED structure is comparable to Lee’s tandem OLED structure because they are both viable constructions for a tandem OLED, i.e., they function to emit light. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lee’s tandem OLED structure to include Kum’s ordering of layers in their tandem OLED with the predictable result of forming a functioning display device.
Similarly, Kum teaches in [0140] that the P-CGL is configured to inject holes into the third light emitting unit 130; such that the examiner is interpreting a P-CGL under the third light emitting unit 130, to be a hole injection doping layer on the plurality of first light emitting stacks and the plurality of second light emitting stacks and under the second electrode.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Lee’s tandem OLED structure to include Kum’s ordering of layers in their tandem OLED, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Kum’s tandem OLED structure is comparable to Lee’s tandem OLED structure because they are both viable constructions for a tandem OLED, i.e., they function to emit light. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lee’s tandem OLED structure to include Kum’s ordering of layers in their tandem OLED with the predictable result of forming a functioning display device.
Claims 2, 5, and 18 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20180158884 A1), and further in view of Lim et al. (US 20200044178 A1), Kum et al. (US 20150372250 A1), and Fadhel et al. (US 20160322568 A1).
Regarding dependent Claim 2, Lee, further in view of Lim and Kum, teach the display device of claim 1; however, Lee remain silent wherein
the first metal comprises ytterbium (Yb).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Fadhel teaches a tandem OLED wherein ytterbium (Yb) may be used in a charge generation layer ([0140]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the dopants discussed by Lee and Kum that may be used as a first metal to include ytterbium (Yb), as disclosed by Fadhel, because such a modification is the result of simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result. More specifically, the dopants discussed by Lee and Kum and ytterbium (Yb) as a dopant, as disclosed by Fadhel, perform the same general and predictable function, the predictable function being a suitable dopant for a charge generation layer in a tandem OLED. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution of the dopants for the first metal as discussed by Lee and Kum by replacing it with ytterbium (Yb), as disclosed by Fadhel. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious before the effective filing date of the instant invention.
Regarding dependent Claim 5, Lee, further in view of Lim and Kum, teach the display device of claim 4, wherein
the electron injection doping layer comprises a third metal having (Kum: [0155]) a work function equal to or greater than about 1.7eV and equal to or smaller than about 3.2eV (Kum: [0143]), and the hole injection doping layer comprises an organic material (Kum: [0145]) …
However, Kum, remains silent regarding the hole injection doping layer
… with a highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) level equal to or greater than about -6.0eV and equal to or smaller than about -4.0eV.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Fadhel teaches that their hole transport layer HTL also functions as a hole injection layer HIL. Further, Fadhel teaches in [0088] that their hole transport may include an organic material, e.g., copper phthalocyanine (CuPc), which HOMO level is approximately −5.2 eV.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Kum’s organic material for the hole injection doping layer to include the materials disclosed by Fadhel’s hole injection layer because such a modification is the result of simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result. More specifically, Kum’s organic material for the hole injection doping layer and the materials disclosed by Fadhel’s hole injection layer perform the same general and predictable function, the predictable function being host material for a hole injection layer. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution of Kum’s organic material for the hole injection doping layer by replacing it with the materials disclosed by Fadhel’s hole injection layer. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious before the effective filing date of the instant invention.
Further, a hole injection doping layer comprising an organic material with a highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) level equal to or greater than about -6.0eV and equal to or smaller than about -4.0eV would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention, from at least [0088] of Fadhel, because absent evidence or disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d454, 105 USQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1995).
Furthermore, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the dimensions claimed or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the claimed dimensions or variable are critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding independent Claim 18, Lee teaches a display device comprising:
a base layer (Fig. 5A; substrate 700) comprising a first pixel area (Fig. 5A; color regions 510 over substrate 700 is considered by the examiner to be a first pixel area) configured to emit a first light (e.g., blue light as taught in [0019]. Also see [0022]) (Fig. 5A; color regions 520 and 530 over substrate 700 is considered by the examiner to be a second pixel area) configured to emit a second light ([0022] and [0044]) different from the first light([0019] and [0022]);
a first electrode (Fig. 5A; first electrode layer 410) on the base layer;
a second electrode (Fig. 5A; second electrode layer 450) on the first electrode and facing the first electrode (Fig. 5A);
a plurality of first light emitting stacks (Fig. 5A shows the first pixel area including a first organic light emitting layer 110 and second organic light emitting layer 130, each considered to be a light emitting stack. Thus, organic light emitting layers 110 and 130 are considered to be a plurality first light emitting stacks) between the first electrode (Fig. 5A) and the second electrode (Fig. 5A) and in the first pixel area (Fig. 5A);
a first charge generation layer (Fig. 5A; first charge generation unit 120) between the first light emitting stacks (Figs. 5A);
a plurality of second light emitting stacks (Fig. 5A shows the second pixel area including a third organic light emitting layer 210 and a fourth organic light emitting layer 310, each considered to be a light emitting stack. Thus, organic light emitting layers 210 and 310 are considered to be a plurality second light emitting stack) between the first electrode (Fig. 5A) and the second electrode (Fig. 5A) and in the second pixel area (Fig. 5A); and …
wherein the first charge generation layer is directly below an uppermost of the first light emitting stacks (Fig. 5A) … and
wherein each of the first light emitting stacks comprises a first light emitting layer (Fig. 5A; either organic light emitting layer 110 or 130 taught to emit blue light. See [0019]) configured to emit the first light ([0019]), so a light emitted by the first light emitting layers included in each of the plurality of first light emitting stacks is identical to the first light (Blue light as taught in [0019]), and
each of the second light emitting stacks comprises a second light emitting layer (Fig. 5A; either organic light emitting layer 210 (red) or 310 (green) wherein the second pixel area is configured to emit green or red light. See [0022]) configured to emit the second light, so a light emitted by the second light emitting layers included in each of the plurality of second light emitting stacks is identical to the second light (blue or red light as taught in [0019]).
However, Lee remains silent regarding,
a second charge generation layer between the second light emitting stacks,
wherein the first charge generation layer comprises ytterbium (Yb), and the second charge generation layer comprises at least one of lithium (Li), potassium (K), rubidium (Rb), cesium (Cs), barium (Ba), europium (Eu), sodium (Na), strontium (Sr), samarium (Sm), calcium (Ca), terbium (Tb), or cerium (Ce), …
... and the second charge generation layer is directly below an uppermost of the second light emitting stacks, ...
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lim teaches a similar OLED display device structure (Fig. 2) wherein red and green pixels may share organic layers and charge generation layers separate from the blue pixels (Fig. 2). Further, Lim teaches in Fig. 2 and [0058] that a charge generation layer may be between a plurality of stacks 610 and 630, which include light emitting layers ([0079] and [0088]). Lim teachings provide an example to one of ordinary skill in the art for how they may form a display device including a first and a second charge generation layer in a first and a second pixel area, respectively. Thus, examiner asserts that it would be obvious to modify Lee further in view of Lim to form a display device including a second charge generation layer between the second light emitting stacks wherein the second charge generation layer is directly below an uppermost of the second light emitting stacks.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Lee’s display device structure to include Lim’s second charge generation layer over the second pixel area between the second light emitting stacks wherein the second charge generation layer is directly below an uppermost of the second light emitting stacks, because such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. More specifically, Lee’s display device structure as modified by Lim’s second charge generation layer between can yield a predictable result of appropriately balancing charges in the diode structure since that is a function of a charge generation layer. Since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable before the effective filing date of the instant invention.
Further, in the same field of endeavor, Kum teaches a light emitting device including a first charge generation layer (CGL) 140 formed between light emitting units ([0094]); a second CGL 150 formed between light emitting units ([0139]); and wherein the first and second CGL’s 140 and 150, respectively, are taught to have different metal contents (at least [0143]). Kum states in [0143] that,
“That is, the metal doping the N-CGL included in the first CGL 140 and the second CGL 150 may be at least one of alkali metals or alkali earth metals having a work function in the range of 2.2 to 4.1 eV. For example, the N-CGL may be formed of an organic layer doped with an alkali metal such as lithium (Li), sodium (Na), potassium (K), or cesium (Cs), or an alkali earth metal such as magnesium (Mg), strontium (Sr), barium (Ba), or radium (Ra), or a combination thereof. However, it is not necessarily limited thereto.”
Further in view of Kum’s [0161], examiner understands Kum to teach that the metal content between the charge generation layers are distinct, i.e., metal content 1 and metal content 2. Such that a display device wherein the second charge generation layer comprises at least one of lithium (Li), potassium (K), rubidium (Rb), cesium (Cs), barium (Ba), europium (Eu), sodium (Na), strontium (Sr), samarium (Sm), calcium (Ca), terbium (Tb), or cerium (Ce) would have been obvious.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the charge generation layers of Lee, further in view of Lim, to include Kum’s teaching of different metal contents between charge generation layers because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Kum’s charge generation layers are comparable to the charge generation layers of Lee, further in view of Lim, because they are both formed for OLED pixels. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the charge generation layers of Lee, further in view of Lim, to include Kum’s teaching of different metal contents between charge generation layers with the predictable result of meeting the distinct electrical needs of the different pixel areas, i.e., the first and second pixel areas.
Further, in the same field of endeavor, Fadhel teaches a tandem OLED wherein ytterbium (Yb) may be used in a charge generation layer ([0140]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the dopants discussed by Lee and Kum that may be used as a first metal to include ytterbium (Yb), as disclosed by Fadhel, because such a modification is the result of simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result. More specifically, the dopants discussed by Lee and Kum and ytterbium (Yb) as a dopant, as disclosed by Fadhel, perform the same general and predictable function, the predictable function being a suitable dopant for a charge generation layer in a tandem OLED. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution of the dopants for the first metal as discussed by Lee and Kum by replacing it with ytterbium (Yb), as disclosed by Fadhel. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious before the effective filing date of the instant invention.
Regarding dependent Claim 19, Lee, further in view of Lim, Kum, and Fadhel, teach the display device of claim 18, wherein
the first charge generation layer does not overlap the second pixel area (Lim: Fig. 2), and the second charge generation layer does not overlap the first pixel area (Lim: Fig. 2).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20180158884 A1), and further in view of Lim et al. (US 20200044178 A1), Kum et al. (US 20150372250 A1), and Seo et al. (US 20130240851 A1).
Regarding dependent Claim 12, Lee, further in view of Lim and Kum, teach the display device of claim 11; however, Lim remains silent wherein
the transistor is an NMOS transistor.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Seo teaches that display device circuitry may include an NMOS circuit ([0205]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the display device of Lee and Lim to include Seo’s NMOS transistor, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Seo’s NMOS transistor is comparable to Lim’s transistor structure because they are both transistors for driving pixels. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lim’s circuit layer to include Seo’s NMOS transistor with the predictable result of forming a circuit layer for a display device.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20180158884 A1), and further in view of Lim et al. (US 20200044178 A1), Kum et al. (US 20150372250 A1), and Sun et al. (US 20160141542 A1).
Regarding dependent Claim 13, Lee, further in view of Lim and Kum, teach the display device of claim 1; however, Lee remains silent regarding the display device wherein
each of the first light emitting stacks comprises:
a first electron transport layer adjacent to the first electrode;
the first light emitting layer on the first electron transport layer; and
a first hole transport layer spaced apart from the first electron transport layer with the first light emitting layer interposed therebetween and adjacent to the second electrode, and
wherein each of the second light emitting stacks comprises:
a second electron transport layer adjacent to the first electrode;
the second light emitting layer on the second electron transport layer; and
a second hole transport layer spaced apart from the second electron transport layer with the second light emitting layer interposed therebetween and adjacent to the second electrode.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lim teaches the display device wherein:
each of the first light emitting stacks (first stack 610 and second stack 630 in subpixel P1) comprises:
a first electron transport layer (Fig. 3; electron transport layer ETL)…
the first light emitting layer (Fig. 3; blue (B) emitting layer EML(B) and yellow-green (YG) emitting layer (EML(YG)) …
a first hole transport layer (Fig. 3; hole transport layer HTL) spaced apart from the first electron transport layer with the first light emitting layer interposed therebetween (Fig. 3) and …
wherein each of the second light emitting stacks (first stack 610 and second stack 630 in subpixels P2 and P3)comprises:
a second electron transport layer (Fig. 3; electron transport layer ETL) …
the second light emitting layer (Fig. 3; blue (B) emitting layer EML(B) and yellow-green (YG) emitting layer (EML(YG)) …
a second hole transport layer (Fig. 3; hole transport layer HTL) spaced apart from the second electron transport layer with the second light emitting layer interposed therebetween (Fig. 3) …
However, Lee teaches an inverted diode structure to the display device wherein each of the first light emitting stacks comprises:
a first electron transport layer adjacent to the first electrode;
a first light emitting layer on the first electron transport layer; and
a first hole transport layer spaced apart from the first electron transport layer with the first light emitting layer interposed therebetween and adjacent to the second electrode, and
wherein each of the second light emitting stacks comprises:
a second electron transport layer adjacent to the first electrode;
a second light emitting layer on the second electron transport layer; and
a second hole transport layer spaced apart from the second electron transport layer with the second light emitting layer interposed therebetween and adjacent to the second electrode.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Sun teaches that for a given OLED structure, the layers of the light emitting units may be inverted/reversed and result in normal function of the device (See Figs. 4 and 10, and [0081]). The application of Sun’s teaching for inversion may be used to modify the display device of Lee and Lim, further in view of Kum, to result in the display device wherein:
each of the first light emitting stacks comprises:
a first electron transport layer adjacent to the first electrode;
a first light emitting layer on the first electron transport layer; and
a first hole transport layer spaced apart from the first electron transport layer with the first light emitting layer interposed therebetween and adjacent to the second electrode, and
wherein each of the second light emitting stacks comprises:
a second electron transport layer adjacent to the first electrode;
a second light emitting layer on the second electron transport layer;
a second hole transport layer spaced apart from the second electron transport layer with the second light emitting layer interposed therebetween and adjacent to the second electrode.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Lim’s tandem OLED structure to have an inverted structure, as disclosed to be viable by Sun, who discloses that the stack order in an OLED may be inverted, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, the tandem OLED structures disclosed by Lee and Lim are comparable to Sun’s tandem OLED structure because they are both viable constructions for a tandem OLED, i.e., they function to emit light. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the tandem OLED structures disclosed by Lee and Lim to include an inverted form in their tandem OLED, as disclosed to be viable by Sun, with the predictable result of forming a functioning display device.
Conclusion
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure:
US 20210175296 A1 -– previously relied upon.
US 20220149312 A1 – teachings in Figs. 7 and 8, [0077], and [0127] – [0128] imply that the charge generation layers CGL1-3 are different from each other because charge generation layers CGL1-3 must function to appropriately balance the charge between emission stacks ([0077]).
US 20100301317 A1 – considered for their multiple charge generation layers.
US 20200227687 A1 – considered for their OLED structure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIO A AUTORE whose telephone number is (571)270-0059. 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, Chad Dicke can be reached on (571) 270-7996. 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.
MARIO A. AUTORE JR.
Examiner
Art Unit 2897
/MARIO ANDRES AUTORE JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2897 /CHAD M DICKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights