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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/04/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
Acknowledgment is made of the amendment filed 03/04/2026 (“A.NE”), in which: claims 1 is amended; no claims are cancelled; no new claims are added; and the rejection of the claims are traversed. Claims 1, 3 – 6, 8, 10 – 12, and 15 are currently pending an Office action on the merits as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1, 3 – 6, 8, 10 – 12, and 15 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Rejections
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 – 6, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Yang et al. (US 20190326542 A1), and further in view of Lee et al. (US 20220123061 A1), and Zakhidov et al. (US 20130240847 A1).
Regarding independent Claim 1, Yang (US 20190326542 A1) teaches an electroluminescent display device comprising:
a plurality of subpixels (Fig. 1; sub-pixels of the display panel DP) including a red subpixel (Figs. 3 and 5 – 7; subpixel associated with first light emitting layer EML1, e.g., [0112]), a green subpixel (Figs. 3 and 5 – 7; subpixel associated with second light emitting layer EML2, e.g., [0112]) and a blue subpixel (Figs. 3 and 5 – 7; subpixel associated with fifth light emitting layer EML5, e.g., [0112]), a first electrode (Figs. 3 and 5 – 7; first electrode EL1) and a second electrode (Figs. 3 and 5 – 7; second electrode EL2) in each of the red subpixel, the green subpixel and the blue subpixel (Figs. 3 and 5 – 7);
a first stack (Figs. 3 and 5 – 7; first light emitting unit EU1) including a first emission layer (Figs. 3 and 5 – 7; emission layer including EML1/2/5 ) between the first electrode (Figs. 3 and 5 – 7) and the second electrode (Figs. 3 and 5 – 7) in each of the red subpixel, the green subpixel and the blue subpixel (Figs. 3 and 5 – 7);
a second stack (Figs. 3 and 5 – 7; second light emitting unit EU2) including a second emission layer (Figs. 3 and 5 – 7; emission layer including EML3/4/6) between the first stack (Figs. 3 and 5 – 7) and the second electrode (Figs. 3 and 5 – 7) in each of the red subpixel, the green subpixel and the blue subpixel (Figs. 3 and 5 – 7); and
a charge generation layer (Figs. 3 and 5 – 7; charge generation unit CGLU) between the first stack (Figs. 3 and 5 – 7) and the second stack (Figs. 3 and 5 – 7) in each of the red subpixel, the green subpixel and the blue subpixel (Figs. 3 and 5 – 7), the charge generation layer including a first N-type charge generation layer (Figs. 3 and 5 – 7; n-type charge generation layer n-CGL) and a first P-type charge generation layer (Figs. 3 and 5 – 7; p-type charge generation layer p-CGL) above the first emission layer (Figs. 3 and 5 – 7),
... and
the second stack of the red subpixel includes an electron transport layer between the second emission layer and the second electrode (Figs. 3 and 5 – 7; second electron transport region ETR2 may include an electron transport layer, see [0075] in view of [0092]),
wherein each of the red subpixel, the green subpixel and the blue subpixel is formed of a two-stack structure including the first stack and the second stack, and the charge generation layer (Figs. 3 and 5 – 7).
However, Yang remains silent regarding the display device feature:
... wherein the second stack of the green subpixel includes a second N-type charge generation layer, a second P-type charge generation layer, and a third N-type charge generation layer sequentially stacked between the second emission layer and the second electrode, ...
Although, Yang does disclose that the n-type charge generations layers and the p-type charge generation layers may include materials of electron transport layers, electron injection layers, hole transport layers, and hole injection layers (at least [0119] and [0121]). This is because of the similar material structure of the layers. Examiner asserts that these layers are similar as taught by Yang.
Further, in the same field of endeavor, Lee (US 20220123061 A1) teaches that hole transport regions and electron transport regions may include charge generation materials including dopants ([0110] and [0121]. Also, see at least Fig. 4A); whereas Yang teaches their charge generation layers may be formed from doping hole/electron injection/transport layers. Thus, Lee’s materials taught (which correspond to layers in Yang) may be included in Yang’s hole/electron injection/transport layers. Therefore, examiner asserts that Yang, further in view of Lee, teach the display device wherein Yang’s hole transport regions and electron transport regions may include additional N-type and P-type charge generation layers in at least the form of hole/electron injection/transport regions/layers.
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 Yang’s hole/electron injection/transport layers to include the material disclosure for Lee’s hole/electron injection/transport layers, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Lee’s material disclosure for their hole/electron injection/transport layers is comparable to Yang’s material disclosure for their hole/electron injection/transport layers because together they teach that hole/electron injection/transport layers may be the same as charge generation layers. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yang’s hole/electron injection/transport layers to include the material disclosure for Lee’s hole/electron injection/transport layers with the predictable result of hole transport regions and electron transport regions including additional N-type and P-type charge generation layers in at least the form of hole/electron injection/transport regions/layers.
Further, in the same field of endeavor, Zakhidov discloses an organic light emitting diode (e.g., Figs. 6 and 15) which includes a stack of three light emitting units, i.e., first emissive layer EL-1, second emissive layer EL-2, and third emissive layer EL-3. Examiner notes that CNT sheet cathode may be considered a p- or n- type charge generation layers (at least [0006],[0009], and [0011]). Further (when considering the teachings of Yang, further in view of Lee), Zakhidov teaches the sequential structure wherein a stack includes a second N-type charge generation layer (e.g., Fig. 15; n-doped ETL), a second P-type charge generation layer (e.g., Fig. 15; CNT common cathode), and a third N-type charge generation layer (e.g., Fig. 15; n-doped ETL). Examiner asserts that the layers taught by Zakhidov are similar to at least the electron transport region ETR2 of Yang, further in view of Lee; such that Yang, further in view of Lee and Zakhidov, teach the display device structure:
... wherein the second stack of the green subpixel includes a second N-type charge generation layer (Zakhidov: Fig. 15; n-doped ETL), a second P-type charge generation layer (Zakhidov: Fig. 15; CNT common cathode), and a third N-type charge generation layer (Zakhidov: Fig. 15; n-doped ETL) sequentially stacked between the second emission layer and the second electrode (Yang: Figs. 3 and 5 – 7), ...
Wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to add such a structure to the device of Yang, further in view of Lee, in order to include a third light emitting unit, as taught by Zakhidov.
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 region between the electron transport region and second electrode of Yang, further in view of Lee to include a third light emitting unit, as taught by Zakhidov, such that the second stack of the green subpixel includes a second N-type charge generation layer, a second P-type charge generation layer, and a third N-type charge generation layer sequentially stacked between the second emission layer and the second electrode, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, the display device of Yang, further in view of Lee, is comparable to Zakhidov’s display device because both disclose stacks of similar layers between electrodes. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the region between the electron transport region and second electrode of Yang, further in view of Lee to include a third light emitting unit, as taught by Zakhidov, such that the second stack of the green subpixel includes a second N-type charge generation layer, a second P-type charge generation layer, and a third N-type charge generation layer sequentially stacked between the second emission layer and the second electrode with the predictable result of improving an OLED display device in at least the ways discussed in [0004] and[0007] – [0008] of Zakhidov.
Regarding dependent Claim 3, Yang, further in view of Lee and Zakhidov, teach the electroluminescent display device according to claim 1, wherein
each of a thickness of the second N-type charge generation layer and a thickness of the third N-type charge generation layer is larger than a thickness of the first N-type charge generation layer of the green subpixel (Yang teaches in at least Figs. 3 and 5 – 7 wherein the electron transport regions and hole transport regions are thicker than n-type charge generation layer n-CGL).
Regarding dependent Claim 4, Yang, further in view of Lee and Zakhidov, teach the electroluminescent display device according to claim 1, wherein
a thickness of the second P-type charge generation layer is larger than a thickness of the first P-type charge generation layer of the green subpixel (Yang teaches in at least Figs. 3 and 5 – 7 wherein the electron transport regions and hole transport regions are thicker than p-type charge generation layer p-CGL).
Regarding dependent Claim 5, Yang, further in view of Lee and Zakhidov, teach the electroluminescent display device according to claim 1, wherein
a thickness of the second P-type charge generation layer is the same as or smaller than a thickness of the second N type charge generation layer (Yang: [0070], [0076], and [0077] teach thickness of what may be considered the second P-type charge generation layer and second N type charge generation layer; and [0118] teaches thicknesses of charge generations layers. There is overlap amongst the ranges).
Therefore, a thickness of the second P-type charge generation layer is the same as or smaller than a thickness of the second N type charge generation layer would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, from at least [0070], [0076], [0077],[0118], and Figs. 3 and 5 – 7 of Yang, 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).
Regarding dependent Claim 6, Yang, further in view of Lee and Zakhidov, teach the electroluminescent display device according to claim 1, wherein
the second stack of the green subpixel further includes a third P-type charge generation layer and a fourth N-type charge generation layer sequentially stacked on the third N-type charge generation layer (Zakhidov: Fig. 6).
Zakhidov teaches a plurality of sets of charge generation layers stacked in sequence, with considerations to the teachings of Yang, further in view of Lee.
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 light emitting diodes of Yang, further in view of Lee, to include Zakhidov’s structure of the second stack of the green subpixel further includes a third P-type charge generation layer and a fourth N-type charge generation layer sequentially stacked on the third N-type charge generation layer (Zakhidov: Fig. 6), because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Zakhidov LED structure is comparable to the LED structure of Yang, further in view of Lee, because of their multiple stack structure. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the LED structure of Yang, further in view of Lee, to include Zakhidov’s structure of the second stack of the green subpixel further includes a third P-type charge generation layer and a fourth N-type charge generation layer sequentially stacked on the third N-type charge generation layer (Zakhidov: Fig. 6) with the predictable result of improving the light display quality of a display device (e.g., [0006] discusses the heterojunctions between charge injection layers (hole injection layer (HTL) or electron injection layer (ETL)) and the emissive layers improve the device performance, lowering operating voltage and increasing the injection current and facilitate fabrication. Also see [0039]).
Regarding dependent Claim 8, Yang, further in view of Lee and Zakhidov, teach the electroluminescent display device according to claim 1,
wherein a distance between the first electrode and the second electrode in the green subpixel is longer than each of a distance between the first electrode and the second electrode in the red subpixel and a distance between the first electrode and the second electrode in the blue subpixel (Lee: Fig. 5A).
Examiner asserts that the structure shown in Lee’s Fig. 5A may be used to modify the pixels of Yang such that they include a distance between the first electrode and the second electrode in the green subpixel is longer than each of a distance between the first electrode and the second electrode in the red subpixel and a distance between the first electrode and the second electrode in the blue subpixel, as shown in Lee’s Fig. 5A.
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 pixels of Yang, further in view of Lee, to include Lee’s relationship wherein a distance between the first electrode and the second electrode in the green subpixel is longer than each of a distance between the first electrode and the second electrode in the red subpixel and a distance between the first electrode and the second electrode in the blue subpixel, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Lee’s pixels are comparable to the pixels of Yang, further in view of Lee, because the pixels share layers. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the pixels of Yang, further in view of Lee, to include Lee’s relationship wherein a distance between the first electrode and the second electrode in the green subpixel is longer than each of a distance between the first electrode and the second electrode in the red subpixel and a distance between the first electrode and the second electrode in the blue subpixel with the predictable result of improving the output of green light for the display device wherein green light has a shorter wavelength than red light.
Regarding dependent Claim 10, Yang, further in view of Lee and Zakhidov, teach the electroluminescent display device according to claim 1, wherein
a distance from the first electrode of the red subpixel to the second emission layer of the red subpixel is longer than a distance from the first electrode of the green subpixel to the second emission layer in the green subpixel (Lee: Fig. 5B).
Examiner asserts that the structure shown in Lee’s Fig. 5B may be used to modify the pixels of Yang such that they include a distance from the first electrode of the red subpixel to the second emission layer of the red subpixel is longer than a distance from the first electrode of the green subpixel to the second emission layer in the green subpixel, as shown in Lee’s Fig. 5A.
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 pixels of Yang, further in view of Lee, to include Lee’s relationship wherein a distance from the first electrode of the red subpixel to the second emission layer of the red subpixel is longer than a distance from the first electrode of the green subpixel to the second emission layer in the green subpixel, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Lee’s pixels are comparable to the pixels of Yang, further in view of Lee, because the pixels share layers. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the pixels of Yang, further in view of Lee, to include Lee’s relationship wherein a distance from the first electrode of the red subpixel to the second emission layer of the red subpixel is longer than a distance from the first electrode of the green subpixel to the second emission layer in the green subpixel with the predictable result of improving the output of red light for the display device.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Yang et al. (US 20190326542 A1), and further in view of Lee et al. (US 20220123061 A1), Zakhidov et al. (US 20130240847 A1), and Montgomery et al. (US 10826010 B1).
Regarding dependent Claim 11, Yang, further in view of Lee and Zakhidov, teach the electroluminescent display device according to claim 1; however, Yang remains silent wherein
a distance from the second electrode to the second emission layer in the green subpixel is longer than a distance from the second electrode to second emission layer in the red subpixel.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Montgomery discloses in Figs. 4A and 4B structures for a red and green subpixel, respectively. Montgomery discloses that both the red and green subpixels to have second order cavity depths (col. 7; lines 4 - 34) via the relationship nλ/2, wherein n is the integer value equal to 2. Between Figs. 4A and 4B, Montgomery discloses that the red emissive layer EML 12R and the green emissive layer EML 12G are set to be at one-fourth thicknesses 43R and 43G, respectively, of the total cavity thickness; i.e., the red emissive layer EML 12R and the green emissive layer EML 12G are a distance 43R and 43G, respectively, away from lower electrode 6, i.e., first electrode 6. Because a red wavelength is longer than a green wavelength, distance 43R is greater than 43G. Further, Montgomery teaches that the thickness of green emissive layer EML 12G is less than red emissive layer EML 12R (col. 5; lines 32 - 44). Because of the relationship between distances 43R and 43G and the thicknesses of green emissive layer EML 12G and red emissive layer EML 12R, the distance between the top electrode 2, i.e., second electrode 2, and the green emissive layer 12G is greater than the distance between the top electrode 2 and the red emissive layer 12R. Thus, Montgomery shows across Figs. 4A and 4B a distance from the second electrode to the second emission layer in the green subpixel is longer than a distance from the second electrode to the red subpixel second emission layer in the red subpixel.
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 electroluminescent display device of Yang, further in view Lee and Zakhidov, to include Montgomery’s OLED structure wherein a distance from the second electrode to the second emission layer in the green subpixel is longer than a distance from the second electrode to the red subpixel second emission layer in the red subpixel, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Montgomery’s OLED structure is comparable to the OLED structure of Yang, further in view Lee and Zakhidov, because they are both configured to emit light in a display device. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the OLED structure of Yang, further in view Lee and Zakhidov, to include Montgomery’s OLED structure wherein a distance from the second electrode to the second emission layer in the green subpixel is longer than a distance from the second electrode to the red subpixel second emission layer in the red subpixel with the predictable result of improving the emission efficiency and color conversion of the OLEDs (Montgomery: col. 2; lines 8 – 67).
Claims 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Yang et al. (US 20190326542 A1), and further in view of Lee et al. (US 20220123061 A1), Zakhidov et al. (US 20130240847 A1), Kim et al. (US 10211417 B2), and Jung et al. (US 20170194385 A1).
Regarding dependent Claim 12, Yang, further in view of Lee and Zakhidov, teach the electroluminescent display device according to claim 1; however, Yang remains silent wherein
a distance between the first electrode and the second electrode in the red subpixel is twice λ / 2n, and
a distance between the first electrode of the green subpixel and the second electrode in the green subpixel is 3 times λ / 2n,
wherein λ is a wavelength of light emitted by the respective subpixel, and n is a refractive index of an organic layer between the first electrode of the respective subpixel and the second electrode in the respective subpixel.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kim (US 10211417 B2) teaches first/second– order optical distances via the relationship mλ=2nd (col. 10; line 18); wherein d is the micro cavity length, m is the order, λ is the wavelength of light emitted, and n is the refractive index for the organic layers between the first and second electrodes.
Further, in the same field of endeavor, Jung teaches that a red sub-pixel region Pr has a thickness corresponding to a second-order optical distance ([0082]), i.e., a distance between the red subpixel first electrode and the second electrode in the red subpixel is twice λ / 2n. Jung also teaches in [0082] that a green sub-pixel region Pg has a thickness corresponding to a third-order optical distance, i.e., a distance between the first electrode of the green subpixel and the second electrode in the green subpixel is 3 times λ / 2n.
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 OLED structure of Yang, further in view Lee and Zakhidov, to include Jung’s OLED structure, further in view of Kim, wherein a distance between the red subpixel first electrode and the second electrode in the red subpixel is twice λ / 2n, and a distance between the first electrode of the green subpixel and the second electrode in the green subpixel is 3 times λ / 2n, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Jung’s OLED, further in view of Kim, is comparable to the OLED of Yang, further in view Lee and Zakhidov, because they are both configured to emit light in a display device. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the OLED structure of Yang, further in view Lee and Zakhidov, to include Jung’s OLED structure, further in view of Kim, wherein a distance between the red subpixel first electrode and the second electrode in the red subpixel is twice λ / 2n, and a distance between the first electrode of the green subpixel and the second electrode in the green subpixel is 3 times λ / 2n with the predictable result of exploiting a microcavity effect of the sub-pixels to increase the lifetime of the OLEDs in the electroluminescent display device (Jung: [0092]).
Regarding dependent Claim 15, Yang, further in view of Lee and Zakhidov, teach the electroluminescent display device according to claim 1, wherein
a distance between the first electrode of the red subpixel and the second electrode in the red subpixel is λ / 2n, and
a distance between the first electrode of the green subpixel and the second electrode in the green subpixel is twice λ / 2n,
wherein λ is a wavelength of light emitted by the respective subpixel, and n is a refractive index of an organic layer between the first electrode and the second electrode in the respective subpixel.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kim (US 10211417 B2) teaches first/second– order optical distances via the relationship mλ=2nd (col. 10; line 18); wherein d is the micro cavity length, m is the order, λ is the wavelength of light emitted, and n is the refractive index for the organic layers between the first and second electrodes. Thus, Kim discloses:
a distance between the first electrode of the red subpixel and the second electrode in the red subpixel is λ / 2n (Kim: col. 11; lines 38 - 42), and …
wherein λ is a wavelength of light emitted by the respective subpixel, and n is a refractive index of an organic layer between the first electrode and the second electrode in the respective subpixel (Kim: col. 10; lines 17 – 31).
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 Yang, further in view Lee and Zakhidov, to include Kim’s (US 10211417 B2) teaching of micro cavity lengths to achieve appropriate lengths for cavity resonance of light, such that appropriate wavelengths of light can be emitted by the display device, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Kim’s (US 10211417 B2) organic light emitting units/stacks are comparable to the organic light emitting units/stacks of Yang, further in view Lee and Zakhidov, because both disclose a plurality of stacked light emitting stacks. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Yang, further in view Lee and Zakhidov, to include Kim’s (US 10211417 B2) teaching of micro cavity lengths to achieve appropriate lengths for cavity resonance of light to be emitted by the display device with the predictable result of achieving appropriate lengths for cavity resonance of light, such that appropriate wavelengths of light can be emitted by the display device.
Further, in the same field of endeavor, Montgomery teaches that a green subpixel may have a second order mode, i.e., a distance between the first electrode of the green subpixel and the second electrode in the green subpixel is twice λ / 2n (col. 7; lines 35 - 51).
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 electroluminescent display device of Yang, further in view Lee, Zakhidov, and Kim, to include Montgomery’s OLED structure wherein a distance between the first electrode of the green subpixel and the second electrode in the green subpixel is twice λ / 2n, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Montgomery’s OLED structure is comparable to the OLED structure of Yang, further in view Lee, Zakhidov, and Kim, because they are both configured to emit light in a display device. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the OLED structure of Yang, further in view Lee, Zakhidov, and Kim, to include Montgomery’s OLED structure wherein a distance between the first electrode of the green subpixel and the second electrode in the green subpixel is twice λ / 2n with the predictable result of improving the emission efficiency and color conversion of the OLEDs (Montgomery: col. 2; lines 8 – 67).
Conclusion
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure:
US 20110227125 A1 – considered for its disclosed layers.
US 20100090241 A1 – considered for its disclosed layers.
US 20190148663 A1 – See Figs. 9 – 14.
US 20160149150 A1 – previously relied upon.
US 20170133616 A1 – previously relied upon.
US 20070020484 A1 – previously relied upon.
US 20200144549 A1 – previously relied upon.
US 20070020483 A1 – considered for the tandem OLED structure shown in Fig. 7.
US 20130240851 A1 – considered for their discussion regarding microcavity effects for sub-pixels of different colors.
US 20140103306 A1 – considered for their disclosed charge-generating materials ([0061] and [0093]).
US 20140209870 A1 – considered for microcavity teaching.
US 20170179418 A1 – considered for microcavity teaching.
US 20190096983 A1 – considered for Fig. 12.
US 20220045296 A1 – considered for their OLED structures (e.g., Figs. 4 – 13).
US 20230030918 A1 – considered for their OLED structures (See Fig. 3).
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.
MARIO A. AUTORE JR.
Examiner
Art Unit 2897
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 ANDRES AUTORE JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2897 /CHAD M DICKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights