DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed May 8, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (JP H088458 A) in view of Kojima et al. (TW 1428697 B).
In regard to claim 1, Kato teaches a device comprising: a light-emitting diode 10 having an emissive surface; and a capping layer 22 comprising a solid crystal overlying the emissive surface (Figure 1, pages 5-7).
However, Kato fails to teach an organic crystal.
In regard to claim 1, Kojima et al. teach an organic solid crystal (pages 38, last paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device structure as taught by Kato with the device having an organic solid crystal as taught by Kojima et al. to provide a device with excellent transparency (page 4, 3rd paragraph).
Claim(s) 2-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (JP H088458 A) and Kojima et al. (TW 1428697 B) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Woo et al. (US 2018/0053918 A1).
Kato and Kojima et al. teach all mentioned in the rejection above.
However, Kato and Kojima et al. fail to teach the light-emitting diode comprising an OLED.
In regard to claim 2, Woo et al. teach the light-emitting diode comprising an OLED (Figure 4, pages 3-6, paragraphs [0050]-[0098]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device structure as taught by Kato and the device having an organic crystal as taught by Kojima et al. with the organic light-emitting diode as taught by Woo et al. to reduce reflection (page 1, paragraph [0006]).
In regard to claim 3, Woo et al. teach the capping layer 120 directly overlying the emissive surface (Figure 4, pages 3-6, paragraphs [0050]-[0098]).
In regard to claim 4, discovering the desired refractive index and birefringence of the capping layer is within the level of ordinary skill and requires only routine experimentation.
In regard to claim 5, Woo et al. teach the capping layer 120 comprising a continuous layer (Figure 4, pages 3-6, paragraphs [0050]-[0098]).
In regard to claim 6, Woo et al. teach the capping layer 120 comprising a planar layer (Figure 4, pages 3-6, paragraphs [0050]-[0098]).
In regard to claim 7, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, burden is on Applicant to show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In regard to claims 8-12, change only in form, proportions, or degree or substitution of equivalent, doing substantially the same thing in the same way by substantially the same means with better results is not such an invention as will sustain a patent. Higley v. Brenner, 387 F.2d 855, 128 U.S. App. D.C. 290 (1967).
In regard to claim 13, discovering the desired capping layer being configured to undergo a change in refractive index in response to an applied voltage, current, or mechanical stress is within the level of ordinary skill and requires only routine experimentation.
In regard to claim 14, discovering the desired capping layer being configured to change a polarization state of light emitted from the emissive surface is within the level of ordinary skill and requires only routine experimentation.
In regard to claim 15, Woo et al. teach the organic solid crystal comprising a single crystal (Figure 4, pages 3-6, paragraphs [0050]-[0098]).
In regard to claim 16, Woo et al. teach the organic solid crystal (paragraph [0078]) comprising a molecule selected from the group consisting of saturated or unsaturated polycyclic hydrocarbons, benzene, naphthalene, anthracene, tetracene, pentacene, 2,6-naphthalene dicarboxylic acid, and 2,6-dimethyl carboxylic esters (Figure 4, pages 3-6, paragraphs [0050]-[0098]).
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo et al. (US 2018/0053918 A1) in view of Kojima et al. (TW 1428697 B).
In regard to claim 17, Woo et al. teach a device comprising: an organic light-emitting diode OLED comprising an emissive surface; and an encapsulation layer 160 overlying the emissive surface, wherein the encapsulation layer 160 comprises an organic crystal (Figure 4, pages 3-6, paragraphs [0050]-[0098]).
However, Woo et al. fail to teach an organic solid crystal.
In regard to claim 17, Kojima et al. teach an organic solid crystal (pages 38, last paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device structure as taught by Woo et al. with the device having an organic solid crystal as taught by Kojima et al. to provide a device with excellent quality (page 4, 4th paragraph).
In regard to claim 18, discovering the desired organic solid crystal being configured to undergo a change in refractive index in response to an applied voltage, current, or mechanical stress is within the level of ordinary skill and requires only routine experimentation.
In regard to claim 19, discovering the desired organic solid crystal being configured to change a polarization state of light emitted from the emissive surface is within the level of ordinary skill and requires only routine experimentation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to light-emitting devices:
Kojima et al. (US 2009/0251652 A1) Zhan (TW M528525 U).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IDA M SOWARD whose telephone number is (571)272-1845. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 7am to 5:30pm.
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, Leonard Chang can be reached on 571-570-3691. 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.
IMS
May 19, 2026
/IDA M SOWARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights