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 .
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 6, 9 and 10-15 are 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 claim 6, it is unclear if the aluminum layer is actually required as the claim both states that the second electrode comprises an aluminum layer but also gives the thickness of said layer to be 1 ± 1 nm which implies that no aluminum layer is present. For examining purposes claim 6 will be treated as not requiring an aluminum layer as that is the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding claim 9, it is unclear which of the layers are required to be present as the added language of “and combinations thereof” implies that less than all of the listed layers may be present and still meet the limitations of the claim but all of those layers are also listed. For examining purposes the claim shall be treated as requiring more than one of the listed layers as that would be a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 10, it is unclear if the EIL is actually required as claim 9, upon which claim 10 depends, states that the transparent structure comprises an EIL but claim 10 gives the thickness of said layer to be 2 ± 2 nm which implies that no EIL layer is present. For examining purposes claim 10 will be treated as not requiring an EIL of any particular thickness as the claim seeks to encompass an omission of the EIL layer but likewise incorporates an EIL layer per claim 9. In other words, the added limitations of claim 10 cannot have any patentable effect and will be rejected under the same grounds as claim 9.
Regarding claims 11-15, due to how it is unclear that claim 9 actually requires any one of the layers having the claimed thicknesses, it is not clear how such a thickness exists when the referenced layer does not. For examining purposes claims 11-15 shall be treated as requiring that the layer be present and of the specified thickness.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-11 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Birnstock et al. (US 2009/0267490 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Birnstock discloses a transparent structure for emitting light (Fig 1), the transparent structure comprising an emissive layer (EML, 8) positioned between first (5) and second (6) electrodes, the EML tuned such that luminance through the first electrode is greater than luminance through the second electrode (¶57).
Regarding claim 2, Birnstock discloses that the EML is tuned such that luminance through the first electrode is at least ten times greater than luminance through the second electrode (¶57).
Regarding claim 3, Birnstock discloses that the first electrode comprises indium tin oxide (ITO, ¶67).
Regarding claim 4, Birnstock discloses that the first electrode has a thickness of from 50 to 150 nm (¶67).
Regarding claim 8, Birnstock discloses that the EML has a thickness of 20 ± 5 nm (¶70 & ¶71, 18 nm).
Regarding claim 9, Birnstock discloses that the transparent structure further comprises an electron transport layer (ETL, ¶73) and a hole transport layer (HTL, ¶68).
Regarding claim 10, Birnstock does not disclose an EIL.
Regarding claims 11 Birnstock discloses that the ETL has a thickness of 50 nm.
Regarding claims 16-18, Birnstock discloses a method of manufacturing a transparent organic light-emitting diode (TOLED), the method comprising tuning an emissive layer (EML) positioned between first and second electrodes such that luminance through the first electrode is greater than luminance through the second electrode, including depositing an EML on a first electrode and depositing a second electrode on the EML (¶67-¶76).
Regarding claim 19, Birnstock discloses a transparent organic light-emitting diode (TOLED, Fig 1) comprising an emissive layer (EML, 5) positioned between first (5) and second (6) electrodes, the EML tuned such that luminance through the first electrode is greater than luminance through the second electrode (¶57).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 5-7, 12-15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birnstock.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Birnstock discloses a 15 nm silver cathode (¶67) but does not disclose such a cathode also comprising aluminum. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select a material and thickness for the electrode to optimize the conductivity and transparency of the electrode as discussed in Birnstock (¶55) even though the exact composition claimed is not disclosed.
Regarding claim 7, Birnstock discloses an alternative EML (¶70 & ¶71). However it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use 4,4′-Bis(N-carbazolyl)-1,1′-biphenyl (CBP) doped with 7% Ir(ppy)2acac as the EML as a matter of selecting a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. See In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claims 12-15, it is old and well known in the art of OLEDs to variously include charge blocking, charge injecting and charge transport layers of various thicknesses as desired. Furthermore, the HTL of Birnstock has a thickness of 65 nm, which is similar enough to the claimed range of 70-170 nm to render said range obvious. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to include and adjust the thicknesses of the layers as claimed as a matter or routine practice of the art.
Regarding claim 20, the use of OLEDs in display panels is old and well known in the art and it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to implement the TOLED of Birnstock in a display as a matter of using a known element for its intended purpose, TOLEDs being primarily used for either lighting or displays.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P SHOOK whose telephone number is (571)270-7890. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Mon-Fri.
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, WILLIAM KRAIG can be reached at (571)272-8660. 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.
/DANIEL P SHOOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896