DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/14/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 85-86 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 85, “the electrode” should be changed to “the second electrode”.
Regarding claim 86, “the dielectric material” should be changed to “the transparent dielectric layer” as a suggestion since claim 86 depends from claim 85, which recites “a transparent dielectric layer”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 93-94 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.
Claims 94-95 recite the limitation "the nanoparticles". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, based on a wide range of the claimed dimension, is “the nanoparticles” in claims 94-95 referring to 1) a nanoparticle layer, 2) each of the first plurality of nanoparticles, 3) the first plurality of nanoparticles as a set excluding the surrounding medium?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 77-81, 83-92, and 95-97 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamana et al. (US 2016/0079479 A1; hereinafter “Yamana”) in view of Song et al. (US 2022/0271259 A1; hereinafter “Song”).
Regarding claim 77, Yamana teaches a device comprising: an organic light emitting device (OLED) (an organic EL device 100) comprising: a substrate (a substrate 21); a first electrode (a first electrode layer 22) disposed over the substrate; a second electrode (a second electrode layer 23) disposed over the first electrode, wherein the second electrode is non-metallic (for example, 22 formed of metal oxides such as ITO or conductive polymers such as polythiophene) (paragraphs 57-59); and an organic emissive layer (an organic layer 30 including an electroluminescent layer 32) disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode, the organic emissive layer having a first surface (a top surface of 30) positioned over a second surface (a bottom surface of 30); and a nanoparticle layer (a reflective layer 40) disposed over the organic emissive layer, the nanoparticle layer having a first surface (a top surface of 40) that is positioned over a second surface (a bottom surface of 40), the nanoparticle layer comprising: a first plurality of nanoparticles comprising a dielectric material (auxiliary fillers 42 formed of ZrO2); and a surrounding medium (fillers 44 surrounding 42); wherein there is a difference of at least 1.0 between a refractive index of the dielectric material and a refractive index of the surrounding medium (42 formed of ZrO2 has a refractive index of 2.5 and 44 formed of hollow particles have a refractive index of air as low as 1.0 as material properties. As such, the difference is 1.5) (Fig. 1 and paragraphs 35-73).
Yamana does not explicitly teach that a distance from the bottom of the nanoparticle layer (the bottom of 40) to the top of the organic emissive layer (the top of 30) is not more than 50 nm since Yamana does not explicitly teach a numerical thickness value of the second electrode layer 23 disposed therebetween. Nevertheless, adjusting the thickness of the second electrode within a desired thickness range only involves a routine skill in the art. This is evidenced by Song teaching an organic light emitting device (OLED) (an organic light-emitting diode (OLED) 100), comprising a second electrode (a second electrode 122) having a thickness of not more than 50 nm (for example, 122 having a thickness about 10 nm) (Fig. 1 and paragraphs 66 and 70-72). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Yamana with that of Song in order to obtain the desired thickness range of the second electrode. It is noted that combining the teaching of Yamana including the second electrode between the nanoparticle layer and the organic emissive layer and the teaching of Song including the second electrode having a thickness not more than 50 nm would result the claimed distance.
Regarding claim 78, Yamana teaches wherein the first plurality of nanoparticles is disposed in an outcoupling layer (40) disposed over the second electrode (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 79, Yamana teaches wherein at least some of the first plurality of nanoparticles are integrated with the second electrode (Fig. 1, 42 integrated with 23).
Regarding claim 80, Yamana teaches wherein the first plurality of nanoparticles includes at least one nanoparticle having a Mie scattering efficiency of 2-8 based on at least one selected from the group consisting of: a size of the nanoparticles, a shape of the nanoparticles, and a material refractive index of the nanoparticles (See the rejection of claim 96 below regarding the property/function of the OLED with the limitation “wherein the organic emissive layer is configured to produce emission that directly couples to Mie scattering modes of the plurality of nanoparticles”, which is similarly applied for rejecting claim 80).
Regarding claim 81, Yamana teaches wherein a refractive index of the first plurality of nanoparticles is at least one selected from the group consisting of: at least 1.9, at least 2.1, at least 2.5, and less than 3.5 (42 formed of ZrO2 has a refractive index of 2.5 as a material property) (paragraph 70).
Regarding claim 83, Yamana in view of Song teaches wherein the device is configured to emit at least one selected from the group consisting of: at least 60%, at least 70%, and at least 80% of the light through one side of the device side where the first plurality nanoparticles are disposed (since Yamana in view of Song teaches each and every limitation of the claim as discussed above in claim 77, the claimed property/function “the device is configured to emit at least one selected from the group consisting of: at least 60%, at least 70%, and at least 80% of the light through one side of the device side where the plurality nanoparticles are disposed” recited in claim 83, which directly depends from claim 77, would be inherent).
Regarding claim 84, Yamana teaches wherein the first plurality of nanoparticles is disposed in an outcoupling layer (40) disposed over the second electrode (Fig. 1), wherein the first plurality of nanoparticles homogeneously or inhomogeneously distributed within the outcoupling layer (42 distributed as shown in Fig. 1), wherein the first plurality of nanoparticles creates the difference of at least 1.0 between the refractive index of the at least one of the two or more materials and the surrounding medium (See the rejection of claim 1 above for the refractive index value comparison).
While Yamana does not teach the first plurality of nanoparticles comprising two or more materials with each of the two or more materials having a different refractive index, Yamana teaches various example materials for the first plurality of nanoparticles (paragraph 70) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize two or more materials from example materials given from Yamana in order to obtain the predictable high refractive index value for the first plurality of nanoparticles having refractive index values different from the surrounding medium.
Regarding claim 85, Yamana teaches further comprising: a transparent dielectric layer (52 formed of a transparent resin), wherein the transparent dielectric layer is disposed between the second electrode and the nanoparticle layer (Fig. 3 and paragraphs 95-96).
While Yamana in view of Song does not teach a thickness of the transparent dielectric layer in a numerical value (paragraphs 95-96), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the thickness of the transparent dielectric layer by a routine experimentation to obtain the optimal and/or workable thickness range, including the claimed thickness of at least 2 nm but not more than 50 nm minus a thickness of the electrode (Since song teaches the second electrode thickness to be 10 nm as discussed above in claim 1, the claimed range for the transparent dielectric layer is considered as 2 nm-40 nm). It has held that discovering an optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 86, Yamana teaches wherein a refractive index of the dielectric material is at least one selected from the group consisting of: less than 1.2, less than 1.5, less than 2, and less than 2.5 (paragraph 95, a refractive index value of 52 as 1.5).
Regarding claim 87, Yamana in view of Song teaches wherein the device has a first side (a top side of 100) and a second side (a bottom side of 100), wherein the first electrode comprises a reflective metal layer to reflect light to the first side of the device (paragraph 57. For example, 22 formed of a reflective metal such as Al), wherein the second electrode is a transparent layer (paragraph 57. For example, 23 is formed of a transparent material), and wherein the nanoparticle layer is disposed over the transparent layer (Fig. 1).
While Yamana in view of Song does not teach that the organic emissive layer (32) is disposed at least 75 nm from the reflective metal layer (22), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust a thickness of intervening layers such as a hole transparent layer, a hole injection layer, and/or an electron blocking layer between the reflective anode (22) and the organic emissive layer (32), by a routine experimentation to obtain the optimal and/or workable thickness range, including the claimed thickness of at least 75 nm. It has held that discovering an optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 88, Yamana teaches wherein the device has a first side and a second side, and light is emitted from both the first side and the second side (Fig. 1 and paragraph 4, a double-side emission organic EL device).
Regarding claim 89, Yamana teaches wherein the device has a first side and a second side, and the device further comprises: a reflective layer (40) disposed on the second side to direct emission of light to the first side of the device (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 90, while Yamana in view of Song does not explicitly teach a distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) stack, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize DBR stack as a part of the OLED structure to provide improved light coupling effect, thereby improving the emission efficiency.
Regarding claim 91, Yamana teaches wherein at least one selected from the group consisting of the first electrode and the second electrode is a transparent electrode (paragraphs 57-58 and 64).
Regarding claim 92, Yamana teaches wherein the second electrode is the transparent electrode, and the transparent electrode is disposed on the organic emissive layer (paragraphs 57-58).
Regarding claim 95, Yamana teaches wherein the device is at least one type selected from the group consisting of: a flat panel display, a curved display, a computer monitor, a medical monitor, a television, a billboard, a light for interior or exterior illumination and/or signaling, a heads-up display, a fully or partially transparent display, a flexible display, a rollable display, a foldable display, a stretchable display, a laser printer, a telephone, a cell phone, tablet, a phablet, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a wearable device, a laptop computer, a digital camera, a camcorder, a viewfinder, a micro-display that is less than 2 inches diagonal, a 3-D display, a virtual reality or augmented reality display, a vehicle, an automotive display, video walls comprising multiple displays tiled together, a theater or stadium screen, and a sign (paragraph 232).
Regarding claim 96, Yamana teaches a device comprising: an organic light emitting device (OLED) (an organic EL device 100) comprising: a substrate (a substrate 21); a first electrode (a first electrode layer 22) disposed over the substrate; a second electrode (a second electrode layer 23) disposed over the first electrode, wherein the second electrode is non-metallic (for example, 22 formed of metal oxides such as ITO or conductive polymers such as polythiophene) (paragraphs 57-59); and an organic emissive layer (an organic layer 30 including an electroluminescent layer 32) disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode, the organic emissive layer having a first surface (a top surface) positioned over a second surface (a bottom surface); and a nanoparticle layer (a reflective layer 40) disposed over the organic emissive layer, the nanoparticle layer having a first surface (a top surface) that is positioned over a second surface (a bottom surface), the nanoparticle layer comprising: a plurality of nanoparticles comprising a dielectric material (auxiliary fillers 42 formed of ZrO2); and a surrounding medium (fillers 44 surrounding 42); wherein a peak emission wavelength capable of being emitted by the organic emissive layer (for example, light having a wavelength about 533 nm) (Fig. 1 and paragraphs 35-73).
Yamana does not explicitly teach a distance from the second surface of the nanoparticle layer to the first surface of the organic emissive layer is at least one selected from the group consisting of: not more than 1/5, not more than 1/8, and not more than 1/10 of a peak emission wavelength capable of being emitted by the organic emissive layer since Yamana does not explicitly teach a numerical thickness value of the second electrode layer 23 disposed therebetween. Nevertheless, adjusting a thickness of the second electrode within a desired thickness range is a routine skill in the art. This is evidenced by Song teaching an organic light emitting device (OLED) (an organic light-emitting diode (OLED) 100), comprising a second electrode (a second electrode 122) having a thickness in a range from about 10 nm to about 50 nm (Fig. 1 and paragraphs 66 and 70-72). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Yamana with that of Song in order to obtain the desired thickness range of the second electrode. It is noted that combining the teaching of Yamana including the second electrode between the nanoparticle layer and the organic emissive layer and the teaching of Song including the second electrode having the thickness in the range from about 10 nm to about 50 would result the claimed distance.
Regarding the limitation “wherein the organic emissive layer is configured to produce emission that directly couples to Mie scattering modes of the plurality of nanoparticles”, Yamana in view of Song teaches the OLED structurally and compositionally identical to that of the claim as discussed above. Furthermore, claim 96 does not require any additional features of the OLED to distinguish over Yamana in view of Song teaching the identical OLED. As such, with reasons above, claimed property and/or function, “wherein the organic emissive layer is configured to produce emission that directly couples to Mie scattering modes of the plurality of nanoparticles”, is presumed to be inherent: Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) and MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 97, Yamana teaches further comprising at least one selected from a group consisting of: an electron transport layer disposed over the organic emissive layer, and an electron injection layer disposed over the organic emissive layer (Fig. 2 and paragraphs 91 and 113. The thickness of an electron injection layer is in several nm. As such, combining the teaching of Yamana with the electron injection layer having the thickness in the several nm with Song teaching the thickness of the second electrode in 10 nm, for example, would meet the claimed limitation of not more than 50 nm).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection as set forth above in this Office Action
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL B WHALEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3418. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sue Purvis can be reached on (571)272-1236. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL WHALEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights