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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 10/24/2025. These drawings are accepted.
Claim Objections
Claims 78-79, 81, and 83-84 are objected to because of the following informalities: “the plurality of nanoparticles” should be changed to “the first plurality of nanoparticles” (See claim 77 reciting “a first plurality of nanoparticles”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 77-81 and 83-97 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claim 77, the limitation “the nanoparticle layer comprising: a first plurality of nanoparticles comprising a dielectric material; and a surrounding medium…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” fails to comply with the enablement requirement for reasons as follow:
The Specification of the instant application describes the nanoparticle layer including a first plurality of nanoparticles comprising a dielectric material and a surrounding medium and a difference of at least 1.0 between a refractive index of the dielectric material and a refractive index of the surrounding medium (for example, see paragraphs 147 and 167). The Specification further describes material choices for the dielectric material of the first plurality of nanoparticles (for example, see paragraphs 24, 128, and 150). However, the Specification does not further describe any enabling disclosure as to 1) what material choice would be used for the surrounding medium and 2) which one is considered as the higher refractive index and/or the lower refractive index between the dielectric material and the surrounding medium [underlying for clarity]. Then, for the breadth of the claim relative to the guidance in the specification, 1) undue experimentation would be required for determining the material choice for the surrounding medium compared to the selected material choice for the dielectric material among the material list given in the specification (for example, paragraph 150) to satisfy the claimed limitation “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”. Furthermore, 2) undue experimentation would be required for determining which one between the selected dielectric material and the surrounding medium would require to have higher and/or lower refractive index value for the nanoparticle layer.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence of record related to the pertinent Wands factors and reasons discussed above, one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the application was filed, would not have been able to make and/or use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. Claims 78-81, 83-95, and 97, which depend from claim 77, are also rejected by virtue of their dependencies.
Regarding claim 96, the limitation “wherein the organic emissive layer directly couples to Mie scattering modes of the plurality of nanoparticles, and wherein 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 ⅕, not more than ⅛, and not more than 1/10 of a peak emission wavelength capable of being emitted by the organic emissive layer” fails to comply with the enablement requirement for reasons as follow:
The limitation in claim 96 is directed to “the organic emissive layer”, which is disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode, directly coupling to “Mie scattering modes of the plurality of nanoparticles” while there is a certain distance between the organic emissive layer and the nanoparticle layer comprising nanoparticles as claimed. However, the limitation “wherein the organic emissive layer directly couples to Mie scattering modes of the plurality of nanoparticles” is not shown in the drawings [underlying for clarity]. While the specification of the instant application describes coupling of EL emission, not the organic emissive layer, to the Mie scattering modes of the nanoparticles (paragraph 128 describing “To enable strong coupling of EL emission to the Mie scattering modes of the nanoparticles, the EML layer may be disposed closer to the outcoupling layer such that distance from the top of the EML layer to the bottom of the outcoupling layer is within 1/10 of the peak emission wavelength of the emitter”), the Specification does not explicitly describe how to directly couple the organic emissive layer to “Mie scattering modes of the plurality of nanoparticles”. Then, undue experimentation would be required for determining a way for the organic emissive layer to directly couple to “Mie scattering modes of the nanoparticles”.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence of record related to the pertinent Wands factors and reasons discussed above, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would not have been able to make and/or use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation.
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, 88-92, 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; 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 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 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 to the top of the organic emissive layer 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 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 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 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 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 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 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) (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 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 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; 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 ⅕, not more than ⅛, 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 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, the claim 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 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 and newly submitted claim have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection as set forth above in this Office Action
Furthermore, Applicant's arguments filed 10/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the rejection of at least claims 77-81, 83-95, and 97 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement (rejected claims have been changed due to amendments dated 10/24/2025 canceled claim 82 and added new claim 97), Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would know material options for surrounding medium of the nanoparticles to achieve the claimed difference of at least 1.0 between a refractive index of the dielectric material and a refractive index of the surrounding medium without needing experimentation (Remarks, page 2). However, this is not found persuasive since Applicant has not provided support in the specification that any material for the surrounding medium having a refractive index different at least 1.0 compared to a refractive index of the dielectric material would work without needing experimentation. For example, can the material for the surrounding medium be any one of conductive material, dielectric material, or semiconductor material surrounding the nanoparticles as long as such material has a refractive index difference of at least 1.0? Furthermore, amended Figs. 3B-3H dated 10/24/2025 includes “Surrounding medium” pointing to an empty space (See Figs. 3B-3H). Then, is the material for the surrounding medium a solid material, a liquid material, or a vapor material? As such, one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the application was filed, would not have been able to make and/or use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation.
In response to the previous rejection of claim 96 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement, Applicant has neither responded to the rejection nor amended to cancel the limitation of the claim. As such, the rejection of claim 96 is maintained.
In response to the rejection of claim 77 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamana in view of Song, Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not look in Song to determine that a distance from a bottom of the nanoparticle layer to the top of an organic emissive layer should not be more than 50 nm (Remarks, pages 3-4). However, this argument is not found persuasive since the teaching of Song is not for determining the distance from the bottom of the nanoparticle layer to the top of the organic emissive layer as Applicant alleges. The teaching of Song is rather to determine that the thickness of the second electrode can be readily adjusted as a well-known in the semiconductor art. Since Yamana teaches the second electrode only between the nanoparticle layer and the organic emissive layer, Song teaching the second electrode in a numerical value such as not more than 50 nm would meet the claimed limitation. Therefore, the rejection is maintained. Applicant similarly argues about Song in the rejection of claim 96 (Remarks, page 5). However, this is not found persuasive with the similar reason as discussed above and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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