DETAILED ACTION
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 Thompson et al. (US 2018/0219182 A1; hereinafter “Thompson”).
Regarding claim 77, referring to Fig. 8A, Thompson teaches a device comprising: an organic light emitting device (OLED) (an OLED 110) comprising: a substrate (a substrate 411) (paragraph 100); a first electrode (a first electrode 412) disposed over the substrate (paragraph 100); a second electrode (a second electrode 414) disposed over the first electrode (paragraph 100); and an organic emissive layer (an organic EML layer 413) 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) (paragraph 100); and a nanoparticle layer (an enhancement layer 415 and an outcoupling layer 417) 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) (paragraphs 100-103), the nanoparticle layer comprising: a first plurality of nanoparticles comprising a dielectric material (insulating nanoparticles); and a surrounding medium (a host matrix) (paragraphs 118-123), wherein an in-plane dimension of the first plurality of nanoparticles is at least one selected from the group consisting of: 200-400 nm, 400-600 nm, and 600-800 nm, wherein the in-plane dimension is in a plane that is horizontal to the substrate (for example, spherical shaped nanoparticles having a diameter of 800 nm) (paragraph 123), wherein a distance from the bottom of the nanoparticle layer to the top of the organic emissive layer is not more than 50 nm (for example, 416 to 413 is not greater than 25 nm) (paragraph 61), 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 (for example, two materials of the nanoparticles and the host having a different refractive index of 3.0) (paragraph 123).
Thompson does not expressly teach “a distance in an out-of-plane dimension between the first plurality of nanoparticles is at least one selected from the group consisting of: 25-75 nm, 75-200 nm, 200-400 nm, and 400-600 nm, wherein the out-of-plane dimension is in a plane perpendicular to the substrate”. However, with Thompson teaching that the periodicity of the particles can be randomly throughout the host matrix (paragraph 123), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust/provide the interspacing between the nanoparticles within the host matrix in a desired numerical range, including the claimed ranges of 25-75 nm, 75-200 nm, 200-400 nm, and 400-600 nm as an out-of-plane dimension perpendicular to the substrate, by a routine experimentation for obtaining the optimal and workable distribution of the nanoparticles for the outcoupling layer. 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 78, Thompson teaches wherein the first plurality of nanoparticles is disposed in an outcoupling layer (417) disposed over the second electrode (paragraphs 100-103).
Regarding claim 79, Thompson teaches wherein at least some of the first plurality of nanoparticles are integrated with the second electrode (paragraphs 100-103 and 132-133).
Regarding claim 80, Thompson 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, Thompson 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 (the nanoparticles of 471 formed of ZrO2 has a refractive index of 2.5 as a material property) (paragraph 119).
Regarding claim 83, Thompson 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 (paragraphs 100 and 117, the top-emission OLED in Fig. 8A having an EQE of 100% theoretically).
Regarding claim 84, Thompson teaches wherein the first plurality of nanoparticles is disposed in an outcoupling layer (417) disposed over the second electrode (Fig. 8A), wherein the first plurality of nanoparticles comprising two or more materials, each of the two or more materials having a different refractive index (for example, the nanoparticles of 417 is formed of ZrO2 and TiO2 with different refractive index values as material properties), wherein the first plurality of nanoparticles homogeneously or inhomogeneously distributed within the outcoupling layer (random distribution of the nanoparticles) (paragraph 119), wherein at least one of the two or more materials 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 (paragraph 123 and see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 85, Thompson teaches further comprising: a transparent dielectric layer having a thickness at least 2 nm but not more than 50 nm minus a thickness of the second electrode, wherein the transparent dielectric layer is disposed between the second electrode and the nanoparticle layer (for example, 416 formed of a dielectric material having a thickness of 2 nm) (Fig. 8A and paragraph 115).
Regarding claim 86, Thompson 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 (for example, a refractive index of 416 is about 2.4) (paragraph 115).
Regarding claim 87, Thompson teaches wherein the device has a first side (a top side) and a second side (a bottom side), wherein the first electrode comprises a reflective metal layer to reflect light to the first side of the device (incorporated US 7,279,704 includes the reflective anode 115) (Fig. 1 and paragraph 46), wherein the second electrode is a transparent layer (incorporated US 7,279,704 includes the transparent cathode 160) (Fig. 1 and paragraph 46), and wherein the nanoparticle layer is disposed over the transparent layer (Fig. 8A).
While Thompson does not teach that the organic emissive layer (413) is disposed at least 75 nm from the reflective anode (412), 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 (412) and the organic emissive layer (413), by a routine experimentation to obtain the optimal and/or workable thickness range, including the claimed thickness of at least 75 nm.
Regarding claim 88, Thompson teaches wherein the device has a first side (a top side of 414 for 410) and a second side (a bottom side of 414 for 410), and light is emitted from both the first side and the second side (Fig. 1 and paragraph 100, 414 is emitting on both top and bottom directions).
Regarding claim 89, Thompson teaches wherein the device has a first side (a top side of 414 for 410) and a second side (a bottom side of 414 for 410), and the device further comprises: a reflective layer (the reflective anode 115/412) disposed on the second side to direct emission of light to the first side of the device (incorporated US 7,279,704 includes the reflective anode 115) (Fig. 1 and paragraph 46).
Regarding claim 90, Thompson teaches wherein the device has a first side (a top side of 414 for 410) and a second side (a bottom side of 414 for 410) (Fig. 8A). While Thompson does not further teach a distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) stack disposed to reflect light from a second side of the device, 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, Thompson teaches wherein at least one selected from the group consisting of the first electrode and the second electrode is a transparent electrode (incorporated US 7,279,704 includes the cathode 160 to be a transparent electrode) (Fig. 1 and paragraph 46).
Regarding claim 92, Thompson teaches wherein the second electrode is the transparent electrode, and the transparent electrode is disposed on the organic emissive layer (incorporated US 7,279,704 includes the cathode 160 to be the transparent electrode) (Fig. 1 and paragraph 46).
Regarding claim 95, Thompson 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 53).
Regarding claim 96, Thompson teaches a device comprising: an organic light emitting device (OLED) (an OLED 110) comprising: a substrate (a substrate 411) (paragraph 100); a first electrode (a first electrode 412) disposed over the substrate (paragraph 100); a second electrode (a second electrode 414) disposed over the first electrode (paragraph 100); and an organic emissive layer (an organic EML layer 413) 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) (paragraph 100); and a nanoparticle layer (an enhancement layer 415 and an outcoupling layer 417) 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) (paragraphs 100-103), the nanoparticle layer comprising: a plurality of nanoparticles comprising a dielectric material (insulating nanoparticles); and a surrounding medium (a host matrix) (paragraphs 118-123), wherein an in-plane dimension of the first plurality of nanoparticles is at least one selected from the group consisting of: 200-400 nm, 400-600 nm, and 600-800 nm, wherein the in-plane dimension is in a plane that is horizontal to the substrate (for example, spherical shaped nanoparticles having a diameter of 800 nm) (paragraph 123), 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 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 (for example, considering 416 to 413 is 25 nm and the peak emission is 530 nm, 25/530 is not more than 1/5) (paragraphs 61 and 114),
Thompson does not expressly teach “a distance in an out-of-plane dimension between the first plurality of nanoparticles is at least one selected from the group consisting of: 25-75 nm, 75-200 nm, 200-400 nm, and 400-600 nm, wherein the out-of-plane dimension is in a plane perpendicular to the substrate”. However, with Thompson teaching that the periodicity of the particles can be randomly throughout the host matrix (paragraph 123), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust/provide the interspacing between the nanoparticles within the host matrix in a desired numerical range, including the claimed ranges of 25-75 nm, 75-200 nm, 200-400 nm, and 400-600 nm as an out-of-plane dimension perpendicular to the substrate, by a routine experimentation for obtaining the optimal and workable distribution of the nanoparticles for the outcoupling layer. 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 the limitation “wherein the organic emissive layer is configured to produce emission that directly couples to Mie scattering modes of the plurality of nanoparticles”, Thompson teaches the OLED structurally and compositionally substantially identical to that of the claim as discussed above. Furthermore, claim 96 does not require any additional features of the OLED to distinguish over Thompson teaching the substantially 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, Thompson teaches further comprising at least one selected from a group consisting of: an electron transport layer (an electron transport layer 145) disposed over the organic emissive layer, and an electron injection layer (an electron injection layer 150) disposed over the organic emissive layer (Fig. 1 and paragraph 46).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims 77 and 96 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection by Thompson et al. (US 2018/0219182 A1, previously cited as a pertinent art dated 08/06/2025) as set forth above in this Office Action.
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
Prosecution Insights