Attorney’s Docket Number: F7059-20004
Filing Date: 8/4/2023
Claimed Priority Dates: 5/23/2019 (US 16/420,638)
10/6/2014 (US 14/507,104)
6/17/2011 (US 13/163,132)
Inventors: Weaver et al.
Examiner: Marcos D. Pizarro
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to the amendment filed on 8/12/2026.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to pre-AIA is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for a rejection as subject to AIA instead 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.
Amendment Status
The amendment filed on 8/12/2026 in reply to the Office action in paper no. 6, mailed on 5/12/2026, has been entered. The present Office action is made with all the suggested amendments being fully considered. Accordingly, pending in this Office action are claims 18-37.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the plurality of blue, green and red OLEDs recited in claims 19, 34 and 36 must be shown or the features canceled from the claim. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claims Rejection
Initially, and with respect to claims 26 and 27, note that a “product by process” claim is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made. See In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964 (CAFC, 1985) and the related case law cited therein which makes it clear that it is the final product per se which must be determined in a “product by process” claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that, as here, an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in “product by process” claims or not. As stated in Thorpe,
even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972); In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969); Buono v. Yankee Maid Dress Corp., 77 F.2d 274, 279, 26 USPQ 57, 61 (2d. Cir. 1935).
Note that the applicants have the burden of proof in such cases, as the above case law makes clear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 18, 20-22, 26-29, 35 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by, or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as obvious over Kang (WO 2008/097046).
Regarding claim 18, Kang (see, e.g., annotated fig. 5 and ¶0015) shows all aspects of the instant invention including an apparatus comprising:
An OLED provided on a first substrate 1, wherein the OLED comprises:
A first electrode 2
A second electrode 4 over the first electrode
An organic electroluminescent (EL) material 3 between the first and second electrodes, and
First B, second G and third R portions
A first capping layer 5 over the second electrode of the first portion
A second capping layer 6 over the second electrode of the second portion, and
A third capping layer 7 over the second electrode of the third portion of the OLED
wherein:
The first capping layer 5 and the second electrode 4 are in contact with each other throughout the first B, second G and third R portions
The first capping layer 5 is optically coupled to the first B, second G, and third R portions
Light emitting from the first portion B of the OLED in a direction perpendicular to the second electrode 4 propagates through the first capping layer 5
The first capping layer 5 enhances the amount of light outcoupled from the underlying first portion B
The first 5 and second 6 capping layers are in contact with each other throughout the second G and third R portions
The second capping layer 6 is optically coupled to the second G and third R portions, and is not optically coupled to the first portion B
Light emitting from the second portion G in a direction perpendicular to the second electrode 4 propagates through the first 5 and second 6 capping layers
The first 5 and second 6 capping layers enhance the amount of light outcoupled from the underlying second portion G
The second 6 and third 7 capping layers are in contact with each other throughout the third portion R
The third capping layer 7 is optically coupled to the third portion R, and is not optically coupled to the first B and second G portions
Light emitting from the third portion R in a direction perpendicular to the second electrode 4 propagates through the first 5, second 6, and third 7 capping layers
The first 5, second 6 and third 7 capping layers enhance the amount of light outcoupled from the underlying third portion R
Regarding claim 20, Kang (see, e.g., fig. 5) further shows that the first capping layer 5 has a first total optical path that is constant over the first B, second G and third R portions, the second capping layer 6 has a second total optical path that is constant over the second G and third R portions, and the first and second optical paths are different from each other.
Regarding claim 21, Kang (see, e.g., fig. 5) further shows that the first capping layer 5 has a first total optical path that is constant over the first B, second G and third R portions, the third capping layer 7 has a third total optical path that is constant over the third portion R, and the first and third optical paths are different from each other.
Regarding claim 22, Kang (see, e.g., fig. 5) further shows that the second capping layer 6 has a second total optical path that is constant over the second G and third R portions, the third capping layer 7 has a third optical path that is constant over the third portion R, and the second and third optical paths are different from each other.
Regarding claims 26 and 27, it is noted that Kang shows all aspects of the semiconductor device according to the claimed invention, and that the methods of forming capping layers are intermediate method steps that do not affect the structure of the final device.
As to the grounds of rejection under section 103, see MPEP § 2113, which discusses the handling of “product by process” claims and recommends the alternative (§ 102/ § 103) grounds of rejection.
Regarding claim 28, Kang (see, e.g., fig. 5) further shows that the first capping layer 5 has a first total optical path that is constant over the first B, second G and third R portions, the second capping layer 6 has a second total optical path that is constant over the second G and third R portions, the third capping layer 7 has a third total optical path that is constant over the third portion R, and that each of the first, second and third optical paths is different from the other paths.
Regarding claim 29, Kang (see, e.g., ¶¶ 0023-0024) shows that each of the first 5, second 6 and third 7 capping layers is less than 200 nm thick.
Regarding claim 35, Kang (see, e.g., fig. 5) shows all aspects of the instant invention including:
An OLED provided on a first substrate 1, the OLED comprising:
A first electrode 2
A second electrode 4 over the first electrode
An organic EL material 3 between the first and second electrodes
First B, second G and third R portions
A first capping layer 5 over the second electrode of the first portion
A second capping layer 6 over the second electrode of the second portion, and
A third capping layer 7 over the second electrode of the third portion
wherein:
The first capping layer 5 and the second electrode 4 are in contact with each other throughout the first B, second G and third R portions
The first capping layer 5 is optically coupled to the first, second and third portions
Light emitting from the first portion B in a direction perpendicular to the second electrode 4 propagates through the first capping layer 5
The first capping layer 5 enhances the amount of light outcoupled from the underlying first portion B
The first 5 and second 6 capping layers are in contact with each other throughout the second G and third R portions
The second capping layer 6 is optically coupled to the second G and third R portions and is not optically coupled to the first portion B
Light emitting from the second portion G in a direction perpendicular to the second electrode 4 propagates through the first 5 and second 6 capping layers
The first 5 and second 6 capping layers enhance the amount of light outcoupled from the underlying second portion G
The second 6 and third 7 capping layers are in contact with each other throughout the third portion R
The third capping layer 7 is optically coupled to the third portion R and is not optically coupled to the first B and second G portions
Light emitting from the third portion R in a direction perpendicular to the second electrode 4 propagates through the first 5, second 6 and third 7 capping layers
The first 5, second 6 and third 7 capping layers enhance the amount of light outcoupled from the underlying third portion R
Regarding claim 37, Kang (see, e.g., fig. 5) further shows that the first capping layer 5 has a first total optical path that is constant over the first B, second G and third R portions, the second capping layer 6 has a second total optical path that is constant over the second G and third R portions, and the first and second optical paths are different from each other.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19, 23-25 and 30-34 and 36 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 replying 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.
Papers related to this application may be submitted directly to Art Unit 2814 by facsimile transmission. Papers should be faxed to Art Unit 2814 via the Art Unit 2814 Fax Center. The faxing of such papers must conform to the notice published in the Official Gazette, 1096 OG 30 (15 November 1989). The Art Unit 2814 Fax Center number is (571) 273-8300. The Art Unit 2814 Fax Center is to be used only for papers related to Art Unit 2814 applications.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marcos D. Pizarro at (571) 272-1716 and between the hours of 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Thursday or by e-mail via Marcos.Pizarro@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Wael Fahmy, can be reached on (571) 272-1705.
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.
/Marcos D. Pizarro/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2814
MDP/mdp
October 9, 2026
Prosecution Insights