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 application filed on 8/4/2023.
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.
Species Election
Applicant’s election of species 5, reading on figure 7, in the reply filed on 4/20/2026, is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). The applicant indicated that claims 18-37 read on the elected species. The examiner agrees.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 18-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventors, at the time of the invention, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 18 and 35 recite “a first capping layer” through which “substantially all” of the light emitted from the first portion of the OLED in a direction perpendicular to the second electrode propagates so that the first capping layer enhances the amount of light outcoupled from the underlying OLED, with similar limitations recited for the second and third portions of the OLED and corresponding overlying capping layers.
Paragraph [0058] merely defines the term “optically coupled” as meaning that substantially all of the light emitted from the OLED in a direction perpendicular to one of the electrodes propagates through a surface of the capping layer substantially parallel to the electrode. However, the specification does not adequately describe structures, material properties, optical parameters, or transmission characteristics demonstrating possession of a capping layer capable of achieving propagation of “substantially all” emitted light through the capping layer, as claimed.
Although the specification discusses varying capping layer thicknesses and refractive indices to improve luminance and outcoupling efficiency (see, e.g., paragraphs [0064]-[0074], [0091], [0127]-[0129], and Table I), the disclosure merely evidences improved luminance characteristics and does not demonstrate or describe propagation of “substantially all” emitted light through the capping layers. The specification further fails to provide objective boundaries, quantitative transmission criteria, or experimental measurements establishing when the claimed “substantially all” propagation condition is satisfied.
A disclosure that merely defines a desired result, without describing the invention in sufficient detail to show that the inventor actually possessed the claimed subject matter, does not satisfy the written description requirement. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1350-51 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc); MPEP § 2163.
Accordingly, the specification fails to provide adequate written description support for the claimed limitation.
Claims 18-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement.
The claims contain 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.
Claims 18 and 35 recite that “substantially all” light emitted from the OLED in a direction perpendicular to the electrode propagates through the capping layer. Although the specification describes selecting capping layer materials and thicknesses to improve luminance and outcoupling efficiency, the disclosure does not teach how to achieve the claimed degree of light propagation through the capping layer.
The specification does not disclose sufficient guidance regarding optical losses, absorption characteristics, interface reflections, refractive-index matching conditions, transmission coefficients, or quantitative propagation thresholds necessary to determine when “substantially all” emitted light propagates through the capping layer. Further, the specification provides no working examples or measurements demonstrating that the claimed propagation condition has actually been achieved. The luminance improvements reported in Table I merely demonstrate increased efficiency relative to other structures and do not establish that substantially all emitted light propagates through the capping layer.
The determination of whether undue experimentation would be required is guided by the factors set forth in In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988), including the breadth of the claims, the amount of guidance provided in the specification, the presence or absence of working examples, and the nature and predictability of the art. Here, the claims broadly require propagation of “substantially all” emitted light through the capping layer, while the specification provides only limited qualitative guidance directed to improving luminance through thickness and refractive-index adjustments and lacks working examples or quantitative criteria demonstrating achievement of the claimed propagation condition. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would be required to engage in undue experimentation to determine how to achieve the full scope of the claimed invention.
Accordingly, the specification fails to comply with the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Conclusion
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
May 7, 2026
Prosecution Insights