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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 1 June 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 6, 9-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, 9-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by D’Andrade (US 2010/0013378 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
616
540
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
618
515
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 1: D’Andrade teaches “a tandem OLED device (300) comprising: (a) an anode (320); (b) a cathode (360); (c) at least two electroluminescent units (330, 350) disposed between the anode and the cathode (see Fig. 3); and (d) an alloy thin film (340/440/540/640/740) disposed between the two electroluminescent units (see Fig. 3), wherein the alloy film comprises a first metal (‘second metal’; see paragraph 60; Ag for example (see Fig. 4)), a second metal (‘first metal’; see paragraph 60; Ca or Mg, for example (see Fig. 4)) and a third metal (‘metal halides’; see paragraph 49; LiF for example (see Fig. 4)), and wherein the first metal is a precious metal (Ag, and wherein the second metal is an alkaline earth metal (Mg or Ca) or a rare earth metal”.
With respect to claim 2: D’Andrade teaches “the tandem OLED device of claim 1 (see above), wherein the electroluminescent units (100; see paragraph 40 and Fig. 1) each comprise a hole injection layer (120), a hole transport layer (125), an electron blocking layer (130), an emissive layer (135), a hole blocking layer (140), an electron transport layer (145) and an electron injection layer (150)”.
With respect to claim 3: D’Andrade teaches “the tandem OLED device of claim 1 (see above), wherein the alloy film is disposed between (see Fig. 3) a p-type film (351; see paragraph 43) and an n-type film (331; see paragraph 43)”.
With respect to claim 6: D’Andrade teaches “the tandem OLED device of claim 1 (see above), wherein the alloy film (440) is bilayer (see Fig. 4), comprising a first layer (441) including two different metals (see Fig. 4), and a second layer (443) including a third metal (see Fig. 4)”.
With respect to claim 9: D’Andrade teaches “the tandem OLED device of claim 1 (see above), wherein the third metal is an alkali metal halide (‘LiF’) or an organic compound including an alkali metal”.
With respect to claim 10: D’Andrade teaches “the tandem OLED device of claim 1 (see above), wherein each of the first metal, the second metal and the third metal are co-deposited by thermal evaporation to make the alloy film (paragraph 35)”.
With respect to claim 11: D’Andrade teaches “the tandem OLED device of claim 1 (see above), wherein a thickness of the alloy film is from 1 nm to 8 nm (paragraph 57)”.
With respect to claim 12: D’Andrade teaches “a tandem OLED device (300) comprising: (a) an anode (320); (b) a cathode (360); (c) at least two electroluminescent units (330/360) disposed between the anode and the cathode (see Fig. 3); and (d) an alloy thin film (340/440/540/640/740) disposed between the two electroluminescent units (see Fig. 3), wherein the alloy film comprises a first metal ((‘second metal’; see paragraph 60; Ag for example (see Fig. 4)), a second metal (‘first metal’; paragraph 60; Ca or Mg, for example (see Fig. 4)) and a third metal (LiF; see Figs. 3-4), and wherein the first metal is a precious metal (Ag), and wherein the second metal is an alkaline earth metal (Mg or Ca) or a rare earth metal, and wherein the first metal, the second metal and the third metal are co-deposited by thermal evaporation (paragraph 35)”.
With respect to claim 13: D’Andrade teaches “the tandem OLED device of claim 12 (see above), wherein the electroluminescent units (100; see paragraph 40 and Fig. 1) each comprise a hole injection layer (120), a hole transport layer (125), an electron blocking layer (130), an emissive layer (135), a hole blocking layer (140), an electron transport layer (145) and an electron injection layer (150)”.
With respect to claim 14: D’Andrade teaches “the tandem OLED device of claim 12 (see above), wherein the alloy film is disposed between (see Fig. 3) a p-type film (351; see paragraph 43) and an n-type film (331; see paragraph 43)”.
With respect to claim 15: D’Andrade teaches “the tandem OLED device of claim 12 (see above), wherein the alloy film (440) is bilayer (see Fig. 4), comprising a first layer (441) including two different metals (see Fig. 4), and a second layer (443) including a third metal (see Fig. 4)”.
With respect to claim 16: D’Andrade teaches “the tandem OLED device of claim 12 (see above), wherein the third metal is an alkali metal halide (‘LiF’) or an organic compound including an alkali metal”.
With respect to claim 17: D’Andrade teaches “the tandem OLED device of claim 12 (see above), wherein each of the first metal, the second metal and the third metal are co-deposited by thermal evaporation to make the alloy film (paragraph 35)”.
With respect to claim 18: D’Andrade teaches “the tandem OLED device of claim 12 (see above), wherein a thickness of the alloy film is from 1 nm to 8 nm (paragraph 57)”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hatwar et al. (US 20090191428 A1), which teaches a tandem OLED.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL J. LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5721. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 EST M-F.
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, ABDULMAJEED AZIZ can be reached at (571)270-5046. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/NATHANIEL J LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2875
/ABDULMAJEED AZIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875
