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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The reference(s) cited within the IDS document(s) submitted on 10/5/2023, 3/27/2024, 1/29/2025 and 5/19/2025 have been considered.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US PGPub 2021/0217964 A1, hereinafter Kim ‘964).
As to claim 1, Kim ‘964 discloses (Fig. 1) a tandem OLED device comprising: (a) an anode 110 (Paragraph 150); (b) a cathode 190 (Paragraph 358); (c) at least two electroluminescent units 153 (Paragraphs 4, 154-297, light is produced by the current from charge carriers and therefore are electroluminescent) disposed between the anode 110 and the cathode 190; and (d) an alloy thin film 155 (including at least alloy in layer 155 described in Paragraph 46 and Paragraph 75) disposed between the two electroluminescent units 153.
PNG
media_image1.png
350
236
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, Kim ‘964 discloses that the electroluminescent units 153 each comprise a hole injection layer (HIL) (Paragraphs 155-157), a hole transport layer (HTL) (Paragraphs 155-157), an electron blocking layer (EBL) (Paragraphs 155-157), an emissive layer (EML) 153 (Paragraph 211), a hole blocking layer (HBL) (Paragraphs 212 and 298-299), an electron transport layer (ETL) (Paragraphs 212 and 298-299), and an electron injection layer (EIL) (Paragraphs 212 and 298-299).
As to claim 4, Kim ‘964 discloses that the alloy film comprises a first metal and a second metal. (Paragraph 46 and 75)
As to claim 5, Kim ‘964discloses that the alloy film comprises a first metal, a second metal and a third metal. (Paragraph 46, recitation of two or more includes three metals, Paragraph 75).
As to claim 7, Kim ‘964discloses that the first metal is a precious metal (Paragraph 75, Ag).
As to claim 8, Kim ‘964 discloses that the second metal is an alkaline earth metal (Paragraph 75, Mg, Ba) or a rare earth metal (Paragraph 46, Yb, Sm).
Claim(s) 1, 3 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ma et al. (US PGPub 2018/0159084 A1).
As to claim 1, Ma et al. discloses (Fig. 2) A tandem OLED device comprising: (a) an anode 200; (b) a cathode 100; (c) at least two electroluminescent units (1, 2, 4, 31 form one unit and 6-8, 32 form another unit, Paragraph 29) disposed between the anode 200 and the cathode 100; and (d) an alloy thin film 52 (Paragraphs 23 and 39) disposed between the two electroluminescent units 1, 2, 4-8, 31, 32.
PNG
media_image2.png
354
358
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 3, Ma et al. discloses that the alloy film 52 is disposed between a p-type film 51 (Paragraph 23) and an n-type film 53 (Paragraph 23).
As to claim 11, Ma et al. discloses that a thickness of the alloy film 52 is from 1 nm to 8 nm (Paragraphs 23 and 43).
Claim(s) 1 and 4-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US PGPub 2018/0269265 A1, hereinafter Kim ‘265).
As to claim 1, Kim ‘265 discloses (Fig. 1) a tandem OLED device comprising: (a) an anode 2000 (Paragraph 60); (b) a cathode 1000 (Paragraph 60); (c) at least two electroluminescent units 400, 600 (Paragraphs 4, and 62-72) disposed between the anode 2000 and the cathode 1000; and (d) an alloy thin film 500 (Paragraphs 51-56), disposed between the two electroluminescent units 400, 600.
PNG
media_image3.png
314
254
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As to claim 4, Kim ‘265discloses (Fig. 1) that the alloy film 500 comprises a first metal and a second metal (Paragraph 52, at least one among La, Ce, etc. includes having two metals, Paragraph 55, at least one halide).
As to claim 5, Kim ‘265 discloses (Fig. 1) that the alloy film 500 comprises a first metal, a second metal and a third metal (Paragraph 52, at least one among La, Ce, etc. includes having two metals, Paragraph 55, at least one halide includes having an additional two metals).
As to claim 6, Kim ‘265 discloses (Fig. 1) that the alloy film 500 is bilayer, comprising a first layer 510 including two different metals (Paragraph 52), and a second layer 520 including a third metal (Paragraph 55).
As to claim 7, Kim ‘265 discloses (Fig. 1) that the first metal is a precious metal (Paragraph 55, Ag, Au, Pt).
As to claim 8, Kim ‘265 discloses that the second metal is an alkaline earth metal (Paragraph 52, Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba, Ra) or a rare earth metal (Paragraph 52, La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Pm, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb, Lu).
As to claim 9, Kim ‘265 discloses that the third metal is an alkali metal halide (Paragraph 52) or an organic compound including an alkali metal.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ‘265 as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Manders (US PGPub 2021/0028383 A1).
As to claim 10, Kim ‘265 discloses that the alloy film 500 comprises a first metal, a second metal and a third metal (Paragraph 52, at least one from La, Ce, etc. includes three in combination, or alternatively, includes two and the at least one from LiCl, NaCl, etc. includes an additional two metals). Furthermore, Kim ‘265 discloses simultaneously depositing by thermal deposition (Paragraphs 46 and 50), but Kim ‘265 does not explicitly state that the thermal deposition process is specifically thermal evaporation.
Manders teaches (Fig. 9) forming the analogous layer (CGL 562) by thermal evaporation (Paragraph 81).
Therefore, in the absence of an explicit teaching of the exact thermal deposition process by Kim et al., one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would look to the prior art for suitable thermal deposition processes and therefore find it obvious to use thermal evaporation since it is taught as suitable by Manders and the selection from among known suitable deposition methods for their known purposes is generally within the abilities of one having ordinary skill in the art.
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
D’Andrade (US PGPub 2010/0013378 A1) discloses (Figs. 3 and 4) an intermediate layer 340 with an LiF/Al/Ca layering.
Kwok et al. (US PGPub 2006/0250079 A1) discloses (Fig. 1) an intermediate layer with LiF/Ca/Ag layering.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN Y HORIKOSHI whose telephone number is (571)270-7811. The examiner can normally be reached Monday and Tuesday 2-10PM EDT.
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.
/S.Y.H/Examiner, Art Unit 2875
/ABDULMAJEED AZIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875