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 .
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 8-11, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hack et al. (US 2018/0166512).
Regarding claim 1, Hack discloses a tandem OLED display comprising (a) a substrate backplane (365; Paragraph [0022-0023]), (b) an anode layer (115; Paragraph [0050]), (c) at least two stacked OLED layers, each OLED layer comprising a plurality of pixels (325; Paragraph [0061, 0071-0072]), (d) at least one charge generation layer (CGL), wherein each CGL is disposed between two adjacent stacked OLED layers (Paragraph [0061]), (e) a cathode layer (160; Paragraph [0050]), and (f) wherein at least one of the CGLs is patterned wherein a pattern provides gaps between each of the plurality of pixels (Paragraph [0061]).
Regarding claim 4, here the Applicant is claiming the product of a charge generation layer including a method (i.e. a process) of making the charge generation layer, consequently, claim 14 is considered "product-by-process" claim. In spite of the fact that the product-by-process claim may recite only process limitations, it is the product and not the recited process that is covered by the claim. Further, patentability of a claim to a product does not rest merely on the difference in the method by which the product is made. Rather, it is the product itself that must be new and not obvious (see MPEP 2113). Accordingly, the charge generation layer of Hack (Paragraph [0061]) is considered to meet the structural limitations claimed.
Regarding claim 5, Hack further discloses wherein the patterned CGL layer comprises at least two layers (Paragraph [0061]).
Regarding claim 8, Hack further discloses wherein the anode layer is patterned with gaps between each of the plurality of pixels (Fig. 3c, 371 & 372; Paragraph [0085]).
Regarding claim 9, Hack further discloses wherein the cathode layer is patterned with gaps between each of the pixels (Paragraph [0052]—when in inverse configuration).
Regarding claim 10, Hack further discloses wherein at least one of the OLED layers is patterned with gaps between each of the plurality of pixels (Paragraph [0084]).
Regarding claim 11, Hack discloses a tandem OLED display comprising (a) a substrate backplane (365; Paragraph [0022-0023]), (b) an anode layer (115; Paragraph [0050]), (c) at least two stacked OLED layers, each OLED layer comprising a plurality of pixels (325; Paragraph [0061, 0071-0072]), (d) at least one charge generation layer (CGL), wherein each CGL is disposed between two adjacent stacked OLED layers (Paragraph [0061]), (e) a cathode layer (160; Paragraph [0050]), and (f) wherein at least one of the CGLs is patterned wherein a pattern provides gaps between each of the plurality of pixels (Paragraph [0061]), (g) wherein the anode layer is patterned with gaps between each of the plurality of pixels (Fig. 3c, 371 & 372; Paragraph [0085]), (h) wherein the cathode layer is patterned with gaps between each of the pixels (Paragraph [0052]—when in inverse configuration), and (i) wherein, at least one of the OLED layers is patterned with gaps between each of the plurality of pixels (Paragraph [0084]).
Regarding claim 14, here the Applicant is claiming the product of a charge generation layer including a method (i.e. a process) of making the charge generation layer, consequently, claim 14 is considered "product-by-process" claim. In spite of the fact that the product-by-process claim may recite only process limitations, it is the product and not the recited process that is covered by the claim. Further, patentability of a claim to a product does not rest merely on the difference in the method by which the product is made. Rather, it is the product itself that must be new and not obvious (see MPEP 2113). Accordingly, the charge generation layer of Hack (Paragraph [0061]) is considered to meet the structural limitations claimed.
Regarding claim 15, Hack further discloses wherein the patterned CGL comprises at least two layers (Paragraph [0061]).
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) 2-3 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hack et al. (US 2018/0166512) in view of Cheng et al. (“Role of Charge Generation Layer in Tandem Organic Light-Emitting Diodes Investigated by Time-Resolved Electroluminescence Spectroscopy” J. Phys. Chem. C 2011, 115, 582-588).
Regarding claims 2-3 and 12-13, Hack teaches the inventions of claims 1 and 11, but is silent as to the material of the charge generation layer. In the same field of endeavor, Cheng teaches wherein a charge generation layer for a tandem is formed of an organic layer made of Alq3 doped with a metal: lithium or magnesium (See Page 1, Introduction section, lines 14-24), in order to provide a charge generation layer that improves performance with the lowest possible current density (Page 1, Introduction section, lines 14-24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Hack to have a material of the charge generation layer an organic material doped with a metal in order to provide a charge generation layer that improves performance with the lowest possible current density.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 and 16-17 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.
Specifically, with regard to claim 6, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the limitation wherein a thickness of the patterned CGL dimension ranges from about 0.5 µm to 50 µm.
Specifically, with regard to claim 7, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the limitation wherein the gaps in the CGL layer range from 0.2 µm to 50 µm.
Specifically, with regard to claim 16, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the limitation wherein a thickness of the patterned CGL dimension ranges from about 0.5 µm to 50 µm.
Specifically, with regard to claim17, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the limitation wherein the gaps in the CGL layer range from 0.2 µm to 50 µm.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNE M HINES whose telephone number is (571)272-2285. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8:00-4:30.
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, James Greece, can be reached on 571-272-3711. 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.
/Anne M Hines/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2879