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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 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 of this title, 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.
1. Claims 1-9, 12-18 and 29-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zakhidov et al. (US 2013/0240847; hereinafter Zakhidov) in view of Brown et al. (US 6,897,474; hereinafter Brown).
Regarding claim 1, Zakhidov, in fig. 15, discloses an organic emissive device
comprising: a substrate (SUBSTRATE); a first non-inverted organic light emitting device OLED
(the bottom OLED comprises ANODE1-CNT COMMON CATHODE) disposed over the
substrate; a first inverted OLED (the top OLED comprises CNT COMMON CATHODE-
ANODE 2) disposed over the substrate and arranged in a stack with the first non-inverted OLED
(the bottom OLED); wherein the first inverted OLED (the top OLED) and the first non-inverted
OLED (the bottom OLED) have a common cathode (CNT COMMON CATHODE) disposed between the first non-inverted OLED (the bottom OLED) and the first inverted OLED (the top
OLED).
Zakhidov discloses an organic emissive device as above but fails to disclose the common anode or the common cathode comprising a metal or metal oxide. However, Brown discloses the anode or the cathode comprising a metal or metal oxide (col. 8, lines 20-33). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have an anode or a cathode material as taught by Brown, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 2, Zakhidov discloses wherein the device comprises a plurality of non-
inverted OLEDs ([0008]).
Regarding claim 3, Zakhidov discloses wherein each non-inverted OLED (the bottom
OLED) in the organic emissive device has a common cathode (CNT COMMON CATHODE)
disposed between the each non-inverted OLED (the bottom OLED) and an adjacent inverted
OLED (the top OLED) in the organic emissive device (fig. 15).
Regarding claim 4, Zakhidov discloses wherein the device comprises a plurality of
inverted OLEDs ([0008]).
Regarding claim 5, Zakhidov discloses wherein each inverted OLED in the organic
emissive device has a common anode or a common cathode disposed between the each inverted
OLED and an adjacent non-inverted OLED in the organic emissive device ([0008]).
Regarding claim 6, Zakhidov discloses wherein the device comprises a plurality of
inverted OLEDs ([0008]).
Regarding claim 7, Zakhidov discloses wherein each inverted OLED in the organic
emissive device has a common anode or a common cathode disposed between the each inverted
OLED and an adjacent non-inverted OLED in the organic emissive device ([0008]).
Regarding claim 8, Zakhidov discloses wherein wherein the device comprises m non-
inverted OLEDs and n inverted OLEDs, and wherein m≥ 2 and/or n ≥ 2 ([0008]).
Regarding claim 9, Zakhidov discloses wherein the common cathode (CNT COMMON
CATHODE) disposed between the first non-inverted OLED (the bottom OLED) and the first
inverted OLED (the top OLED) is transparent ([0008]).
Regarding claim 12, the Examiner notes that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641(CCPA); In re Minks', 169 USPQ 120 (Bd Appeals); In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458,459 (CCPA 1963). See MPEP §2114. The recitations of "such as during operation of the device, the voltage of the organic emissive device is not more than 120-150% of the voltage of the first non-inverted OLED or the first inverted OLED " do not distinguish the present invention over the prior art of Zakhidov and Brown who teaches the structure and the material as claimed.
Regarding claim 13, Zakhidov discloses wherein the first non-inverted OLED (the
bottom OLED) is closer to the substrate than the first inverted OLED (the top OLED) (fig. 15).
Regarding claim 14, Zakhidov discloses wherein the first inverted OLED (the bottom
OLED) is closer to the substrate than the first non-inverted OLED (the top OLED) (fig. 16).
Regarding claim 15, Zakhidov discloses wherein the organic emissive device emits monochrome light ([0044]).
Regarding claim 16, Zakhidov discloses wherein: the first non-inverted OLED comprises
a first emissive material; the first inverted OLED comprises a second emissive material; and the
first emissive material is different than the second emissive material (fig. 10).
Regarding claim 17, Zakhidov discloses wherein each of the first and second emissive
materials are independently selected from a group consisting of: a phosphorescent emitter, a
phosphor-sensitized fluorescent emitter, a thermally-activated delayed fluorescence (TADF)
emitter, and a fluorescent emitter (fig. 10 & [0052]).
Regarding claim 18, Zakhidov discloses wherein: the first non-inverted OLED comprises
a first emissive material; the first inverted OLED comprises a second emissive material; and the
first emissive material is the same as the second emissive material ([0056]).
Regarding claim 29, Zakhidov, in fig. 15, discloses a consumer electronic device
comprising: a device comprising: a substrate (SUBSTRATE); a first non-inverted organic light
emitting device OLED (the bottom OLED comprises ANODE1-CNT COMMON CATHODE)
disposed over the substrate; a first inverted OLED (the top OLED comprises CNT COMMON
CATHODE-ANODE 2) disposed over the substrate and arranged in a stack with the first non-
inverted OLED (the bottom OLED); and wherein the first inverted OLED (the top OLED) and
the first non-inverted OLED (the bottom OLED) have a common cathode (CNT COMMON
CATHODE) disposed between the first non-inverted OLED (the bottom OLED) and the first
inverted OLED (the top OLED).
Zakhidov discloses an organic emissive device as above but fails to disclose the common anode or the common cathode comprising a metal or metal oxide. However, Brown discloses the anode or the cathode comprising a metal or metal oxide (col. 8, lines 20-33). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have an anode or a cathode material as taught by Brown, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 30, Zakhidov discloses wherein the device is at least one type selected from the group consisting of: a flat panel display, a curved display, a computer monitor, a medical monitor, a television, a billboard, a light for interior or exterior illumination and/or signaling, a heads-up display, a fully or partially transparent display, a flexible display, a rollable display, a foldable display, a stretchable display, a laser printer, a telephone, a cell phone, tablet, a phablet, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a wearable device, a laptop computer, a digital camera, a camcorder, a viewfinder, a micro-display that is less than 2 inches diagonal, a 3-D display, a virtual reality or augmented reality display, a vehicle, a video walls comprising multiple displays tiled together, a theater or stadium screen, and a sign ([0033]).
Regarding claim 31, Brown discloses wherein at an outer electrode of the first OLED or an outer electrode of the first inverted OLED is not transparent (col. 8, lines 20-33).
Regarding claim 32, the Examiner notes that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641(CCPA); In re Minks', 169 USPQ 120 (Bd Appeals); In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458,459 (CCPA 1963). See MPEP §2114. The recitations of "such as the first OLED has an efficiency within not more than 20% of an efficiency of the first inverted OLED" do not distinguish the present invention over the prior art of Zakhidov and Brown who teaches the structure and the material as claimed.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
3. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 reply 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
4. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David Vu whose telephone number is (571) 272-1798. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00am to 5:00pm. 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 attempt to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Steven Loke H can be reached on (571) 272-1657. 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.
/DAVID VU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights