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 .
Attorney Docket Number: UDC-1767-US
Filling Date: 10/30/23
Priority Date: 11/18/22
Inventor: Carmel et al
Examiner: Bilkis Jahan
DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 6-10, 14-16, 18, 38 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zakhidov et al (US 2013/0240847 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zakhidov discloses an organic emissive device (Fig. 15) comprising: a substrate (element “SUBSTRATE”); a first organic light emitting device (OLED) (element “EML-2”, Paras. 45-47) disposed over the substrate, the first OLED (diode between common cathode and substrate) comprising a first emissive layer of a first organic emissive material (element “EML-2”, Paras. 45-476); a second OLED (OLED below the common cathode) disposed over the substrate and in a stack with the first OLED (Fig. 15), the second OLED comprising a second emissive layer of a second organic emissive material (EML-1); and an enhancement layer (element “CNT COMMON CATHODE” claims 5-8) disposed over the substrate, the enhancement layer comprising a plasmonic material exhibiting surface plasmon resonance that non-radiatively couples to both the first and second organic emissive materials and transfers excited state energy from each non- radiatively-coupled organic emissive material to non-radiative modes of surface plasmon polaritons (nanoscale material behaves as plasmon polaritons).
Regarding claim 2, Zakhidov discloses the organic emissive device of claim 1, wherein the enhancement layer (element “CNT COMMON CATHODE”) is disposed a threshold distance (distance by n-doped ETL layer) away from the first (element “EML-2”) and/or second emissive layers.
Regarding claim 6, Zakhidov discloses the organic emissive device of claim 1, wherein the first emissive layer (element “EML-2”) comprises a phosphorescent emitter (Paras. 45-47, 37).
Regarding claim 7, Zakhidov discloses the organic emissive device of claim 1, wherein the enhancement layer (element “CNT common cathode”)) is disposed between the first OLED (layers above element “CNT common cathode”) and the second OLED (layers under the element “CNT common cathode”).
Regarding claim 8, Zakhidov discloses the organic emissive device of claim 1, wherein the enhancement layer functions as an anode (it can function as anode based on the connection, element “CNT common cathode”) for the first OLED (top one) and a cathode for the second OLED (bottom one).
Regarding claim 9, Zakhidov discloses the organic emissive device of claim 1, wherein the enhancement layer functions (element “CNT common cathode”) as a cathode for the first OLED (layers on element “CNT common cathode”) and for the second OLED (layers under the element “CNT common cathode”).
Regarding claim 10, Zakhidov discloses the organic emissive device of claim 1, wherein the enhancement layer (element “CNT common cathode”) functions as an anode (it can be anode based on the connection) for the first OLED (layers on element “CNT common cathode”) and for the second OLED (layers under the element “CNT common cathode”).
Regarding claim 14, Zakhidov discloses the organic emissive device of claim 1, wherein the first OLED (Paras. 41, 16, top OLED) is an inverted OLED and the second OLED is a non-inverted OLED (bottom LED).
Regarding claim 15, Zakhidov discloses the organic emissive device of claim 1, wherein the second OLED (bottom LED) is disposed adjacent to the first OLED (top LED) and wherein the first and second OLEDs share a common electrode (element “CNT COMMON CATHODE”).
Regarding claim 16, Zakhidov discloses the organic emissive device of claim 15, wherein the common electrode (element “CNT COMMON CATHODE”) is the enhancement layer (it has nano structures).
Regarding claim 18, Zakhidov discloses the organic emissive device of claim 1, wherein the first and/or second emissive materials comprises a material independently selected from the group consisting of: a phosphorescent emitter (Paras. 26, 27, 37), a phosphor-sensitized fluorescent emitter, a thermally-activated delayed fluorescence (TADF) emitter, a phosphor-sensitized TADF, and a fluorescent emitter.
Regarding claim 38, Zakhidov discloses a consumer electronic device (Fig. 15) comprising: a substrate (element “SUBSTRATE”); a first organic light emitting device (OLED) (diode between common cathode and anode 2) disposed over the substrate, the first OLED (diode between common cathode and anode 2) comprising a first emissive layer of a first organic emissive material (EML-2, Paras. 4, 45-47); a second OLED (diode between common cathode and substrate) disposed over the substrate and in a stack with the first OLED, the second OLED (diode between common cathode and substrate) comprising a second emissive layer (element EML-1, Paras. 4, 45-47) of a second organic emissive material EML1; and an enhancement layer (element “CN COMMON CATHODE”, Para. 9, claims 16, 25) disposed over the substrate, the enhancement layer comprising a plasmonic material exhibiting surface plasmon resonance that non-radiatively couples to both the first and second organic emissive materials and transfers excited state energy from each non- radiatively-coupled organic emissive material to non-radiative modes of surface plasmon polaritons, wherein the enhancement layer is disposed a threshold distance (distance by n-doped ETL) away from the first (EML-2) and/or second emissive layers.
Regarding claim 39, Zakhidov discloses the consumer electronic device of claim 38, 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 (Para. 33), 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 (cell phone has display and it has sign, Para. 33).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 3-5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zakhidov et al (US 2013/0240847 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Zakhidov does not explicitly disclose the organic emissive device of claim 2, wherein the threshold distance is a distance at which the total non-radiative decay rate constant of the first or second organic emissive material is equal to the total radiative decay rate constant of the first or second organic emissive material, respectively.
However, Zakhidov discloses the threshold distance (distance by p-doped HTL layer) and the first (element “EML-1”) or second organic emissive material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to obtain the threshold distance is a distance at which the total non-radiative decay rate constant of the first or second organic emissive material is equal to the total radiative decay rate constant of the first or second organic emissive material, respectively for intended purposes.
Regarding claim 4, Zakhidov does not explicitly disclose the organic emissive device of claim 2, wherein the first or second organic emissive material has a total non-radiative decay rate constant
PNG
media_image1.png
32
66
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, a total radiative decay rate constant
PNG
media_image2.png
28
36
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, a total non-radiative decay rate constant due to the enhancement layer
PNG
media_image3.png
30
70
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, and a total radiative decay rate constant due to the enhancement layer
PNG
media_image4.png
26
62
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and wherein the threshold distance is a distance at which
PNG
media_image5.png
42
132
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
However, Zakhidov discloses the first (element “EML-1”) or second organic emissive material and the enhancement layer (element “CNT COMMON CATHODE”) including other limitations as claimed in claims 1 and 2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to obtain the first or second organic emissive material has a total non-radiative decay rate constant
PNG
media_image1.png
32
66
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, a total radiative decay rate constant
PNG
media_image2.png
28
36
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, a total non-radiative decay rate constant due to the enhancement layer
PNG
media_image3.png
30
70
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, and a total radiative decay rate constant due to the enhancement layer
PNG
media_image4.png
26
62
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and wherein the threshold distance is a distance at which
PNG
media_image5.png
42
132
media_image5.png
Greyscale
for intended purposes.
The recitation of ‘the first or second organic emissive material has a total non-radiative decay rate constant
PNG
media_image1.png
32
66
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, a total radiative decay rate constant
PNG
media_image2.png
28
36
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, a total non-radiative decay rate constant due to the enhancement layer
PNG
media_image3.png
30
70
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, and a total radiative decay rate constant due to the enhancement layer
PNG
media_image4.png
26
62
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and wherein the threshold distance is a distance at which
PNG
media_image5.png
42
132
media_image5.png
Greyscale
’ is functional. The structure recited in “Zakhidov” is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Or where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) and MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 5, Zakhidov discloses the organic emissive device of claim 2, wherein the enhancement layer (distance by p-doped HTL layer) is disposed not more than a threshold distance (one of the ordinary skill of the art) away from the first emissive layer (element “EML-1”) and the second emissive layer.
Regarding claim 17, Zakhidov does not explicitly disclose the organic emissive device of claim 15, wherein the common electrode has a transparency of at least 5%, 10%, 15%, or 20% across the visible spectrum, or not more than 60%, 70%, or 80% across the visible spectrum.
However, Zakhidov discloses same nano material as disclosed (element “CNT COMMON CATHODE”, Para. 9, claims 16, 25). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before effective filling date of the claimed invention to obtain the common electrode has a transparency of at least 5%, 10%, 15%, or 20% across the visible spectrum, or not more than 60%, 70%, or 80% across the visible spectrum for intended purposes.
The recitation of ‘the common electrode has a transparency of at least 5%, 10%, 15%, or 20% across the visible spectrum, or not more than 60%, 70%, or 80% across the visible spectrum’ is functional. The structure recited in “Zakhidov” is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Or where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) and MPEP 2112.01.
Claim(s) 11-12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zakhidov et al (US 2013/0240847 A1) in view of Fusella et al (US 2021/0265584 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Zakhidov does not explicitly disclose the organic emissive device of claim 1, further comprising an outcoupling layer configured to outcouple the surface plasmon polaritons from the device as photons, wherein the outcoupling layer outcouples excited state energy from both the first emissive layer and the second emissive layer.
Zakhidov discloses an enhancement layer (element “CNT COMMON CATHODE” claims 5-8).
However, Fusella discloses enhancement layer with an outcoupling layer (Paras. 192, 207, 210).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to obtain “an outcoupling layer configured to outcouple the surface plasmon polaritons from the device as photons, wherein the outcoupling layer outcouples excited state energy from both the first emissive layer and the second emissive layer” for increasing yield of the LEDs (Para. 210).
Regarding claim 12, Fusella discloses the organic emissive device of claim 11, wherein the outcoupling layer comprises a plurality of nanoparticles (Paras. 192, 207, 210).
Regarding claim 13, Fusella discloses the organic emissive device of claim 11, wherein the outcoupling layer outcouples light from both the first emissive layer and the second emissive layer (Fusella’s enhancement layer with outcoupling layer, Paras. 192, 207, 210 and Zakhidov the first emissive layer and the second emissive layer base structure, Fig. 15, it will be obvious).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BILKIS JAHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5022. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 am-5 Pm.
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, Marlon T Fletcher can be reached at (571)272-2063. 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.
BILKIS . JAHAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2817
/BILKIS JAHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817