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 .
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 – 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1 and 4 recite “an organic light emitting material localized in a layer having less than 20% of an optical thickness of the photonic crystal”. The specification discloses differing thickness definitions. Paragraphs [0016] and [0019] teach “optical thickness”, but paragraph [0026] teaches “total thickness”. It is unclear which thickness to use. The examiner recommends amending the specification for consistency of definition throughout.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li (US 2015/0008419).
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches using conventional distributed Bragg reflectors on one side of a light emitting layer with a reflective metal layer on the other (FIG. 1):
A light emitting device, comprising:
a single light emitting photonic crystal having a stop band and having organic electroluminescent emitter material (EML) disposed within the single photonic crystal,
wherein the light emitting device further comprises a reflective metal cathode (metal [0013]),
wherein the organic electroluminescent emitter material comprises an organic light emitting material localized in a layer having less than 20% of an optical thickness of the photonic crystal (FIG. 1),
further wherein the organic electroluminescent emitter material has a free space emission spectrum that at least in part overlaps the stop band of the photonic crystal ([0047]),
further wherein the photonic crystal emits light at a wavelength corresponding to an edge of the stop band ([0047]),
further wherein the photonic crystal has a periodically varying refractive index ([0013]),
further wherein the photonic crystal further comprises alternating layers of high index of refraction materials and low index of refraction materials (QWS [0013]),
further wherein one of the layers of low index of refraction materials comprises a zone containing the organic electroluminescent emitter material (EML),
further wherein the zone comprising the organic electroluminescent emitter material further comprises one or more additional sub-layers of organic materials each having a low index of refraction respective to an adjacent layer, wherein the additional organic materials are at least one of: (i) a charge transport material, (ii) a charge injection material, or (iii) a charge carrier blocking material ([0013] – [0014]), and
further wherein the zone comprising the organic electroluminescent emitter material is adjacent to the reflective metal cathode (FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 2, Li teaches:
The light emitting device of claim 1, wherein the edge of the stop band occurs at a wavelength at which measured radiance of luminescence light emitted by the organic electroluminescent emitter material is greater than one-quarter of a peak radiance of a luminescence emission spectrum of the emitter material (QWS, [0046] – [0047]).
Regarding claim 3, Li teaches:
The light emitting device of claim 1, wherein the edge of the stop band occurs at a wavelength at which light absorption for a single pass of light through an emitter layer is less than ½ % ([0046], “absorb no or very little light”).
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 4 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 2015/0008419) in view of Lee et al. (US 2016/0072078).
Regarding claim 4, Li teaches using conventional distributed Bragg reflectors on one side of a light emitting layer with a reflective metal layer on the other (FIG. 1):
A light emitting device, comprising:
a single light emitting photonic crystal having a stop band and having organic electroluminescent emitter material (EML) disposed within the single photonic crystal,
wherein the organic electroluminescent emitter material comprises an organic light emitting material localized in a layer having less than 20% of an optical thickness of the photonic crystal (FIG. 1),
further wherein the organic electroluminescent emitter material has a free space emission spectrum that at least in part overlaps the stop band of the photonic crystal ([0047]),
further wherein the photonic crystal emits light at a wavelength corresponding to an edge of the stop band ([0047]),
further wherein the photonic crystal has a periodically varying refractive index ([0013]),
further wherein the photonic crystal further comprises alternating layers of high index of refraction materials and low index of refraction materials (QWS, [0013]),
further wherein one of the layers of low index of refraction materials comprises a zone containing the organic electroluminescent emitter material (EML),
further wherein the zone comprising the organic electroluminescent emitter material further comprises one or more additional sub-layers of organic materials each having a low index of refraction respective to an adjacent layer, wherein the additional organic materials are at least one of: (i) a charge transport material, (ii) a charge injection material, or (iii) a charge carrier blocking material ([0013] – [0014]), and
further wherein the zone comprising the organic electroluminescent emitter material comprises two materials ([0068]).
Li teaches utilizing various permutations of two material organic layers for the light emitting source, but fails to expressly disclose materials that are capable of interacting to form a light emitting exciplex.
However, Lee teaches forming an exciplex using electron and hole transporting host materials to improve OLED efficiency, brightness, and lifespan ([0030]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the materials disclosed by Lee in the two material light emitting layer of Li for the predictable advantage of using conventional materials systems to improve OLED performance.
Regarding claim 5, Li teaches:
The light emitting device of claim 4 wherein the light emitting device further comprises a reflective metal cathode (metal [0013]).
Regarding claim 6, Li teaches:
The light emitting device of claim 5 wherein the zone comprising electroluminescent emitter material is adjacent to the reflective metal cathode (FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Lee teaches (page 101):
The light emitting device of claim 4 wherein the two materials that are capable of interacting to form a light emitting exciplex are 4,4',4"tris(carbazole-9-yl)triphenylamine (TCTA) and 4,6-bis(3,5- di(pyridine-3-yl)pheny1)-2-methylpyrimidine (B3PyMPM).
Claims 4 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 2015/0008419) in view of Lee et al. (US 2016/0072078) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Liao et al. (CN 111416049 A).
Regarding claim 8, Li and Lee teach designing the structure for specific wavelengths, but fails to expressly disclose the specific materials of the light emitting layer:
The light emitting device of claim 4 wherein the two materials that are capable of interacting to form a light emitting exciplex are 4,4',4"tris(carbazole-9-yl)triphenylamine (TCTA) and 4,6-bis(3,5- di(pyridine-4-yl)pheny1)-2-methylpyrimidine (B4PyMPM).
However, Liao teaches forming a green exciplex using TCTA and B4PyMPM.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the material systems of Liao in the structure of Li for the predictable advantage of improving OLED performance when designing for a green OLED emission.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CORY W ESKRIDGE whose telephone number is (571)272-0543. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 9 - 5.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached at (571) 272-6787. 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.
/CORY W ESKRIDGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights