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 § 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.
Claims 1, 7, 11-13, 16-24 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20160181561).
Regarding claim 1, Lee (e.g. fig. 5; ¶ 0023) teaches an organic light emitting display (OLED) apparatus comprising:
a reflective anode 100 and a transparent cathode 500 facing each other [¶¶ 0038; 0041];
a first stack 200 including a first light-emitting layer between the reflective anode and the transparent cathode [¶ 0094];
a second stack 400 including a second light-emitting layer between the first stack and the transparent cathode [¶ 0094];
a third stack 600 including a third light-emitting layer between the second stack and the transparent cathode [¶ 0094];
a first charge generation layer 300 between the first stack and the second stack;
and a second charge generation layer 300 between the second stack and the third stack.
PNG
media_image1.png
476
321
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 7, 12 and 13, Lee (e.g. fig. 5; ¶ 0023) teaches an OLED apparatus comprising:
a plurality of stacks 200, 400, 600 disposed between a reflective anode 100 and a transparent cathode 500 [¶¶ 0038; 0041; 0094];
and a plurality of charge generation layers 300 for supplying charges to the plurality of stacks [¶ 0037; 0083-0087].
Lee does not explicitly teach that a thickness of the first charge generation layer is larger than a thickness of the second charge generation layer nor that a thickness of a charge generation layer disposed relatively close to the anode {being in contact the electron supply 100} is larger than a thickness of a charge generation layer disposed relatively close to the cathode or among the plurality of charge generation layers.
However, Lee teaches that the generations layers may have variable thickness. Lee teaches that the charge generation layer 300 includes a hole generation region, a depletion preventing region and an electron generation region. Lee teaches that the OLED functional layers are formed with different thickness according to the desired electrical characteristics including charge transport, charge injection, hole blocking and driving voltage characteristics [¶¶ 0061, 0067, 0070, 0071, 0084].
PNG
media_image2.png
197
310
media_image2.png
Greyscale
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the thickness of respective charge generation regions may be independently selected and optimized depending on their position and electrical requirement within the device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the relative thickness of the first and second charge generation layers, including making one thicker that another as an obvious matter of routine optimization to balance current density, charge generation efficiency, voltage characteristics, and luminance performance across the multiple OLED stacks. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 11, Lee teaches that the light emitted from the plurality of stacks is mixed together, and the mixed light passes through the cathode so as to emit a white light (abstract).
Regarding claim 16, Lee teaches that the each of the first stack, the second stack, and the third stack includes at least one of a hole injecting layer (HIL), a hole transport layer (HTL), an emission layer, an electron transport layer (ETL), and an electron injecting layer (EIL) [¶¶ 0063, 0064].
Regarding claim 17, Lee teaches that the light emitted from the first stack, the second stack, and the third stack are mixed together. The mixed light passes through the transparent cathode [¶ 0043].
Regarding claim 18, Lee teaches that at least a portion of light emitted from the first stack, the second stack, and the third stack are emitted in a same direction [¶ 0043].
Regarding claim 19, Lee teaches that the first charge generation layer is disposed closer to the reflective anode than the third stack (see fig. 5).
Regarding claim 20, Lee teaches the first stack, the second stack, and the third stack is configured to emit blue light, and a remaining one of the first stack, the second stack, and the third stack is configured to emit green light [¶ 0046, 0049, 0052].
Regarding claim 21, Lee teaches a plurality of sub-pixels, wherein light emitted from the plurality of sub-pixels are combined to emit white light [¶¶ 0038, 0102].
Regarding claim 22, Lee teaches that the sub-pixel includes the reflective anode, at least a part of the first stack, the second stack, the third stack, and at least a part of the transparent cathode [¶¶ 0038, 0102].
Regarding claim 23, Lee teaches a respective color filter disposed for each sub-pixel in the plurality of sub-pixels [¶¶ 0038, 0102].
Regarding claim 24, Lee teaches that the first stack, the second stack, and the third stack is a light-emitting unit, and wherein the light-emitting unit is shared across the plurality of sub-pixels [¶¶ 0038, 0102].
Regarding claim 31, Lee teaches that the each of the first to third stacks 200, 400, and 600 may include first to third emitting layers to emit different colors from each other. For example, the first stack 200 may include a first emitting layer 202 to emit light of a first color, the second stack 400 may include a second emitting layer 402 to emit light of a second color, and the third stack 600 may include a third emitting layer to emit light of a third color, respectively. In an implementation, the first to third colors may be in a complementary color relationship with each other, e.g., at least one of the first to third colors may be complementary to another one of the first to third colors. In an implementation, the first to third colors may respond to blue, red, and green, respectively. In an implementation, the first emitting layer 202 may include a blue phosphorescent dopant material, the second emitting layer 402 may include a red phosphorescent dopant material, and the third emitting layer may include a green phosphorescent dopant material, respectively. In an implementation, the first to third colors may be selected as a combination of colors capable of emitting a white color. In an implementation, the first and third emitting layers may respectively include phosphorescent dopant materials corresponding to the selected first to third colors [¶ 0094].
Claims 3, 5, 6, 9,10, 14, 15 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20160181561) in view of Ahn et al. (US 20150188073).
Regarding claims 3, 9 and 14, Lee does not teach that the first charge generation layer includes a first N-type charge generation layer and a first P-type charge generation layer, and a thickness of the first N-type charge generation layer is larger than a thickness of the first P-type charge generation layer. However, Ahn (e.g. fig. 2) teaches a charge generation layer 140 including a first N-type charge generation layer and a first P-type charge generation layer. Ahn teaches that increasing the thickness of the N-type charge generation layer relative to the P-type charge generation layer to improve device characteristics such as lifespan [¶¶0054-0059].
PNG
media_image3.png
73
343
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the generation layer disclosed by Lee to include the relative thickness relationship disclosed by Ahn because both references are directed to stacked OLED devices employing charge generation layers, and Ahn expressly teaches that adjusting the thickness of the N-type charge generation layer relative to the P-type charge generation layer improves operational characteristics and lifespan. The modification would be merely involving routine optimization of the known result effective variable for predictable OLED performance improvements [MPEP 2144.05 II].
Regarding claim 5, Lee in view of Ahn teaches that the first N-type charge generation layer is in contact with the first stack, and the first P-type charge generation layer is in contact with the second stack.
Regarding claims 6 and 30, Lee in view of Ahn the second charge generation layer includes a second N-type charge generation layer and a second P-type charge generation layer, and a thickness of the second N-type charge generation layer is larger than a thickness of the second P-type charge generation layer (see Ahn’s fig. 2).
Moreover, regarding the other limitations recited in claim 30, the combination suggest that making the device of Lee in view of Ahn having a thickness of the second N-type charge generation layer is larger than a thickness of the first P-type charge generation layer and a thickness of the second P-type charge generation layer, and wherein a thickness of the first N-type charge generation layer is larger than the thickness of the first P-type charge generation layer and the thickness of the second P- type charge generation layer would be a matter of optimization. Ahn expressly teaches that adjusting the thickness of the N-type charge generation layer relative to the P-type charge generation layer improves operational characteristics and life span. The modification would be merely involving routine optimization of the known result effective variable for predictable OLED performance improvements [MPEP 2144.05 II].
Regarding claims 10 and 15, Lee in view of Ahn teaches that the N-type charge generation layer is disposed relatively close to the reflective anode, and the P-type charge generation layer is disposed relatively close to the transparent cathode (see Ahn’s fig. 2).
Claims 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20160181561) in view of Song et al. (US 20150060825).
Regarding claims 25 and 26, Lee does not teach that the sub pixel further comprises a respective driving thin film transistor, a respective switching thin film transistor, and a respective storage capacitor. However, Song (e.g. figs. 5 and 6¶¶ 0089) teaches a conventional active-matrix OLED pixel configuration used to control current supplied to the organic emission element. The pixel includes a driving thin film transistor, DTr, a respective switching thin film transistor Str, and a respective storage capacitor StgC.
PNG
media_image4.png
363
327
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
247
366
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to configure each sub-pixel of Lee to include a switching thin film transistor, a driving thin transistor, and a storage capacitor as taught by Song because Song teaches that such a configuration provides conventional active matrix control of the OLED emission element, including retention of gate voltage and stable current driving to the OLED device. Moreover, Lee does not teach that the device include a driving thin film transistor, and wherein the first stack, the second stack, and the third stack overlaps with the driving thin film transistor in a first direction. However, Song (e.g. figs. 5 and 6 ¶ 0089) conventional active-matrix OLED pixel configuration used to control current supplied to the organic emission element. The pixel includes driving thin film transistor, DTr, a respective switching thin film transistor Str, and a respective storage capacitor StgC. Song teaches that the OLED structure in which the OLED stack is disposed above and overlaps the driving thin film transistor in a direction perpendicular to the substrate (fig. 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to further modify Lee (as applied to claim 25) to arrange the first stack to overlap the driving thin film transistor in a first direction as taught by Song in order to reduce pixel area, improve aperture ration, and increase integration density of the OLED display device.
Claims 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20160181561) in view of Choi et al. (US 8,129,898).
Regarding claim 27, Lee does not teach a bank covering an end of the reflective anode. However, Choi (e.g. fig. 2E) teaches a conventional OLED configuration including a back 29 covering an end of the anode 25/27. Choi teaches that the bank layer 29 defines the pixel regions and prevents the organic light emitting layer 30, which is opposite the edge of the anode electrode 27, from being damaged by a high electric field generated in the edge region of the anode 27 (col. 4/ll. 26-45).
PNG
media_image6.png
216
417
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a bank layer covering an end of the reflective anode of Lee as suggested by Choi to prevent the organic light emitting layer, which is opposite the edge of the anode electrode, from being damaged by a high electric field generated in the edge region of the anode.
Regarding claim 28, Lee does not disclose that the reflective anode includes a three-layered structure or a dual-layered structure. However, Choi teaches a conventional OLED configuration where the anode includes a dual structure. An anode electrode 27 is formed on the reflective layer 25 by depositing and patterning a first transparent material. The first transparent material may be an indium-tin-oxide or an indium-zinc-oxide. The anode electrode 27 can be electrically connected to the drain electrode 17 of the thin film transistor 18 via the contact hole 24 (col. 6/ll. 42-47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make the anode of Lee comprising a dual structure reflective/transparent as disclosed by Choi because this modification merely substitutes one known OLED anode configuration for another known equivalent multilayer reflective anode arrangement to obtain predictable improvements in OLED optical efficiency and electrode characteristics.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4, 8 and 29 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
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEONARDO ANDUJAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1912. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 10 AM to 8 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, Patricia L Engle can be reached at (571)272-6660. 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.
/Leonardo Andujar/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3991 CRU
/LEONARDO ANDUJAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3991
Conferees:
/LEE E SANDERSON/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3991
/Patricia L Engle/SPRS, Art Unit 3991
Prosecution Insights