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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/5/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,114,552. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because applicant merely seeks to broaden the claims by removing the third OLED stack.
1. A device comprising: a first organic light emitting diode (OLED) stack, the first OLED stack comprising:
a first electrode
a first charge generation layer
a first organic emissive layer disposed between the first electrode and the first charge generation layer and within a first threshold distance of the first electrode or the first charge generation layer, the first organic emissive layer comprising a first organic emissive material, wherein the first threshold distance is the distance at which a total non-radiative decay rate constant of the first organic emissive material is equal to a total radiative decay rate constant of the first organic emissive material
a second OLED stack, the second OLED stack comprising:
the first charge generation layer
a second electrode
a second organic emissive layer disposed between the first charge generation layer and the second electrode
wherein the first organic emissive layer is disposed over the second organic emissive layer
A device comprising: a first organic light emitting diode (OLED) stack, the first OLED stack comprising:
a first electrode
a first charge generation layer
a first organic emissive layer disposed between the first electrode and the first charge generation layer and within a first threshold distance of the first electrode or the first charge generation layer, the first organic emissive layer comprising a first organic emissive material, wherein the first threshold distance is the distance at which a total non-radiative decay rate constant of the first organic emissive material is equal to a total radiative decay rate constant of the first organic emissive material
a second OLED stack, the second OLED stack comprising:
the first charge generation layer
a second charge generation layer
a second organic emissive layer disposed between the first charge generation layer and the second charge generation layer
a third OLED stack, the third OLED stack comprising:
the second charge generation layer
a second electrode
a third organic emissive layer disposed between the second charge generation layer and the second electrode
wherein the first organic emissive layer is disposed over the second organic emissive layer
wherein the second organic emissive layer is disposed over the third organic emissive layer
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,653,543. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because applicant merely seeks to broaden the claims by not specifying which LED stack is non-plasmonic or plasmonic.
1. A device comprising: a first organic light emitting diode (OLED) stack, the first OLED stack comprising:
a first electrode
a first charge generation layer
a first organic emissive layer disposed between the first electrode and the first charge generation layer and within a first threshold distance of the first electrode or the first charge generation layer, the first organic emissive layer comprising a first organic emissive material, wherein the first threshold distance is the distance at which a total non-radiative decay rate constant of the first organic emissive material is equal to a total radiative decay rate constant of the first organic emissive material
a second OLED stack, the second OLED stack comprising:
the first charge generation layer
a second electrode
a second organic emissive layer disposed between the first charge generation layer and the second electrode
wherein the first organic emissive layer is disposed over the second organic emissive layer
1.A device comprising: a first non-plasmonic organic light emitting diode (OLED) stack, the first non-plasmonic OLED stack comprising:
a first electrode
a first charge generation layer
a first organic emissive layer disposed between the first electrode and the first charge generation layer
a second non-plasmonic OLED stack disposed over the first non-plasmonic OLED stack, the second non-plasmonic OLED stack comprising: a second electrode
a second charge generation layer
a second organic emissive layer disposed between the second electrode and the second charge generation layer
a plasmonic OLED stack, disposed between the first and second non-plasmonic OLED stacks, the plasmonic OLED stack comprising: the first charge generation layer
the second charge generation layer
a third organic emissive layer disposed between the first charge generation layer and the second charge generation layer and within a threshold distance of the first charge generation layer or the second charge generation layer, wherein the threshold distance is the distance at which a total non-radiative decay rate constant of the second organic emissive material is equal to a total radiative decay rate constant of the second organic emissive material
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 10,056,540. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because applicant merely seeks to broaden the claims by attributing the threshold distances of the enhancement layers to the third organic emissive layer relative to the first and second charge generation layers, rather than the first and second organic emissive layers and not specifying which LED stack is non-plasmonic or plasmonic.
1. A device comprising: a first organic light emitting diode (OLED) stack, the first OLED stack comprising:
a first electrode
a first charge generation layer
a first organic emissive layer disposed between the first electrode and the first charge generation layer and within a first threshold distance of the first electrode or the first charge generation layer, the first organic emissive layer comprising a first organic emissive material, wherein the first threshold distance is the distance at which a total non-radiative decay rate constant of the first organic emissive material is equal to a total radiative decay rate constant of the first organic emissive material
a second OLED stack, the second OLED stack comprising:
the first charge generation layer
a second electrode
a second organic emissive layer disposed between the first charge generation layer and the second electrode
wherein the first organic emissive layer is disposed over the second organic emissive layer
1. A device comprising: a first plasmonic organic light emitting diode (OLED) stack, the first plasmonic OLED stack comprising:
a first electrode
a first charge generation layer
a first organic emissive layer disposed between the first electrode and the first charge generation layer and within a threshold distance of the first electrode, the first organic emissive layer comprising a first organic emissive material, wherein the threshold distance is the distance at which a total non-radiative decay rate constant of the first organic emissive material is equal to a total radiative decay rate constant of the first organic emissive material
a second plasmonic OLED stack, disposed in a stack with the first plasmonic OLED stack, the second plasmonic OLED stack comprising:
the first charge generation layer
a second charge generation layer
a second organic emissive layer comprising a second organic emissive material, disposed between the first charge generation layer and the second charge generation layer and within a threshold distance of the first charge generation layer or the second charge generation layer, wherein the threshold distance is the distance at which a total non-radiative decay rate constant of the second organic emissive material is equal to a total radiative decay rate constant of the second organic emissive material
a first non-plasmonic OLED stack disposed in a stack with the first and second plasmonic OLED stacks, the first non-plasmonic OLED stack comprising: the second charge generation layer
a second electrode
a third organic emissive layer disposed between the second charge generation layer and the second electrode
wherein: the first non-plasmonic OLED is disposed over the second electrode, the second plasmonic OLED is disposed over the first non-plasmonic OLED, and the first plasmonic OLED is disposed over the second plasmonic OLED
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the first and second plasmonic OLEDs" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the first plasmonic OLED" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 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, 3-13, 15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forrest et al. (US Publication No. 2011/0248249) in view of Thompson et al. (US Publication No. 2017/0133631).
Regarding claim 1, Forrest discloses a device comprising a first organic light emitting stack comprising:
a first electrode (120)
a first charge generation layer (150)
and a first organic emissive layer (140) disposed over the first electrode (120) and the first charge generation layer (150), the first organic emissive layer comprising a first organic emissive material (paragraph 14)
a second organic light emitting stack (140), disposed in a stack with the first organic light emitting stack, the second organic light emitting stack comprising (Figure 1): a second organic emissive layer comprising a second organic emissive material (paragraph 14)
Forrest does not specifically disclose a first enhancement layer comprising a plasmonic material exhibiting surface plasmon resonance that non-radiatively couples to the second organic emissive material and transfers excited state energy from the emissive material to non-radiative mode of surface plasmon polaritons wherein the first enhancement layer is provided no more than a threshold distance away from the second organic emissive layer wherein the second organic emissive material has a total non-radiative decay rate constant and a total radiative decay rate constant due to the presence of the first enhancement layer, and the threshold distance is the distance at which the total non-radiative decay rate constant is equal to the total radiative decay rate constant. However, Thompson discloses an enhancement layer with these features so that the total non-radiative decay and total radiate decay constants are equal for the first and second organic emissive material (paragraph 19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the OLED stack of Forrest to include the enhancement layer, as taught by Thompson, since it can improve operation and durability of the LED (paragraph 172).
Regarding claim 3, Forrest discloses the first organic emissive material is a blue emissive material (paragraph 12).
Regarding claim 4, Forrest discloses the second organic emissive layer is within a second threshold distance of the first charge generation layer or the second electrode, the second organic emissive layer comprising a second organic emissive material, wherein the second threshold distance is the distance at which a total non-radiative decay rate constant of the second organic emissive material is equal to a total radiative decay rate constant of the second organic emissive material (paragraph 19).
Regarding claim 5, Forrest discloses the second and first organic emissive materials are the same emissive materials (paragraph 68).
Regarding claim 6, Thompson discloses the second organic emissive material comprises a blue emissive material (paragraph 12). As discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Forrest in view of Thompson.
Regarding claim 7, Thompson discloses a first outcoupling layer (708) disposed in a stack with the first electrode and the second electrode. As discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Forrest in view of Thompson.
Regarding claim 8, Thompson discloses a second outcoupling layer disposed in a stack with the first and second electrode (paragraphs 19-21). As discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Forrest in view of Thompson.
Regarding claim 9, Thompson discloses the first outcoupling layer (708) comprises a structure selected from the group consisting of: a grating; a corrugated layer; a nanopatch antenna; a nanoparticle outcoupling structure; and a through-hole array (paragraph 100). As discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Forrest in view of Thompson.
Regarding claim 10, Thompson discloses the first outcoupling layer (708) comprises a structure selected from the group consisting of: a grating; a corrugated layer; a nanopatch antenna; a nanoparticle outcoupling structure; and a through-hole array (paragraph 100). As discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Forrest in view of Thompson.
Regarding claim 11, Thompson discloses the first organic emissive layer and the second organic emissive layer comprises a plurality of emissive materials (paragraph 14). As discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Forrest in view of Thompson.
Regarding claim 12, Forrest discloses the first organic emissive layer and the second organic emissive layer comprises a plurality of emissive materials (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 13, Forrest discloses the second organic emissive material is selected from the group consisting of: a phosphorescent emissive material, a fluorescent emissive material, a delayed fluorescent emissive material, or a thermally-activated delayed fluorescence (TADF) emissive material (paragraph 133).
Regarding claim 15, Forrest discloses the first and second OLEDs are disposed over a first side of the substrate (Figures 1 and 10).
Regarding claim 19, Thompson discloses the device is configured to emit light primarily through the substrate (paragraph 61; Figure 1). As discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Forrest in view of Thompson.
Regarding claim 20, Thompson discloses 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 (paragraph 53). As discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Forrest in view of Thompson.
Claims 2, 14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forrest et al. (US Publication No. 2011/0248249) in view of Thompson et al. (US Publication No. 2017/0133631), and further in view of Forrest et al. (US Patent No. 6,091,195).
Regarding claim 2, Forrest/Thompson discloses the limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Forrest/Thompson does not disclose a down-conversion layer, an up conversion layer, and a radiation pattern modifying element disposed in a stack with the first and second organic light emitting stacks. However, Forrest (‘195) discloses the use of a down-conversion layer, and up conversion layer, and a radiation pattern modifying element in a stack (col. 4, lines 30-39, col. 4, lines 40-67, col. 6, lines 23-35). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the stack of Forrest/Thompson to include an up conversion, down-conversion layer, and radiation pattern modifying element as taught by Forrest (‘195), since it can convert high frequency light to different colors with high efficiency (col. 4, lines 1-8).
Regarding claim 14, Forrest (‘195) discloses a plurality of color filters, each being of a different color (col. 4, lines 40-67).
Regarding claim 16, Forrest (‘195) discloses a radiation pattern modifying element (37) disposed in a stack with the first organic light emitting stack (col. 6, lines 23-35).
Regarding claim 17, Forrest (‘195) the device comprises a plurality of sub-pixels, and different types of radiation pattern modifying elements are disposed over different colors of sub-pixels (col. 6, lines 23-35).
Regarding claim 18, Forrest/Thompson discloses the limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 15 above. Forrest/Thompson does not disclose a down-conversion layer, an up conversion layer, and a radiation pattern modifying element disposed in a stack with the first and second organic light emitting stacks. However, Forrest (‘195) discloses the use of a down-conversion layer , and up conversion layer, and a radiation pattern modifying element in a stack (col. 4, lines 30-39, col. 4, lines 40-67, col. 6, lines 23-35). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the stack of Forrest/Thompson to include an up conversion, down-conversion layer, and radiation pattern modifying element as taught by Forrest (‘195), since it can convert high frequency light to different colors with high efficiency (col. 4, lines 1-8).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEIL R PRASAD whose telephone number is (571) 270-3129. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Jacob Choi can be reached at (469) 295-9060. 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.
/N.R.P/ 9/8/2026Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/JACOB Y CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights