`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`
`
`
` FILING DATE
`
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`
`
`
`CONFIRMATIONNO.
`
`
`12/372,932
`
`02/18/2009
`
`Takahiro Nakayama
`
`1497.49733X00
`
`1555
`
`20457
`
`7590
`
`05/02/2013
`
`ANTONELLI, TERRY, STOUT & KRAUS, LLP
`1300 NORTH SEVENTEENTH STREET
`SUITE 1800
`ARLINGTON,VA 22209-3873
`
`STERN,JACOB R
`
`2879
`
`MAIL DATE
`
`05/02/2013
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`PAPER
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Applicant(s)
`Application No.
` 12/372,932 NAKAYAMA, TAKAHIRO
`
`Examiner
`Art Unit
`AIA (First Inventorto File)
`Office Action Summary
`
`JACOB R. STERN Na 2879
`
`-- The MAILING DATEof this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTH(S) OR THIRTY(30) DAYS,
`WHICHEVER IS LONGER, FROM THE MAILING DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a).
`In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed
`after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Anyreply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`1)X] Responsive to communication(s)filed on1February2013.
`LJ A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiledon__
`2a)L] This action is FINAL.
`2b) This action is non-final.
`3)L] Anelection was made bythe applicant in responsetoarestriction requirementset forth during the interview on
`
`
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporatedinto this action.
`4)[] Since this application is in condition for allowance exceptfor formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Ex parte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
` Attachment(s)
`
`Disposition of Claims
`5) Claim(s) 7 and 3-17 is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`6)L] Claim(s)
`is/are allowed.
`7) Claim(s) 7 and 3-171 is/are rejected.
`8)L] Claim(s)____is/are objectedto.
`
`9)L] Claim(s)
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`or send an inquiry to PPHieedback@uspto.qoy.
`
`Application Papers
`10)L] The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)] The drawing(s)filed on 18 February 2009 is/are: a)IX] accepted or b)[_] objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121(d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)[] Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`a)X] All
`b)[-] Some * c)L] None ofthe:
`1.x] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.L] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.L] Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been receivedin this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`“ See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`Interim copies:
`a)L] All
`b)L] Some
`
`Interim copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`c)L] None of the:
`
`3) CT] Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`1) CT] Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date. __
`2) [J information
`Disclosure
`Statement(s)
`(PTO/SB/08
`)
`4 O Other:
`)
`nformation Disclosure
`Statement(s) (
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 03-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20130408
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/372,932
`Art Unit: 2879
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
`
`A requestfor continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set
`
`forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), wasfiled in this application after final rejection. Since this
`
`application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set
`
`forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has beentimely paid, the finality of the previous Office action
`
`has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on
`
`02/01/2013 has been entered.
`
`The Amendment filed on 02/01/2013 has been considered. Claims 1 and 3-11
`
`are currently pending.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all
`
`obviousnessrejections setforth in this Office action:
`
`(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set
`forth in section 102 ofthis title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and
`the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obviousat the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
`Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
`
`Claims 1 and 3-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Yashimaetal. (US 20070029539).
`
`Regarding Independent Claim 1, Yashima discloses an organic light emitting
`
`device, comprising: resonators for respective three colors of a red range, a green range,
`
`and a blue range; and a respective resonator having a plurality of layers including a light
`
`emission layer (see [0059] which describes howthe light extraction efficiency can be
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/372,932
`Art Unit: 2879
`
`Page 3
`
`improved between the semi-transmissive reflecting layer and the reflecting electrode),
`
`wherein: when an optical path length which extends through the light emission layer
`
`(the optical path length denoted in [0059]) and whichis a sum of values each obtained
`
`by multiplying a refractive index nj of each layeri of the plurality of layers by a thickness
`
`d; thereof and doubling a resultant is denoted by 22nidi, a length obtained by adding an
`
`amountof a phase shift owing to an interface reflection and an offset length is denoted
`
`by A, a natural number is denoted by m, and a resonance wavelength is denoted by A, a
`
`total resonator length L of the organic light emitting device is set to L= 22njdj + A=m4; in
`
`the resonator having the red rangethat emits light, a total resonator length of the
`
`resonator for the red range is m times larger than a wavelength of the red range
`
`([0031]), and in the resonator having the blue range that emits light, a total resonator
`
`length thereof of the resonator for the blue range is (m+1) times larger than a
`
`wavelength of the blue range ([0031]) the total resonator length of the resonator for the
`
`red range and the total resonator length of the resonatorfor the blue range are
`
`substantially equal to each other ([0028]); and a thickness of the resonator for the red
`
`range and a thicknessof the resonator for the blue range are substantially equal
`
`([0028]) to each other the optical path length for the red range, the optical path length
`
`for the blue range and the optical path length for the green range are substantially equal
`
`to each other ([0010], [0028], [0059] and figure 1).
`
`Yashima does not expressly that the optical path length and thicknessfor the
`
`blue, red, and green are exactly the same.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/372,932
`Art Unit: 2879
`
`Page 4
`
`It should be noted that Yashima disclosesthatit is preferred that layers other
`
`than the light-emitting layer each have a common structure as far as possible and that
`
`the optical path lengths for the blue, red, and green take substantially equal values
`
`([0028]). Furthermore, manufacturing is made easier when the sub-pixels have the
`
`samethickness. And,
`
`for a given thickness, the luminosity is increased when the peak
`
`wavelengths of the emission colors correspond to the thickness. Consequently, it would
`
`have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to make
`
`device with the limitations as claimed in order to make manufacturing easier while
`
`having a high luminosity.
`
`Regarding Independent Claim 3, Yashima discloses an organic light emitting
`
`device, comprising: resonators for respective three colors of a red range, a green range,
`
`and a blue range; and a respective resonator having a plurality of layers including a light
`
`emission layer (see [0059] which describes how the light extraction efficiency can be
`
`improved between the semi-transmissive reflecting layer and the reflecting electrode),
`
`wherein: when an optical path length which extends through the light emission layer (the
`
`optical path length denotedin [0059]) and whichis a sum of values each obtained by
`
`multiplying a refractive index n; of each layeri of the plurality of layers of the organic
`
`light emitting device by a thicknessdj; thereof and doubling a resultant is denoted by
`
`22nidi, a length obtained by adding an amount of a phase shift owing to an interface
`
`reflection and an offset length is denoted by A, a natural numberis denoted by m, and a
`
`resonance wavelength is denoted by A,a total resonator length L of the organic light
`
`emitting device is set to L= 22njd; + A=mA; and in the resonator having the red range
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/372,932
`Art Unit: 2879
`
`Page 5
`
`that emits light, a total resonator length of the resonator for the red range is m times
`
`larger than a wavelength of the red range, in the resonator having the green range that
`
`emits light, a total resonator length of the resonator for the green range is (m + 1) times
`
`larger than a wavelength of the green range, and in the resonator having the blue range
`
`that emits light, a total resonator length of the resonator for the blue range is (m+2)
`
`times larger than a wavelength of the blue range (paragraph [0010] figure 1 &
`
`corresponding text), a thickness of the resonator for the blue range andathicknessof
`
`the resonator for the green range are equal to each other and the (as evidenced by
`
`paragraph [0010] and figure 1 & corresponding text) the optical path length for the red
`
`range, the optical path length for the blue range andthe optical path length for the green
`
`range are equal to each other.
`
`Yashima does not expressly that the optical path length and thicknessfor the
`
`blue, red, and green are exactly the same.
`
`It should be noted that Yashima disclosesthatit is preferred that layers other
`
`than the light-emitting layer each have a common structure as far as possible and that
`
`the optical path lengths for the blue, red, and green take substantially equal values.
`
`Furthermore, manufacturing is made easier when the sub-pixels have the same
`
`thickness. And,
`
`for a given thickness, the luminosity is increased when the peak
`
`wavelengths of the emission colors correspond to the thickness. Consequently, it would
`
`have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to make
`
`device with the limitations as claimed in order to make manufacturing easier while
`
`having a high luminosity.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/372,932
`Art Unit: 2879
`
`Page 6
`
`Regarding Claim 4, an organic light emitting device according to claim 1,
`
`wherein a light emission of the red range and a light emission of the blue range
`
`simultaneously satisfy a resonance condition in which each ofthe light emissions of the
`
`colors is in phase (paragraph [0010] and figure 1 & corresponding text) .
`
`Regarding Claim 5, an organic light emitting device wherein the total resonator
`
`length L falls within a range of (+/- )(.5%) of one of 1,010 nm, 1,180 nm, and 1,320 nm
`
`(paragraph [0010] and figure 1 & corresponding text) .
`
`Regarding Claim 6, an organic light emitting device wherein no phaseshift of a
`
`1/2 wavelength occurs owing to a mirror surface reflection on both reflection mirrors of
`
`eachof the resonators; and an optical path length betweenthe reflection mirrors falls
`
`within a range of (+/-) (5%) of one of 187 nm, 476 nm, and 714 nm (paragraph [0010]
`
`and figure 1 & corresponding text).
`
`Regarding Claim 7, an organic light emitting device wherein a phaseshift of a
`
`1/2 wavelength occurs owing only to a mirror surface reflection on one ofreflection
`
`mirrors of each of the resonators; and an optical path length betweenthe reflection
`
`mirrors falls within a range of (+/-) (5%) of one of 323 nm and 595 nm (paragraph [0010]
`
`and figure 1 & corresponding text).
`
`Regarding Claim 8, an organic light emitting device according to claim 3,
`
`wherein a light emission of the red range, a light emission of the green range, and a
`
`light emission of the blue range simultaneously satisfy a resonance condition
`
`(paragraph [0010] andfigure 1 & corresponding text) .
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/372,932
`Art Unit: 2879
`
`Page 7
`
`Regarding Claim 9, organic light emitting device according to claim 8, wherein
`
`the total resonator length L falls within a range of (+/-) (5%) of one of 1,390 nm and
`
`2,122 nm (paragraph [0010] and figure 1 & corresponding text) .
`
`Regarding Claim 10, an organic light emitting device according to claim 8,
`
`wherein: no phaseshift of a 1/2 wavelength occurs owing to a mirror surface reflection
`
`on both reflection mirrors of each of the resonators; and an optical path length between
`
`the reflection mirrors falls within a range of (+/-) (5%) of one of 833 nm and 1,122 nm
`
`(paragraph [0010] andfigure 1 & corresponding text).
`
`Regarding Claim 11, an organic light emitting device according to claim 8,
`
`wherein: a phaseshift of a 1/2 wavelength occurs owing only to in a mirror surface
`
`reflection on one of reflection mirrors of each of the resonators; and an optical path
`
`length betweenthe reflection mirrors falls within a range of (+/-) (.5%) of one of 680 nm,
`
`935 nm, and 1,224 nm (paragraph [0010] and figure 1 & corresponding text.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`Applicant's argumentsfiled on 02/01/2013 have been fully considered but they
`
`are not persuasive.
`
`Claims 1 and 3 - 12 are currently rejected under 35 USC 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Yashima et al (US 2007/0029539). Applicant has argued that this
`
`rejection is traversed insofaras it is applicable to the previously presented claims.
`
`The current rejection has incorporated Applicant’s amendments. Applicantis
`
`pointed to paragraph [0059] of Yashima et al which describes howthe light extraction
`
`efficiency can be improved byutilizing not only the mutual reinforcementoflights due to
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/372,932
`Art Unit: 2879
`
`Page 8
`
`the adjustmentof the optical path between the emission position as argued by applicant
`
`on page 8 of the remarks (which does not include the emission layer) and the reflecting
`
`surface of the reflecting electrode but also by adjustmentof the optical path between the
`
`reflecting surface of the semi-transmissive reflecting layer and the reflecting surface of
`
`the reflecting electrode (which includes the emitting layer). Thus, the features as
`
`claimed would have been obvious to one having ordinaryskill in the art at the time of
`
`invention as indicated in the new rejection above.
`
`Conclusion
`
`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 eventafirst replyis 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-MONTHshortenedstatutory period, then the
`
`shortenedstatutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any
`
`extension fee pursuantto 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 mailing date ofthis final action.
`
`Anyinquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to JACOB R. STERN whosetelephone numberis
`
`(571)270-3350. The examiner can normally be reached on Mondaythru Friday, 8am-
`
`5pm EST.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/372,932
`Art Unit: 2879
`
`Page 9
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's
`
`supervisor, Nimesh D. Patel can be reached on (571)272-2457. The fax phone number
`
`for the organization wherethis application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
`
`Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the
`
`Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for
`
`published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
`
`Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
`
`For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should
`
`you have questions on accessto the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic
`
`Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a
`
`USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automatedinformation
`
`system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA)or 571-272-1000.
`
`/JACOB STERN/
`Examiner, Art Unit 2879
`
`/NIMESHKUMAR D. PATEL/
`Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2879
`
`