DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed 15 August 2025. By this amendment, claims 1, 4, 10-11, and 40 are amended. Claims 1-2, 4-14, 17-19, and 40-41 are currently pending.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 15 August 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that the Office action “fails to provide support in Kim or elsewhere in the record to support the conclusion that the ‘intended purpose’ of Kim’s device is any and all types of ‘light emission’” and that such a conclusory statement is “insufficient to support a finding of obviousness.” (Remarks, p. 8.) Examiner agrees insofar that obviousness cannot be supported by a conclusory statement, however, the above referred to remarks were in response to Applicant’s previous arguments alleging the modifications to Kim to emit light in only one direction would change the principle of operation and render it unsuitable for its intended purpose. (See previous Remarks, pp. 8-9, filed 13 February 2025.) While the above response to arguments is supported by the disclosure of Kim (see, e.g., Abstract), they are not the basis of obviousness; the articulated reasoning with rational underpinning supporting obviousness is found in the rejection itself. Additionally, Applicant is respectfully reminded that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant then argues Kim does not teach or suggest that Kim’s device should be limited to emit light only in a single direction and doing so would “change the principle of operation of Kim’s device (emission in both directions via transparent electrodes) or render it unsuitable for its intended purpose (transparent OLED and emission in both directions).” (Remarks, pp. 9-10.) However, while Applicant points to Fig. 5 of Kim to emphasize that the device itself is transparent and configured to emit light in multiple directions, Examiner notes that the claim recites “the device emits light in only one direction” (emphasis added) and requires the device of the preamble (i.e., the device comprised of the first OLED device, second OLED device), not each first or second OLED device, to emit light in only one direction. Fig. 5 of Kim does show light emission (output) in only one direction, due to the presence of reflector 812 (Kim, ¶¶ 61, 64), thus Examiner finds Applicant’s arguments as to nonobviousness due to change in the principle of operation and unsuitability for intended purpose to be unpersuasive.
Thus, the prior art reads on the claims as currently drafted.
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.
Claim 41 is 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 41 recites the limitation "the device" in the last line. It is unclear which device this limitation refers to: the display device, the first OLED device, or the second OLED device. For the purposes of examination, it is assumed “the device” refers to the display device.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 1-2, 4-14, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2007/097545 to Kim (hereinafter “Kim”) in view of US 2018/0033839 A1 to Hack et al. (hereinafter “Hack”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Kim (Fig. 7) discloses a device comprising: a first organic light emitting diode (OLED) device 360 (¶¶ 75-76) comprising: a first carrier substrate 311b; and a first organic emissive stack 160 disposed on the first carrier substrate, the first organic emissive stack 160 comprising a first emissive material of a first color (¶ 75);
a second OLED device 370 (¶¶ 81-82) disposed in a stack with the first OLED device (Fig. 7); the second OLED device comprising: a second carrier substrate 311c different from the first carrier substrate 311b; and a second organic emissive stack 170 different from the first organic emissive stack 160 and disposed on the second carrier substrate 311c, the second organic emissive stack comprising a second emissive material of a second color different than the first color (¶ 80);
wherein the device emits light in only one direction (Fig. 9; ¶ 99).
Kim fails to expressly disclose: a first backplane layer disposed between the first carrier substrate and the first organic emissive stack, comprising electronics configured to control emission by the first organic emissive stack; and a second backplane layer disposed between the second carrier substrate and the second organic emissive stack, comprising electronics configured to control emission by the second organic emissive stack. In the same field of endeavor, Hack (Fig. 5) discloses a transparent display device including a first backplane layer 570 disposed between the first carrier substrate 500 and the first organic emissive stack (comprising 560), comprising electronics configured to control emission by the first organic emissive stack (¶ 0067); and a second backplane layer 520 disposed between the second carrier substrate 501 and the second organic emissive stack (comprising 550), comprising electronics configured to control emission by the second organic emissive stack (¶ 0067). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display device of Kim with the backplane layers of Hack for the purpose of lowering cost and complexity of the resulting devices (see ¶ 0078).
Regarding claim 2, Kim and Hack disclose the device of claim 1, Kim (Fig. 7) discloses further wherein neither the first color nor the second color comprises deep blue (¶¶ 75, 80).
Regarding claim 4, Kim and Hack disclose the device of claim 1, however fail to expressly disclose wherein the display device has a luminance of at least 1000 nits. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the recited luminance, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F .2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Here, the luminance range is considered a result effective variable because it affects the output quality of the display device. Thus, the ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify the luminance range provided for the purpose of adjusting the performance of the display device to meet design requirements.
Regarding claim 5, Kim and Hack disclose the device of claim 1, Kim (Fig. 7) discloses further wherein the first organic emissive stack 160 is disposed between the first carrier substrate 311b and the second carrier substrate 311c.
Regarding claim 6, Kim and Hack disclose the device of claim 5, Kim (Fig. 7) discloses further wherein the second organic emissive stack 170 is disposed between the first carrier substrate 311b and the second carrier substrate (alternative interpretation, 321c).
Regarding claim 7, Kim and Hack disclose the device of claim 5, Kim (Fig. 7) discloses further wherein the second carrier substrate 311c is disposed between the first organic emissive stack 160 and the second organic emissive stack 170.
Regarding claim 8, Kim and Hack disclose the device of claim 1, Kim (Fig. 7) discloses further wherein the first carrier substrate (alternative interpretation, 321b) and the second carrier substrate 311c are disposed between the first organic emissive stack 160 and the second organic emissive stack 170.
Regarding claim 9, Kim and Hack disclose the device of claim 1, Kim (Fig. 7) discloses further wherein the first OLED device is a top-emitting OLED (see Fig. 4, ¶ 59).
Regarding claim 10, Kim and Hack disclose the device of claim 1, Kim (Fig. 7) discloses further wherein the second OLED device is a transparent OLED (¶ 80).
Regarding claim 11, Kim and Hack disclose the device of claim 1, Kim (Fig. 7) discloses further wherein the second OLED device is a bottom-emitting OLED (see Fig. 4, ¶ 59).
Regarding claim 12, Kim and Hack disclose the device of claim 1, Kim (Fig. 7) discloses further wherein the first color comprises red, green, and/or yellow (¶ 75).
Regarding claim 13, Kim and Hack disclose the device of claim 12, Kim (Fig. 7) discloses further wherein the second color comprises blue (alternative interpretation, 350 reads on the “second OLED device” thus disclosing the limitations of the claim; ¶ 74).
Regarding claim 14, Kim and Hack disclose the device of claim 12, Kim (Fig. 7) discloses further wherein: the first layer comprises blue and/or red; and/or the second color comprises green and/or yellow (¶ 75).
Regarding claim 18, Kim and Hack disclose the device of claim 1, Kim (Fig. 7) discloses further wherein the device is capable of full-color emission (¶ 87).
Regarding claim 19, Kim and Hack disclose the device of claim 1, Kim (Fig. 7) discloses further wherein at least one of first and second OLEDs comprises a stacked device (Fig. 7).
Claims 40-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Hack in view of US 2006/0244374 A1 to Kim (hereinafter “Kim ‘374”).
Regarding independent claim 40, Kim (Fig. 7) discloses a display device comprising: a first organic light emitting diode (OLED) device 360 (¶¶ 75-76) comprising: a first carrier substrate 311b; and a first organic emissive stack 160 disposed on the first carrier substrate, the first organic emissive stack 160 comprising a first emissive material of a first color (¶ 75);
a second OLED device 370 (¶¶ 81-82) disposed in a stack with the first OLED device (Fig. 7); the second OLED device comprising: a second carrier substrate 311c different from the first carrier substrate 311b; and a second organic emissive stack 170 different from the first organic emissive stack 160 and disposed on the second carrier substrate 311c, the second organic emissive stack comprising a second emissive material of a second color different than the first color (¶ 80).
Kim fails to expressly disclose: a first backplane layer disposed between the first carrier substrate and the first organic emissive stack, comprising electronics configured to control emission by the first organic emissive stack; and a second backplane layer disposed between the second carrier substrate and the second organic emissive stack, comprising electronics configured to control emission by the second organic emissive stack. In the same field of endeavor, Hack (Fig. 5) discloses a transparent display device including a first backplane layer 570 disposed between the first carrier substrate 500 and the first organic emissive stack (comprising 560), comprising electronics configured to control emission by the first organic emissive stack (¶ 0067); and a second backplane layer 520 disposed between the second carrier substrate 501 and the second organic emissive stack (comprising 550), comprising electronics configured to control emission by the second organic emissive stack (¶ 0067). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display device of Kim with the backplane layers of Hack for the purpose of lowering cost and complexity of the resulting devices (see ¶ 0078).
Kim and Hack fail to expressly disclose the first OLED device emits light primarily in a first direction away from the second carrier substrate; and the second OLED device emits light primarily in the first direction through the first carrier substrate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display device of Kim and Hack such that the first OLED device emits light primarily in a first direction away from the second substrate; and the second OLED device emits light primarily in the first direction through the first carrier substrate, thus emitting light in only one direction, for the purpose of tailoring OLED emission characteristics to meet design requirements and providing an art-recognized alternative configuration of a display device, as exemplified by Figs. 1A and 1B of Kim ‘374. Modifying or producing a display device with a desired direction of light emission is well within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art, as exemplified by Figs. 1A and 1B of Kim ‘374.
Regarding claim 41, as best understood, Kim, Hack, and Kim ‘374 disclose the device of claim 40, Kim ‘374 discloses further wherein the first color comprises yellow and there are no more than two colors of emissive materials in the device (¶ 0045).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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 event a first reply is 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-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 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 of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Candice Y. Chan whose telephone number is (571)272-9013. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5 pm ET.
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, Steven B. Gauthier can be reached at 571-270-0373. 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.
CANDICE Y. CHAN
Examiner
Art Unit 2813
3 December 2025
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813