Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/618,556

ORGANIC LIGHT EMITTING DEVICE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF, AND DISPLAY DEVICE

Final Rejection §103
Filed
May 04, 2023
Examiner
WATTS, JEREMY DANIEL
Art Unit
2897
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Shenzhen China Star Optoelectronics Semiconductor Display Technology Co. Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allow Rate
58 granted / 68 resolved
+17.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+11.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
35 currently pending
Career history
103
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
61.5%
+21.5% vs TC avg
§102
21.7%
-18.3% vs TC avg
§112
16.6%
-23.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 68 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Response to Amendment The response filed 12/14/2025 is accepted, in which, claims 1, 7, and 8 are amended and claims 4 and 9 are canceled. Claims 1 and 7 are independent with claims 1-3, 5-8, and 10 awaiting an action on the merits as follows. The objection to the specification is withdrawn in view of the amended title. The objection to Figure 3 is withdrawn. Examiner concurs with Applicant that no Figure 3 was filed in the original filing. Response to Arguments Regarding claim 1, on page 10 of the response, Applicant argues, "The Office Action relies on paragraph [0022] of Iou, stating that charges are generated when light is transmitted into the CGL. Even if some light is absorbed, for which Applicant respectfully disagrees, the primary function of the CGL is to supply carriers and enable charge recombination- not to generate photovoltaic effect. None of these functionalities is disclosed, taught or otherwise suggested by Iou." Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph [0022] of Iou states, "When incident light is transmitted into the charge generation layer 244, electrons and holes are separately generated and transported …" Examiner believes the only way for electrons and holes to be generated by incident light being transmitted into the charge generation layer would be if that light was absorbed. Therefore, the CGL 244 of Iou is a light absorbing layer and the previous rejection stands. Regarding the current amendment to claim 1, on page 10 of the response, Applicant argues, Iou does not disclose "a layer configured to generate a photovoltaic effect." Iou states in paragraph [0011], "The photovoltaic cell converts incident light into electricity to drive the OLED element." The conversion of incident light into electrical energy is a photovoltaic effect. However, the amendment of the 12/14/2025 response, wherein the Applicant has amended claim 1 to include inter alia, "wherein the light absorption layer comprises a blend of a p-type organic semiconductor and an n-type organic semiconductor, ..." does overcome the previous rejection since Iou does not explicitly disclose the composition of the CGL 244. As such, the amendment of the 12/14/2025 response overcomes the previous rejection. However, Heo (US 20220261584 A1) teaches a light absorbing layer including a first p-type semiconductor and a first n-type semiconductor forming a pn junction and configured to absorb light reflected by a recognition target and to convert the absorbed light into an electrical signal (Heo, [0024]). Heo can be combined with Iou so a high performance sensor may be implemented while improving design and usability (Heo, [0030]). Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim 7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claims 1, 2, 5, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iou (US 20060227531 A1), and further in view of Heo (US 20220261584 A1). Regarding claim 1, Iou teaches an organic light emitting device (200, Fig 2), comprising: a first electrode (212) disposed on (shown on) an array substrate (210); a light emitting module (220) disposed on (shown on) the first electrode (212); a second electrode (230) disposed on (shown on) a surface of the light emitting module (220) away (shown away) from the first electrode (212); a photovoltaic module (240) disposed on (shown on) a surface of the second electrode (230) away (shown away) from the light emitting module (220); and a third electrode (250) disposed on (shown on) a surface of the photovoltaic module (240) away (shown away) from the second electrode (230); wherein the photovoltaic module (240, Fig 2) comprises: a light absorption layer (244; charge generation layer, [0022]; the charges are generated by absorbing light) disposed between (shown between) the second electrode (230) and the third electrode (250); a second electron function layer (242) disposed between (shown between) the light absorption layer (244) and the second electrode (230); and a second hole function layer (246) disposed between (shown between) the light absorption layer (244) and the third electrode (250); Iou fails to explicitly teach the light absorption layer comprises a blend of a p-type organic semiconductor and an n-type organic semiconductor, and is configured to generate a photovoltaic effect through interaction of the p-type organic semiconductor and the n- type organic semiconductor. However, Heo teaches the light absorption layer comprises a blend (light absorbing layer includes p-type and n-type semiconductor, [0024]) of a p-type organic semiconductor (p-type, [0024]) and an n-type organic semiconductor (n-type, [0024]), and is configured to generate a photovoltaic effect (convert absorbed light into an electrical signal, [0024]) through interaction of the p-type organic semiconductor (p-type) and the n- type organic semiconductor (n-type). Iou and Heo are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are from the same field of endeavor of semiconductor display devices with integrated photovoltaics. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the device of Iou with the features of Heo to create a device wherein the light absorption layer comprises a blend of a p-type organic semiconductor and an n-type organic semiconductor, and is configured to generate a photovoltaic effect through interaction of the p-type organic semiconductor and the n- type organic semiconductor where a high performance sensor may be implemented while improving design and usability (Heo, [0030]). Regarding claim 2, the combination of Iou and Heo discloses the device of claim 1. Iou goes on to teach the light emitting module (220, Fig 2) comprises: a light emitting layer (224) disposed between (shown between) the first electrode (212) and the second electrode (230); a first hole function layer (222) disposed between (shown between) the light emitting layer (224) and the first electrode (212); and a first electron function layer (226) disposed between (shown between) the light emitting layer (224) and the second electrode (230). Regarding claim 5, the combination of Iou and Heo discloses the device of claim 1. Iou goes on to teach wherein materials (ITO, [0018, 0022]) of the first electrode (212, Fig 2) and the third electrode (250) comprise transparent conductive oxide (transparent electrode, [0018, 0022]), and a material (Ag, [0020]) of the second electrode (230) comprises metal (metal, [0020]). Regarding claim 10, the combination of Iou and Heo discloses the device of claim 1. Iou goes on to teach a display device (display, [0001]), comprising the organic light emitting device (200, Fig 2) as claimed in claim 1. Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iou (US 20060227531 A1), in view of Heo (US 20220261584 A1), and further in view of Ai (US 20210126062 A1). Regarding claim 3, the combination of Iou and Heo discloses the device of claim 2. Iou goes on to teach wherein the first hole function layer (222, Fig 2) comprises: a first hole transport layer (222; the hole function is hole transport, [0019]) disposed on (shown on) a surface of the light emitting layer (224) away (shown away) from the first electron function layer (226); the first electron function layer (226) comprises: a first electron transport layer (226; the electron function is electron transport, [0019]) disposed on (shown on) a surface of the light emitting layer (224) away (shown away) from the first hole function layer (222). The combination fails to explicitly teach a first hole injection layer disposed on a surface of the first hole transport layer away from the light emitting layer; and a first electron injection layer disposed on a surface of the first electron transport layer away from the light emitting layer. However, Ai teaches a first hole injection layer (31, Fig 1) disposed on (shown on) a surface of the first hole transport layer away (shown away) from the light emitting layer; and a first electron injection layer (35) disposed on (shown on) a surface of the first electron transport layer away (shown away) from the light emitting layer. Iou, Heo, and Ai are considered analogous to the claimed invention because all are from the same field of endeavor of semiconductor display devices with integrated photovoltaics. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the device of Iou and Heo with the features of Ai to create a first hole injection layer disposed on a surface of the first hole transport layer away from the light emitting layer; and a first electron injection layer disposed on a surface of the first electron transport layer away from the light emitting layer so a high contrast of the organic electroluminescent diode unit is realized by using characteristics of the organic photovoltaic cell unit to absorb light, and meanwhile, the absorbed light is converted into electric energy to realize recycling of light energy, thus beneficial to improving a use time of an external power source (Ai, [0005]). Regarding claim 6, the combination of Iou and Heo discloses the device of claim 1. Iou teaches the first electrode (212, Fig 2), the second electrode (230), and the third electrode (250). The combination fails to explicitly teach a thickness of the first electrode ranges from 10 to 50 nanometers, a thickness of the second electrode ranges from 100 to 200 nanometers, and a thickness of the third electrode ranges from 50 to 80 nanometers. However, Ai teaches a thickness of the third electrode ranges from 50 to 80 nanometers (70 nm; thickness of 10-200 nm). Iou discloses the claimed invention except for a thickness of the first electrode ranges from 10 to 50 nanometers, a thickness of the second electrode ranges from 100 to 200 nanometers. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have electrodes with these thicknesses, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). Additionally, Ai teaches a third electrode with thickness between 10-200 nm ([0048]), and while Ai does not explicitly teach the thickness of the first and second electrodes, they are depicted as the same thickness as the third electrode in Fig 1. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have electrodes with thicknesses within the same range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, Iou depicts the thickness of the first electrode 212 to be thinner than the second and third electrodes, which would be similar to the dimension ratios of the three electrodes of claim 6. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a thinner first electrode, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, the combination of Iou, Heo, and Ai discloses the limitations of claim 6. Iou, Heo, and Ai are considered analogous to the claimed invention because all are from the same field of endeavor of semiconductor display devices with integrated photovoltaics. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the device of Iou and Heo with the features of Ai to create a thickness of the first electrode ranges from 10 to 50 nanometers, a thickness of the second electrode ranges from 100 to 200 nanometers, and a thickness of the third electrode ranges from 50 to 80 nanometers so a high contrast of the organic electroluminescent diode unit is realized by using characteristics of the organic photovoltaic cell unit to absorb light, and meanwhile, the absorbed light is converted into electric energy to realize recycling of light energy, thus beneficial to improving a use time of an external power source (Ai, [0005]). Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iou (US 20060227531 A1), in view of Heo (US 20220261584 A1), and further in view of Pan (US 20180346748 A1). Regarding claim 7, Iou teaches a method for manufacturing an organic light emitting device (200, Fig 2), comprising following steps: manufacturing a first electrode (212) on (shown on) an array substrate (210); manufacturing a light emitting module (220) on (shown on) the first electrode (212); manufacturing a second electrode (230) on (shown on) the light emitting module (220); manufacturing a photovoltaic module (240) on (shown on) the second electrode (230); and manufacturing a third electrode (250) on (shown on) the photovoltaic module (240) to manufacture the organic light emitting device (200) comprising the photovoltaic module (240); wherein the manufacturing the photovoltaic module (240, Fig 2) on (shown on) the second electrode (230) comprises: manufacturing a second electron function layer (242) on (shown on) the second electrode (230) …; manufacturing a light absorption layer (244; charge generation layer, [0022]; the charges are generated by absorbing light) on (shown on) the second electron function layer (242) …; and manufacturing a second hole function layer (246) on (shown on) the light absorption layer (244) …; Iou fails to explicitly teach wherein the organic light emitting device is an inkjet printing organic light emitting diode: wherein the manufacturing of the photovoltaic module on the second electrode comprises: manufacturing a second electron function layer on the second electrode using an inkjet printing process; manufacturing a light absorption layer on the second electron function layer using the inkjet printing process; and manufacturing a second hole function layer on the light absorption layer using the inkjet printing process; wherein the light absorption layer comprises a blend of a p-type organic semiconductor and an n-type organic semiconductor, and is configured to generate a photovoltaic effect through interaction of the p-type organic semiconductor and the n- type organic semiconductor. However, Heo teaches the light absorption layer comprises a blend (light absorbing layer includes p-type and n-type semiconductor, [0024]) of a p-type organic semiconductor (p-type, [0024]) and an n-type organic semiconductor (n-type, [0024]), and is configured to generate a photovoltaic effect (convert absorbed light into an electrical signal, [0024]) through interaction of the p-type organic semiconductor (p-type) and the n- type organic semiconductor (n-type). Pan teaches functional layer such as a light emitting layer and a charge transport layer of a light emitting diode can be prepared through inkjet printing (Pan, [0239]). Iou teaches a base process of manufacturing light emitting layers and charge generation layers of an organic light emitting device which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement in that integration of OLED devices and photovoltaic cell devices can reduce dependency upon a main power source (Iou, [0005]). Pan teaches a known technique of inkjet printing light emitting and charge generation layers that is comparable to the base process. Pan’s known technique, as cited above, would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the base process of Iou and the results would have been predictable and results in an improved process since ink-jet printing has great advantages and potential due to a low energy consumption, a low water consumption and an environmentally friendly property thereof (Pan, [0003]). Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Iou, Heo, and Pan are considered analogous to the claimed invention because all are from the same field of endeavor of semiconductor display devices with integrated photovoltaics. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the device of Iou with the features of Heo and Pan to create a device wherein the organic light emitting device is an inkjet printing organic light emitting diode: wherein the manufacturing of the photovoltaic module on the second electrode comprises: manufacturing a second electron function layer on the second electrode using an inkjet printing process; manufacturing a light absorption layer on the second electron function layer using the inkjet printing process; and manufacturing a second hole function layer on the light absorption layer using the inkjet printing process; wherein the light absorption layer comprises a blend of a p-type organic semiconductor and an n-type organic semiconductor, and is configured to generate a photovoltaic effect through interaction of the p-type organic semiconductor and the n- type organic semiconductor so a high performance sensor may be implemented while improving design and usability (Heo, [0030]) since ink-jet printing has great advantages and potential due to a low energy consumption, a low water consumption and an environmentally friendly property thereof (Pan, [0003]). Regarding claim 8, the combination of Iou, Heo, and Pan discloses the method of claim 7. Iou goes on to teach wherein the manufacturing the light emitting module (220, Fig 2) on (shown on) the first electrode (212) comprises: manufacturing a first hole function layer (222) on (shown on) the first electrode (212); manufacturing a light emitting layer (224) on (shown on) the first hole function layer (222); and manufacturing a first electron function layer (226) on (shown on) the light emitting layer (224). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lee (US 20090108757 A1) - PV integrated with OLED stack THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Jeremy D Watts whose telephone number is (703)756-1055. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 8:00am-4:30pm, F 8:00-3pm EST. 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, Chad Dicke can be reached at (571) 270-7996. 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. /JEREMY DANIEL WATTS/Examiner, Art Unit 2897 /CHAD M DICKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 04, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 23, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 14, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 11, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604671
MAGNETIC TUNNEL JUNCTION STRUCTURE FOR MRAM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598771
SILICON CARBIDE SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE WITH TRENCH GATE AND DUMMY GATE SOURCE STRUCTURES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12575282
TRANSPARENT DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12575113
HIGH DENSITY MEMORY WITH STACKED NANOSHEET TRANSISTORS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12568727
DOUBLE-SIDED DISPLAY PANEL AND DOUBLE-SIDED DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
85%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+11.4%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 68 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month