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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 13 incorporate claims limitations shared in each embodiment of the species listed in the restriction requirement 01/21/2026. Applicant’s arguments dated 02/13/2026 along with the election with traverse of claims 1 – 4, 6 – 10, 13 -16, and 18 – 20 is acknowledged. Applicant’s arguments that the species are obvious variants of each other and the amendments to the independent claims to include shared characteristics are persuasive and the restriction requirement dated 01/21/2026 is withdrawn.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 11/06/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s cancellation of claims 5 and 17 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the switch being disposed between the first charge connection layer and the OLED display unit and fail to show the switch in the fifth OLED module being disposed between the OLED display and the cathode as described in the specification. Paragraph [0062] states that the switch 60 is in the second OLED module 32 and may be disposed between the first charge connection layer 51 and the OLED display unit 41 or between the connection layer 52 and the OLED display unit 41 as shown in figures 1 and 3, but figure 1 does not show the switch 60 and figure 3 only shows the switch 60 connecting to the OLED display unit 41. Figure 3 does not show enough details regarding the connection layers to show the switches between the connection layer 51 or 52 and the display unit 41. A similar issue is present regarding the switch being between the OLED display unit 41 and the cathode the fifth OLED module 35 as described in paragraph [0067] of the immediate invention as figure 4 does not show the switches 60 and figure 3 does not provide details regarding the cathode 20 in relation to the switches placement and the display unit 41, and further does not show the connection layer 53 in relation to the switches 60. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the charge connection layer comprising a N-type doping material layer and a P-type doping material layer disposed in layers must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Claim 6 and claim 18 state that the charge connection layer is comprised of at least two other layers, the N-type doping material layer and the P-type doping material layer. However, the charge connection layers in figures 1, and 4 – 5 are shown as a singular layer and no numerals in the figures show the separate two layers (the N-type and P-type doping material layers) as claimed. Figures 2 - 3 do not include charge connection layers.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract provides information already provided by the title. That abstract states “An Organic light emitting diode (OLED) display device…”, and the title already provides that information, as the title states “OLED display device”. Further, the word “Organic” should not be capitalized in the abstract as it is the second word of the sentence and is not a proper noun. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0033] states “Apparently, the described embodiments…”. The term “apparently” here is unneeded and makes the sentence confusing as it appears that the specification is unclear on what is being described by the specification.
Paragraph [0039] states “The anode 10 and the cathode 20.”. This sentence appears to be incomplete and a repeat of the sentence before it, as it does not contain an object that finished describing the anode and cathode or provides details regarding the anode and cathode.
Paragraph [0042] states “…module keep lighting to make OLED display device 100 normally work, thereby…” It appears the sentence means “working normally” as normally work does not describe the device continuing to function but instead describes how something should work.
Paragraph [0044] states “For example, there are charge…”. It is unclear what is being described as an example of, as the sentence before does not describe the charge connection layers or different embodiments of the charge connection layers. The term “for example” should be removed.
Paragraphs [0044], [0046], and [0050] includes descriptions relating to numerals 413, 414, and 415. However, the paragraphs all come after and refer back to paragraph [0039] stating “Referring to Fig. 1, Fig. 1 is…”. The numerals being discussed are not found in figure 1 and are instead in figure 2. Figure 2 should be introduced with the numerals or in paragraph [0039] (for example, “Referring to Fig. 1 and Fig. 2…”). Figure 2 is not introduced until Par. [0057] and should be introduced before the numerals contained in figure 2.
Paragraph [0076] states “…and the scope of application, in summary, the content of this specification…” The sentence of this paragraph appears to be redundant and repeats itself. The term “in summary” should be a separate sentence as it introduces a new clause and in the paragraph. Further, “the scope of the application” and “the content of the specification” are redundant in the same sentence, as the specification falls within the scope of the application. Paragraph [0076] is difficult to understand as the run on nature of the last sentence makes it unclear what is actually being said, which appears to be that the embodiments of the invention are not limiting, but as current stated that information is not easily understood. Paragraph [0076] should be revised to make clear what is being described.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 - 7 and 18 – 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 6 and 18 both state “…an N-type doping material layer…”. As the term “N-type” does not start with a noun, the term “an” should be “a” instead. Claim 6 and 18 should state “…a N-type doping material layer”.
Claims 7 and 19 both state “…an N-type dopant…” and should instead state “…a N-type dopant…” as N-type starts with a consonant and not a vowel.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 10 and 12 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 10 and 12 recites the limitation "the other charge connection layer" in line 5 of claim 10 and line 5 of claim 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 10 and 12 depend on claim 1. Claim 1 introduces a charge connection layer disposed between every two adjacent OLED modules. Claims 10 and 12 state both “the charge connection layer” and “the other charge connection layer”. This creates multiple interpretations as it is unclear if the charge connection layer present in claims 1 and 10 or 12 is a singular charge connection layer that extends between the OLED modules, or if there are a plurality of separate different charge connection layers, or if the charge connection layer referred to as “the other charge connection layer” is the same charge connection layer being described in claim 1. As there are multiple interpretations, claims 10 and 12 are rejected as being indefinite. For the purpose of compact prosecution, claims 10 and 12 are being interpreted as a charge connection layer is present between the first OLED module and the second OLED module, and the same charge connection layer or a second charge connection layer is present between the second OLED module and the third OLED module.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 10 – 13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 109755401 A hereinafter Luo in further view of US 20090284158 A1 hereinafter Parthasarathy.
For claim 1, Luo teaches an organic light emitting diode (OLED) display device comprising: an anode (Luo, fig. 4 numeral 15); a cathode correspondingly disposed to the anode (fig. 4 numeral 16); a plurality of OLED modules disposed in series between the anode and the cathode (fig. 4 numeral 11, 12, and 13; Par. [0007]); and a charge connection layer disposed between every two adjacent OLED modules of the plurality of OLED modules (fig. 4 numeral 21 and 22). Luo is silent regarding at least one of the plurality of OLED modules includes a plurality of OLED display units connected in parallel.
Parthasarathy teaches an OLED display (Parthasarathy, fig. 3) including a plurality of OLED modules (fig. 3 numeral 26, 38, and 44); and at least one of the plurality of OLED modules includes a plurality of OLED display units connected in parallel (fig. 3 numeral 46; Par. [0004]).
It would have bene obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the immediate invention to combine the plurality of OLED display units in Parthasarathy with the OLED modules in Luo in order to create large display areas while minimizing dead or non-display areas (Parthasarathy, Par. [0004]).
For claim 3, Luo and Parthasarathy teach all of claim 1. Luo also teaches one of the plurality of OLED modules is a single OLED display unit (Luo, fig. 4 numeral 11).
For claim 10, Luo and Parthasarathy teach all of claim 1. Luo also teaches the plurality of OLED modules includes a first OLED module (Luo, fig. 4 numeral 11), a second OLED module (fig. 4 numeral 12), and a third OLED module (fig. 4 numeral 13) set sequentially in a direction from the anode to the cathode, the OLED display device further includes the charge connection layer connected between the first OLED module and the second OLED module (fig. 4 numeral 21), and a second charge connection layer between the second OLED module and the third OLED module (fig. 4 numeral 22). Each of the first and third OLED modules are composed of a single OLED display unit (fig. 4 numeral 13 and 11 are shown to be singular OLED displays). Luo is silent regarding the second OLED module is composed of a plurality of OLED display units connected in parallel.
Parthasarathy teaches an OLED display (Parthasarathy, fig. 3) including a plurality of OLED modules (fig. 3 numeral 26, 38, and 44); and at least one of the plurality of OLED modules includes a plurality of OLED display units connected in parallel (fig. 3 numeral 46; Par. [0004]).
It would have bene obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the immediate invention to combine the plurality of OLED display units in Parthasarathy with the second OLED module in Luo in order to create large display areas while minimizing dead or non-display areas (Parthasarathy, Par. [0004]), and to allow for creating images with different shapes, signs, or colors using the OLED display modules (Parthasarathy, Par. [0023 - 0024]).
For claim 11, Luo and Parthasarathy teach all of claim 1. Luo and Parthasarathy do not explicitly state that the device includes a fourth and fifth OLED module disposed anode to cathode with a charge connection layer between the fourth and fifth OLED modules, and wherein the fourth OLED module is a single OLED module and the fifth OLED module is composed of a plurality of OLED units. However, Luo teaches that the number of modules is not limited and can be changed (Luo, Par. [0073]; Par. [0082]). Parthasarathy also teaches that the number of display modules and display units can be increased (Parthasarathy, Par. [0022]) and that any number of different OLED units can be used in the OLED modules, including both a single OLED unit or multiple OLED units (Par. [0022 - 0024]; Par. [0025 – 0026]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the immediate invention that the OLED device in Luo and Parthasarathy would include embodiments with a fourth and fifth OLED modules as both Luo and Parthasarathy allow for the addition of more OLED modules and teach the components of the OLED modules as claimed. Both Luo and Parthasarathy also teach connecting each adjacent OLED module with a charge connection layer (Luo, fig. 4 numeral 21 and 22; Parthasarathy, fig. 3 numeral 48). The duplication of parts has been held as obviousness as the duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
For claim 12, Luo and Parthasarathy teach all of claim 1. Luo and Parthasarathy are silent regarding a sixth, seventh and eight OLED module disposed sequentially in a direction from anode to cathode and that a charge connection layer is between the sixth and seventh OLED module and a charge connection layer is between the seventh and eight OLED modules, and wherein the sixth and eight modules are composed of a plurality of OLED display units connected in parallel and the seventh OLED module is composed of a single OLED display unit. However, Luo teaches that the number of modules is not limited and can be changed (Luo, Par. [0073]; Par. [0082]). Parthasarathy also teaches that the number of display modules and display units can be increased (Parthasarathy, Par. [0022]) and that any number of different OLED units can be used in the OLED modules, including both a single OLED unit or multiple OLED units (Par. [0022 - 0024]; Par. [0025 – 0026]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the immediate invention that the OLED device in Luo and Parthasarathy would include embodiments with sixth, seventh, and eight OLED modules as both Luo and Parthasarathy allow for the addition of more OLED modules and teach the components of the OLED modules as claimed. Both Luo and Parthasarathy also teach connecting each adjacent OLED module with a charge connection layer (Luo, fig. 4 numeral 21 and 22; Parthasarathy, fig. 3 numeral 48). The duplication of parts has been held as obviousness as the duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
For claim 13, Luo teaches an organic light emitting diode (OLED) display device comprising: an anode (Luo, fig. 4 numeral 15); a cathode correspondingly disposed to the anode (fig. 4 numeral 16); a plurality of OLED modules disposed in series between the anode and the cathode (fig. 4 numeral 11, 12, and 13; Par. [0007]); and a charge connection layer disposed between every two adjacent OLED modules of the plurality of OLED modules (fig. 4 numeral 21 and 22). Luo is silent regarding at least one of the plurality of OLED modules includes a plurality of OLED display units connected in parallel and are controlled individually to adjust a luminous brightness of the OLED display device.
Parthasarathy teaches an OLED display (Parthasarathy, fig. 3) including a plurality of OLED modules (fig. 3 numeral 26, 38, and 44); and at least one of the plurality of OLED modules includes a plurality of OLED display units connected in parallel (fig. 3 numeral 46; Par. [0004]). The plurality of OLED display units are controlled individually to control the luminous brightness of the device (Par. [0061]).
It would have bene obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the immediate invention to combine the plurality of OLED display units in Parthasarathy with the OLED modules in Luo in order to create large display areas while minimizing dead or non-display areas (Parthasarathy, Par. [0004]).
For claim 15, Luo and Parthasarathy teach all of claim 13. Luo also teaches one of the plurality of OLED modules is a single OLED display unit (Luo, fig. 4 numeral 11).
Claim(s) 2 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 109755401 A hereinafter Luo in further view of US 20090284158 A1 hereinafter Parthasarathy and in further view of US 9524666 B2 hereinafter Hochman.
For claim 2, Luo and Parthasarathy teach all of claim 1. Parthasarathy teaches a controller that is connected to each of the individual OLED units (Parthasarathy, fig. 5 numeral 76; Par. [0061]) and that the controller is sued to power each unit individually to adjust each unit’s illumination (Par. [0061]; Par. [0008]). Luo and Parthasarathy are silent regarding the plurality of OLED display units are controlled by independent switches.
Hochman teaches an OLED device (Hochman, fig. 4A) wherein a plurality of OLED modules (fig. 4A numeral 160) comprises a plurality of OLED units (fig. 4A numeral 11 – 68, Col. 8 ln 46 – 57); and each of the plurality of OLED units is controlled by a switch (fig. 4A numeral SG1 – SG4).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the immediate invention to combine the switches in Hochman with the OLED units in Luo and Parthasarathy in order to selectively illuminate the individual OLED units as desired (Hochman, Col. 8 ln 3 – 17).
For claim 14, Luo and Parthasarathy teach all of claim 13. Parthasarathy teaches a controller that is connected to each of the individual OLED units (Parthasarathy, fig. 5 numeral 76; Par. [0061]) and that the controller is sued to power each unit individually to adjust each unit’s illumination (Par. [0061]; Par. [0008]). Luo and Parthasarathy are silent regarding the plurality of OLED display units are controlled by independent switches.
Hochman teaches an OLED device (Hochman, fig. 4A) wherein a plurality of OLED modules (fig. 4A numeral 160) comprises a plurality of OLED units (fig. 4A numeral 11 – 68, Col. 8 ln 46 – 57); and each of the plurality of OLED units is controlled by a switch (fig. 4A numeral SG1 – SG4).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the immediate invention to combine the switches in Hochman with the OLED units in Luo and Parthasarathy in order to selectively illuminate the individual OLED units as desired (Hochman, Col. 8 ln 3 – 17).
Claim(s) 4 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 109755401 A hereinafter Luo in further view of US 20090284158 A1 hereinafter Parthasarathy in further view of US 20190172876 A1 hereinafter Xia.
For claim 4, Luo and Parthasarathy teach all of claim 1. Luo also teaches that the OLED display units include a hole transport layer (Luo, fig. 4 numeral 111), a light emitting layer (fig. 4 numeral 112), and an electron transporting layer (fig. 4 numeral 113) between the anode and cathode (fig. 4 numeral 15 and 16 respectively). Luo and Parthasarathy are silent regarding the OLED display units including a hole injection layer and an electron injection layer.
Xia teaches an OLED display unit (Xia, fig. 2) comprising a hole injection layer (HIL), a hole transport layer (HTL), a light emitting layer (EML1), an electron transport layer (ETL), and an electron injection layer (EIL) stacked in succession (fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the immediate invention to combine the OLED display unit layers in Xia with the OLED display units in Luo and Parthasarathy in order to improve pixel resolution and yield rate (Xia, Par. [0030]).
For claim 16, Luo and Parthasarathy teach all of claim 13. Luo also teaches that the OLED display units include a hole transport layer (Luo, fig. 4 numeral 111), a light emitting layer (fig. 4 numeral 112), and an electron transporting layer (fig. 4 numeral 113) between the anode and cathode (fig. 4 numeral 15 and 16 respectively). Luo and Parthasarathy are silent regarding the OLED display units including a hole injection layer and an electron injection layer.
Xia teaches an OLED display unit (Xia, fig. 2) comprising a hole injection layer (HIL), a hole transport layer (HTL), a light emitting layer (EML1), an electron transport layer (ETL), and an electron injection layer (EIL) stacked in succession (fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the immediate invention to combine the OLED display unit layers in Xia with the OLED display units in Luo and Parthasarathy in order to improve pixel resolution and yield rate (Xia, Par. [0030]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 - 9 and 18 - 20 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.
For claims 6 and 18, Luo and Parthasarathy are silent regarding the charge connection layer containing both a N-type and P-type doping material layers. Luo does not mention a P-type or N-type doping layer or that the two layers are both present in the charge connection layer. Hochman and Xia do not appear to teach the charge connection layer including both p-type and n-type doping material layers.
Claims 7 – 9 and 19 – 20 are allowable primarily as depending on an allowable claim but are objected to as depending on a rejected base claim. Claims 6 – 7 and 18 – 19 are also objected to for minor informalities.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB T NELSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1031. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00 AM to 5:00 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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at 571-270-1435. 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.
/J.T.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2815
/MONICA D HARRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Prosecution Insights