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
Applicant’s cancellation of claim 6 and 18 is acknowledged.
Applicant’s amendment to claims 10 and 12 clarify the number of charge connection layers present and corrects the antecedent basis issue. The 112 rejection of claims 10 and 12 are withdrawn.
Applicant’s addition of claims 21 – 24 are acknowledged.
Applicant’s amendment to claims 7 and 19 correct minor typographical issues. The objection to claims 7 and 19 is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment to the specification correct typographical issues. The objection to the specification is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment to the drawings correct issues originally present in the drawings. The objection to the drawings are withdrawn.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract contains information already present in the title. 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 amended abstract dated 08/04/2026 includes “An OLED display device is provided”. This information is already present in the title “OLED DISPLAY DEVICE” and should be removed from the abstract. Further, the abstract states “The OLED display device…”. This information is already present in the title and should be removed from the abstract. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. See MPEP § 608.01(b) section C.
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 8 and 20 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 8 recites the limitation "the electron transport layer", “the electron injection layer”, and “the hole injection layer” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 depends on claim 7 and claim 1. Claim 1 and claim 7 do not introduce an electron transport layer or a hole injection layer. The electron transport layer and the hole injection layer are introduced in claim 4, but claim 8 does not depend on claim 4. It is unclear what claims claim 8 is referring back to or if claim 8 is supposed to introduce the same or different layers as claim 4. For these reasons, claim 8 is rejected as being indefinite.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, claim 8 is being interpreted as stating “…a material of an electron transport layer are identical”, “…a material of an electron injection layer are identical…”, and “…and a material of a hole transport layer are identical…” as this interpretation solves the antecedent basis issue by introducing the layers.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the electron transport layer", “the electron injection layer”, and “the hole injection layer” in line 2 - 3 and line 5 of claim 02. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 depends on claim 19 and claim 13. Claim 13 and claim 19 do not introduce an electron transport layer or a hole injection layer. The electron transport layer and the hole injection layer are introduced in claim 16, but claim 20 does not depend on claim 16. It is unclear what claims claim 20 is referring back to or if claim 20 is supposed to introduce the same or different layers as claim 16. For these reasons, claim 20 is rejected as being indefinite.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, claim 20 is being interpreted as stating “…a material of an electron transport layer are identical”, “…a material of an electron injection layer are identical…”, and “…and a material of a hole transport layer are identical…” as this interpretation solves the antecedent basis issue by introducing the layers.
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, 7, 9, 13, 15, 19, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170186987 A1 hereinafter Shin in further view of US 20090284158 A1 hereinafter Parthasarathy.
For claim 1, Shin teaches an organic light emitting diode display device (Shin, fig. 4E) comprising: an anode (fig. 4E numeral 120R, 120G, 120B; Par. [0024]); a cathode, correspondingly disposed to the anode (fig. 4E numeral 210); a plurality of OLED modules, disposed in series between the anode and the cathode, wherein at least one of the plurality of OLED modules includes a plurality of OLED display units (fig. 4E numeral 150R, 150G, 150B and 180R, 180G, and 180B); and charge connection layers, a respective one of which is disposed between every two adjacent OLED modules of the plurality of OLED modules (fig. 4E numeral 160 and 165); wherein the charge connection layer includes a N-type doping material layer (fig. 4E numeral 160; Par. [0028]) and a P-type doping material layer disposed in layers (fig. 4E numeral 165; Par. [0034]). Shin is silent regarding the 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 Shin in order to create large display areas while minimizing dead or non-display areas (Parthasarathy, Par. [0004]).
For claim 3, Shin and Parthasarathy teach all of claim 1. Parthasarathy also teaches that any number of OLED display units can be used in the OLED modules (Parthasarathy, Par. [0029]; Par. [0023 -0025]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the immediate invention that one of the OLED modules in Shin and Parthasarathy may contain only one OLED display unit in order to control the illumination and design of the device, and to control the shape of the device (Parthasarathy, Par. [0023 – 0029]).
For claim 7, Shin and Parthasarathy teach all of claim 1. Shin also teaches the N-type doping material layer includes an N-type dopant and a first host material that is an organic material (Shin; Par. [0029]) and the P-type doping material layer includes a P-type dopant and a second host material that is an organic material (Par. [0030 – 0032]).
For claim 9, Shin and Parthasarathy teach all of claim 7. Shin also teaches the N-type dopant is Li, Cs, or Yb along with other possible materials (Shin, Par. [0029]). Shin also teaches the P-type dopants includes metal oxides including metal oxides containing Tungsten (W) (Shin, Par. [0031]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the immediate invention that the P-type dopant in Shin and Parthasarathy can include WO3 as Shin teaches using metal oxides including tungsten metal oxides.
For claim 13, Shin teaches an organic light emitting diode display device (Shin, fig. 4E) comprising: an anode (fig. 4E numeral 120R, 120G, 120B; Par. [0024]); a cathode, correspondingly disposed to the anode (fig. 4E numeral 210); a plurality of OLED modules, disposed in series between the anode and the cathode, wherein at least one of the plurality of OLED modules includes a plurality of OLED display units (fig. 4E numeral 150R, 150G, 150B and 180R, 180G, and 180B); and charge connection layers, a respective one of which is disposed between every two adjacent OLED modules of the plurality of OLED modules (fig. 4E numeral 160 and 165); wherein the charge connection layer includes a N-type doping material layer (fig. 4E numeral 160; Par. [0028]) and a P-type doping material layer disposed in layers (fig. 4E numeral 165; Par. [0034]). Shin is silent regarding the plurality of OLED display units connected in parallel. Shin is also silent regarding the plurality of OLED display units are controlled individually to adjust a luminous brightness of the OLED device. Shin does teach that the luminous properties are variables that can be controlled through different ways (Shin, Par. [0028]; Par. [0057]).
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]). Shin also teaches the luminous properties including brightness can be controlled individually (Parthasarathy, 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 and the individual control over display units in Parthasarathy with the OLED modules in Shin in order to create large display areas while minimizing dead or non-display areas (Parthasarathy, Par. [0004]) and to modify the brightness of the device depending on the lighting conditions around the device (Parthasarathy, Par. [0061]).
For claim 15, Shin and Parthasarathy teach all of claim 13. Parthasarathy also teaches that any number of OLED display units can be used in the OLED modules (Parthasarathy, Par. [0029]; Par. [0023 -0025]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the immediate invention that one of the OLED modules in Shin and Parthasarathy may contain only one OLED display unit in order to control the illumination and design of the device, and to control the shape of the device (Parthasarathy, Par. [0023 – 0029]).
For claim 19, Shin and Parthasarathy teach all of claim 13. Shin also teaches the N-type doping material layer includes an N-type dopant and a first host material that is an organic material (Shin; Par. [0029]) and the P-type doping material layer includes a P-type dopant and a second host material that is an organic material (Par. [0030 – 0032]).
For claim 21, Shin and Parthasarathy teach all of claim 19. Shin also teaches the N-type dopant is Li, Cs, or Yb along with other possible materials (Shin, Par. [0029]). Shin also teaches the P-type dopants includes metal oxides including metal oxides containing Tungsten (W) (Shin, Par. [0031]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the immediate invention that the P-type dopant in Shin and Parthasarathy can include WO3 as Shin teaches using metal oxides including tungsten metal oxides.
Claim(s) 2 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170186987 A1 hereinafter Shin in view of US 20090284158 A1 hereinafter Parthasarathy and in further view of US 9524666 B2 hereinafter Hochman.
For claim 2, Shin and Parthasarathy teach all of claim 1. Shin and Parthasarathy are silent regarding the plurality of OLED display units being controlled individually 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 Shin and Parthasarathy in order to selectively illuminate the individual OLED units as desired (Hochman, Col. 8 ln 3 – 17).
For claim 14, Shin and Parthasarathy teach all of claim 13. Shin and Parthasarathy are silent regarding the plurality of OLED display units being controlled individually 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 Shin and Parthasarathy in order to selectively illuminate the individual OLED units as desired (Hochman, Col. 8 ln 3 – 17).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 10 – 12, 16, and 22 – 24 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 claim 4, Shin does not appear to teach the OLED display unit including a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron transport layer, and an electron injection layer laminated in succession in a direction from the anode to the cathode. Shin does teach the layers, but the layers are not present laminated in succession in a direction from the anode to the cathode.
For claim 10, Shin does not appear to teach a third OLED module and wherein a second charge connection layer is present between the second and third OLED modules.
For claim 11, Shin does not appear to teach a third charge connection layer provided between the fourth OLED module and the fifth OLED module; wherein the fourth OLED module is composed of a single OLED display unit, and the fifth OLED module is composed of a plurality of OLED display units connected in parallel.
For claim 12, Shin does not appear to teach a fifth charge connection layer connected between the seventh OLED module and the eighth OLED module; each of sixth OLED module and the eighth OLED module is composed of a plurality of OLED display units connected in parallel, and the seventh OLED module is composed of a single OLED display unit.
For claim 16, Shin does not appear to teach the OLED display unit including a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron transport layer, and an electron injection layer laminated in succession in a direction from the anode to the cathode. Shin does teach the layers, but the layers are not present laminated in succession in a direction from the anode to the cathode.
For claim 22, Shin does not appear to teach a second charge connection layer connected between the second OLED module and the third OLED module; each of the first OLED module and the third OLED module is composed of a single OLED display unit, and the second OLED module is composed of a plurality of OLED display units connected in parallel.
For claim 23, Shin does not appear to teach he plurality of OLED modules include a fourth OLED module and a fifth OLED module disposed sequentially in a direction from the anode to the cathode; the charge connection layers further include a third charge connection layer provided between the fourth OLED module and the fifth OLED module; wherein the fourth OLED module is composed of a single OLED display unit, and the fifth OLED module is composed of a plurality of OLED display units connected in parallel.
For claim 24, Shin does not appear to teach an eighth OLED module disposed sequentially in the direction from the anode to the cathode; the charge connection layers further include a fourth charge connection layer connected between the sixth OLED module and the seventh OLED module, and a fifth charge connection layer connected between the seventh OLED module and the eighth OLED module; each of sixth OLED module and the eighth OLED module is composed of a plurality of OLED display units connected in parallel, and the seventh OLED module is composed of a single OLED display unit.
Claims 8 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
For claim 8, Shin does not appear to teach the first host material being the same material used in the electron transport layer or the electron injection layer and the second host material is the same material as the hole injection layer or the hole transport layer.
For claim 20, Shin does not appear to teach the first host material being the same material used in the electron transport layer or the electron injection layer and the second host material is the same material as the hole injection layer or the hole transport layer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 13 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.
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