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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 9/27/23, 7/2/24, 7/13/26, 9/17/26 are being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicants’ election with traverse of 1, 2, 4, 8-11, 13-22 in the reply filed on 7/15/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that First, the Office's characterization of the claims is factually incorrect. The structural features identified by the Office to differentiate each species are not actually recited in the respective claims and the Office incorrectly asserts that there are no generic claims present in the application. This is not found persuasive because even though the species are not classified correctly, the Application includes species as mentioned in the restriction requirement and Examiner agrees that claims 1 and 15 are generic; however, the restriction requirement is being maintained. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Note applicable to all claims being rejected in this Office action: Examiner notes that the limitations "overlap", "layer", "portion" are being interpreted broadly in accordance with MPEP. Per MPEP 2111 and 2111.01, the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation and the words of the claims are given their plain meaning consistent with the specification without importing claim limitations from the specification. The claim presently disclose a structural limitation (i.e. overlap, layer, portion, contact) that is taught by prior art of record, therefore, the limitation is considered met by the prior art of record. Additionally, Merriam Webster dictionary defines the above limitations as “to occupy the same area in part”, “one thickness lying over or under another”, “an often limited part of a whole” respectively. Further note the limitation “contact” is being interpreted to include "direct contact" (no intermediate materials, elements or space disposed there between) and "indirect contact" (intermediate materials, elements or space disposed there between).
Claim(s) 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al (US 2021/0193688 A1 hereinafter Shin) in view of Pieh et al (US 2013/0146850 A1 hereinafter Pieh).
Regarding Claim 1, Shin discloses in Fig 4-6: A light emitting display device comprising:
a substrate (111) including a display area having a plurality of sub-pixels and a non display area (NDA) surrounding the display area (DA);
a plurality of first electrodes (120) disposed at the plurality of sub-pixels;
a second electrode (140) facing the plurality of first electrodes over the display area and a part of the non-display area (See Fig 4 and 6);
an interlayer (130) including a plurality of stacks (See Fig 4) disposed between the plurality of first electrodes (120) and the second electrode (140);
a first connection electrode (120 in Fig 6 in NDA) disposed at the non-display area and connected to the second electrode (140: indirectly); and
a second connection electrode (VDDL-2) disposed closer to the display area (DA: See Fig 6) than the first connection electrode and connected to the light emitting layer (131/132/133).
Shin does not disclose: and a charge generation layer disposed between the plurality of stacks; a second connection electrode connected to the charge generation layer.
However, Pieh in a similar device teaches a charge generation layer (150) disposed between the plurality of stacks; a second connection electrode connected (indirectly connected through the second electrode 190) to the charge generation layer [0046].
References Shin and Pieh are analogous art because they both are directed to display devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify device of Shin with the specified features of Pieh because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing of the invention to combine teachings of Shin and Pieh so that a charge generation layer disposed between the plurality of stacks; a second connection electrode connected to the charge generation layer as taught by Pieh in Shin’s device since, this provides a tandem white organic light emitting device, efficiency, voltage and lifetime of which are improved by changing a configuration of a charge generation layer [0018].
Regarding Claim 11, Shin and Pieh disclose: The light emitting display device of claim 1, Shin discloses in Fig 4-6: wherein the plurality of sub-pixels includes first to third sub-pixels adjacent to each other,
the first sub-pixel includes a first color emission layer in each of the plurality of stacks,
the second sub-pixel includes a second color emission layer in each of the plurality of stacks, and
the third sub-pixel includes a third color emission layer in each of the plurality of stacks [0050].
Shin does not disclose: with the charge generation layer interposed between the plurality of stacks.
However, Pieh in a similar device teaches a charge generation layer (150) interposed between the plurality of stacks [0046].
References Shin and Pieh are analogous art because they both are directed to display devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify device of Shin with the specified features of Pieh because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing of the invention to combine teachings of Shin and Pieh so that with the charge generation layer interposed between the plurality of stacks as taught by Pieh in Shin’s device since, this provides a tandem white organic light emitting device, efficiency, voltage and lifetime of which are improved by changing a configuration of a charge generation layer [0018].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-22 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: With respect to claim 15, the primary reason for allowance is that the prior art of record either singularly or in combination fails to teach or suggest the limitation “a first stack including a first common layer, a first emission layer, and a second common layer on the plurality of first electrodes; a third common layer disposed on the first stack; “a second connection electrode connected to at least one of the first common layer, the third common layer, and the fourth common layer.” as recited in claim 15 in combination with the remaining features.
Dependent claims 16-22 are allowed based on virtue of their dependencies
The most relevant prior art references, (US 2021/0193688 A1 to Shin et al. in Figs 4-6 substantially teach the limitations of claim 15, with the exception of the limitations described in the preceding paragraph.
Claims 2, 4, 8-10, 13-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With respect to claim 2, the primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter is that the prior art of record either singularly or in combination fails to teach or suggest the limitation “wherein the charge generation layer overlaps with the second connection electrode, and an edge of the charge generation layer is positioned between the second connection electrode and the first connection electrode” as recited in claim 2 in combination with the remaining features.
Dependent claims 8-10 are allowed based on virtue of their dependencies
The most relevant prior art references, (US 2021/0193688 A1 to Shin et al. in Figs 4-6 substantially teach the limitations of claim 2, with the exception of the limitations described in the preceding paragraph.
With respect to claim 4, the primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter is that the prior art of record either singularly or in combination fails to teach or suggest the limitation “wherein the second connection electrode and the charge generation layer have a connection region in a line along at least one side of the substrate.” as recited in claim 4 in combination with the remaining features.
The most relevant prior art references, (US 2021/0193688 A1 to Shin et al. in Figs 4-6 substantially teach the limitations of claim 4, with the exception of the limitations described in the preceding paragraph.
With respect to claim 13, the primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter is that the prior art of record either singularly or in combination fails to teach or suggest the limitation “wherein the second connection electrode is positioned on a same layer as the plurality of first electrodes” as recited in claim 13 in combination with the remaining features.
The most relevant prior art references, (US 2021/0193688 A1 to Shin et al. in Figs 4-6 substantially teach the limitations of claim 13, with the exception of the limitations described in the preceding paragraph.
With respect to claim 14, the primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter is that the prior art of record either singularly or in combination fails to teach or suggest the limitation “wherein the second connection electrode is positioned on a different layer from the plurality of first electrodes.” as recited in claim 14 in combination with the remaining features.
The most relevant prior art references, (US 2021/0193688 A1 to Shin et al. in Figs 4-6 substantially teach the limitations of claim 14, with the exception of the limitations described in the preceding paragraph.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NISHATH YASMEEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7564. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM-6PM.
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, Lynne Gurley can be reached at 571-272-1670. 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.
/NISHATH YASMEEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811
Prosecution Insights