DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/9/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because 1/9/2025. 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.
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 21 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.
Regarding claim 21, the claim preamble appears to direct the claim to “an electronic”, which appears to be meant as a device. However, line 6 recites: “a method of predicting a lifespan of the display device.”. Thus, the claim appears directed to both a device and a process.
As explained in the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure, Chapter 2173305(p), section II:
II. PRODUCT AND PROCESS IN THE SAME CLAIM
A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In Katz, a claim directed to “[a] system with an interface means for providing automated voice messages…to certain of said individual callers, wherein said certain of said individual callers digitally enter data” was determined to be indefinite because the italicized claim limitation is not directed to the system, but rather to actions of the individual callers, which creates confusion as to when direct infringement occurs. Katz, 639 F.3d at 1318, 97 USPQ2d at 1749 (citing IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384, 77 USPQ2d 1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005), in which a system claim that recited “an input means” and required a user to use the input means was found to be indefinite because it was unclear “whether infringement … occurs when one creates a system that allows the user [to use the input means], or whether infringement occurs when the user actually uses the input means.”); Ex parteLyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) (claim directed to an automatic transmission workstand and the method of using it held ambiguous and properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph).
It appears the applicant intended to describe a processor or processing device within the apparatus that is program to perform the recited method steps. Clarification is requested.
Correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record doesn’t teach alone or in combination a method of predicting the lifespan of a display device, comprising the steps of calculating a lifespan of a first pixel of a display device different from the test panel based on the first deterioration data, the second deterioration data, and a first color component ratio and a second color component ratio of the first emission light for a thickness of a first wavelength conversion layer, in combination with all other elements recited.
As to claims 2-20, the claims are allowed as they recite the allowable subject matter in claim 1 noted above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
- The US Patent Application Publication PGPub 2016/0103171 A1 by Tsutsui et al., directed to a method for estimating a lifetime of an organic EL element comprising a pair of electrodes and an organic layer, comprising a step of acquiring degradation data of characteristics of the LEDs; a step of calculating a temperature dependence of the degradation parameter based on a temperature rise value of the organic layer upon light emission at the applied current density and/or the atmosphere temperature and setting a lifetime estimation formula of the element; and a step of estimating the lifetime of the organic EL element based on the lifetime estimation formula. See figure below:
PNG
media_image1.png
194
421
media_image1.png
Greyscale
- The US Patent US 9,655,197 B1 by Coombes et al., directed to systems for predicting half-life of LED devices by calculating and predicting lumen depreciation of the LEDs. See figure below:
PNG
media_image2.png
434
602
media_image2.png
Greyscale
- The US Patent Application Publication PGPub 2020/0357336 A1 by Xu et al., directed to a method for estimating and compensating aging of light emitting elements, comprising the steps of determining a current, a position, and a temperature associated with a light emitting element in the display panel. An aging rate of the light emitting element is determined based on the current aging weight, the temperature aging weight, and the position aging weight. A luminance loss of the light emitting element is determined based on the aging time and a luminance loss-aging time relationship measured at the standard temperature and the standard current. See figure below:
PNG
media_image3.png
940
550
media_image3.png
Greyscale
- The US Patent Application Publication PGPub 2023/0116648 A1 by Sung et al., directed tomethods for evaluating lifespan of organic light emitting display panels, including the steps of measuring luminance in at least two colors emitted by pixels of the display panel. See figure below:
PNG
media_image4.png
473
676
media_image4.png
Greyscale
- The European Patent Application Publication EP 4167222 A1 by Sung et al. directed to methods for evaluating lifespan of organic light emitting display panels, including the steps of measuring luminance in at least two colors emitted by pixels of the display panel. A copy of the foreign document is provided with this Office Action.
PNG
media_image5.png
373
670
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richard Isla whose telephone number is (571)272-5056. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9a - 5:30p.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at 571 272-7924. 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.
/RICHARD ISLA/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858 July 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights