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 Amendment filed October 28, 2025 has been entered. Applicant' s amendments to claims 2 and 15 have overcome the objections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed August 8, 2025 and are hereby withdrawn.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10-14, 17, and 19 remain pending in the Application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-11 of Remarks Made in an Amendment, filed October 28, 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-6, 8-14, and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered in view of the Amendment but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, in regards to applicant’s First argument that black matrix BM (the “light block layer”) of Lee is not disposed on a side of the light extraction layer away from the base substrate is not persuasive. As explained in ¶ [0143] of Lee, an optical layer may be disposed under TFE to improve light extraction efficiency; the Examiner interprets this optical layer as a light extraction layer at the location indicated in the annotated reproduced Fig 11 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
545
919
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As shown in the figure, BM is disposed on a side of the light extraction layer away from the base substrate, the layer TFE being therebetween.
Applicant’s argument that protective layer 150 (the “light block layer”) of Sumita is not disposed on a side of the light extraction layer away from the base substrate is moot, since the obviousness rejection does not rely upon Sumita for the limitation of the location of a light block layer relative to a light extraction layer. Rather, Sumita is relied upon as a light block layer having an entire surface structure, such that an orthographic projection of the light block layer on the base substrate is continuous. In this way, the combination of references is combined by substituting the structure of Sumita’s light block layer for the structure of Lee’s light block layer (Lee’s light block layer not having a continuous orthographic projection on the base substrate). As explained in the rejection of record and in the claim rejections below, the motivation to combine the references is to substitute the entire surface structure of Sumita for the structure of Lee having a color filter CF, for a case, for example, not requiring the color filter.
In regards to applicant’s Second argument that Li does not disclose (1) the light block layer comprises an ultraviolet absorption layer, and (2) the ultraviolet absorption layer comprises an aromatic amine organic matter added with an N heteroatom or an O heteroatom, the Examiner has not relied upon Li for this combination of limitations: Sumita discloses (1) the light block layer (protection layer 150; ¶ [0214]) comprising an ultraviolet absorption layer (Sumita; ¶ [0214]), but does not disclose (2) the material of the ultraviolet absorption layer. Li discloses (2) a material layer for an electroluminescent device comprising an aromatic amine organic matter added with an N heteroatom or an O heteroatom (Li; ¶ [0013-0043]) which has high ultraviolet absorption (high extinction coefficient in the ultraviolet band; ¶ [0045]). Then, the material (2) of Li is combined with and used for (1) the light block layer of Sumita. The combination is motivated by the need for an ultraviolet absorption layer (Sumita), the material of which was not disclosed, and the suitable material of Li, having the demonstrated absorption capability in the UV range (Li; ¶ [0285]).
Please see the claim rejections below, using the previously cited references, which have been updated due to the Amendment, and for clarity. In addition, the prior art Wen, made of record in the prior Office Action, has been cited along with previously cited references for dependent claims 8, 10, 17 and 19, necessitated by the Amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-6, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee; Minwoo et al. (US 2017/0309859) in view of Yan, Zhi-min et al. (CN 110943115; hereinafter Yan), Sumita; Shiro et al. (US 2011/0108812; hereinafter Sumita), and Li, Tao et al. (CN 110854293; hereinafter Li).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a display substrate (DP-T1; Fig 11; ¶ [0131-145]), comprising a driving structure layer (the layers comprising TR2; Fig 11; ¶ [0131-140]) disposed on a base substrate (SUB; Fig 11; [0133]), a light emitting structure layer (the layers comprising OLED-4, PXL; Fig 11; ¶ [0141-142]) disposed on a side of the driving structure layer away from the base substrate, and a modulation structure layer (TFE, an optical layer (not shown; ¶ [0143]) under TFE, BM, CF; Fig 11; ¶ [0143-0144]) disposed on a side of the light emitting structure layer away from the base substrate,
PNG
media_image2.png
481
822
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the modulation structure layer comprises a light extraction layer (the optical layer to help improve a light extraction efficiency (not shown; ¶ [0143]) under TFE) and a light block layer (black matrix BM; Fig 11; ¶ [0144]), the light extraction layer is disposed on a side of a cathode (CE; Fig 11; ¶ [0142]) in the light emitting structure layer away from the base substrate (TFE is on the cathode, and the optical layer is under TFE; Fig 11; ¶ [0143]), the light block layer (BM; Fig 11) is disposed on a side of the light extraction layer away from the base substrate (see the figure below),
PNG
media_image3.png
542
931
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein the light emitting structure layer comprises an anode (AE; Fig 11; ¶ [0142]) and a pixel definition layer (PXL; Fig 11; ¶ [0141]); and, a pixel opening (OP; ¶ [0141]) exposing the anode is disposed in the pixel definition layer (as shown in Fig 11).
Lee does not disclose:
(1) a refractive index of the light extraction layer is greater than refractive indexes of the cathode and the light block layer;
(2) an orthographic projection of the light block layer on the base substrate is continuous, such that the light block layer is of an entire surface structure;
(3) the light block layer is configured to block ultraviolet rays from being incident on a pixel definition layer;
(4) the light block layer comprises an ultraviolet absorption layer; and
(5) the ultraviolet absorption layer comprises an aromatic amine organic matter added with an N heteroatom or an O heteroatom.
Regarding (1), in the same field of endeavor, Yan discloses a display panel
{(Figs 1,3; ¶ [0036-59, 0065-67]) having a driving structure layer (¶ [0045]) and a light emitting structure layer (20; Fig 1; ¶ [0038-39, 0045-46]) on a base substrate (10; Fig 1), a modulation structure layer (30,40; Fig 1; ¶ [0038-41]) on the light emitting structure layer (Fig 1),
PNG
media_image4.png
401
935
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein the modulation structure layer comprises a light extraction layer (30; Fig 1) and a light block layer (40; Fig 1), the light extraction layer is disposed on a side of a cathode (211; Fig 1; ¶ [0046], line 321) in the light emitting structure layer away from the base substrate, the light block layer is disposed on a side of the light extraction layer away from the base substrate (Fig 1), and}
wherein:
(1) a refractive index (n2; Fig 3; ¶ [0010]) of light extraction layer (30) is greater than refractive indexes of the cathode (n1 of first electrode layer 211, and n2>n1; Fig 3; ¶ [0010]) and the light block layer (n3 of light adjustment portion 41 (of barrier layer 40; ¶ [0041]), and n2>n3; Fig 3; ¶ [0010]).
PNG
media_image5.png
299
518
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the refractive index relationships of the device of Yan for the corresponding layers in the display substrate disclosed by Lee. One would have been motivated to do this in order to ensure enhanced light extraction efficiency (Yan; ¶ [0065]), since Lee does not disclose these refractive index relationships, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that these optical properties are important in how light is extracted from the structure. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success due to the similar nature of the OLED (Lee; ¶ [0006]; Yan; ¶ [0004-5]) display panels disclosed by Lee and Yan.
Regarding (2),(3), and (4), in the same field of endeavor, Sumita discloses a display substrate
{(100; Fig 22; ¶ [0227-228, 0036], entire document), comprising a driving structure layer (comprising switching elements SW; Fig 22; ¶ [0036]) disposed on a base substrate (101; Fig 22; ¶ [0036]), a light emitting structure layer (comprising OLED1 – OLED 3; Fig 22; ¶ [00356]) disposed on a side of the driving structure layer away from the base substrate, and a modulation structure layer (120,150; Fig 22; ¶ [0160, 0214-229]), disposed on a side of the light emitting structure layer away from the base substrate, wherein the modulation structure layer comprises a sealing layer (120) and a light block layer (150; absorbing ultraviolet; ¶ [0214]), the sealing layer is disposed on a side of a cathode in the light emitting structure layer away from the base substrate, the light block layer is disposed on a side of the sealing layer away from the base substrate, and,}
wherein:
(2) an orthographic projection of the light block layer (150) on the base substrate is continuous (Fig 22; 150 is a continuous layer, ¶ [0214])), such that the light block layer is of an entire surface structure;
(3) the light block layer is configured to block ultraviolet rays from being incident on a pixel definition layer (since 150 is on a side of the pixel definition layer away from the base substrate, and is configured to block incident ultraviolet rays); and,
(4) the light block layer comprises an ultraviolet absorption layer (Sumita; ¶ [0214]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have combined the light block layer Sumita with the display substrate of Lee in view of Yan. One would have been motivated to do this, for example, to (A) reduce manufacturing complexity of the display panel (versus a patterned black matrix (BM) / color filter (CF) layer) in a case where the color filters are not needed, such as for a case where the light-emitting elements already emit light of different colors, by replacing the BM/CF light block/color filter layer of Lee in view of Yan with the continuous light block layer of Sumita, and to (B) add protection from ultraviolet rays incident on the light-emitting elements provided by the light block layer of Sumita (since it is a continuous layer, not having the openings of Lee {filled by CF} above the light-emitting elements), and thereby prevent deterioration and improve luminous efficiency of the light-emitting elements (Sumita; ¶ [0256-258]). One would have had a reasonable expectation of success due to the similar structures, materials, and endeavors of each of the disclosures.
Regarding (5), in the same field of endeavor, Li discloses using a nitrogen heterocyclic compound having high ultraviolet absorption in an organic electroluminescent device. The compound comprises an aromatic amine organic matter added with an N heteroatom or an O heteroatom (Li; ¶ [0013-0043]), and has high ultraviolet absorption (high extinction coefficient in the ultraviolet band; ¶ [0045]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the compound of Li for the light block layer, comprising an ultraviolet absorption layer, of Lee in view of Yan and Sumita. One would have been motivated to do this because Sumita does not disclose the material of the ultraviolet absorption layer, and Li discloses the suitable material having the demonstrated absorption capability in the UV range (Li; ¶ [0285]). One would have had a reasonable expectation of success due to Li’s disclosure of applicability as an optical film for OLED devices.
Regarding claim 2, Lee in view of Yan, Sumita and Li discloses the display substrate according to claim 1, wherein the display substrate further comprises an encapsulation structure layer disposed on a side of the modulation structure layer away from the base substrate (Lee; protection layer IL; Fig 11; ¶ [0145]), the encapsulation structure layer comprises a first encapsulation layer disposed on a side of the modulation structure layer away from the base substrate (protection layer IL; Fig 11; ¶ [0145]).
Lee in view of Yan, Sumita and Li, as applied to claim 1, does not disclose in the same embodiment, a second encapsulation layer disposed on a side of the first encapsulation layer away from the base substrate, and a third encapsulation layer disposed on a side of the second encapsulation layer away from the base substrate. However, the structure is disclosed in another exemplary embodiment of Lee, as follows: Lee discloses an encapsulation structure layer disposed on a side of the modulation structure layer away from the base substrate (protection layer IL {not shown}, a moisture absorbent layer {not shown}, sealing substrate SUB2 {Fig 13}; ¶ [0146-7]),
the encapsulation structure layer comprises a first encapsulation layer (protection layer IL {not shown}; ¶ [0147]) disposed on a side of the modulation structure layer away from the base substrate,
a second encapsulation layer disposed on a side of the first encapsulation layer away from the base substrate (a moisture absorbent layer {not shown}; ¶ [0147]), and
a third encapsulation layer disposed on a side of the second encapsulation layer away from the base substrate (sealing substrate SUB2; Fig 13; ¶ [0147]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have included this encapsulation structure in the display substrate of claim 1. One would have been motivated to do this in order to protect the underlying display substrate from moisture (moisture absorbent layer; ¶ [0147]) as is well-known and common in the art. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success because of Lee’s disclosure, and because use of an encapsulation structure is well-known in the art.
Regarding claim 3, Lee in view of Yan, Sumita and Li discloses the display substrate according to claim 2, wherein the modulation structure layer further comprises a protective layer (Lee; TFE; Fig 11; ¶ [0143]),
the protective layer is disposed between the light extraction layer (Lee; the optical layer (not shown), under TFE; ¶ [0143]) and the light block layer (Lee; BM; Fig 11), the refractive index of the light extraction layer (Yan; n2 of 30; Fig 3; ¶ [0010]) is greater than refractive index of the cathode (Yan; n1 of 211, and n2>n1; ¶ [0010]), but does not disclose the refractive index of the light extraction layer is greater than refractive index of the protective layer, the refractive index of the light block layer is greater than the refractive index of the protective layer, and the refractive index of the light block layer is greater or less than a refractive index of the first encapsulation layer in the encapsulation structure layer.
In the same field of endeavor, Yan discloses the refractive index of a light block layer (Yan; n3 of 41) is greater or less than a refractive index of a first encapsulation layer in an encapsulation structure layer (Yan; n4 of first inorganic thin film 51; Fig 3, and n4>n3; ¶ [0010; 0065]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to adopt the encapsulation layer structure of Yan in place of the encapsulation structure layer of claim 2. One would have been motivated to do this to improve reliability because of Yan’s disclosure in which the aim of the invention is to improve the encapsulation structure layer to improve package reliability (Yan; ¶ [0008]), and would have had a reasonable expectation of success because of the similar nature of the OLED (Lee; ¶ [0006]; Yan; ¶ [0004-5]) display panels disclosed by Lee and Yan.
Lee in view of Yan and Sumita does not disclose the refractive index of the light extraction layer is greater than refractive index of the protective layer, and the refractive index of the light block layer is greater than refractive index of the protective layer.
However, Yan has made clear the design of the refractive indexes of the film layers above the cathode as alternating higher, lower, higher for n2, n3, n4 in order to achieve the desired light extraction (Yan; ¶ [0010]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that the insertion of the protective layer of Lee at the relative position of n2.5 in the aforementioned layer sequence of Yan (see Yan, Fig 3) would require adjustment of the relative refractive indexes of the respective layers to maintain this higher, lower alternating sequence. This would have resulted in satisfaction of the limitation that the refractive index of the light extraction layer is greater than refractive index of the protective layer, and the refractive index of the light block layer is greater than refractive index of the protective layer.
Regarding claim 4, Lee in view of Yan, Sumita and Li discloses the display substrate according to claim 3, wherein a material of the light extraction layer comprises an aromatic amine organic matter (Li; ¶ [0013-0043]; as applied to claim 1) and a material of the protective layer (Lee; TFE; Fig 11) comprises lithium fluoride (Lee; the thin film encapsulation layer TFE may include a lithium fluoride layer; ¶ [0143]).
Regarding claim 5, Lee in view of Yan, Sumita and Li discloses the display substrate according to claim 3, wherein thickness of the light block layer is greater than 50nm (Sumita; as 150 becomes thicker, deterioration can be prevented; Fig 21; ¶ [0253-256], Table 3), but does not disclose thickness of the light extraction layer is 60nm to 100nm, and the thickness of the protective layer is 60nm to 100nm.
However, Li discloses a light extraction layer having a thickness of, most preferably, 40nm to 90nm (Li; ¶ [0171]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use a thickness in this range in the device of claim 3. One would have been motivated to do so, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success, because this is a typical, well-known and suitable thickness in the art for a light extraction layer.
None of Lee, Yan, Sumita and Li discloses the thickness of the protective layer is 60nm to 100nm.
However, the person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the thicknesses of the protective layer to be a result-effective variable affecting light extraction efficiency. Thus, it would have been obvious to set the thicknesses to the range of 60nm to 100nm, since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. The person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform this experimentation in order to maximize light extraction efficiency and service life of the display. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B
Regarding claim 6, Lee in view of Yan, Sumita and Li discloses the display substrate according to claim 3, wherein the refractive index of the light extraction layer is greater than 1.8 (Yan; n2 of 30; ¶ [0067]).
Lee in view of Yan and Sumita does not disclose the refractive index of the light extraction layer is 1.7 to 2.0, the refractive index of the protective layer is 1.4 to 1.6, and the refractive index of the light block layer is 1.6 to 2.1.
However, the person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized these refractive indexes to be result-effective variables affecting light extraction efficiency of the device; it would have been obvious to set the refractive index of the light extraction layer to 1.7 to 2.0, the refractive index of the protective layer to 1.4 to 1.6, and the refractive index of the light block layer to 1.6 to 2.1, since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. The person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform this experimentation in order to maximize the light extraction efficiency of the device. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B
Regarding claim 11, Lee in view of Yan, Sumita and Li discloses a display device (Lee; Fig 1; ¶ [0061]), comprising the display substrate according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Lee discloses a method for preparing a display substrate (DP-T1; Fig 11; ¶ [0131-145]), comprising:
sequentially forming a driving structure layer (the layers comprising TR2; Fig 11; ¶ [0131-140]) and a light emitting structure layer (the layers comprising OLED-4, PXL; Fig 11; ¶ [0141-142]) on a base substrate (SUB; Fig 11; [0133]); and
forming a modulation structure layer (TFE, an optical layer (not shown; ¶ [0143]) under TFE, BM, CF; Fig 11; ¶ [0143-0144]) on the light emitting structure layer,
PNG
media_image2.png
481
822
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the modulation structure layer comprises a light extraction layer (the optical layer to help improve a light extraction efficiency (not shown; ¶ [0143]) under TFE) and a light block layer (black matrix BM; Fig 11; ¶ [0144]), the light extraction layer is disposed on a side of a cathode (CE; Fig 11; ¶ [0142]) in the light emitting structure layer away from the base substrate (TFE is on the cathode, and the optical layer is under TFE; Fig 11; ¶ [0143]), the light block layer (BM; Fig 11) is disposed on a side of the light extraction layer away from the base substrate (see the figure below),
PNG
media_image3.png
542
931
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein the light emitting structure layer comprises an anode (AE; Fig 11; ¶ [0142]) and a pixel definition layer (PXL; Fig 11; ¶ [0141]); and, a pixel opening (OP; ¶ [0141]) exposing the anode is disposed in the pixel definition layer (as shown in Fig 11).
Lee does not disclose:
(1) a refractive index of the light extraction layer is greater than refractive indexes of the cathode and the light block layer;
(2) an orthographic projection of the light block layer on the base substrate is continuous, such that the light block layer is of an entire surface structure;
(3) the light block layer is configured to block ultraviolet rays from being incident on a pixel definition layer;
(4) the light block layer comprises an ultraviolet absorption layer; and
(5) the ultraviolet absorption layer comprises an aromatic amine organic matter added with an N heteroatom or an O heteroatom.
Regarding (1), in the same field of endeavor, Yan discloses a display panel
{(Figs 1,3; ¶ [0036-59, 0065-67]) having a driving structure layer (¶ [0045]) and a light emitting structure layer (20; Fig 1; ¶ [0038-39, 0045-46]) on a base substrate (10; Fig 1), a modulation structure layer (30,40; Fig 1; ¶ [0038-41]) on the light emitting structure layer (Fig 1),
PNG
media_image4.png
401
935
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein the modulation structure layer comprises a light extraction layer (30; Fig 1) and a light block layer (40; Fig 1), the light extraction layer is disposed on a side of a cathode (211; Fig 1; ¶ [0046], line 321) in the light emitting structure layer away from the base substrate, the light block layer is disposed on a side of the light extraction layer away from the base substrate (Fig 1), and}
wherein:
(1) a refractive index (n2; Fig 3; ¶ [0010]) of light extraction layer (30) is greater than refractive indexes of the cathode (n1 of first electrode layer 211, and n2>n1; Fig 3; ¶ [0010]) and the light block layer (n3 of light adjustment portion 41 (of barrier layer 40; ¶ [0041]), and n2>n3; Fig 3; ¶ [0010]).
PNG
media_image5.png
299
518
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the refractive index relationships of the device of Yan for the corresponding layers in the display substrate disclosed by Lee. One would have been motivated to do this in order to ensure enhanced light extraction efficiency (Yan; ¶ [0065]), since Lee does not disclose these refractive index relationships, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that these optical properties are important in how light is extracted from the structure. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success due to the similar nature of the OLED (Lee; ¶ [0006]; Yan; ¶ [0004-5]) display panels disclosed by Lee and Yan.
Regarding (2),(3), and (4), in the same field of endeavor, Sumita discloses a display substrate
{(100; Fig 22; ¶ [0227-228, 0036], entire document), comprising a driving structure layer (comprising switching elements SW; Fig 22; ¶ [0036]) disposed on a base substrate (101; Fig 22; ¶ [0036]), a light emitting structure layer (comprising OLED1 – OLED 3; Fig 22; ¶ [00356]) disposed on a side of the driving structure layer away from the base substrate, and a modulation structure layer (120,150; Fig 22; ¶ [0160, 0214-229]), disposed on a side of the light emitting structure layer away from the base substrate, wherein the modulation structure layer comprises a sealing layer (120) and a light block layer (150; absorbing ultraviolet; ¶ [0214]), the sealing layer is disposed on a side of a cathode in the light emitting structure layer away from the base substrate, the light block layer is disposed on a side of the sealing layer away from the base substrate, and,}
wherein:
(2) an orthographic projection of the light block layer (150) on the base substrate is continuous (Fig 22; 150 is a continuous layer, ¶ [0214])), such that the light block layer is of an entire surface structure;
(3) the light block layer is configured to block ultraviolet rays from being incident on a pixel definition layer (since 150 is on a side of the pixel definition layer away from the base substrate, and is configured to block incident ultraviolet rays); and,
(4) the light block layer comprises an ultraviolet absorption layer (Sumita; ¶ [0214]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have combined the light block layer Sumita with the display substrate of Lee in view of Yan. One would have been motivated to do this, for example, to (A) reduce manufacturing complexity of the display panel (versus a patterned black matrix (BM) / color filter (CF) layer) in a case where the color filters are not needed, such as for a case where the light-emitting elements already emit light of different colors, by replacing the BM/CF light block/color filter layer of Lee in view of Yan with the continuous light block layer of Sumita, and to (B) add protection from ultraviolet rays incident on the light-emitting elements provided by the light block layer of Sumita (since it is a continuous layer, not having the openings of Lee {filled by CF} above the light-emitting elements), and thereby prevent deterioration and improve luminous efficiency of the light-emitting elements (Sumita; ¶ [0256-258]). One would have had a reasonable expectation of success due to the similar structures, materials, and endeavors of each of the disclosures.
Regarding (5), in the same field of endeavor, Li discloses using a nitrogen heterocyclic compound having high ultraviolet absorption in an organic electroluminescent device. The compound comprises an aromatic amine organic matter added with an N heteroatom or an O heteroatom (Li; ¶ [0013-0043]), and has high ultraviolet absorption (high extinction coefficient in the ultraviolet band; ¶ [0045]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the compound of Li for the light block layer, comprising an ultraviolet absorption layer, of Lee in view of Yan and Sumita. One would have been motivated to do this because Sumita does not disclose the material of the ultraviolet absorption layer, and Li discloses the suitable material having the demonstrated absorption capability in the UV range (Li; ¶ [0285]). One would have had a reasonable expectation of success due to Li’s disclosure of applicability as an optical film for OLED devices.
Regarding claim 13, Lee in view of Yan and Sumita discloses the method according to claim 12, further comprising:
forming an encapsulation structure layer disposed on the modulation structure layer, (Lee; protection layer IL; Fig 11; ¶ [0145]), wherein the encapsulation structure layer comprises a first encapsulation layer disposed on a side of the modulation structure layer away from the base substrate (protection layer IL; Fig 11; ¶ [0145]), but does not disclose a second encapsulation layer disposed on a side of the first encapsulation layer away from the base substrate, and a third encapsulation layer disposed on a side of the second encapsulation layer away from the base substrate; the refractive index of the light block layer is less than a refractive index of the first encapsulation layer.
However, Yan discloses an encapsulation structure layer (Yan; film encapsulation layer 50; Fig 1; ¶ [0038]) on a modulation structure layer (Yan; (30,40; Fig 1; ¶ [0038-41]),
wherein the encapsulation structure layer comprises a first encapsulation layer (Yan; layer 51; Fig 1; ¶ [0058]) disposed on a side of the modulation structure layer away from the base substrate (10; Fig 1),
a second encapsulation layer (Yan; layer 52; Fig 1; ¶ [0058]) disposed on a side of the first encapsulation layer away from the base substrate, and
a third encapsulation layer (Yan; layer 53; Fig 1; ¶ [0058]) disposed on a side of the second encapsulation layer away from the base substrate;
the refractive index of the light block layer (Yan; n3) is less than a refractive index of the first encapsulation layer (Yan; first inorganic thin film, n4, and n4>n3; ¶ [0010]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the encapsulation structure of Yan in place of the encapsulation structure of Lee. One would have been motivated to do so in order to ensure the enhanced light extraction efficiency disclosed by Yan (Yan; ¶ [0065]).
Regarding claim 14, Lee in view of Yan, Sumita and Li discloses the method according to claim 13, wherein the modulation structure layer further comprises a protective layer (Lee; TFE; Fig 11; ¶ [0143]),
the protective layer is disposed between the light extraction layer (Lee; the optical layer (not shown), under TFE; ¶ [0143]) and the light block layer (Lee; BM; Fig 11), the refractive index of the light extraction layer (Yan; n2 of 30; Fig 3; ¶ [0010]) is greater than refractive index of the cathode (Yan; n1 of 211, and n2>n1; ¶ [0010]),
but does not disclose: (1) the refractive index of the light extraction layer is greater than refractive index of the protective layer, (2) the refractive index of the light block layer is greater than the refractive index of the protective layer, and (3) the refractive index of the light block layer is greater than a refractive index of the first encapsulation layer in the encapsulation structure layer.
In the same field of endeavor, Yan discloses (3) the refractive index of a light block layer (Yan; n3 of 41) is greater than a refractive index of a first encapsulation layer in an encapsulation structure layer (Yan; n4 of first inorganic thin film 51; Fig 3, and n4>n3; ¶ [0010; 0065]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to adopt the encapsulation layer structure of Yan in place of the encapsulation structure layer of claim 2. One would have been motivated to do this to improve reliability because of Yan’s disclosure in which the aim of the invention is to improve the encapsulation structure layer to improve package reliability (Yan; ¶ [0008]), and would have had a reasonable expectation of success because of the similar nature of the OLED (Lee; ¶ [0006]; Yan; ¶ [0004-5]) display panels disclosed by Lee and Yan.
Lee in view of Yan and Sumita does not disclose (1) the refractive index of the light extraction layer is greater than refractive index of the protective layer, and (2) the refractive index of the light block layer is greater than refractive index of the protective layer.
However, Yan has made clear the design of the refractive indexes of the film layers above the cathode as alternating higher, lower, higher for n2, n3, n4 in order to achieve the desired light extraction (Yan; ¶ [0010]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that the insertion of the protective layer of Lee at the relative position of n2.5 in the aforementioned layer sequence of Yan (see Yan, Fig 3) would require adjustment of the relative refractive indexes of the respective layers to maintain this higher, lower alternating sequence. This would have resulted in satisfaction of the limitation that the refractive index of the light extraction layer is greater than refractive index of the protective layer, and the refractive index of the light block layer is greater than refractive index of the protective layer.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee; Minwoo et al. (US 2017/0309859) in view of Yan, Zhi-min et al. (CN 110943115; hereinafter Yan), Sumita; Shiro et al. (US 2011/0108812; hereinafter Sumita), and Li, Tao et al. (CN 110854293; hereinafter Li), and further in view of Wen Guanyan et al. (EP 3584851; hereinafter Wen).
Regarding claim 8, Lee in view of Yan, Sumita and Li discloses the display substrate according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the light block layer further comprises an ultraviolet reflection layer.
In the same field of endeavor, Wen discloses a light block layer (barrier layer, including an ultraviolet shielding agent comprising an ultraviolet absorber; ¶ [0036]), wherein the light block layer further comprises an ultraviolet reflection layer (comprising an ultraviolet reflecting agent; ¶ [0036]; wherein the light block layer comprises a mixture of absorber and reflecting agent and/or a layer structure capable of absorbing and reflecting ultraviolet rays; ¶ [0064]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for the light block layer of claim 1 to further comprise an ultraviolet reflection layer as disclosed by Wen. One may have been motivated to do this for several reasons, including (1) to reduce the heat imparted to the device comprising only an ultraviolet absorbing layer (Wen; energy is converted to heat to be dissipated; ¶ [0036]) and/or (2) to accommodate refractive index requirements for the layer structure of the device including to enhance light extraction efficiency (Wen; listed reflecting agent materials all have a higher refractive index; ¶ [0036; 0063]). One would have had a reasonable expectation of success due to the similar materials disclosed for the light absorbing agents of Li (aromatic amine organic matter, per claim 1) and Wen (comprising a hindered amine organic compound; ¶ [0036]) in the similar endeavors.
Regarding claim 17, Lee in view of Yan, Sumita and Li discloses the display substrate according to claim 2, but does not disclose wherein the light block layer further comprises an ultraviolet reflection layer.
In the same field of endeavor, Wen discloses a light block layer (barrier layer, including an ultraviolet shielding agent comprising an ultraviolet absorber; ¶ [0036]), wherein the light block layer further comprises an ultraviolet reflection layer (comprising an ultraviolet reflecting agent; ¶ [0036]; wherein the light block layer comprises a mixture of absorber and reflecting agent and/or a layer structure capable of absorbing and reflecting ultraviolet rays; ¶ [0064]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for the light block layer of claim 1 to further comprise an ultraviolet reflection layer as disclosed by Wen. One may have been motivated to do this for several reasons, including (1) to reduce the heat imparted to the device comprising only an ultraviolet absorbing layer (Wen; energy is converted to heat to be dissipated; ¶ [0036]) and/or (2) to accommodate refractive index requirements for the layer structure of the device including to enhance light extraction efficiency (Wen; listed reflecting agent materials all have a higher refractive index; ¶ [0036; 0063]). One would have had a reasonable expectation of success due to the similar materials disclosed for the light absorbing agents of Li (aromatic amine organic matter, per claim 1) and Wen (comprising a hindered amine organic compound; ¶ [0036]) in the similar endeavors.
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee; Minwoo et al. (US 2017/0309859) in view of Yan, Zhi-min et al. (CN 110943115; hereinafter Yan), Sumita; Shiro et al. (US 2011/0108812; hereinafter Sumita), and Li, Tao et al. (CN 110854293; hereinafter Li), and further in view of Wen Guanyan et al. (EP 3584851; hereinafter Wen) and Peckham; Jordan et al. (US 2019/0273222; hereinafter Peckham).
Regarding claim 19, Lee in view of Yan, Sumita and Li discloses the display substrate according to claim 2, but does not disclose wherein the light block layer further comprises an ultraviolet reflection layer, the ultraviolet reflection layer comprises a plurality of sub-layers stacked sequentially, the plurality of sub-layers comprise a first sub-layer with a first refractive index and a second sub-layer with a second refractive index, and the first sub-layer and the second sub-layer are arranged alternately in the plurality of sub-layers.
In the same field of endeavor, Wen discloses a light block layer (barrier layer, including an ultraviolet shielding agent comprising an ultraviolet absorber; ¶ [0036]), wherein the light block layer further comprises an ultraviolet reflection layer (layer structure capable of absorbing and reflecting ultraviolet rays; ¶ [0064]).
It would have been obvious for the light block layer of claim 1 to further comprise an ultraviolet reflection layer as disclosed by Wen. One may have been motivated to do this for several reasons, including (1) to reduce the heat imparted to the device comprising only an ultraviolet absorbing layer (Wen; energy is converted to heat to be dissipated; ¶ [0036]) and/or (2) to accommodate refractive index requirements for the layer structure of the device including to enhance light extraction efficiency (Wen; listed reflecting agent materials all have a higher refractive index; ¶ [0036; 0063]).
Further, in the same field of endeavor, Peckham discloses a reflective surface which is alternately composed of a series of high and low refractive index layers known as distributed Bragg reflectors (DBR). Peckham further discloses the DBR advantage of having an adjustable peak reflectance and reflectance profile while having no absorption in the visible spectrum (¶ [0103]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the DBR reflector disclosed by Peckham as an ultraviolet reflection layer in the light block layer of Lee in view of Yan, Sumita and Li. The DBR reflector in general would have been known to the person having ordinary skill in the art, and Peckham’s disclosure would confirm its applicability for an OLED device. One would have been motivated to do this for the advantage noted by Peckham (¶ [0103]) which would enable optimization of which wavelengths are blocked versus transmitted. Further, one may have been motivated to use the DBR reflector along with an absorption layer in the light block layer in order to further improve the blocking ability of the DBR reflector, since, as shown in Fig 9 or Peckham, the DBR reflector alone may not block 100% of ultraviolet light. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success because the structures and materials are well-known in the art.
Conclusion
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 BRAD KNUDSON whose telephone number is (703)756-4582. The examiner can normally be reached Telework 9:30 -18:30 ET; M-F.
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, Eliseo Ramos Feliciano can be reached at 571-272-7925. 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.
/B.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/ELISEO RAMOS FELICIANO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817