DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application No. 17/795,556 filed on July 27, 2022.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/25/2026 responding to the Office action mailed on 01/12/2026 has been entered. The present Office action is made with all the suggested amendments being fully considered. Accordingly, pending in this Office action are claims 1-16 and 18-20.
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.
Claims 1-12, 15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (US 2022/0310974) in view of Hong (US 2023/0102208).
Regarding Claim 1, Zhou (see, e.g., Figs. 1-5, 12), teaches a display substrate, comprising:
a drive circuit layer 21, a light emitting structure layer 22 and an encapsulation structure layer 30 which are sequentially stacked on a base substrate 10, wherein the drive circuit layer 21 comprises a pixel drive circuit, the light emitting structure layer 22 comprises a light emitting element 20 connected to the pixel drive circuit, the light emitting element 20 comprises an anode, an organic functional layer and a cathode which are sequentially stacked in a direction away from the base substrate 10 (see, e.g., pars. 0035-0036, 0054);
the encapsulation structure layer 30 comprises a first inorganic structure layer 31/32, an organic layer 33 and a second inorganic structure layer 35/36 which are sequentially stacked in the direction away from the base substrate 10 (see, e.g., pars. 0035, 0051);
the refractive index of the first inorganic structure layer 31/32 is configured to vary from 1.51 to 1.74, and a refractive index of the second inorganic structure layer 35/36 is configured to be greater than 1.74, to shift an emitting direction of green light towards a front view direction, and increase a proportion of green light emission at a peripheral of the display substrate (see, e.g., pars. 0081, 0141); and
a thickness of the first inorganic structure layer 31/32 is configured to be 0.99 µm to 1.21 µm, to increase transmittance of green light through the first inorganic structure layer 31/32 without changing transmittance of red light, and thus to improve a phenomenon of reddening on the periphery of the display substrate at a front viewing angle (see, e.g., pars. 0073, 0163);
the display substrate comprises a display region AA, wherein the display region AA comprises a red sub-pixel 111, a green sub-pixel 112 and a blue sub-pixel 113, (see, e.g., pars. 0003, 0033, 0048),
wherein the all film layers between the anode ITO/Ag and the cathode (cathode) in the light emitting element 20 of the sub-pixel 111/112/113 of any one of the red, green and blue colors comprises a light emitting layer R/G/B, any one or more of the following film layers arranged between the anode ITO/Ag and the light emitting layer R/G/B: a hole injection layer HIL, a hole transport layer HTL1 and an electron block layer, and any one or more of the following film layers arranged between the light-emitting layer R/G/B and the cathode (cathode): a hole block layer, an electron transport layer ETL, and an electron injection layer EIL (see, e.g., Figs. 2-3);
wherein a material of the first inorganic structure layer 31/32 is silicon oxynitride (see, e.g., pars. 0085-086).
Zhou is silent with respect to the claim limitations that a refractive index of the first inorganic structure layer is configured to first increase gradually and then decrease gradually in the direction away from the base substrate, and that a total thickness of all film layers between an anode and a cathode in a light emitting element of the red sub-pixel is greater than a total thickness of all film layers between an anode and a cathode in a light emitting element of the green sub-pixel, and the total thickness of the all film layers between the anode and the cathode in the light emitting element of the green sub-pixel is greater than a total thickness of all film layers between an anode and a cathode in a light emitting element of the blue sub-pixel; that the display substrate is configured to adjust the refractive index of the first inorganic structure layer by adjusting a ratio of nitrogen to oxygen in the silicon oxynitride forming the first inorganic structure layer, and adjust the refractive index of the first inorganic structure layer to shift the emitting direction of the green light towards the front view direction, wherein a thickness of the second inorganic structure layer is 0.55 µm to 0.85 µm.
Hong (see, e.g., Fig. 2), in similar display devices to Zhou, on the other hand, teaches that a refractive index of the first inorganic structure layer LIL is configured to first increase gradually and then decrease gradually in the direction away from the base substrate SUB, and that the display substrate is configured to adjust the refractive index of the first inorganic structure layer LIL by adjusting a ratio of nitrogen to oxygen in the silicon oxynitride forming the first inorganic structure layer LIL, wherein a thickness of the second inorganic structure layer UIL is 0.5 µm, to reduce color changes according to a viewing angle (see, e.g., pars. 0060-0068).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include in Zhou’s device, a refractive index of the first inorganic structure layer being configured to first increase gradually and then decrease gradually in the direction away from the base substrate, and the display substrate being configured to adjust the refractive index of the first inorganic structure layer by adjusting a ratio of nitrogen to oxygen in the silicon oxynitride forming the first inorganic structure layer, wherein a thickness of the second inorganic structure layer is 0.55 µm to 0.85 µm as taught by Hong, to reduce color changes according to a viewing angle.
Additionally, regarding the limitations that “a refractive index of the second inorganic structure layer is configured to be greater than 1.74, to shift an emitting direction of green light towards a front view direction, and increase a proportion of green light emission at a peripheral of the display substrate”, and “a thickness of the first inorganic structure layer is configured to be 0.99 µm to 1.21 µm, to increase transmittance of green light through the first inorganic structure layer without changing transmittance of red light, and thus to improve a phenomenon of reddening on the periphery of the display substrate at a front viewing angle”, and “adjusting the refractive index of the first inorganic structure layer to shift the emitting direction of the green light towards the front view direction”, do not appear to structurally limit the claim as they are directed to (i) a manner of operating a device or (ii) to a function, property or characteristic of the semiconductor device.
If the claim limitations are directed to a function, property or characteristic of the apparatus, then “the examiner provides a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art” (quoting Ex Parte Levy, 17 USPQ2s 1461, 1464 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990 under Section 2112.1V of the MPEP), then the burden of proof is shifted to the Applicant to show that the apparatus taught by the prior art reference cannot function or does not have the property or characteristic as recited.
According to Section 2114 of the MPEP, "While features of an apparatus may berecited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must bedistinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In reSchreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429,1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Theabsence of a disclosure in a prior art reference relating to function did not defeat theBoard's finding of anticipation of claimed apparatus because the limitations at issuewere found to be inherent in the prior art reference); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d210,212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120USPQ 528,531 (CCPA 1959). "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what adevice does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original)".
Construing the above-mentioned limitations of claim 1 as (ii) a function, property, or characteristics of the device, the device of Zhou and Hong, which teaches all of the claimed structural features including a second inorganic structure layer having a refractive index configured to be greater than 1.74, as required by claim 1 and functional features as required by a standard display device, would inherently function, or has the property or characteristic related to “shifting an emitting direction of green light towards a front view direction, and increase a proportion of green light emission at a peripheral of the display substrate”. Similarly, since Zhou and Hong teach the first inorganic structure layer configured to have a thickness between 0.99 µm to 1.21 µm, it would inherently function, or has the property or characteristic related to “increasing transmittance of green light through the first inorganic structure layer without changing transmittance of red light, and thus improving a phenomenon of reddening on the periphery of the display substrate at a front viewing angle”. Further, since Zhou and Hong teach adjusting the refractive index of the first inorganic structure layer, it would also inherently function or has the property or characteristic related to “shifting the emitting direction of the green light towards the front view direction”.
Since the examiner has met or exceeded his burden of producing evidence with the basis in fact above, the burden has shifted to the Applicants to show otherwise.
Regarding the claim limitations that “the refractive index of the first inorganic structure layer is configured to vary from 1.51 to 1.74”, “a thickness of the first inorganic structure layer is configured to be 0.99 µm to 1.21 µm”, and “a thickness of the second inorganic structure layer is 0.55 µm to 0.85 µm”, where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66. Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of Amer.v.Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
"[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
The claim limitation that “a total thickness of all film layers between an anode and a cathode in a light emitting element of the red sub-pixel is greater than a total thickness of all film layers between an anode and a cathode in a light emitting element of the green sub-pixel, and the total thickness of the all film layers between the anode and the cathode in the light emitting element of the green sub-pixel is greater than a total thickness of all film layers between an anode and a cathode in a light emitting element of the blue sub-pixel”, is merely considered a change in the thickness of all or some of the film layers between the anode and the cathode in a light emitting element of the red sub-pixel, the green sub-pixel, and the blue sub-pixel in Zhou’s device. The specific claimed thickness relationships, absent any criticality, are only considered to be obvious modifications of the thickness of the film layers between the anode and the cathode in a light emitting element of the red sub-pixel, the green sub-pixel, and the blue sub-pixel in Zhou’s device, as the courts have held that changes in thickness without any criticality, are within the level of skill in the art. According to the courts, a particular thickness is nothing more than one among numerous thicknesses that a person having ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide using routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of the claimed thickness relationships, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the claimed thickness relationships between the film layers in a light emitting element of the red sub-pixel, the green sub-pixel, and the blue sub-pixel in Zhou’s device.
CRITICALITY
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed thicknesses or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen thickness or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen thickness is critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claim 2, Zhou and Hong teach all aspects of claim 1. Zhou (see, e.g., Figs. 1-5, 12), teaches that the first inorganic structure layer 31/32 comprises a first sub-inorganic layer and a second sub-inorganic layer which are sequentially stacked in the direction away from the base substrate 10, a refractive index of the first sub-inorganic layer is 1.68 to 1.74, and a refractive index of the second sub-inorganic layer is 1.57 to 1.68 (see, e.g., pars. 0081, 0141).
See also the comments stated above in claim 1 regarding overlapping ranges which considered repeated here.
Regarding Claim 3, Zhou and Hong teach all aspects of claim 2. Zhou (see, e.g., Figs. 1-5, 12), teaches that a material of the first inorganic structure layer 31/32 is silicon oxynitride, and a thickness of the first sub-inorganic layer is 0.8 µm to 1.15 µm, and a thickness of the second sub-inorganic layer is 0.06 µm to 0.19 µm (see, e.g., pars. 0073, 0085, 0163).
See also the comments stated above in claim 1 regarding overlapping ranges which considered repeated here.
Regarding Claim 4, Zhou and Hong teach all aspects of claim 2. Zhou (see, e.g., Figs. 1-5, 12), teaches that the first inorganic structure layer 31/32 further comprises a third sub-inorganic layer arranged on a side of the first sub-inorganic layer facing the base substrate 10, and a refractive index of the third sub-inorganic layer is 1.51 to 1.72 (see, e.g., pars. 0059, 0073, 0085-0086, 0163).
See also the comments stated above in claim 1 regarding overlapping ranges which considered repeated here.
Regarding Claim 5, Zhou and Hong teach all aspects of claim 1. Zhou (see, e.g., Figs. 1-5, 12), teaches that the refractive index of the second inorganic structure layer 35/36 is 1.74 to 1.88 (see, e.g., pars. 0141, 0161).
See also the comments stated above in claim 1 regarding overlapping ranges which considered repeated here.
Regarding Claim 6, Zhou and Hong teach all aspects of claim 5. Zhou (see, e.g., Figs. 1-5, 12), teaches that a material of the second inorganic structure layer 35/36 is silicon nitride (see, e.g., par. 0116).
Regarding Claim 7, Zhou and Hong teach all aspects of claim 5. Zhou (see, e.g., Figs. 1-5, 12), teaches that the refractive index of the second inorganic structure layer 35/36 is 1.82 to 1.84, or the refractive index of the second inorganic structure layer 35/36 increases gradually in the direction away from the base substrate 10 (see, e.g., pars. 0141, 0161).
See also the comments stated above in claim 1 regarding overlapping ranges which considered repeated here.
Regarding Claim 8, Zhou and Hong teach all aspects of claim 1. Zhou (see, e.g., Figs. 1-5, 12), teaches that a thickness of the organic layer 33 is 7.2 µm to 12.5 µm (see, e.g., par. 0161).
See also the comments stated above in claim 1 regarding overlapping ranges which considered repeated here.
Regarding Claim 9, Zhou and Hong teach all aspects of claim 1. Zhou (see, e.g., Figs. 1-5, 12), teaches a capping layer CPL arranged on a surface of the cathode (cathode) facing away from the base substrate 10, and the encapsulation structure layer 30 is arranged on a side of the capping layer CPL facing away from the base substrate 10.
Zhou is silent with respect to the claim limitation that a thickness of the capping layer is 700Å to 1000Å.
However, this claim limitation is merely considered a change in the thickness of the capping layer CPL in Zhou’s device. The specific claimed thickness, absent any criticality, is only considered to be an obvious modification of the thickness of the capping layer CPL in Zhou’s device, as the courts have held that changes in thickness without any criticality, are within the level of skill in the art. According to the courts, a particular thickness is nothing more than one among numerous thicknesses that a person having ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide using routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of the claimed thickness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the claimed thickness in Zhou’s device.
CRITICALITY
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed thickness or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen thickness or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen thickness is critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claim 10, Zhou and Hong teach all aspects of claim 9. Zhou (see, e.g., Figs. 1-5, 12), teaches a protective layer LiF arranged on a surface of the capping layer CPL facing away from the base substrate 10, wherein the encapsulation structure layer 30 is arranged on a surface of the protective layer LiF facing away from the base substrate 10; a material of the protective layer (LiF) is LiF, and a thickness of the protective layer is 500A to 700A
Zhou is silent with respect to the claim limitation that a thickness of the protective layer is 700Å to 1000Å.
However, this claim limitation is merely considered a change in the thickness of the protective layer LiF in Zhou’s device.
See also the comments stated above in claim 9 regarding criticality of thicknesses which are considered repeated here.
Regarding Claim 11, Zhou and Hong teach all aspects of claim 1. Zhou (see, e.g., Figs. 1-5, 12), teaches that the light emitting element 20 is an organic light emitting diode (see, e.g., pars. 0003, 0033, 0048).
Zhou is silent with respect to the claim limitations that:
the total thickness of the all film layers between an anode and a cathode in a light emitting element 20 of the red sub-pixel 111 is 2484Å to 2932Å;
the total thickness of the all film layers between an anode and a cathode in a light emitting element of the green sub-pixel is 2084Å to 2462Å; and
the total thickness of the all film layers between an anode and a cathode in a light emitting element of the blue sub-pixel is 1610Å to 1917Å.
However, these claim limitations are merely considered changes in the thickness of the film layers in the light emitting element 20 in the red sub-pixel, green sub-pixel, and blue sub-pixel in Zhou’s device.
See also the comments stated above in claims 1 and 9 regarding criticality of thicknesses which are considered repeated here.
Regarding Claim 12, Zhou and Hong teach all aspects of claim 11. Zhou (see, e.g., Figs. 1-5), teaches that:
any one of the following film layers in the display region AA is connected into an integral structure and covers the display region AA: the hole injection layer HIL, the hole transport layer HTL1, the hole block layer, the electron transport layer ETL, the electron injection layer EIL and the cathode (cathode) (see, e.g., Figs. 2-3).
Regarding Claim 15, Zhou and Hong teach all aspects of claim 1. Zhou (see, e.g., Figs. 1-5), teaches:
a non-display region NA located on a periphery of the display region AA, wherein circumferential edges of the first inorganic structure layer 31/32, the organic layer 33 and the second inorganic structure layer 35/36 are all located in the non-display region NA (see, e.g., Fig. 2, par. 0048);
an orthographic projection of the second inorganic structure layer 35/36 on the base substrate 10 comprises an orthographic projection of the first inorganic structure layer 31/32 on the base substrate 10, and the orthographic projection of the first inorganic structure layer 31/32 on the base substrate 10 comprises an orthographic projection of the organic layer 33 on the base substrate 10 (see, e.g., Fig. 2, par. 0048).
Regarding Claim 18, Zhou and Hong teach all aspects of claim 1. Zhou (see, e.g., Figs. 1-5), teaches a display apparatus, comprising the display substrate according to claim 1 (see, e.g., par. 0005).
Regarding Claim 19, Zhou (see, e.g., Figs. 1-5), teaches a method for preparing a display substrate, comprising:
forming a drive circuit layer 21 on a base substrate 10, the drive circuit layer 21 comprising a pixel drive circuit (see, e.g., par. 0054);
forming a light emitting structure layer 22 on a side of the drive circuit layer 21 facing away from the base substrate 10, wherein the light emitting structure layer 22 comprises a light emitting element 20 connected to the pixel drive circuit, and the light emitting element 20 comprises an anode, an organic functional layer and a cathode which are sequentially stacked in a direction away from the base substrate 10 (see, e.g., pars. 0035-0036, 0054); and
forming an encapsulation structure layer 30 on a side of the light emitting structure layer 22 facing away from the base substrate 10, wherein the encapsulation structure layer 30 comprises a first inorganic structure layer 31/32, an organic layer 33 and a second inorganic structure layer 35 which are sequentially stacked in the direction away from the base substrate 10 (see, e.g., pars. 0035, 0051);
the refractive index of the first inorganic structure layer 31/32 is configured to vary from 1.51 to 1.74, and a refractive index of the second inorganic structure layer 35 is configured to be greater than 1.74, to shift an emitting direction of green light towards a front view direction, and increase a proportion of green light emission at a peripheral of the display substrate (see, e.g., pars. 0081, 0141); and
a thickness of the first inorganic structure layer 31/32 is configured to be 0.99 µm to 1.21 µm, to increase transmittance of green light through the first inorganic structure layer 31/32 without changing transmittance of red light, and thus to improve a phenomenon of reddening on the periphery of the display substrate at a front viewing angle (see, e.g., pars. 0073, 0163);
the display substrate comprises a display region AA, wherein the display region AA comprises a red sub-pixel 111, a green sub-pixel 112 and a blue sub-pixel 113, (see, e.g., pars. 0003, 0033, 0048),
wherein the all film layers between the anode ITO/Ag and the cathode (cathode) in the light emitting element 20 of the sub-pixel 111/112/113 of any one of the red, green and blue colors comprises a light emitting layer R/G/B, any one or more of the following film layers arranged between the anode ITO/Ag and the light emitting layer R/G/B: a hole injection layer HIL, a hole transport layer HTL1 and an electron block layer, and any one or more of the following film layers arranged between the light-emitting layer R/G/B and the cathode (cathode): a hole block layer, an electron transport layer ETL, and an electron injection layer EIL (see, e.g., Figs. 2-3);
wherein a material of the first inorganic structure layer 31/32 is silicon oxynitride (see, e.g., pars. 0085-086).
Zhou is silent with respect to the claim limitations that a refractive index of the first inorganic structure layer is configured to first increase gradually and then decrease gradually in the direction away from the base substrate, and that a total thickness of all film layers between an anode and a cathode in a light emitting element of the red sub-pixel is greater than a total thickness of all film layers between an anode and a cathode in a light emitting element of the green sub-pixel, and the total thickness of the all film layers between the anode and the cathode in the light emitting element of the green sub-pixel is greater than a total thickness of all film layers between an anode and a cathode in a light emitting element of the blue sub-pixel; that the display substrate is configured to adjust the refractive index of the first inorganic structure layer by adjusting a ratio of nitrogen to oxygen in the silicon oxynitride forming the first inorganic structure layer, and adjust the refractive index of the first inorganic structure layer to shift the emitting direction of the green light towards the front view direction, wherein a thickness of the second inorganic structure layer is 0.55 µm to 0.85 µm.
Hong (see, e.g., Fig. 2), in similar display devices to Zhou, on the other hand, teaches that a refractive index of the first inorganic structure layer LIL is configured to first increase gradually and then decrease gradually in the direction away from the base substrate SUB, and that the display substrate is configured to adjust the refractive index of the first inorganic structure layer LIL by adjusting a ratio of nitrogen to oxygen in the silicon oxynitride forming the first inorganic structure layer LIL, wherein a thickness of the second inorganic structure layer UIL is 0.5 µm, to reduce color changes according to a viewing angle (see, e.g., pars. 0060-0068).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include in Zhou’s device, a refractive index of the first inorganic structure layer being configured to first increase gradually and then decrease gradually in the direction away from the base substrate, and the display substrate being configured to adjust the refractive index of the first inorganic structure layer by adjusting a ratio of nitrogen to oxygen in the silicon oxynitride forming the first inorganic structure layer, wherein a thickness of the second inorganic structure layer is 0.55 µm to 0.85 µm as taught by Hong, to reduce color changes according to a viewing angle.
See also the comments stated above in claim 1 regarding functional language, overlapping ranges, and criticality which are considered repeated here.
Regarding Claim 20, Zhou and Hong teach all aspects of claim 19. Zhou (see, e.g., Figs. 1-5), teaches that in a process of forming the encapsulation structure layer 30, the first inorganic structure layer 31/32 and the second inorganic structure layer 35 are each formed by a chemical vapor deposition method (see, e.g., pars. 0082, 0114).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (US 2022/0310974) in view of Hong (US 2023/0102208) and further in view of Qu (US 2023/0337448).
Regarding Claim 13, Zhou and Hong teach all aspects of claim 12. They do not teach that a thickness of the light emitting layer in the light emitting element of the red sub-pixel is d1, a thickness of the light emitting layer in the light emitting element of the green sub-pixel is d2, and a thickness of the light emitting layer in the light emitting element of the blue sub-pixel is d3, where d1>d2 >d3.
Qu, in similar display devices to Zhou and Hong, on the other hand, teaches that a thickness of the light emitting layer 24cr1 in the light emitting element of the red sub-pixel is d1, a thickness of the light emitting layer in the light emitting element cg2 of the green sub-pixel is d2, and a thickness of the light emitting layer 24cb3 in the light emitting element of the blue sub-pixel is d3, where d1>d2>d3. In such a configuration, the emission balance of the red light, the green light, and the blue light can be easily adjusted in consideration of emission efficiency in the first quantum dot light-emitting layer 24cr1, the second quantum dot light-emitting layer cg2, and the third quantum dot light-emitting layer 24cb3, and thus the emission quality can be easily improved (see, e.g., par. 0074).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have in Zhou’s/Hong’s device the claimed relationships between the thickness of the red, green, and blue light emitting layers, as taught by Qu, to adjust the emission balance of the red light, the green light, and the blue light and improve the emission quality.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (US 2022/0310974) in view of Hong (US 2023/0102208) and further in view of Sun (US 2024/0206303).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding Claim 14, Zhou and Hong teach all aspects of claim 12. They do not teach that a thickness of the electron block layer in the light emitting element of the red sub-pixel is D1, a thickness of the electron block layer in the light emitting element of the green sub-pixel is D2, and a thickness of the electron block layer in the light emitting element of the blue sub-pixel is D3, where D1>D2>D3.
Sun, in similar display devices to Zhou and Hong, on the other hand, teaches an electron block layer 3041/3042/3043 used to transfer holes and block electrons as well as excitons generated in the light emitting layer 3051/3052/3053. A thickness (40 nm – 60 nm) of the electron block layer 3041 in the light emitting element 310 of the red sub-pixel R is D1, a thickness (15 nm – 30 nm) of the electron block layer 3042 in the light emitting element 310 of the green sub-pixel G is D2, and a thickness (1 nm – 10 nm) of the electron block layer 3043 in the light emitting element 310 of the blue sub-pixel B is D3, where D1>D2 >D3 (see, e.g., par. 0061).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have in Zhou’s/Hong’s device the claimed electron block layer and the claimed relationships between the thickness of the red, green, and blue light emitting layers, as taught by Sun, to transfer holes and block electrons as well as excitons generated in the light emitting layer and adjust the color coordinates of red, green, and blue light.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (US 2022/0310974) in view of Hong (US 2023/0102208) and further in view of Okabe (US 2024/0381743).
Regarding Claim 16, Zhou and Hong teach all aspects of claim 15. Zhou is silent with respect to the claim limitation that the non-display region comprises an isolation dam, the isolation dam is arranged on a side of the organic layer away from the display region, and the circumferential edges of the first inorganic structure layer and the second inorganic structure layer are arranged on a side of the isolation dam away from the display region.
Okabe (see, e.g., Figs. 1-11), in similar display devices to Zhou and Hong, on the other hand, teaches that the non-display region FA comprises an isolation dam WL, the isolation dam WL is arranged on a side of the organic layer 84 away from the display region DA, and the circumferential edges of the first inorganic structure layer 82 and the second inorganic structure layer 86 are arranged on a side of the isolation dam WL away from the display region DA. The wall body includes a dam wall that keeps an organic material, forming the organic sealing layer, from spreading out of the picture-frame region and reduces the risk of a wire to be broken on a wall and water to enter the display region (see, e.g., pars. 0009-0010).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include in Zhou’s/Hong’s device, the non-display region comprising an isolation dam, the isolation dam arranged on a side of the organic layer away from the display region, and the circumferential edges of the first inorganic structure layer and the second inorganic structure layer arranged on a side of the isolation dam away from the display region, as taught by Okabe, to keep an organic material, forming the organic sealing layer, from spreading out of the picture-frame region and reduce the risk of a wire to be broken on a wall and water to enter the display region.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 03/25/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 19 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicants argue:
Zhou doesn’t disclose the total thickness of all film layers between an anode and a cathode in a light emitting element of the red sub-pixel, the total thickness of all film layers between an anode and a cathode in a light emitting element of the green sub-pixel, and the total thickness of all film layers between an anode and a cathode in a light emitting element of the blue sub-pixel. Therefore, Zhou cannot give any teaching or suggesting about the thickness relationships between them.
Compared with the scheme of Zhou, the present application dramatically decreases the thickness of the second inorganic structure layer, and thus has at least the technical effect of decreasing the thickness of the display substrate. A skilled person in the art, without an inventive effort, would not conceive of a display substrate having a second inorganic structure layer with a thickness of 0.55 to 0.85µm based on the disclosure of Zhou.
The examiner responds:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the criticality of the total thickness between the anode and the cathode in a light emitting element of the red sub-pixel, the green sub-pixel, and the blue sub-pixel were not found persuasive to overcome the rejection of the claims. For example, to overcome the rejection of claim 1 and rebut the examiners assertion that the applicants have failed to establish the criticality of having “a total thickness of all film layers between an anode and a cathode in a light emitting element of the red sub-pixel being greater than a total thickness of all film layers between an anode and a cathode in a light emitting element of the green sub-pixel, and the total thickness of the all film layers between the anode and the cathode in the light emitting element of the green sub-pixel being greater than a total thickness of all film layers between an anode and a cathode in a light emitting element of the blue sub-pixel”, the applicants stated that Zhou cannot give any teaching or suggesting about the thickness relationship between them.
To be of probative value, applicants’ assertion should be supported by actual proof. The MPEP gives guidelines on how to demonstrate the criticality of a claimed range. See, e.g., §716.02(d). As explained therein, the applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show criticality of the claimed range. The evidence relied upon should establish “that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance.” Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1319 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). The applicants, however, have failed to present any data showing that having a thickness of all film layers between an anode and a cathode in a light emitting element of the red sub-pixel being greater than a total thickness of all film layers between an anode and a cathode in a light emitting element of the green sub-pixel, and the total thickness of the all film layers between the anode and the cathode in the light emitting element of the green sub-pixel being greater than a total thickness of all film layers between an anode and a cathode in a light emitting element of the blue sub-pixel, is critical. Due to the absence of said data, the examiner concludes that applicants’ assertion that the claimed thickness relationships are critical constitute mere argument. Therefore, since the applicants have failed to establish the criticality of the claimed thickness relationships and since the cited art shows all other limitations in the claim, claim 1 stands rejected under Zhou and Hong.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nelson Garces whose telephone number is (571)272-8249. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Wael Fahmy can be reached on (571)272-1705. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Nelson Garces/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2814
Prosecution Insights