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 Amendments
Acknowledgment is made of the amendment filed 01/21/2026 (“A…”), in which: claims 1 and 25 are amended; no claims are cancelled; no new claims are added; and the rejection of the claims are traversed. Claims 1 – 4, 7 – 14, 16, 19 – 20, 22, and 24 – 27 are currently pending an Office action on the merits as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1 – 4, 7 – 14, 16, 19 – 20, 22, and 24 – 27 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all
obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 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.
Claims 1 – 2, 4, 8, 20, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Wu (CN 111613735 A; citations provided from US 12336420 B2), and further in view of Qin et al. (CN 111146263 A), Kim et al. (US 20210202590 A1), Tanaka (US 20190384110 A1), and Yaun (US 20180351132 A1).
Regarding independent Claim 1, Wu teaches a light-emitting substrate, comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 14; substrate 10);
a plurality of sub-pixels (col. 2; lines 20 – 21) disposed on the substrate (Fig. 14), each sub-pixel including a light-emitting element (Light-emitting functional layer 21 discussed in col. 1; line 44. Also see Fig. 14) disposed on the substrate (Fig. 14) and a light conversion pattern (Fig. 14; color filter 70 comprising red filter 71 and green filter 72. See col. 8; lines 19 – 31) disposed on a light-exit side of the light-emitting element (Fig. 14; top side of the display device shown), the light-emitting element being configured to emit light of a first color (See blue light taught for the light-emitting functional layer 21 in at least col. 8; lines 19 – 31);
the plurality of sub-pixels including at least one first sub-pixel (red sub-pixel taught in at least col. 8; lines 19 – 31), a light conversion pattern included in a respective one of the at least one first sub-pixel being a first light conversion pattern (Fig. 14; red filter 71), and the first light conversion pattern being configured to convert the light of the first color emitted by a light- emitting element located in a same sub-pixel as the first light conversion pattern into light of a second color (at least col. 8; lines 19 – 31, i.e., red color);
a first light extraction layer (Fig. 10; first light extraction layer 31 + second light extraction layer 32) disposed on a side of the first light conversion pattern away from the light-emitting element (Figs. 10 and 14), and at least located in a region where the at least one first sub-pixel is located (Figs. 10 and 14); the first light extraction layer including at least one first transparent substrate (Fig. 10; first light extraction layer 31) …
a second light extraction layer (Fig. 15; light extraction adaptation layer 81) disposed on a side of the first light extraction layer away from the light-emitting element (col. 8; lines 59 - 63), a refractive index of the second light extraction layer being smaller than a refractive index of the first light extraction layer (Under Examples 2 and 3 (col. 11) of Wu, example values for the refractive index mean that the first light extraction layer 31 has a large refractive index greater than 1.75 or 2.0, in view of Wu’s teaching in col. 1; line 55 – col. 2; line 2. Further, examiner asserts that Wu’s teaching of LiF layers for their light extraction adaptation layer 81 (col. 10; lines 63 – 64) is the same for that of LiF layers taught within the field of endeavor, which is that LiF layers have a refractive index smaller than 1.75 or 2 (typically in the range of 1.4). See below), and the second light extraction layer being configured to change an exit angle of light exiting from the first light extraction layer (Fig. 15); wherein
the plurality of sub-pixels further include at least one second sub-pixel (green sub-pixel taught in at least col. 8; lines 19 – 31), a light conversion pattern included in a respective one of the at least one second sub-pixel is a second light conversion pattern (Fig. 14; green filter 72); the second light conversion pattern includes a second transparent substrate (materials taught in at least col. 7; lines 31 – 36 understood by the examiner to be a transparent substrate) and scattering particles (col. 7; lines 27 – 30) added in the second transparent substrate (col. 7; lines 27 – 36);
a region where other sub-pixels in the plurality of sub-pixels except the at least one second sub-pixel are located is a first region (Fig. 15; at least a region including the blue sub-pixels), and a region where the at least one second sub-pixel is located is a second region (Fig. 15; region the green sub-pixel); orthographic projection of the first light extraction layer on the substrate is located outside the second region (Fig. 10; the projection of the first light extraction layer is additionally located outside the second region); and
the first light extraction layer only includes a first sub-layer (Fig. 10; first light extraction layer 31) and a second sub-layer (Fig. 10; second light extraction layer 32) disposed on a side of the first sub-layer away from the light-emitting element (Figs. 10 and 15), the first sub-layer has a second pattern (Fig. 10), and the second sub-layer has a third pattern (Fig. 10); the first region is located within an orthographic projection of at least one of the second pattern and the third pattern on the substrate (Fig. 10), …
However, Wu remains silent regarding the first light extraction layer wherein:
optically active substances added in each first transparent substrate, the optically active substances being selected from materials that are capable of selectively reflecting the light of the first color; …
and orthographic projections of the second pattern and the third pattern on the substrate are located outside the second region.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Qin also teaches the first light extraction layer only includes a first sub-layer (Fig. 9; first light guide layer 41) and a second sub-layer (Fig. 9; first light guide layer 41) disposed on a side of the first sub-layer away from the light-emitting element (Fig. 11), the first sub-layer has a second pattern (Fig. 9), and the second sub-layer has a third pattern (Fig. 9). This is similar to Wu’s design of a first light extraction layer 31 + a second light extraction layer 32. Examiner asserts that it would be obvious to take Wu’s light-extraction structure, which is already similar to Qin’s light guide layer 4; and modify it in view of Qin’s scattering particles as shown in Fig. 10. Therefore, to enhance the capabilities of Wu’s display device, Wu’s first light extraction layer of their light-emitting substrate may be modified further in view of Qin; wherein Qin discloses:
… the first light extraction layer (Figs. 8 – 10; light guide layer 4) including at least one first transparent substrate (Fig. 10; light out substrate 43) and optically active substances (Fig. 10; scattering particles 44) added in each first transparent substrate (Figs. 8 – 10), …
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the light-emitting substrate of Wu to include Qin’s light extraction layer structure including optically active substances added in each first transparent substrate, because such a modification is the result of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. More specifically, Qin’s light extraction layer structure permits the use of optically active substances added to a transparent substrate that are able to selectively interact with light at a desired wavelength, i.e., color. This known benefit in Qin’s light extraction layer structure is applicable to Wu’s similar first light extraction layer as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to extraction layers for similar light-emitting element type display devices. Therefore, it would have been recognized that modifying Wu’s light-emitting substrate, specifically the first light extraction layer therein, to include Qin’s light extraction layer structure including optically active substances added in each first transparent substrate, would have yielded predictable results because (i) the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate Qin’s light extraction layer structure including optically active substances added in each first transparent substrate in the light extraction layers of similar display devices and (ii) the benefits of such a combination would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art.
In the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches the first region (Fig. 13; region of Red and Blue sub-pixels), the second region (Fig. 13; region of the green sub-pixel), and a first light extraction layer (Fig. 13; buffer layer BFL. See [0089] for refractive indices); wherein Kim’s second region has no first light extraction patterned portion, due to other structures formed to aid in color conversion. It would be obvious to modify the light-emitting substrate of Wu and Qin, further in view of Kim, to improve a light-emitting substrate’s light extraction efficiency, by having a set patterned structure (as disclosed by Kim) for the first light extraction layer and selectively disposing the set patterned structure for ease of manufacturing; and then adding appropriate color correction structures, e.g., Kim’s color conversion structures of different thickness, as exhibited by the disclosures of Wu, Qin, and Kim. Thus, the light-emitting substrate of Wu and Qin, further in view of Kim, yields the first region is located within an orthographic projection of at least one of the second pattern and the third pattern on the substrate (Kim: Fig. 13), and orthographic projections of the second pattern and the third pattern on the substrate are located outside the second region (Kim: Fig. 13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the light-emitting substrate of Wu, further in view of Qin, to include Kim’s teaching of patterning the first light extraction layer, such that the first light extraction layer has separated portions between adjacent sub-pixels, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Kim’s teaching of patterning the first light extraction layer is comparable to Wu’s patterned light extraction mesh, as well as Qin’s patterned light guide layer 4 (Qin: Fig. 11), because these structures are patterned structures with the function of light extraction. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light-emitting substrate of Wu, further in view of Qin, to include Kim’s teaching of patterning the first light extraction layer, such that the first light extraction layer has separated portions between adjacent sub-pixels, with the predictable result of forming light extraction layers in necessary sub-pixel openings, thus selectively using material which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize to reduce the cost of manufacturing.
Further, Tanaka discloses a light-emitting device wherein the first light extraction layer (Fig. 3; light reflecting layer 16) including at least one first transparent substrate (UV curable resin as disclosed in [0045]) and optically active substances (chiral agent as disclosed in [0042]) added in each first transparent substrate ([0042]), the optically active substances being selected from materials that are capable of selectively reflecting the light of the first color (Tanaka teaches in [0044] that the reflectance of light of a wavelength, e.g., wavelength of the first color, is dependent on chiral agent added). Examiner asserts that Qin’s light guide layer 4 may be modified to include chiral agents, which are known to satisfy a definition of “selectively reflect” light of a specific wavelength. Examiner makes a note here that, as best understood, “selectively reflecting” heavily implies chiral characteristics.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the light extraction layers of Wu, further in view of Qin and Kim, to use materials similar to what is taught by Tanaka in [0042] and [0045], such that the optically active substances being selected from materials that are capable of selectively reflecting the light of the first color, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Kim’s liquid crystal material, relied upon for their disclosed patterning, for a light extraction layer is comparable to Tanaka’s liquid crystal material for light extraction because they both disclose liquid crystal material for light extraction. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light extraction layers of Wu, further in view of Qin and Kim, to include materials similar to what is taught by Tanaka in [0042] and [0045],with the predictable result of the optically active substances being selected from materials that are capable of selectively reflecting the light of the first color forming plane-polarized light.
Additionally, regarding an LiF layer refractive index within the field of endeavor, Yuan teaches an LiF layer with a refractive index of about 1.39 (~1.4) in at least [0027]. Examiner adds this to support to show that a refractive index of the second light extraction layer being smaller than a refractive index of the first light extraction layer is supported in Wu’s disclosure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Wu’s light-emitting substrate to include a refractive index of the second light extraction layer being smaller than a refractive index of the first light extraction layer, as implied by Wu, further in view of Yuan, because such a modification is taught, suggested, or motivated by the art. More specifically, the motivation to modify Wu’s light-emitting substrate to include a refractive index of the second light extraction layer being smaller than a refractive index of the first light extraction layer, as implied by Wu, further in view of Yuan, is implicitly provided by Wu, stating under Examples 2 and 3 (col. 11), example values for the refractive index mean that the first light extraction layer 31 has a large refractive index (greater than 1.75 or 2.0, in view of Wu’s teaching in col. 1; line 55 – col. 2; line 2). Further, examiner asserts that Wu’s teaching of LiF layers for their light extraction adaptation layer 81 (col. 10; lines 63 – 64) is the same for that of LiF layers taught within the field of endeavor, which is that LiF layers have a refractive index smaller than 1.75 or 2 (typically in the range of 1.4), as supported by Yuan ([0027]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Wu’s light-emitting substrate to include a refractive index of the second light extraction layer being smaller than a refractive index of the first light extraction layer, as implied by Wu, further in view of Yuan, with the motivation of applying known techniques for light extraction within the field of endeavor. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of manipulating the path of light, for at least the purposes of improving light extraction, with selectively placing appropriately valued refractive index layers in the device.
Regarding dependent Claim 2, Wu, further in view of Qin, Kim, Tanaka, and Yuan, teach the light-emitting substrate according to claim 1, wherein
the first sub-layer and the second sub-layer are sequentially stacked in a direction away from the light-emitting element; the first sublayer and the second sub-layer each include the optically active substances, and chirality of the optically active substances included in the first sub-layer is opposite to chirality of the optically active substances included in the second sub-layer; or
an orthographic projection of the first sub-layer on the substrate is located within an orthographic projection of the second sub-layer on the substrate (Wu: Fig. 10).
Regarding dependent Claim 4, Wu, further in view of Qin, Kim, Tanaka, and Yuan, teach the light-emitting substrate according to claim 1; however, Wu remains silent wherein
wherein the first sub-layer includes a first transparent substrate and optically active substances added in the first transparent substrate, the second sub-layer includes another first transparent substrate and optically active substances added in the another first transparent substrate, the optically active substances included in the first sub-layer and the optically active substances included in the second sub-layer are each liquid crystal materials, and the first transparent substrate included in the first sub-layer and the another first transparent substrate included in the second sub-layer are made of a same material or different materials; the first sub-layer includes the first transparent substrate and the optically active substances added in the first transparent substrate, the second sub-layer includes the another first transparent substrate and the optically active substances added in the another first transparent substrate, the optically active substances included in the first sub-layer and the optically active substances included in the second sub-layer each include liquid crystal materials and chiral auxiliaries, the first transparent substrate included in the first sub-layer and the another first transparent substrate included in the second sub-layer are made of a same material or different materials, and liquid crystal materials included in the first sub-layer and liquid crystal materials included in the second sub-layer are same or different.
However, Qin’s similar light guide layer 4 includes:
the first sub-layer includes a first transparent substrate (Qin: Fig. 9; first light guide layer 41) and optically active substances (Combination of Wu and Qin with Tanaka’s chiral agent) added in the first transparent substrate (Combination of Wu and Qin with Tanaka’s chiral agent, in a way similar to what is shown in Qin’s Fig. 10), the second sub-layer includes another first transparent substrate (Qin: Fig. 9; second light guide layer 42) and optically active substances (Combination of Wu and Qin with Tanaka’s chiral agent, in a way similar to what is shown in Qin’s Fig. 10) added in the another first transparent substrate, the optically active substances included in the first sublayer and the optically active substances included in the second sub-layer are each liquid crystal materials (Combination of Wu and Qin with Tanaka’s chiral agent), and the first transparent substrate included in the first sub-layer and the another first transparent substrate included in the second sub-layer are made of a same material or different materials (Qin discusses different scattering particles used for different light-emitting elements. See translation provided);
the first light extraction layer includes the first sub-layer and the second sub-layer (Qin: Fig. 9), the first sub-layer includes the first transparent substrate (Qin: Figs. 9 – 10) and the optically active substances added in the first transparent substrate (Combination of Wu and Qin with Tanaka’s chiral agent), the second sub-layer includes the another first transparent substrate (Qin: Fig. 9) and the optically active substances added in the another first transparent substrate (Combination of Wu and Qin with Tanaka’s chiral agent), the optically active substances included in the first sub-layer and the optically active substances included in the second sub-layer each include liquid crystal materials (Combination of Wu and Qin with Tanaka’s liquid crystal material discussed for their light-extraction layer) and chiral auxiliaries (Combination of Wu and Qin with Tanaka’s chiral agent), the first transparent substrate included in the first sub-layer and the another first transparent substrate included in the second sub-layer are made of a same material or different materials (Qin discusses different scattering particles used for different light-emitting elements. See translation provided), and liquid crystal materials included in the first sub-layer and liquid crystal materials (Combination of Wu and Qin with Tanaka’s liquid crystal material discussed for their light-extraction layer) included in the second sub-layer are same or different (Combination of Wu and Qin with Tanaka’s chiral agent, in a way similar to what is shown in Qin’s Fig. 10).
Examiner asserts it would be obvious to modify Wu’s first light extraction layer (which the examiner considers similar to Qin’s Fig. 9), specifically modifying Wu’s first sub-layer and second sub-layer in view of Qin’s Fig. 10 (Fig. 10; second sub-light out/light out layer 43. See pg. 7 of the provided disclosure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Wu’s first light extraction layer, further in view of Qin and Kim, to include Qin’s second sub-light out/light out layer 43, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Qin’s second sub-light out/light out layer 43 are comparable to Wu’s light extraction layers because both include light extraction structures with unique interfacing surfaces, including modifications thereof, that share similar qualities. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wu’s first light extraction layer, further in view of Qin and Kim, to include Qin’s second sub-light out/light out layer 43, with the predictable result of obtaining scattering function as taught by Qin.
Regarding dependent Claim 8, Wu, further in view of Qin, Kim, Tanaka, and Yuan, teach the light-emitting substrate according to claim 1; however, Wu remains silent wherein
Refractive indices of both the first sub-layer and the second sub-layer are greater than or equal to the refractive index of the at least one light conversion pattern in the region where the first light extraction layer is located; or
the first sub-layer and the second sub-layer each include a fourth surface proximate to the substrate, a fifth surface away from the substrate, and sixth surfaces each connected to the fourth surface and the fifth surface, an included angle between a sixth surface of the first sub-layer and the fourth surface of the first sub-layer is greater than or equal to 30 degrees and less than or equal to 150 degrees, and an included angle between a sixth surface of the second sub-layer and the fourth surface of the second sublayer is greater than or equal to 30 degrees and less than or equal to 150 degrees; or
for light with the wavelength in a range of 400 nm to 500 nm, inclusive, light transmittances of the first sub-layer and the second sub-layer are both in a range of 40% to 70%, inclusive, and a light transmittance of at least one of the first sub-layers and the second sub-layer is greater than 50%; and for the light with the wavelength greater than 500 nm, light transmittances of the first sub-layer and the second sub-layer are both greater than 90%.
However, Kim teaches:
… refractive indices of both the first sub-layer and the second sub-layer are greater than or equal to the refractive index of the at least one light conversion pattern in the region where the first light extraction layer is located (Kim: [0018] and [0151]); …
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the light-emitting substrate of Wu to include consideration of the light conversion pattern’s refractive index, as considered by Kim who teaches refractive indices of both the first sub-layer and the second sub-layer are greater than or equal to the refractive index of the at least one light conversion pattern in the region where the first light extraction layer is located, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Kim’s consideration of the light conversion pattern’s refractive index is comparable to Wu’s consideration of the layers’ refractive indices because selectively choosing refractive indices for layers is a known technique to aid light extraction. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light-emitting substrate of Wu to include consideration of the light conversion pattern’s refractive index, as considered by Kim who teaches refractive indices of both the first sub-layer and the second sub-layer are greater than or equal to the refractive index of the at least one light conversion pattern in the region where the first light extraction layer is located, with the predictable result of improving the light extraction for the device.
Regarding dependent Claim 24, Wu, further in view of Qin, Kim, Tanaka, and Yuan, teach
a light-emitting device (Display device taught by Wu), comprising the light-emitting substrate according to claim 1.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Wu (CN 111613735 A; citations provided from US 12336420 B2), and further in view of Qin et al. (CN 111146263 A), Kim et al. (US 20210202590 A1), Tanaka (US 20190384110 A1), Yaun (US 20180351132 A1), Kim et al. (US 20180061894 A1), and Oshawa et al. (US 20170213876 A1).
Regarding dependent Claim 3, Wu, further in view of Qin, Kim, Tanaka, and Yuan, teach the light-emitting substrate according to claim 1, wherein
the optically active substances are liquid crystal materials (Kim: [0089] – [0090] and Tanaka: [0018] and [0040] ); or
the optically active substances include liquid crystal materials and chiral auxiliaries (Kim: [0089] – [0090] and Tanaka: [0018] and [0040]); and/or
the light-emitting element includes a light-emitting layer (Wu: Fig. 13; light emitting function layer 21), the light-emitting layer includes a first light-emitting sub-layer (Wu: Fig. 13; sub-light emitting layer 211), a charge generation layer (Wu: Fig. 13; hole injection layer 24 + transport layer 25 are together considered to be a charge generation layer), and …
However, Wu remains silent regarding the light-emitting element including the combination of:
… a second light-emitting sub-layer that are sequentially stacked in a direction away from the substrate;
luminescence spectrums of the first light-emitting sub-layer and the second light-emitting sub-layer are both in a range of 400 nm to 500 nm, inclusive.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kim (US 20180061894 A1) discloses a light-emitting display device including an organic light emitting layer 262, wherein the organic light emitting layer 262 may be formed in stacked units ([0086]), wherein the units comprise a hole transporting layer, at least one light emitting layer, and an electron transporting layer. The stacked units result in a hole transporting layer connected to an electron transporting layer, i.e., a charge generation layer, wherein a first light emitting layer and a second light emitting layer are on opposing sides of the charge generation layer. This structure, when combined with the light-emitting display device of Wu, Qin, Kim, and Tanaka yields a display device structure wherein:
… a charge generation layer and a second light-emitting sub-layer that are sequentially stacked in a direction away from the substrate; …
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the light-emitting element of Wu, further in view of Qin, Kim, Tanaka, and Yuan, to include Kim’s light-emitting element structure, which includes a charge generation layer and a second light-emitting sub-layer that are sequentially stacked in a direction away from the substrate, because such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. More specifically, the light-emitting element of Wu as modified by Kim’s light-emitting element structure, which includes a charge generation layer and a second light-emitting sub-layer that are sequentially stacked in a direction away from the substrate, can yield a predictable result of increasing the intensity of light emitted from the device since increasing the number of light-emitting layers comes with increasing flux. Since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable before the effective filing date of the instant invention.
Further, in the same field of endeavor, Oshawa discloses the electroluminescence spectrum for their light-emitting elements in Fig. 52, wherein these light-emitting elements emit white light ([0831]). For example, as shown in Fig. 3, a white light-emitting element 221W may have multiple light-emitting layers, e.g., Fig. 3; light-emitting layers 120 and 140. This is analogous to the structure described by Kim above. Fig. 52 is understood to show luminescence spectrums for multiple white light-emitting layers, which may include light-emitting layers 120 and 140 as a first and second light-emitting sub-layer, wherein:
… luminescence spectrums of the first light-emitting sub-layer and the second light-emitting sub-layer are both in a range of 400 nm to 500 nm, inclusive.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the light-emitting element of Wu, further in view of Qin, Kim, Tanaka, Yuan, and Kim to include luminescence spectrums of the first light-emitting sub-layer and the second light-emitting sub-layer are both in a range of 400 nm to 500 nm, as disclosed by Oshawa, because such a modification is taught, suggested, or motivated by the art. More specifically, the motivation to modify the light-emitting element of Wu and Kim to include luminescence spectrums of the first light-emitting sub-layer and the second light-emitting sub-layer are both in a range of 400 nm to 500 nm, as disclosed by Oshawa, is expressly provided by Oshawa, in relationship to Fig. 51 in [0830], stating that a luminescence spectrum for the light-emitting display device covering the range of 400 nm to 500 nm enables the device to display light with high color purity. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the light-emitting element of Wu and Kim to include luminescence spectrums of the first light-emitting sub-layer and the second light-emitting sub-layer are both in a range of 400 nm to 500 nm, as disclosed by Oshawa, with the motivation of enabling the device to display light with high color purity. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of a luminescence spectrum for the light-emitting display device covering the range of 400 nm to 500 nm.
Claims 9 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Wu (CN 111613735 A; citations provided from US 12336420 B2), and further in view of Qin et al. (CN 111146263 A), Kim et al. (US 20210202590 A1), Tanaka (US 20190384110 A1), Yaun (US 20180351132 A1), Ye et al. (US 11796856 B1), and Cai (US 20220037622 A1).
Regarding dependent Claim 9, Wu, further in view of Qin, Kim, Tanaka, and Yuan, teach the light-emitting substrate according to claim 1; however, Wu remains silent wherein
the second light extraction layer includes a third sub-layer and a fourth sub-layer that are sequentially arranged in a direction away from the substrate, a refractive index of the third sub-layer is smaller than the refractive index of the first light extraction layer, and a refractive index of the fourth sub-layer is smaller than the refractive index of the third sublayer.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ye teaches a light-emitting device (Fig. 1) including an optical film 100 comprised of organic crystals 104 (col. 4; lines 13 – 54) and helically shaped cholesteric liquid crystals (CLCs) (e.g., CLCs 102), similar to Kim’s disclosed liquid crystal compound ([0089]). The examiner is interpreting optical film 100 to be analogous to a second light extraction layer. Layers 104 and 102 both include chiral molecules (col. 4; lines 13 – 54). Further, Ye discloses that their optical film 100 may be used in a light-emitting display device, e.g., display device 700, which includes an optical assembly 730; wherein the optical assembly 730 may include a plurality of optical films 100 and/or 200 (cols. 31 – 32; lines 60 – 5 and col. 32; lines 35 – 39). Thus, Ye may be used to modify the light-emitting substrate of Wu, Qin, Kim, and Tanaka, such that the second light extraction layer includes a third sub-layer and a fourth sub-layer that are sequentially arranged in a direction away from the substrate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the second light-extraction layer of Wu and Kim to include a third sub-layer and a fourth sub-layer that are sequentially arranged in a direction away from the substrate, as disclosed by Ye, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Ye’s light-extraction layers are comparable to the light-extraction layers of Wu, Qin, Kim, and Tanaka because they use optically active compounds/structures to improve light extraction efficiency. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the second light-extraction layer of Wu, Qin, Kim, and Tanaka to include a third sub-layer and a fourth sub-layer that are sequentially arranged in a direction away from the substrate, as disclosed by Ye, with the predictable result of improving light-extraction efficiency for the device.
Further, in the same field of endeavor, Cai continues to teach the same trend as taught multiple prior art of record, e.g., Wu, Qin, Kim, and Tanaka, wherein the index of refraction decreases for the ascending layers ordered in the direction away from the light emitting layers, thus improving light extraction efficiency (Cai: [0037]). Examiner asserts that it would be obvious to employ Cai’s disclosed relationship n.sub.2<n.sub.1 Cai: [0037]) to third and fourth sub-layers of Wu, further in view of Qin, Kim, Tanaka, and Ye; thus, yielding this light-emitting substrate wherein a refractive index of the third sub-layer is smaller than the refractive index of the first light extraction layer, and a refractive index of the fourth sub-layer is smaller than the refractive index of the third sublayer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the second light extraction of Wu, further in view of Qin, Kim, Tanaka, and Ye, to include Cai’s disclosed structural relationship wherein a refractive index of the third sub-layer is smaller than the refractive index of the first light extraction layer, and a refractive index of the fourth sub-layer is smaller than the refractive index of the third sub-layer, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Cai’s disclosed structural relationship wherein a refractive index of the third sub-layer is smaller than the refractive index of the first light extraction layer, and a refractive index of the fourth sub-layer is smaller than the refractive index of the third sub-layer, is comparable to the teachings of Wu, Qin, Kim, and Tanaka, which also discuss the relationships for light extraction, i.e., wherein the index of refraction decreases for the ascending layers ordered in the direction away from the light emitting layers, thus improving light extraction efficiency (Cai: [0037]). Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the second light extraction of Wu, further in view of Qin, Kim, Tanaka, and Ye, to include Cai’s disclosed structural relationship wherein a refractive index of the third sub-layer is smaller than the refractive index of the first light extraction layer, and a refractive index of the fourth sub-layer is smaller than the refractive index of the third sub-layer, with the predictable result of improving light extraction efficiency (Cai: [0037]).
Regarding dependent Claim 10, Wu, further in view of Qin, Kim, Tanaka, Yaun, Ye, and Cai, teach the light-emitting substrate according to claim 9; however, Wu remains silent wherein
at least one of the third sub-layer and the fourth sub-layer is provided with a second protrusion thereon corresponding to the region between every two adjacent sub-pixels; the second protrusion is configured to change the exit angle of the light exiting from the first light extraction layer.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches:
at least one of the third sub-layer and the fourth sub-layer is provided with a second protrusion (Kim: Fig. 14; protrusion of the low-refractive index layer under the black matrix BM) thereon corresponding to the region between every two adjacent sub-pixels (Kim: Fig. 14); the second protrusion is configured to change the exit angle of the light exiting from the first light extraction layer ([0151]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the third sub-layer and the fourth sub-layer of Wu, further in view of Qin, Kim, Tanaka, Yaun, Ye, and Cai, to include Kim’s light extraction layer structure, including at least one of the third sub-layer and the fourth sub-layer is provided with a second protrusion (Kim: Fig. 14; protrusion of the low-refractive index layer under the black matrix BM) thereon corresponding to the region between every two adjacent sub-pixels (Kim: Fig. 14); the second protrusion is configured to change the exit angle of the light exiting from the first light extraction layer ([0151]) because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Kim’s light extraction layer structure is comparable to the light extraction structure of Wu, further in view of Qin, Kim, Tanaka, Yaun, Ye, and Cai, because of their similar composition, function, and placement. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light extraction structure of Wu, further in view of Qin, Kim, Tanaka, Yaun, Ye, and Cai, to include Kim’s light extraction layer structure with the predictable result of the second protrusion is configured to change the exit angle of the light exiting from the first light extraction layer (Kim: [0151]).
Regarding dependent Claim 11, Wu, further in view of Qin, Kim, Tanaka, Yuan, Ye, and Cai, teach the light-emitting substrate according to claim 10; however, Wu remains silent regarding the further comprising
a black matrix,
the black matrix is disposed between the third sub-layer and the first light extraction layer, so that the third sub-layer is provided with the second protrusion thereon corresponding to the region between every two adjacent sub-pixels; or
the black matrix is disposed between the third sub-layer and the fourth sub-layer, so that the fourth sub-layer is provided with the second protrusion thereon corresponding to the region between every two adjacent sub-pixels.
However, Qin teaches a black matrix (Fig. 11; first black matrix 21 and second black matrix 22) formed on a surface of the light guide layer 4.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the light-emitting substrate of Wu, further in view of Qin, Kim, Tanaka, Yuan, Ye, and Cai, teach to include a black matrix, as disclosed by Qin, because such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. More specifically, the light-emitting substrate of Wu, further in view of Qin, Kim, Tanaka, Yuan, Ye, and Cai, as modified by Qin’s black matrix can yield a predictable result of separating pixel areas since black matrices have the function of defining light transmissible openings within the field of endeavor. Since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable before the effective filing date of the instant invention.
Further, in the same field of endeavor, Cai discloses a light extraction structure (Fig. 18); wherein a black matrix 8 is between a fourth light extraction module 34 and second light extraction module 32; wherein, the black matrix 8 is located in a region between pixels. Thus, Cai’s disclosure may be used to modify the display substrate of Wu, further in view of Qin, Kim, Tanaka, Yuan, Ye, and Cai, yields the light-emitting display device of wherein:
... the black matrix is disposed between the third sub-layer and the first light extraction layer, so that the third sub-layer is provided with the second protrusion thereon corresponding to the region between every two adjacent sub-pixels; or
the black matrix is disposed between the third sub-layer and the fourth sub-layer, so that the fourth sub-layer is provided with the second protrusion thereon corresponding to the region between every two adjacent sub-pixels.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the light-emitting display of Wu, further in view of Qin, Kim, Tanaka, Yuan, Ye, and Cai, to include the black matrix being disposed between the first light extraction layer and the second light extraction layer, so that the second light extraction layer is provided with the first protrusion thereon corresponding to the region between every two adjacent sub-pixels, as disclosed by Cai, because such a modification is taught, suggested, or motivated by the art. More specifically, the motivation to modify the position of the black matrix in the light-emitting display device of Wu, further in view of Qin, Kim, Tanaka, Yuan, Ye, and Cai, to include Cai’s relative structure between a first and second light extraction layer is expressly provided by Cai, stating that by providing structure wherein the black matrix 8 is between light extraction layers, non-display structures including scan lines, data lines, and thin film transistors in an array substrate can be shielded, and mutual interference between lights emitted from two adjacent sub-pixels having different colors can be avoided, thereby achieving display effect of the display panel ([0098]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify to modify the light-emitting display of Wu, further in view of Qin, Kim, Tanaka, Yuan, Ye, and Cai, to include the black matrix being disposed between the first light extraction layer and the second light extraction layer, so that the second light extraction layer is provided with the first protrusion thereon corresponding to the region between every two adjacent sub-pixels, as disclosed by Cai, with the motivation of achieving display effect of the light-emitting display device. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of a black matrix.
Regarding dependent Claim 12, Wu, further in view of Qin, Kim, Tanaka, Yuan, Ye, and Cai, teach the light-emitting substrate according to claim 11; however, Wu remains silent on the light-emitting substrate further comprising
a pixel defining layer, wherein the pixel defining layer defines a plurality of openings, and each opening corresponds to a region where a sub-pixel is located;
an orthographic projection of the black matrix on the substrate is located within an orthographic projection of the pixel defining layer on the substrate, and an orthographic projection of a border of the black matrix on the substrate and an orthographic projection of a border of the pixel defining layer on the substrate have a space therebetween.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Qin teaches:
a pixel defining layer (Fig. 12; pixel defining layer 12), wherein the pixel defining layer defines a plurality of openings (Fig. 12; opening showing sub-pixels 11), and each opening corresponds to a region where a sub-pixel is located (Fig. 12);
an orthographic projection of the black matrix on the substrate is located within an orthographic projection of the pixel defining layer on the substrate (Figs. 12 – 13; a portion of the black matrix is the pixel defining layer 12), and an orthographic projection of a border of the black matrix on the substrate and an orthographic projection of a border of the pixel defining layer on the substrate have a space therebetween (Different shapes taught for first black matrix 21 and second black matrix 22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the light-emitting display of Wu, further in view of Qin, Kim, Tanaka, Yuan, Ye, and Cai, to include Qin’s teaching of the pixel defining layer overlapping with the black matrix structures, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Qin’s light emitting substrate is comparable to Wu’s light emitting substrate because they have similar structural features and designs. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light-emitting display of Wu, further in view of Qin, Kim, Tanaka, Yuan, Ye, and Cai, to include Qin’s teaching of the pixel defining layer overlapping with the black matrix structures with the predictable result of optimizing the space for light transmission.
Regarding dependent Claim 13, Wu, further in view of Qin, Kim, Tanaka, Yuan, Ye, and Cai, teach the light-emitting substrate according to claim 11; however, Wu remains silent wherein
the black matrix is located between the third sub-layer and the first light extraction layer, the portion of the black matrix located between every two adjacent sub-pixels includes the seventh surface in contact with the first light extraction layer and the eighth surface in contact with the third sub-layer, and the included angle between the seventh surface and the eighth surface is greater than 30 degrees; or
the black matrix is located between the third sub-layer and the fourth sub-layer, the portion of the black matrix located between every two adjacent sub-pixels includes the seventh surface in contact with the third sub-layer and the eighth surface in contact with the fourth sub-layer, and the included angle between the seventh surface and the eighth surface is greater than 30 degrees.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Cai discloses a light extraction structure (Fig. 18); wherein a black matrix 8 is between a fourth light extraction module 34 and second light extraction module 32; wherein, the black matrix 8 is located in a region between pixels. Thus, Cai’s disclosure may be used to modify the light-emitting display of Wu, further in view of Qin, Kim, Tanaka, Yuan, Ye, and Cai, yields the light-emitting display device of wherein:
the black matrix is located between the third sub-layer and the first light extraction layer, the portion of the black matrix located between every two adjacent sub-pixels includes the seventh surface in contact with the first light extraction layer and the eighth surface in contact with the third sub-layer, and the included angle between the seventh surface and the eighth surface is greater than 30 degrees (Cai: Fig. 18); or
the black matrix is located between the third sub-layer and the fourth sub-layer, the portion of the black matrix located between every two adjacent sub-pixels includes the seventh surface in contact with the third sub-layer and the eighth surface in contact with the fourth sub-layer, and the included angle between the seventh surface and the eighth surface is greater than 30 degrees.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the light-emitting display of Wu, further in view of Qin, Kim, Tanaka, Yuan, Ye, and Cai, to include the black matrix is located between the third sub-layer and the first light extraction layer, the portion of the black matrix located between every two adjacent sub-pixels includes the seventh surface in contact with the first light extraction layer and the eighth surface in contact with the third sub-layer, and the included angle between the seventh surface and the eighth surface is greater than 30 degrees, as disclosed by Cai, because such a modification is taught, suggested, or motivated by the art. More specifically, the motivation to modify the position of the black matrix in the light-emitting display of Wu, further in view of Qin, Kim, Tanaka, Yuan, Ye, and Cai, to include Cai’s relative structure between a first and second light extraction layer is expressly provided by Cai, stating that by providing structure wherein the black matrix 8 is between light extraction layers, non-display structures including scan lines, data lines, and thin film transistors in an array substrate can be shielded, and mutual interference between lights emitted from two adjacent sub-pixels having different colors can be avoided, thereby achieving display effect of the display panel ([0098]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify to modify the light-emitting display of Wu, further in view of Qin, Kim, Tanaka, Yuan, Ye, and Cai, to include the black matrix is located between the third sub-layer and the first light extraction layer, the portion of the black matrix located between every two adjacent sub-pixels includes the seventh surface in contact with the first light extraction layer and the eighth surface in contact with the third sub-layer, and the included angle between the seventh surface and the eighth surface is greater than 30 degrees, as disclosed by Cai, with the motivation of achieving display effect of the light-emitting display device. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of a black matrix.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Wu (CN 111613735 A; citations provided from US 12336420 B2), and further in view of Qin et al. (CN 111146263 A), Kim et al. (US 20210202590 A1), Tanaka (US 20190384110 A1), Yaun (US 20180351132 A1), Ye et al. (US 11796856 B1), Cai (US 20220037622 A1), and Kim et al. (US 20190196249 A1).
Regarding dependent Claim 14, Wu, further in view of Qin, Kim, Tanaka, Yuan, Ye, and Cai, teach the light-emitting substrate according to claim 11, wherein
longitudinal sections of portions, of the black matrix, each located between every two adjacent sub-pixels are in a same shape or different shapes (Qin: Figs. 2 – 4 and 11 ), and a shape is a rectangle, a triangle, an arch, a trapezoid (Qin: Fig. 3) or an inverted trapezoid (Qin: Fig. 3); a longitudinal section is perpendicular to a surface where the substrate is located (Qin: Fig. 3); and/or …
However, Qin remains silent regarding:
… for light with a wavelength in a range of 380 nm to 780 nm, inclusive, absorbance per micron of the black matrix is greater than 0.5/μm.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kim (US 20190196249 A1) discloses a light shielding layer 150 which may include carbon black and thus is being interpreted as a black matrix. Further, Kim teaches in [0128] that at a wavelength in the range of 380 nm to 780 nm, e.g., 550 nm, may be less than or equal to 1 and greater than or equal to 2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the black matrix of Wu, further in view of Qin, Kim, Tanaka, Yuan, Ye, and Cai, to include Kim’s absorbance value, because such a modification is taught, suggested, or motivated by the art. More specifically, the motivation to modify the black matrix of Wu, further in view of Qin, Kim, Tanaka, Yuan, Ye, and Cai, to include Kim’s absorbance value is implicitly provided by Kim, stating that the black matrix is designed for absorbance ([0128]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the black matrix of Wu, further in view of Qin, Kim, Tanaka, Yuan, Ye, and Cai, to include Kim’s absorbance value with the motivation of further improving the quality of the image shown by the light-emitting display device and protect sensitive device components. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of a black matrix configured to provide an absorbance per micron greater than 0.5/μm for light with a wavelength in a range of 380 nm to 780 nm, inclusive.
Therefore, an absorbance per micron greater than 0.5/μm for light with a wavelength in a range of 380 nm to 780 nm, inclusive would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, from at least [0128] of Kim, because absent evidence or disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d454, 105 USQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1995).
Furthermore, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the dimensions claimed or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the claimed dimensions or variable are critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Wu (CN 111613735 A; citations provided from US 12336420 B2), and further in view of Qin et al. (CN 111146263 A), Kim et al. (US 20210202590 A1), Tanaka (US 20190384110 A1), Yaun (US 20180351132 A1), Ye et al. (US 11796856 B1), Cai (US 20220037622 A1), and Gu et al. (US 20240315117 A1).
Regarding dependent Claim 16, Wu, further in view of Qin, Kim, Tanaka, Yaun, Ye, and Cai, teach the light-emitting substrate according to claim 9, wherein
a difference between the refractive index of the third sub-layer and the refractive index of the fourth sub-layer is greater than 0.2 (See col. 1; lines 55 – 64 of Wu, [0026] of Kim, and col. 3; line 52 – col. 4; line 11 of Ye); and/or ...
However, Wu remains silent wherein:
a thickness of the third sub-layer is greater than 3.5 μm, and a thickness of the fourth sub-layer is less than 2.5 μm.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Gu teaches light extraction layer thicknesses of 0.5 to 10 μm ([0012]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the light extraction layers’ thicknesses, e.g., thicknesses of the first and fourth sub-layer, of Wu, further in view of Qin, Kim, Tanaka, Yuan, Ye, and Cai, to include Gu’s disclosed thickness values, because such a modification is taught, suggested, or motivated by the art. More specifically, the motivation to modify thicknesses of the first and fourth sub-layer of Wu, further in view of Qin, Kim, Tanaka, Yuan, Ye, and Cai, to include the range of 0.5 to 10 μm, as disclosed by Gu, is explicitly provided by Gu, stating that their light extraction layer has a light extraction layer thicknesses of 0.5 to 10 μm ([0012]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the light extraction layers’ thicknesses, e.g., thicknesses of the first and fourth sub-layer, of Wu, further in view of Qin, Kim, Tanaka, Yuan, Ye, and Cai, to include Gu’s disclosed thickness values, with the motivation of further improving the light extraction efficiency of the light-emitting substrate. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of a thickness of the third sub-layer is greater than 3.5 μm, and a thickness of the fourth sub-layer is less than 2.5 μm.
Therefore, a thickness of the third sub-layer is greater than 3.5 μm, and a thickness of the fourth sub-layer is less than 2.5 μm would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, from at least [0012] of Gu, because absent evidence or disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d454, 105 USQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1995).
Furthermore, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the dimensions claimed or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the claimed dimensions or variable are critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Wu (CN 111613735 A; citations provided from US 12336420 B2), and further in view of Qin et al. (CN 111146263 A), Kim et al. (US 20210202590 A1), Tanaka (US 20190384110 A1), Yaun (US 20180351132 A1), and Oshawa et al. (US 20170213876 A1).
Regarding dependent Claim 19, Wu, further in view of Qin, Kim, Tanaka, and Yuan, teach the light-emitting substrate according to claim 8; however, Wu remains silent wherein
a difference between a center wavelength of light transmitted by the first sub-layer and a center wavelength of light transmitted by the second sub-layer is less than 20 nm.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Oshawa (US 20170213876 A1) teaches a similar display device, including chiral light extraction layers and color filters wherein a difference between a center wavelength of light transmitted by the first sub-layer and a center wavelength of light transmitted by the second sub-layer is less than 20 nm (Fig. 52).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the light-emitting element of Wu, further in view of Qin, Kim, Tanaka, and Yuan, to include luminescence spectrums of the first light-emitting sub-layer and the second light-emitting sub-layer are both in a range of 400 nm to 500 nm, such that a difference between a center wavelength of light transmitted by the first sub-layer and a center wavelength of light transmitted by the second sub-layer is less than 20 nm (Fig. 52), as disclosed by Oshawa, because such a modification is taught, suggested, or motivated by the art. More specifically, the motivation to modify the light-emitting element of Wu, further in view of Qin, Kim, Tanaka, and Yuan, to include luminescence spectrums of the first light-emitting sub-layer and the second light-emitting sub-layer are both in a range of 400 nm to 500 nm, such that a difference between a center wavelength of light transmitted by the first sub-layer and a center wavelength of light transmitted by the second sub-layer is less than 20 nm (Fig. 52), as disclosed by Oshawa, is provided by Oshawa, in relationship to Fig. 51 in [0830], stating that a luminescence spectrum for the light-emitting display device covering the range of 400 nm to 500 nm enables the device to display light with high color purity. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the light-emitting element of Wu, further in view of Qin, Kim, Tanaka, and Yuan, to include luminescence spectrums of the first light-emitting sub-layer and the second light-emitting sub-layer are both in a range of 400 nm to 500 nm, such that a difference between a center wavelength of light transmitted by the first sub-layer and a center wavelength of light transmitted by the second sub-layer is less than 20 nm (Fig. 52), as disclosed by Oshawa, with the motivation of enabling the device to display light with high color purity. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of a luminescence spectrum for the light-emitting display device covering the range of 400 nm to 500 nm.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Wu (CN 111613735 A; citations provided from US 12336420 B2), and further in view of Qin et al. (CN 111146263 A), Kim et al. (US 20210202590 A1), Tanaka (US 20190384110 A1), Yaun (US 20180351132 A1), and Park et al. (US 20200227485 A1).
Regarding dependent Claim 20, Wu, further in view of Qin, Kim, Tanaka, and Yaun, teach the light-emitting substrate according to claim 1, wherein
the plurality of sub-pixels further include at least one third sub-pixel (Wu: Fig. 14; blue sub-pixel area), …
However, Wu remains silent regarding:
… a light conversion pattern included in a respective one of the at least one third sub-pixel is a third light conversion pattern; the third light conversion pattern is configured to convert the light of the first color emitted by a light-emitting element located in a same sub-pixel as the third light conversion pattern into light of a third color; the first color, the second color and the third color are three primary colors; and
the first light conversion pattern and the third light conversion pattern each include a third transparent substrate and quantum dot light-emitting materials dispersed in a respective third transparent substrate; or the first light conversion pattern and the third light conversion pattern each include a third transparent substrate, and quantum dot light-emitting materials and scattering particles that are dispersed in the respective third transparent substrate.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Park discloses a light-emitting display device including:
… a light conversion pattern (Fig. 3; first wavelength conversion layer WCL1 under the blue color filter layer CF3) included in a respective one of the at least one third sub-pixel is a third light conversion pattern (Fig. 3; first wavelength conversion layer WCL1 under the blue color filter layer CF3); the first light conversion pattern (Fig. 3; first wavelength conversion layer WCL1 under the red color filter layer CF1) and the third light conversion pattern (Fig. 3; second wavelength conversion layer WCL2 under the blue color filter layer CF3) each include a third transparent substrate (Park discloses in [0069] that each wavelength conversion layer includes a base resin) and quantum dot light-emitting materials ([0071]) dispersed in a respective third transparent substrate; or
the first light conversion pattern and the third light conversion pattern each include a third transparent substrate, and quantum dot light-emitting materials and scattering particles that are dispersed in the respective third transparent substrate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the light conversion pattern of Wu, further in view of Qin, Kim, Tanaka, and Yaun, to include the first light conversion pattern and the third light conversion pattern each include a third transparent substrate and quantum dot light-emitting materials dispersed in a respective third transparent substrate, as disclosed by Park, because such a modification is the result of simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result. More specifically, Wu’s light conversion pattern and Park’s light conversion pattern perform the same general and predictable function, the predictable function being the optical modification of emitting light from the device. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution Wu’s light conversion pattern by replacing it with Park’s light conversion pattern. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious before the effective filing date of the instant invention.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Wu (CN 111613735 A; citations provided from US 12336420 B2), and further in view of Qin et al. (CN 111146263 A), Kim et al. (US 20210202590 A1), Tanaka (US 20190384110 A1), Yaun (US 20180351132 A1), Park et al. (US 20200227485 A1), Kashiwabara et al. (US 20070102737 A1), and Kim et al. (US 20200266243 A1).
Regarding dependent Claim 22, Wu, further in view of Qin, Kim, Tanaka, Yaun, and Park, teach the light-emitting substrate according to claim 20; however, Wu remains silent on the light-emitting substrate further comprising:
a filter film, wherein the filter film is disposed on a side of the second light extraction layer away from the substrate, the filter film includes a plurality of filter units, and each filter unit is disposed in a region where a sub-pixel is located;
for a filter unit located in a region where a second sub-pixel is located, a difference between a peak value of a transmission spectrum of the filter unit and a peak value of light emitted by a light-emitting element included in the second sub-pixel is not more than 5nm, and a half-peak width of the transmission spectrum of the filter unit is not less than a half-peak width of the light emitted by the light-emitting element included in the second sub-pixel;
for another filter unit located in a region where a first sub-pixel is located, a difference between a peak value of a transmission spectrum of the another filter unit and a peak value of light exiting from the first light conversion pattern is not more than 5 nm, and a half-peak width of the transmission spectrum of the another filter unit is not less than a half-peak width of the light exiting from the first light conversion pattern;
for yet another filter unit located in a region where a third sub-pixel is located, a difference between a peak value of a transmission spectrum of the yet another filter unit and a peak value of light exiting from the third light conversion pattern is not more than 5 nm, and a half-peak width of the transmission spectrum of the yet another filter unit is not less than a half-peak width of the light exiting from the third light conversion pattern.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches:
a filter film (Kim: Fig. 13; color filter layer CFL), wherein the filter film is disposed on a side of the second light extraction layer away from the substrate (Kim: Fig. 13), the filter film includes a plurality of filter units (Kim: Fig. 3; first to third color filter parts CFP), and each filter unit is disposed in a region where a sub-pixel is located (Kim: Fig. 13);
for a filter unit (Kim: Fig. 13; second color filter part G-CFP) located in a region where a second sub-pixel is located (Kim: Fig. 13), …
for another filter unit (Kim: Fig. 13; third color filter part R-CFP) located in a region where a first sub-pixel is located (Kim: Fig. 13), …
for yet another filter unit (Kim: Fig. 13; first color filter part B-CFP) located in a region where a third sub-pixel is located (Kim: Fig. 13), …
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the light-emitting display of Wu, further in view of Qin, Kim, Tanaka, Yaun, and Park, to include Kim’s color filter layer, because such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. More specifically, light-emitting display of Wu, further in view of Qin, Kim, Tanaka, Yaun, and Park, as modified by Kim’s color filter layer can yield a predictable result of appropriately filtering light since that is the function of color filter films. Since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable before the effective filing date of the instant invention.
Regarding the light-emitting display device features further including:
… a difference between a peak value of a transmission spectrum of the filter unit and a peak value of light emitted by a light-emitting element included in the second sub-pixel is not more than 5 nm, and a half-peak width of the transmission spectrum of the filter unit is not less than a half-peak width of the light emitted by the light-emitting element included in the second sub-pixel; …
a difference between a peak value of a transmission spectrum of the another filter unit and a peak value of light exiting from the first light conversion pattern is not more than 5 nm, and a half-peak width of the transmission spectrum of the another filter unit is not less than a half-peak width of the light exiting from the first light conversion pattern; …
a difference between a peak value of a transmission spectrum of the yet another filter unit and a peak value of light exiting from the third light conversion pattern is not more than 5 nm, and a half-peak width of the transmission spectrum of the yet another filter unit is not less than a half-peak width of the light exiting from the third light conversion pattern.
in the same field of endeavor, Kashiwabara discloses a light-emitting display device wherein light emitted from organic EL devices 3B, 3G, and 3R is shown in Fig. 22 (see excerpt of Fig. 22 below). Further, Kashiwabara discloses the transmittance of color filters that may be used in their device in Fig. 24 (see excerpt of Fig. 24 below). Between Figs. 22 and 24, it is shown that the peak transmission value for the third color filter CF3 and the peak value of light emitted from the organic EL devices 3B are shown to correspond to each other.
Thus, Wu, further in view of Qin, Kim, Tanaka, Yaun, Park, and Kashiwabara, disclose the light-emitting display device wherein:
… a difference between a peak value of a transmission spectrum of the filter unit and a peak value of light emitted by a light-emitting element included in the second sub-pixel is not more than 5 nm, and a half-peak width of the transmission spectrum of the filter unit is not less than a half-peak width of the light emitted by the light-emitting element included in the second sub-pixel; …
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the light-emitting display of Wu, further in view of Qin, Kim, Tanaka, Yaun, Park, and Kashiwabara, to include Kashiwabara’s difference between a peak value of a transmission spectrum of the filter unit and a peak value of light emitted by a light-emitting element included in the second sub-pixel is not more than 5 nm, because such a modification is taught, suggested, or motivated by the art. More specifically, the motivation to modify the light-emitting display of Wu, further in view of Qin, Kim, Tanaka, Yaun, Park, and Kashiwabara, to include Kashiwabara’s difference between a peak value of a transmission spectrum of the filter unit and a peak value of light emitted by a light-emitting element included in the second sub-pixel is not more than 5 nm is implicitly provided by Kashiwabara’s Figs. 22 and 24, showing that the transmittance of a filter unit corresponds to a color emitting by a light-emitting element of the device such that a difference between a peak value of a transmission spectrum of the filter unit and a peak value of light emitted by a light-emitting element included in the second sub-pixel is not more than 5 nm. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the light-emitting display of Wu, further in view of Qin, Kim, Tanaka, Yaun, Park, and Kashiwabara, to include Kashiwabara’s difference between a peak value of a transmission spectrum of the filter unit and a peak value of light emitted by a light-emitting element included in the second sub-pixel is not more than 5 nm with the motivation of providing the light-emitting display device with a high capacity of emitting light that is sourced from the light-emitting element. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of a difference between a peak value of a transmission spectrum of the filter unit and a peak value of light emitted by a light-emitting element included in the second sub-pixel is not more than 5 nm.
Additionally, a difference between a peak value of a transmission spectrum of the filter unit and a peak value of light emitted by a light-emitting element included in the second sub-pixel is not more than 5 nm would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, from at least Figs. 22 and 24 of Kashiwabara, because absent evidence or disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d454, 105 USQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1995).
Furthermore, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the dimensions claimed or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the claimed dimensions or variable are critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Further, in the same field of endeavor, Kim (US 20200266243 A1) discloses in [0082] that the light conversion patterns 351, 352, and 353 correspond to different wavelengths of light. Further, Kim discloses that material of each of the base resins 3511 and 3521 have a high light transmittance and excellent dispersion characteristics with respect to the wavelength conversion particles 3512 and 3522 ([0086]), and may be made of resin compounds.
Similarly, Kashiwabara discloses that their color filters may be made of resin compounds ([0112]). Thus, the examiner asserts that modifying Kim’s base resins with the materials disclosed by Kashiwabara would yield similar results for peak values of light exiting the first and second light conversion patterns. Kashiwabara discloses peaks values for light exiting a structure including light-emitting elements and the color filters that include resins in Fig. 23.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the color filters of Wu, further in view of Qin, Kim, Tanaka, Yaun, and Park, to include Kashiwabara’s base resin material, who discloses peaks values for light exiting a structure including light-emitting elements and the color filters that include resins in Fig. 23, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Kashiwabara’s base resin material is comparable to Kim’s base resin material because they disclose similar materials for similar structures. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the color filters of Wu, further in view of Qin, Kim, Tanaka, Yaun, and Park, to include Kashiwabara’s base resin material, with the predictable result of obtaining a difference between a peak value of a transmission spectrum of the filter unit and a peak value of light emitted by a light-emitting element included in the second sub-pixel is not more than 5 nm.
Regarding a difference between a peak value of a transmission spectrum of the another filter unit and a peak value of light exiting from the first light conversion pattern, Kashiwabara discloses a peak emission intensity for light exiting a first light conversion pattern to be about 640 nm (Fig. 23). Further, Kashiwabara discloses their red color filter to have a peak transmittance in this range, about 640 nm (Fig. 24).
Regarding a difference between a peak value of a transmission spectrum of the yet another filter unit and a peak value of light exiting from the third light conversion pattern, Kashiwabara discloses a peak emission intensity for light exiting a third light conversion pattern to be about 540 nm (Fig. 23). Further, Kashiwabara discloses their green color filter to have a peak transmittance in this range, about 540 nm (Fig. 24).
Therefore, Wu, further in view of Qin, Kim, Tanaka, Yaun, Park, Kashiwabara, and Kim, disclose a light-emitting display device wherein:
a difference between a peak value of a transmission spectrum of the another filter unit and a peak value of light exiting from the first light conversion pattern is not more than 5 nm, and a half-peak width of the transmission spectrum of the another filter unit is not less than a half-peak width of the light exiting from the first light conversion pattern (Kashiwabara: Figs. 23 - 24); …
a difference between a peak value of a transmission spectrum of the yet another filter unit and a peak value of light exiting from the third light conversion pattern is not more than 5 nm, and a half-peak width of the transmission spectrum of the yet another filter unit is not less than a half-peak width of the light exiting from the third light conversion pattern (Kashiwabara: Figs. 23 - 24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the color conversion patterns of Wu, further in view of Qin, Kim, Tanaka, Yaun, Park, and Kim, including Kim’s resin materials discussed, to include Kashiwabara’s resin material for color filters, because such a modification is the result of simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result. More specifically, Kim’s resin material and Kashiwabara’s resin material perform the same general and predictable function, the predictable function being material included in color filter such that light might be filtered dependent to color. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution of Kim’s resin material by replacing it with Kashiwabara’s resin material. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious before the effective filing date of the instant invention. This substitution then yields the result wherein:
a difference between a peak value of a transmission spectrum of the another filter unit and a peak value of light exiting from the first light conversion pattern is not more than 5 nm, and a half-peak width of the transmission spectrum of the another filter unit is not less than a half-peak width of the light exiting from the first light conversion pattern (Kashiwabara: Figs. 23 - 24); …
a difference between a peak value of a transmission spectrum of the yet another filter unit and a peak value of light exiting from the third light conversion pattern is not more than 5 nm, and a half-peak width of the transmission spectrum of the yet another filter unit is not less than a half-peak width of the light exiting from the third light conversion pattern (Kashiwabara: Figs. 23 - 24).
Additionally, a difference between a peak value of a transmission spectrum of the another filter unit/yet another filter unit and a peak value of light exiting from the first/third, respectively, light conversion pattern is not more than 5 nm would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, from at least Figs. 23 and 24 of Kashiwabara, because absent evidence or disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d454, 105 USQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1995).
Furthermore, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the dimensions claimed or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the claimed dimensions or variable are critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 25 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Qin et al. (CN 111146263 A), and further in view of Tanaka (US 20190384110 A1), Wu (CN 111613735 A; citations provided from US 12336420 B2), Yaun (US 20180351132 A1), and Park et al (US 20200227485 A1).
Regarding independent claim 25, Qin teaches a light-emitting substrate, comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 11; substrate 7);
a plurality of sub-pixels disposed on the substrate (Fig. 12; plurality of sub-pixels 11), each sub-pixel including a light-emitting element (Fig. 11; electroluminescent layer 10) disposed on the substrate (Fig. 11) and a light conversion pattern (Fig. 11 shows pattern of color filter film 3) disposed on a light-exit side of the light-emitting element (Fig. 11), the light-emitting element being configured to emit light of a first color (Light shown in Fig. 11); the plurality of sub-pixels including at least one first sub-pixel (pg. 9 of the provided translation of Qin referring to the red filter film; wherein the area designated for the red filter film is the red sub-pixel of the plurality of sub-pixels 11), a light conversion pattern included in a respective one of the at least one first sub-pixel being a first light conversion pattern (pg. 9 of the provided translation of Qin referring to the red filter film), and the first light conversion pattern being configured to convert the light of the first color emitted by a light- emitting element located in a same sub-pixel as the first light conversion pattern into light of a second color (known function of a color filter film as disclosed by Qin);
a first light extraction layer (Fig. 11; light guide layer 4) disposed on a side of the first light conversion pattern away from the light-emitting element (Fig. 11), and at least located in a region where the at least one first sub-pixel is located (Fig. 11); the first light extraction layer including at least one first transparent substrate (Fig. 10; the second sub-light out/light out layer 43. See pg. 7 of the provided disclosure) and optically active substances (Fig. 10; scattering particles 44) added in each first transparent substrate (Fig. 10), the optically active substances being selected from materials that are capable of selectively reflecting the light of the first color (scattering particles are selective in the way that the light a scattering particle may interact with is dependent on the wavelength of light. See below); and
a second light extraction layer (Fig. 11; barrier film 51) disposed on a side of the first light extraction layer away from the light-emitting element (Fig. 11), … wherein
the plurality of sub-pixels further include at least one second sub-pixel (pg. 9 of the provided translation of Qin referring to the blue filter film; wherein the area designated for the blue color filter film is the blue sub-pixel of the plurality of sub-pixels 11), a light conversion pattern included in a respective one of the at least one second sub-pixel is a second light conversion pattern (pg. 9 of the provided translation of Qin referring to the green color film); …
a region where other sub-pixels in the plurality of sub-pixels except the at least one second sub-pixel are located is a first region (Fig. 12; examiner is interpreting the red and green sub-pixels in a pixel group to be a first region), and a region where the at least one second sub-pixel is located is a second region (Fig. 12; examiner is interpreting the blue sub-pixels in a pixel group to be a second region); … and
the first light extraction layer has a single-layer structure (Fig. 10), the first light extraction layer only has a first pattern (Fig. 11); a first region is located within an orthographic projection of the first pattern on the substrate (Fig. 11), and the orthographic projection of the first pattern on the substrate is located outside a second region (Fig. 11).
Regarding the light-emitting substrate feature wherein:
… the optically active substances being selected from materials that are capable of selectively reflecting the light of the first color …
Examiner makes a note here that, as best understood, “selectively reflecting” heavily implies chiral characteristics.
In the same field of endeavor, Tanaka discloses a light-emitting device wherein the first light extraction layer (Fig. 3; light reflecting layer 16) including at least one first transparent substrate (UV curable resin as disclosed in [0045]) and optically active substances (chiral agent as disclosed in [0042]) added in each first transparent substrate ([0042]), the optically active substances being selected from materials that are capable of selectively reflecting the light of the first color (Tanaka teaches in [0044] that the reflectance of light of a wavelength, e.g., wavelength of the first color, is dependent on chiral agent added). Examiner asserts that Qin’s light guide layer 4 may be modified to include chiral agents, which are known to satisfy a definition of “selectively reflect” light of a specific wavelength, in a way similar to what is disclosed for their scattering particles. Both structures are similar in concept, design, and function (a function of light extraction).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Qin’s light emitting substrate to include to include chiral agents, as disclosed by Tanaka, because such a modification is the result of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. More specifically, Tanaka’s chiral agents permits “selective reflecting”. This known benefit in Tanaka is applicable to Qin’s light-emitting substrate as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to display devices with structures for light extraction. Therefore, it would have been recognized that modifying Qin’s light-emitting substrate to include Tanaka’s chiral agents would have yielded predictable results because (i) the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate Tanaka’s chiral agents in display devices with structures for light extraction and (ii) the benefits of such a combination would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art.
Further, Qin remains silent on the light-emitting substrate features wherein:
… a refractive index of the second light extraction layer being smaller than a refractive index of the first light extraction layer, and the second light extraction layer being configured to change an exit angle of light exiting from the first light extraction layer; …
the second light conversion pattern includes a second transparent substrate and scattering particles added in the second transparent substrate; …
orthographic projection of the first light extraction layer on the substrate is located outside the second region; …
Further in the same field of endeavor, Wu teaches a display device including a light-emitting substrate including a similar second light extraction layer (light extraction adaptation layer 81) to Qin’s second light extraction layer, i.e., barrier film layer 51; wherein under Examples 2 and 3 (col. 11) of Wu, example values for the refractive index given imply that the first light extraction layer 31 has a large refractive index greater than 1.75 or 2.0 (the value given for their extraction layer 32), in view of Wu’s teaching in col. 1; line 55 – col. 2; line 2. Further, examiner asserts that Wu’s teaching of LiF layer for light extraction adaptation layer 81 is known in the art to have a refractive index smaller than 1.75 or 2 (typically in the range of 1.4). This is further supported by Yuan (US 20180351132 A1); wherein the same field of endeavor, Yaun teaches an LiF layer with a refractive index of about 1.39 (~1.4) in at least [0027]. Examiner adds this to support to show that a refractive index of the second light extraction layer being smaller than a refractive index of the first light extraction layer is supported in Wu’s disclosure. This yields the light-emitting substrate wherein a refractive index of the second light extraction layer being smaller than a refractive index of the first light extraction layer, and the second light extraction layer being configured to change an exit angle of light exiting from the first light extraction layer (known function of a light extraction layer, particularly through the difference in refractive indices of the ascending layers).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Qin’s light-emitting substrate to include a refractive index of the second light extraction layer being smaller than a refractive index of the first light extraction layer, as implied by Wu, further in view of Yuan, because such a modification is taught, suggested, or motivated by the art. More specifically, the motivation to modify Qin’s light-emitting substrate to include a refractive index of the second light extraction layer being smaller than a refractive index of the first light extraction layer, as implied by Wu, further in view of Yuan, is implicitly provided by Wu, stating under Examples 2 and 3 (col. 11), example values for the refractive index mean that the first light extraction layer 31 has a large refractive index (greater than 1.75 or 2.0, in view of Wu’s teaching in col. 1; line 55 – col. 2; line 2). Further, examiner asserts that Wu’s teaching of LiF layers for their light extraction adaptation layer 81 (col. 10; lines 63 – 64) is the same for that of LiF layers taught within the field of endeavor, which is that LiF layers have a refractive index smaller than 1.75 or 2 (typically in the range of 1.4), as supported by Yuan ([0027]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Qin’s light-emitting substrate to include a refractive index of the second light extraction layer being smaller than a refractive index of the first light extraction layer, as implied by Wu, further in view of Yuan, with the motivation of applying known techniques for light extraction within the field of endeavor. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of manipulating the path of light, for at least the purposes of improving light extraction, with selectively placing appropriately valued refractive index layers in the device.
Further, Wu discloses a patterned light extraction layer (Fig. 14; sub-light extraction mesh films 42), formed in a grid, similar to the gird formation/pattern of Qin’s light guide layer 4. Wu’s Fig. 14 shows that the orthographic projection of the first light extraction layer (Fig. 14; sub-light extraction mesh films 42) on the substrate is located outside the second region (region of the blue sub-pixel provided without a sub-light extraction mesh film 42. Col. 8; lines 42 – 53). Examiner asserts that Wu’s disclosure may be used to modify Qin’s patterned disposal of their light guide layer 4; particularly when the light-emitting element is configured to already emit a color of light that is assigned to the second sub-pixel, i.e., blue color.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Qin’s light emitting substrate to include Wu’s light extraction deposition pattern, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Wu’s light extraction deposition pattern is comparable to Qin’s light extraction deposition pattern because they are both formed with portions that are separated from adjacent other portions of some adjacent sub-pixels. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Qin’s light emitting substrate to include Wu’s light extraction deposition pattern with the predictable result of saving manufacturing cost by not depositing layer material where the function is not necessary.
Further, in the same field of endeavor, Park (US 20200227485 A1) teaches a similar light-emitting substrate wherein the second light conversion pattern includes a second transparent substrate (Fig. 3 teaches a blue sub-pixel under blue color filter layer CF3 and optically transparent layer TL; wherein blue color filter layer CF3 and optically transparent layer TL are considered to be a second light conversion pattern and third base resin BR3 is considered to be a second transparent substrate) and scattering particles added in the second transparent substrate (Fig. 3; third scattering particles SC3). Examiner asserts that Park’s disclosure is of a known light conversion pattern that may be used to modify and improve the light extraction properties of the display device of Qin, Wu, and Yuan.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the light conversion pattern of Qin to include the second light conversion pattern includes a second transparent substrate and scattering particles added in the second transparent substrate, as disclosed by Park, because such a modification is the result of simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result. More specifically, Qin’s light conversion pattern and Park’s light conversion pattern perform the same general and predictable function, the predictable function being the optical modification of emitting light from the device. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution Wu’s light conversion pattern by replacing it with Park’s light conversion pattern. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious before the effective filing date of the instant invention.
Regarding dependent Claim 7, Qin, further in view of Tanaka, Wu, Yuan, and Park, teach the light-emitting substrate according to claim 25; however, Qin remains silent wherein
the refractive index of the first light extraction layer is greater than or equal to a refractive index of at least one light conversion pattern in a region where the first light extraction layer is located; or
the first light extraction layer includes a first surface proximate to the substrate, a second surface away from the substrate, and third surfaces each connected to the first surface and the second surface; an included angle between a third surface and the first surface is greater than or equal to 30 degrees and less than or equal to 150 degrees; or
for light with a wavelength in a range of 400 nm to 500 nm, inclusive, a light transmittance of the first light extraction layer is in a range of 40% to 70%, inclusive; and for light with a wavelength greater than 500 nm, a light transmittance of the first light extraction layer is greater than 90%.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches the refractive index of the first light extraction layer is greater than or equal to a refractive index of at least one light conversion pattern in a region where the first light extraction layer is located (Kim: [0018] and [0151]). Examiner asserts that this known display device feature may be used to modify the light-emitting display device of Qin, further in view of Tanaka, Wu, and Yuan, with the expected result of improving the light extraction efficiency.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the light-emitting substrate of Qin to include consideration of the light conversion pattern’s refractive index, as considered by Kim who teaches refractive indices of both the first sub-layer and the second sub-layer are greater than or equal to the refractive index of the at least one light conversion pattern in the region where the first light extraction layer is located, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Kim’s consideration of the light conversion pattern’s refractive index is comparable to Qin’s consideration of the layers’ refractive indices because selectively choosing refractive indices for layers is a known technique to aid light extraction. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light-emitting substrate of Qin to include consideration of the light conversion pattern’s refractive index, as considered by Kim who teaches refractive indices of both the first sub-layer and the second sub-layer are greater than or equal to the refractive index of the at least one light conversion pattern in the region where the first light extraction layer is located, with the predictable result of improving the light extraction for the device.
Claims 26 – 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Qin et al. (CN 111146263 A), and further in view of Tanaka (US 20190384110 A1), Wu (CN 111613735 A; citations provided from US 12336420 B2), Yaun (US 20180351132 A1), Park et al (US 20200227485 A1), and Kim et al. (US 20210202590 A1).
Regarding dependent claim 26, Qin, further in view of Tanaka, Wu, and Yuan, teach the light-emitting substrate according to claim 25, wherein
the second light extraction layer has a single-layer structure (Qin: Fig. 11); ...
However, Qin remains silent regarding:
... the second light extraction layer is provided with a first protrusion thereon corresponding to a region between every two adjacent sub-pixels; the first protrusion is configured to change the exit angle of the light exiting from the first light extraction layer.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kim (US 20210202590 A1) teaches a light extraction structure that may include the internal space AR partially outlined by capping layer CAP2. The Internal spaced partially outlined by capping layer CAP2 is being considered by the examiner to be a second light extraction layer. Kim’s second light extraction layer has a pattern such that examiner is interpreting the portions of Kim’s second light extraction layer bordering the color conversion parts CCPs to be a first protrusion thereon corresponding to a region between every two adjacent sub-pixels. Kim teaches that the first protrusion is configured to change the exit angle of the light exiting from the first light extraction layer in at least [0093] – [0094].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the light-emitting substrate of Qin, further in view of Tanaka, Wu, and Yuan, to include Kim’s light extraction layer structure wherein the second light extraction layer is provided with a first protrusion thereon corresponding to a region between every two adjacent sub-pixels; the first protrusion is configured to change the exit angle of the light exiting from the first light extraction layer, because such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. More specifically, the light-emitting substrate of Qin, further in view of Tanaka, Wu, and Yuan, as modified by Kim’s second light extraction layers can yield a predictable result of increasing the light extraction of the device since the light extraction layers are able to redirect the direction in which light travels. Since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable before the effective filing date of the instant invention.
Regarding dependent claim 27, Qin, further in view of Tanaka, Wu, Yuan, and Kim, teach the light-emitting substrate according to claim 26, further comprising
a black matrix (Qin: Figs. 2 – 4 and 11),
wherein the black matrix is disposed between the first light extraction layer and the second light extraction layer (Qin: Fig. 2), so that the second light extraction layer is provided with the first protrusion thereon corresponding to the region between every two adjacent sub-pixels (yielded through the combination of Qin and Kim);
a portion of the black matrix located between every two adjacent sub-pixels includes a seventh surface in contact with the first light extraction layer (Fig. 2; top or side surface of first black matrix 21) and an eighth surface in contact with the second light extraction layer (Fig. 2; bottom of first black matrix 21), and an included angle between the seventh surface and the eighth surface is greater than 30 degrees (Yielded trough the trapezoid shape of Qin’s first black matrix 21).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20180277609 A1 previously relied on.
Li J, Tang Y, Li Z, Ding X, Yuan D, Yu B. Study on Scattering and Absorption Properties of Quantum-Dot-Converted Elements for Light-Emitting Diodes Using Finite-Difference Time-Domain Method. Materials (Basel). 2017 Nov 3;10(11):1264. doi: 10.3390/ma10111264. PMID: 29099759; PMCID: PMC5706211.) previously relied on.
US 20190319209 A1 considered for its teaching of peaks of light exiting a first light extraction layer.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MARIO A AUTORE whose telephone number is (571)270-0059. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am - 5 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chad Dicke can be reached on (571) 270-7996. 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.
MARIO A. AUTORE JR.
Examiner
Art Unit 2897
/MARIO ANDRES AUTORE JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/CHAD M DICKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights