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 .
Detailed Action
Remarks
Newly submitted claim limitation “the first inorganic layer is prepared by an atomic layer deposition (ALD) process” directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: The first inorganic layer can be formed by deposition processes other than ALD. For example, Guo (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2021/0226159) of record discloses layers can be formed by CVD, ALD or PVD [0058].
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, the claim limitation “the first inorganic layer is prepared by an atomic layer deposition (ALD) process” withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 6, 10 and 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ni (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0296268) of record, in view of Guo (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2021/0226159) of record.
Regarding Claim 1
FIG.1 of Ni discloses an OLED display substrate, comprising: a drive substrate [0020], the drive substrate being provided with a light-emitting unit (11); and an encapsulation structure (12) covering the light-emitting unit; wherein the encapsulation structure comprises a first inorganic structure (121), an organic layer (122) and a second inorganic structure (123) that are arranged in sequence along a direction away from the drive substrate; a refractive index of the first inorganic structure is higher than a refractive index of the organic layer [0008], wherein the refractive index of the organic layer is 1.6-2.0 [0028].
Ni is silent with respect to “the first inorganic structure comprises a first inorganic layer and a second inorganic layer that are laminated along the direction away from the drive substrate; the first inorganic layer is arranged between the drive substrate and the second inorganic layer along the direction away from the drive substrate; a refractive index of the first inorganic layer is lower than a refractive index of the second inorganic layer, and a thickness of the first inorganic layer is not larger than 100nm” and the refractive index of the first inorganic layer “is lower than 1.6, wherein a difference between the refractive index of the second inorganic layer and the refractive index of the organic layer is smaller than 0.15 a thickness of the second inorganic layer is not larger than 500 nm; or, wherein a difference between the refractive index of the second inorganic layer and the refractive index of the organic layer is larger than 0.4, a thickness of the second inorganic layer is larger than 1500 nm”.
FIG. 5 of Guo discloses a similar OLED display substrate, wherein the first inorganic structure (11) comprises a first inorganic layer (11b) and a second inorganic layer (11a) that are laminated along the direction away from the drive substrate; the first inorganic layer is arranged between the drive substrate and the second inorganic layer along the direction away from the drive substrate; a refractive index (1.3-1.5) of the first inorganic layer is lower than a refractive index (1.7-1.9) of the second inorganic layer and is lower than 1.6 [0041]; a thickness of the first inorganic layer is not larger than 100nm; and a thickness of the second inorganic layer is not larger than 500 nm [0018]. Moreover, the refractive index of the organic layer of Ni is 1.6-2.0, and the refractive index of the second inorganic layer of Guo is 1.7-1.9. Therefore, a combination of Ni and Guo discloses a difference between the refractive index of the second inorganic layer and the refractive index of the organic layer is smaller than 0.15.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ni, as taught by Guo. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Ni in the above manner for purpose of blocking water, oxygen, and ultraviolet radiation ([0004] of Guo).
The limitation “the first inorganic layer is prepared by an atomic layer deposition (ALD) process” is considered to be a process or functional limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), MPEP 2113.
Regarding Claim 6
Ni discloses a thickness of the organic layer is larger than 6000 nm [0029].
Regarding Claim 10
FIG. 1 of Ni discloses a display device, comprising the OLED display substrate according to Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 11
FIG. 1 of Ni discloses a method for manufacturing an OLED display substrate, comprising: providing a drive substrate [0020]; forming a light-emitting unit (11) on the drive substrate; and forming an encapsulation structure covering the light-emitting unit; wherein the forming the encapsulation structure comprises: forming a first inorganic structure (121), an organic layer (122) and a second inorganic structure (123) in sequence, wherein a refractive index of the first inorganic structure is higher than a refractive index of the organic layer [0008], the first inorganic structure comprises at least one inorganic layer, and a thickness of one inorganic layer of the at least one inorganic layer is not larger than 500 nm [0029], wherein the refractive index of the organic layer is 1.6-2.0 [0028].
Ni is silent with respect to “the first inorganic structure comprises a first inorganic layer and a second inorganic layer that are laminated along the direction away from the drive substrate; the first inorganic layer is arranged between the drive substrate and the second inorganic layer along the direction away from the drive substrate; a refractive index of the first inorganic layer is lower than a refractive index of the second inorganic layer, and a thickness of the first inorganic layer is not larger than 100nm” and the refractive index of the first inorganic layer “is lower than 1.6, wherein a difference between the refractive index of the second inorganic layer and the refractive index of the organic layer is smaller than 0.15 a thickness of the second inorganic layer is not larger than 500 nm; or, wherein a difference between the refractive index of the second inorganic layer and the refractive index of the organic layer is larger than 0.4, a thickness of the second inorganic layer is larger than 1500 nm”.
FIG. 5 of Guo discloses a similar OLED display substrate, wherein the first inorganic structure (11) comprises a first inorganic layer (11b) and a second inorganic layer (11a) that are laminated along the direction away from the drive substrate; the first inorganic layer is arranged between the drive substrate and the second inorganic layer along the direction away from the drive substrate; a refractive index (1.3-1.5) of the first inorganic layer is lower than a refractive index (1.7-1.9) of the second inorganic layer and is lower than 1.6 [0041]; a thickness of the first inorganic layer is not larger than 100nm; and a thickness of the second inorganic layer is not larger than 500 nm [0018]. Moreover, the refractive index of the organic layer of Ni is 1.6-2.0, and the refractive index of the second inorganic layer of Guo is 1.7-1.9. Therefore, a combination of Ni and Guo discloses a difference between the refractive index of the second inorganic layer and the refractive index of the organic layer is smaller than 0.15.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ni, as taught by Guo. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Ni in the above manner for purpose of blocking water, oxygen, and ultraviolet radiation ([0004] of Guo).
Pertinent Art
Pertinent art includes Li (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2018/0375060), Choi (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2020/0043998), Zhang (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2020/0083490), Huang (CN 110148684), Jin (CN 111063825), Gu (CN 106450035) and Pu (CN 109285958).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
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).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHENG-BAI ZHU whose telephone number is (571)270-3904. The examiner can normally be reached on 11am – 7pm EST.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHENG-BAI ZHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights