DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the communication filed 9 July 2026.
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 .
Priority
The instant application’s status as a 371 of PCT/CN2021/134166 is acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 5, and 9-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Drawings
The objections to the drawings are withdrawn, responsive to Applicant’s cancelation of claim 4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The § 112(a) rejection of claim 4 is withdrawn, responsive to Applicant’s cancelation of claim 4.
The § 112(b) rejection of claim 1 is withdrawn, responsive to Applicant’s amendment of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 5, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0181343 (filed Apr. 23, 2015) (hereinafter “Wang”) in view of Chinese Patent Publication No. CN112038498A (published Aug. 20, 2020) (hereinafter “Cai”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Wang discloses: A display substrate ([0004]: “FIG. 1 is a schematic structural diagram of a display panel in the related art.”), comprising:
a base substrate (FIG. 1, array substrate 11, [0004]) and a plurality of sub-pixels (FIG. 2, light emitting structure 14, [0004]);
a pixel definition layer (FIG. 1, pixel define layer (PDL) 15, [0004]) arranged on the base substrate (FIG. 1, array substrate 11) and comprising a plurality of pixel openings (FIG. 2, depicting wherein the PDL 15 defines a plurality of openings), a region where the pixel opening is located being an active light-emitting region of a corresponding sub-pixel (FIG. 1, depicting wherein the light emitting structures 14 correspond to the pixel openings defined by the PDL 15);
a plurality of post spacers (FIG. 1, support 16, [0004]) arranged at a side of the pixel definition layer (FIG. 1, PDL 15) away from the base substrate (FIG. 1, depicting wherein support 16 is disposed on a side of the PDL 15 away from the array substrate 11).
The FIG. 1 embodiment disclosed in Wang does not specifically disclose a reflection layer arranged between the post spacer and the base substrate, wherein an orthogonal projection of each post spacer onto the base substrate at least partially overlaps an orthogonal projection of the reflection layer onto the base substrate; wherein the reflection layer comprises at least one protrusion protruding along a direction away from the base substrate, in a direction perpendicular to the base substrate, a cross section of the at least one protrusion is of a part of a circle and when the cross section of the at least one protrusion is a part of a circle, a height of the protrusion in the direction perpendicular to the base substrate is greater than or less than a radius of the circle.
In the same field of endeavor, Cai discloses a reflection layer (FIG. 2, light reducing member 400 configured to reflect external light, Translation of CN112038498A at 3), wherein the reflection layer comprises at least one protrusion protruding along a direction away from the base substrate in a direction perpendicular to the base substrate (FIG. 2, depicting the light reducing member 400 protruding along a direction away from a substrate 200, Translation of CN112038498A at 3), a cross section of the at least one protrusion is of a part of a circle and when the cross section of the at least one protrusion is a part of a circle, a height of the protrusion in the direction perpendicular to the base substrate is greater than or less than a radius of the circle (FIG. 2, depicting wherein a cross section of the light reducing member 400 is a part of a circle, wherein a height of the circle is greater than a radius of the circle). Regarding the light reducing member, Cai states: “[T]he light-reducing member is provided on the array substrate to reflect the external light directed to the display panel to the non-transmissive area of the display panel, thereby reducing the reflected light on the display panel, enhancing the display contrast, and improving the display effect.” Translation of CN112038498A at 6.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosed display panel of Wang by adding the light reducing member 400 configuration Cai in order to improve reduction of the reflected light on the display panel, enhance the display contrast, and improve the display effect. See Translation of CN112038498A at 6. Moreover, the cross-sectional shape of the protrusion appears to be a mere matter of design choice of the ordinary skilled artisan, and Applicant does not show that the particular claimed shape of the protrusion is significant to the functionality of the device. See MPEP § 2144.04 (I), (IV)(B) (citing In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)) (“The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.”); see also MPEP § (IV)(A) (citing Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (1984)) (“[T]he Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.”). Rather, the particular “part of a circle” shape Applicant claims appears to simply be one of numerous configurations a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of reflecting external light. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d at 669 (“Appellants have presented no argument which convinces us that the particular configuration of their container is significant or is anything more than one of numerous configurations a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of providing mating surfaces in the collapsed container of Matzen”).
Moreover, addition of the light reducing member configuration would result in a configuration wherein the light reducing member 400 would be arranged between the support 16 and array substrate 11, and wherein an orthogonal projection of each support 16 onto the array substrate 11 at least partially overlaps an orthogonal projection of the light reducing member 400 onto the array substrate 11.
Claim 1 further recites the functional limitation wherein the plurality of post spacers are “configured to support a mask in an evaporation process of the display substrate,” which is not specifically disclosed in Wang. But, “[a] claim containing a ‘recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus’ if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” MPEP § 2114 (quoting Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)). Moreover, “If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus.” MPEP § 2114 (citing In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). “The burden then shifts to applicant to establish that the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on.” MPEP § 2114 (citing In re Schrieber, 128 F.3d at 1478).
In the instant case, the display device disclosed in Wang and Cai discloses all of the structural limitations of the presently rejected claim 1, noted in the above rejection of independent claim 1. Moreover, the supports 16 disclosed in Wang inherently possess the functionally defined limitations of Applicant’s claimed device for at least the following reasons: (1) disclosed in FIG. 2 of Wang and in various figures such as, for instance, FIG. 2 of the present application, the supports 16 of Wang and post spacers (PS) of the instant application are shown to have roughly the same trapezoidal shape; and (2) both disclosures contemplate the structures performing similar intended functions—support of another structure. See Wang [0004]: “[A] support 16 disposed on the pixel define layer 15 [is] configured to support the glass cover-plate 12.”
Thus, Wang in view of Cai renders obvious independent claim 1. Moreover, the burden of establishing that the prior art, Wang in view of Cai, does not possess the relied upon characteristic shifts to Applicant.
Regarding claim 5, Wang in view of Cai further discloses wherein the reflection layer comprises a plurality of reflection patterns (Wang FIG. 1; Cai FIG. 2; depicting wherein the are a plurality of light reducing member 400 structures), and an orthogonal projection of each post spacer onto the base substrate is located with within an orthogonal projection of a corresponding reflection pattern onto the base substrate (Wang FIG. 1; Cai FIG. 2; depicting wherein each one the plurality of light reducing member 400 structures would have an orthogonal projection on the substrate 11 that at least partially overlaps an orthogonal projection of each support 16 onto the substrate 11).
Regarding claim 9, Wang in view of Cai further discloses an anode layer (Wang FIG. 1, reflection anode 141, [0004]) arranged at a same layer as the reflection layer (Wang FIG. 1; Cai FIG. 2; depicting wherein the reflection anode 141 is arranged at the PDL 15, which is a same layer the light reducing member 400 structures are arranged).
Regarding claim 10, Wang in view of Cai does not specifically disclose wherein the reflection pattern is made of a reflective non-metal material, or made of a same material as the anode layer.
In [0028], however, regarding formation steps of reflective structures, Wang states: “Further, on the basis that the light blocking layer 24 and the reflection anode 231 are disposed on the same layer and made of the same material, the light blocking layer 24 and the reflection anode 231 can be formed by a synchronous manufacturing process, resulting in an advantage that there is no need for additional manufacturing processes, because the light blocking layer 24 can be manufactured while the reflection anode 231 is manufactured, thereby not only reducing processing steps for manufacturing the display panel but also reducing production costs of the display panel.”
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosed display panel of Wang and Cai by forming the reflection anode 141 and light reducing member 400 structures from a same material in order to reducing processing steps and production costs. See Wang [0028].
Regarding claim 11, Wang in view of Cai further discloses wherein the anode layer (Wang FIG. 1, reflection anode 141) comprises a plurality of anode patterns independent of each other (Wang FIG. 1, depicting a plurality of reflection anodes 141 separate from one another), and each anode pattern is arranged independent of the reflection pattern (Wang FIG. 1; Cai FIG. 2; depicting wherein the plurality light reduction member 400 structures would be arranged separately from the reflection anodes 141 as disclosed in Cai).
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).
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.
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 ADAM D WEILAND whose telephone number is (703)756-4760. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Steven Gauthier can be reached at (571)270-0373. 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.
/ADAM D WEILAND/Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights