DETAILED ACTION
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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/8/2023 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “the transmission part” in line 11. This limitation is required to be amended to “the transition part” to accurately reflect the claim scope. Appropriate correction is required.
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to “Claims filed on 12/26/2025”. Applicant's amendments of claim 1; cancellation of claims 2 and 3 and claims 9-16 are withdrawn with the same reply have been entered by the Examiner. Upon entry of the amendments, claims 1, 4-8, 16, 17 are pending wherein claim 1 is independent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Note applicable to all claims being rejected in this Office action: Examiner notes that the limitations "overlap", "layer", "portion" “on” “part” are being interpreted broadly in accordance with MPEP. Per MPEP 2111 and 2111.01, the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation and the words of the claims are given their plain meaning consistent with the specification without importing claim limitations from the specification. The claim presently disclose a structural limitation (i.e. overlap, layer, portion, contact) that is taught by prior art of record, therefore, the limitation is considered met by the prior art of record. Additionally, Merriam Webster dictionary defines the above limitations as “to occupy the same area in part”, “one thickness lying over or under another”, “an often limited part of a whole” “one of the often indefinite or unequal subdivisions into which something is divided” respectively. Further note the limitation “contact” is being interpreted to include "direct contact" (no intermediate materials, elements or space disposed there between) and "indirect contact" (intermediate materials, elements or space disposed there between).
Claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) based upon a public use or sale or other public availability of the invention. Du et al (CN 110992830B hereinafter Du).
Regarding Claim 1, Du discloses in Fig 1-5: A display substrate, comprising:
a base substrate (21), comprising a bending region;
a plurality of sub-pixels, located on the base substrate; and
a pixel defining layer (22), having a plurality of first openings in the bending region, wherein orthographic projections of the sub-pixels (23) in the bending region are located in orthographic projections of the first openings, a taper angle of the first openings is greater than a preset angle, and the taper angle of the first openings is in positive correlation with a curvature of the bending region, such that emergent light of the sub-pixels in the bending region is not blocked by the pixel defining layer (See Fig 1);
wherein in the bending region (21a), a side surface of the pixel defining layer (22) comprises: a first part, and a transition part and a second part, the transmission part and the second part are arranged alternately at a boundary of a side of the first part close to the base substrate, wherein
in a direction perpendicular to the base substrate, a thickness of the second part is greater than a thickness of the transition part and smaller than a thickness of the first part (See note for the broadest reasonable interpretation of “part”). One of ordinary skilled in the art would choose the first part, second part and a transition part so that the claim limitations are met. See mark-up below for detailed explanation.
PNG
media_image1.png
643
890
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, Du discloses in Fig 1-5: The display substrate according to claim 1, wherein the base substrate (21) further comprises a flat region (21b), the pixel defining layer (22) has a plurality of second openings in the flat region, orthographic projections of the sub-pixels in the flat region are located in orthographic projections of the second openings, and a shape of the second openings is same as a shape of the first openings (See Fig 3).
Regarding Claim 6, Du discloses in Fig 1-5: The display substrate according to claim 1, wherein the base substrate (21) further comprises a flat region (21b), the pixel defining layer (22) has a plurality of second openings in the flat region, orthographic projections of the sub-pixels in the flat region are located in orthographic projections of the second openings, and a taper angle of the second openings is smaller than the taper angle of the first openings (See Fig 4).
Regarding Claim 8, Du discloses in Fig 1-5: The display substrate according to claim 6, wherein in the flat region (21b), a side surface of the pixel defining layer is a plane, and an included angle between the plane and a side surface of the pixel defining layer close to the base substrate is greater than or equal to 30° and smaller than or equal to 40°.
Regarding Claim 16, Du discloses in Fig 1-5: A display panel, comprising the display substrate according to claim 1 (last para of the specification).
Regarding Claim 17, Du discloses in Fig 1-5: A display apparatus, comprising the display panel according to claim 16 (last para of the specification).
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.
Claim(s) 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du et al (CN 110992830B hereinafter Du).
Regarding Claim 4, Du discloses in Fig 1-5: The display substrate according to claim 1.
Du does not specifically disclose: wherein the taper angle of the first openings is greater than or equal to 160° and smaller than or equal to 170°.
However, the Applicant has not disclosed that having the taper angle in a specific range, solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without the specific claimed values). On the other hand, one of ordinary skilled in the art would find it obvious that the taper angle affects the way in which light is emitted from the pixel and thus the taper angle would be considered a result effective variable. Accordingly, the claim is obvious without showing that the claimed range(s) achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would recognize that it would be obvious to optimize “the taper angle” as a "result effective variable”, and arrive at the recited limitation.
Regarding Claim 7, Du discloses in Fig 1-5: The display substrate according to claim 6.
Du does not specifically disclose: wherein the taper angle of the second openings is greater than or equal to 140° and smaller than or equal to 150°.
However, the Applicant has not disclosed that having the taper angle in a specific range, solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without the specific claimed values). On the other hand, one of ordinary skilled in the art would find it obvious that the taper angle affects the way in which light is emitted from the pixel and thus the taper angle would be considered a result effective variable. Accordingly, the claim is obvious without showing that the claimed range(s) achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would recognize that it would be obvious to optimize “the taper angle” as a "result effective variable”, and arrive at the recited limitation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to Applicants’ arguments in pages 8 and 9, Examiner notes that the limitation “part” is being interpreted to mean “one of the often indefinite or unequal subdivisions into which something is divided” and thus the ‘first part, ‘transition part’ and ‘second part’ are being chosen so that their thickness in a direction perpendicular to the substrate is such that a thickness of the second part is greater than a thickness of the transition part and smaller than a thickness of the first part.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NISHATH YASMEEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7564. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM-6PM.
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, Lynne Gurley can be reached at 571-272-1670. 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.
/NISHATH YASMEEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811