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 November 11th, 2025 (“A...”), in which: claims 1, 16 – 17, 20, and 22 are amended; claims 2 and 15 are cancelled; no new claims are added; and rejections of the claims are traversed. Examiner notes that page 8 of applicant remarks (“REM”) states that claim 24 has been amended; however, claim 24 has been previously cancelled, and the examiner understands the assertion of claim 24 being amended to be an error. Claims 1, 3 – 14, 16 – 18, 20, and 22 are currently pending an Office Action on the merits as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed November 11th, 2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant appears to argue on pages 8 – 9 and 11 of the instant Remarks:
The rejection of claims 1 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US 20210210557 A1), and further in view of Han et al. (US 20200004381 A1) and claims 2 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US 20210210557 A1), and further in view of Han et al. (US 20200004381 A1) and Jones et al. (US 20170220844 A1) fails to teach or suggest claimed limitations of the instant amended claim 1. The specific limitations called out on pg. 9 of the instant Remarks include the display substrate wherein:
... the at least a portion of the plurality of light-blocking patterns correspond to and at least partially overlapped with at least a portion of the plurality of first gaps ...
a width of the plurality of first gaps is less than or equal to 4.0 micrometers ...
the plurality of second gaps do not overlap with the plurality of first electrode patterns and the plurality of light-blocking patterns, and wherein a width of each of at least a portion of the plurality of second gaps is greater than 4.0 micrometers.
Respectfully, examiner disagrees.
Regarding the instant limitation that states, “the at least a portion of the plurality of light-blocking patterns correspond to and at least partially overlapped with at least a portion of the plurality of first gaps”, Lim teaches that the first thin film transistor layer TFTL1 (Fig. 12) has an effective transmissive window, i.e., line width Wa (at least [0109] and [0200]), formed by the optical pattern layer CML. This effective window is due to the disclosed cutoff angle θc (See Figs. 13 and [01990] – [200], [0210], and [0213] – [0218]). Therefore, Lim teaches a structure that effectively creates transmissive gaps/columns, e.g., a plurality of first gaps and a plurality of second gaps, in the drive circuit layer, albeit with a structure under the drive circuit layer. However, Han teaches a structure that effectively creates transmissive gaps/columns, e.g., a plurality of first gaps and a plurality of second gaps, in the drive circuit layer by use of shielding with a first electrode, as claimed in the instant application. As discussed in the rejections below, the combination of Lim display substrate structure and Han’s shielding electrode yields the structure wherein the shielding electrodes may partially overlap with Lim’s effective transmissive gaps/columns, e.g., a plurality of first gaps and a plurality of second gaps, in the drive circuit layer, rendering the limitation wherein, “the at least a portion of the plurality of light-blocking patterns correspond to and at least partially overlapped with at least a portion of the plurality of first gaps” as obvious.
Regarding the instant limitations that state, “a width of the plurality of first gaps is less than or equal to 4.0 micrometers” and “a width of each of at least a portion of the plurality of second gaps is greater than 4.0 micrometers”, Lim, Han, and Jones provide the claimed structure. First, examiner notes that the instant claimed gap appears, at least from instant Figs. 4, 8, and 15, that the gaps are created by the combined borders of black matrices and a capacitor. Examiner notes that applicant’s shielding seems to be desirable for at least shielding the instant capacitor C. Wherein examiner asserts shielding of display driver circuitry is rendered obvious by the prior art of record.
Regarding the instant limitation that states, “the plurality of second gaps do not overlap with the plurality of first electrode patterns and the plurality of light-blocking patterns”, the examiner notes that the first electrode pattern and light-blocking patterns are components of the same conductive layer, i.e., the first electrode layer. Further, it is the position of the office that Han discloses the feature wherein the plurality of second gaps do not overlap with the plurality of first electrode patterns and the plurality of light-blocking patterns, as shown in the excerpt of Han’s Fig. 6 below:
PNG
media_image1.png
446
577
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, examiner asserts the second gap not overlapping with the electrode shield layer is rendered obvious by the prior art of record.
Further, applicant asserts on page 10 of the instant Remarks that the instant display substrate is not directed to merely a shielding gap, but that their shielding gap resolves a critical problem in display manufacturing. To the examiner’s best understanding, the applicant also appears to state that the examiner has not identified the technical solution wherein areas of light transmitting display substrates are selectively shielded to specifically address areas deemed “problematic”; wherein, the examiner understands applicant’s use of “problematic” to mean areas that are highly susceptible to damage caused by hard to control process variations during the manufacturing of said light transmitting display substrates (pg. 10 of the instant Remarks).
Examiner takes note of the applicant’s remarks regarding the asserted solution the instant invention gives. First, the instant application is directed towards display substrate structure, not manufacture; therefore, the examiner considered what prior art exists which show claimed structure of the instant application. Additional search burdens are incurred when considering the instant claims as directed towards manufacturing of display substrates. Examiner understands the critical problem, as identified by the applicant, to be one of shielding such that light may only penetrate through the drive circuit layer at designated areas; an idea visibly disclosed by Han et al. (US 20200004381 A1) in at least Figs. 4 – 6. Thus, the examiner is not convinced that the prior art of record does not address the core technical problem, and that the prior art of record offers no solution to the core technical problem.
Lastly, applicant argues on pgs. 11 – 12 of the instant Remarks that the Examiner’s combination of references are based on impermissible hindsight.
Respectfully, examiner disagrees. Examiner’s opinion is that both Lim and Han provide context for display substrate structures wherein shielding is implemented such that light may only penetrate through the display substrate structure at designated areas. See rejections below.
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, 3 – 4, 6, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US 20210210557 A1), and further in view of Han et al. (US 20200004381 A1) and Jones et al. (US 20170220844 A1).
Regarding independent Claim 1, Lim teaches a display substrate, having a display side and comprising:
a base substrate (Fig. 12; first substrate SUB1),
a drive circuit layer (Fig. 12; first thin film transistor layer TFTL1), disposed on the base substrate (Fig. 12), comprising a plurality of first gaps (Fig. 12; See gaps between plurality of thin film transistors 110. These gaps are considered by the examiner to be a plurality of first gaps), wherein the plurality of first gaps allow light from the display side to transmit therethrough (Fig. 12; second light L2. See at least [0066]),
a first electrode layer (Fig. 12; layer including first electrodes 161 is being considered to be a first electrode layer), disposed on a side of the drive circuit layer away from the base substrate (Fig. 12) and comprising a plurality of first electrode patterns (Fig. 12; plurality of first electrodes 161) and …
a pixel definition layer (Fig. 12; pixel definition layer 170), disposed on a side of the first electrode layer away from the base substrate (Fig. 12) and comprising a plurality of sub-pixel openings (Fig. 12 and [0189]; wherein Lim teaches that the pixel definition layer 170 has openings into which the light emitting elements 160 are disposed; further the openings surround the light emitting elements 160), wherein the plurality of sub-pixel openings expose the plurality of first electrode patterns (Fig. 12), respectively, …
However, Lim remains silent regarding the display substrate including:
a first electrode layer comprising … a plurality of light-blocking patterns, …
wherein, in a direction perpendicular to the base substrate, at least a portion of the plurality of light-blocking patterns do not overlap with the plurality of sub-pixel openings, the at least a portion of the plurality of light-blocking patterns correspond to and at least partially overlapped with at least a portion of the plurality of first gaps, respectively, so as to at least partially block light from the display side,
wherein a width of the plurality of first gaps is less than or equal to 4.0 micrometers,
the drive circuit layer further comprises a plurality of second gaps, wherein the plurality of second gaps allow light from the display side to transmit therethrough,
in the direction perpendicular to the base substrate, the plurality of second gaps do not overlap with the plurality of first electrode patterns and the plurality of light-blocking patterns, and
a width of each of at least a portion of the plurality of second gaps is greater than 4.0 micrometers.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Han teaches a display device including a display panel DP2 (Fig. 6), wherein a first electrode layer includes a pixel anode E1-1 that is made of a material having a characteristic of reflectivity ([0104]), i.e., the pixel anode E1-1 is configured to at least partially block light from the display side (Fig. 6). The anodes E1-1 include pinholes PH3 through which light may transmit therethrough from the display side. Further, Han teaches gaps between transistors of the display panel DP2 that light may transmit therethrough from the display side. Thus, Han teaches a first electrode layer comprising a plurality of light-blocking patterns (Fig. 6; a portion of the anodes E1-1), wherein, in a direction perpendicular to the base substrate, at least a portion of the plurality of light-blocking patterns do not overlap with the plurality of sub-pixel openings (Fig. 6), the at least a portion of the plurality of light-blocking patterns correspond to and at least partially overlapped with at least a portion of the plurality of first gaps (Fig. 6), respectively, so as to at least partially block light from the display side (Fig. 6).
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 Lim’s first electrode layer to include material capable of blocking the transmission of light through the display panel, and patterned to selectively allow light to transmit through the display panel, as disclosed by Han, because such a modification is the result of simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result. More specifically, Lim’s first electrodes 161 and Han’s anode E1-1 perform the same general and predictable function, the predictable function being an anode electrode in a light-emitting diode. 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 Lim’s first electrodes 161 by replacing it with Han’s anode E1-1. 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.
Further, Han teaches a spacing between the first electrode patterns between adjacent pixels. Further, there is a gap between the first electrode and a lower light shielding layer LS (Fig. 6. Also see excerpt of Fig. 6 below); wherein the examiner is interpreting this gap to be a second gap. Fig. 6 of Han shows a plurality of second gaps. Examiner asserts this is similar to Lim’s disclosure showing an optical pattern layer CML (Fig. 12) that includes a light blocking portion BA. Thus, through the substitution of Lim’s first electrode with Han’s first electrode, as discussed above, a display device is including at least a plurality of second gaps between adjacent pixels. Therefore, Lim, further in view of Han, teach the drive circuit layer further comprises a plurality of second gaps, wherein the plurality of second gaps allow light from the display side to transmit therethrough,
in the direction perpendicular to the base substrate, the plurality of second gaps do not overlap with the plurality of first electrode patterns and the plurality of light-blocking patterns.
PNG
media_image1.png
446
577
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See the excerpt of Fig. 6 of Han below.
Further, in the same field of endeavor, Jones teaches an aperture layer that may be formed in the display’s TFT layer (Jones’ claim 14 and [0053] and [0067]). Further, Jones teaches in [0067] that gaps form the aperture in in the TFT layer, and that these gaps may be about 2 – 5 μm. Jones’ teachings may inform the spacing of Lim’s thin film transistors 110 and the dimensions of Han’s pinholes PH3; such that the display substrate of Lim, further in view of Han and Jones, disclose a width of the plurality of first gaps is less than or equal to 4.0 micrometers.
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 drive circuit layer of Lim, further in view of Han, to include Jones’ teaching of a width of the plurality of first gaps is less than or equal to 4.0 micrometers, 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, Jones’ teaching permits the drive circuit layer to have an adequate amount of space for a touch signal to propagate. This known benefit in Jones’ TFT layer is applicable to the drive circuit layer of Lim, further in view of Han, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to layers in touch display devices that house the driving circuity, through which a touch signal propagates. Therefore, it would have been recognized that modifying the drive circuit layer of Lim, further in view of Han, to include Jones’ teaching of a width of the plurality of first gaps is less than or equal to 4.0 micrometers 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 Jones’ teaching of a width of the plurality of first gaps is less than or equal to 4.0 micrometers in the drive circuit layer of a touch display device, and (ii) the benefits of such a combination would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention.
Further, a display substrate wherein a width of the plurality of first gaps is less than or equal to 4.0 micrometers would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, from at least [0067] of Jones, 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).
Similarly, Jones teaches an aperture layer that may be formed in the display’s TFT layer (Jones’ claim 14 and [0053] and [0067]). Further, Jones teaches in [0067] that gaps form the aperture in the TFT layer, and that these gaps may be about 2 – 5 μm. Jones’ teachings may inform the spacing of both Lim’s thin film transistors 110 and Han’s light-blocking pattern; such that the display substrate of Lim, further in view of Han and Jones, disclose a width of the plurality of first gaps is greater than 4.0 micrometers.
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 drive circuit layer of Lim, further in view of Han, to include Jones’ teaching of a width of the plurality of second gaps is greater than 4.0 micrometers, 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, Jones’ teaching permits the drive circuit layer to have an adequate amount of space for a touch signal to propagate. This known benefit in Jones’ TFT layer is applicable to the drive circuit layer of Lim, further in view of Han, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to layers in touch display devices that house the driving circuity, through which a touch signal propagates. Therefore, it would have been recognized that modifying the drive circuit layer of Lim, further in view of Han, to include Jones’ teaching of a width of the plurality of second gaps is greater than 4.0 micrometers 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 Jones’ teaching of a width of the plurality of second gaps is greater than 4.0 micrometers in the drive circuit layer of a touch display device, and (ii) the benefits of such a combination would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention.
Further, a display substrate wherein a width of the plurality of second gaps is greater than 4.0 micrometers would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, from at least [0067] of Jones, 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).
Regarding dependent Claim 3, Lim, further in view of Han and Jones, teach the display substrate according to claim 1, wherein
a distance of the plurality of first gaps from a center of the plurality of sub-pixel openings is less than 33 micrometers.
Lim discloses that a plurality of sub-pixels SP are disposed overlaps a fingerprint sensor layer on which a plurality of fingerprint sensors FPS are disposed ([0057], also see Figs. 7 – 8); which the examiner understands to mean that the orthographic projections of the sub-pixels and the orthographic projections of the fingerprint sensors overlap over the substrate. Further, Lim teaches that a separation distance between the fingerprint sensors FPS ranges from 5 μm to 50 μm ([0136]). Thus, Lim the teachings of Lim imply the same distance between sub-pixels; wherein the first gaps are between sub-pixels. Thus, Lim implies a distance of the plurality of first gaps from a center of the plurality of sub-pixel openings is less than 33 micrometers, because Lim’s first gaps are between 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 display substrate of Lim, further in view of Han and Jones, to include a distance of the plurality of first gaps from a center of the plurality of sub-pixel openings is less than 33 micrometers, as implied by the pitch of Lim’s fingerprint sensors FPS, because such a modification is taught, suggested, or motivated by the art. More specifically, the motivation to modify the display substrate of Lim, further in view of Han and Jones, to include a distance of the plurality of first gaps from a center of the plurality of sub-pixel openings is less than 33 micrometers is implicitly provided by Lim’s disclosed pitch of 5 μm to 50 μm for their fingerprint sensors FPS, stating that that a separation distance between the fingerprint sensors FPS ranges from 5 μm to 50 μm ([0136]); wherein Figs. 7 – 8 shows the sub-pixels SP overlapping with the fingerprint sensors FPS ([0057]). 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 display substrate of Lim, further in view of Han and Jones, to include a distance of the plurality of first gaps from a center of the plurality of sub-pixel openings is less than 33 micrometers, as implied by the pitch of Lim’s fingerprint sensors FPS, with the motivation of forming an adequate space for a touch signal to propagate.
Further, a display substrate wherein a distance of the plurality of first gaps from a center of the plurality of sub-pixel openings is less than 33 micrometers would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, from the disclosure of Lim’s gaps in the drive circuit layer, further in view of [0136] of Lim, 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).
Regarding dependent Claim 4, Lim, further in view of Han and Jones, teach the display substrate according to claim 1, wherein
the at least a portion of the plurality of light-blocking patterns are integrally connected to the plurality of first electrode patterns, respectively (Han: Fig. 6).
Regarding dependent Claim 6, Lim, further in view of Han and Jones, teach the display substrate according to claim 1, wherein
the display substrate comprises a plurality of sub-pixels (Lim: Fig. 7; plurality of sub-pixels SP), each of the plurality of sub-pixels comprises a light emitting device (Lim: [0078], [0116], and [0194] & Fig. 12), and the plurality of first electrode patterns are used as anodes of the light-emitting devices of the plurality of sub-pixels (Lim: [0191]), respectively.
Regarding dependent Claim 16, Lim, further in view of Han and Jones, teach the display substrate according to claim 1,[[15,]] wherein
a distance of the plurality of second gaps from a center of the plurality of sub-pixel openings is greater than 33 micrometers
The plurality of second gaps are a feature contributed from the feature of Han substituted into the display substrate of Lim, wherein Lim shows in their figures (e.g., Figs. 3, 5, 6 – 8, and 13 – 21) that the sub-pixels SP, light receiving element PD of the fingerprint sensors FPS, and transmissive portions of the drive circuit layer are regularly spaced. Thus, determining a distance of the plurality of second gaps from a center of the plurality of sub-pixel openings may be implied in the same way a distance of the plurality of first gaps from a center of the plurality of sub-pixel openings is implied from the teaching of the regularly spaced light receiving element PD.
Considering the disclosure of Lim, who discloses that a plurality of sub-pixels SP are disposed overlaps a fingerprint sensor layer on which a plurality of fingerprint sensors FPS are disposed ([0057], also see Figs. 7 – 8); which the examiner understands to mean that the orthographic projections of the sub-pixels and the orthographic projections of the fingerprint sensors overlap over the substrate. Further, Lim teaches that a separation distance between the fingerprint sensors FPS ranges from 5 μm to 50 μm ([0136]). Thus, Lim implies the same distance between sub-pixels SP; wherein the first and second gaps are between sub-pixels. Therefore, Lim’s range of 5 μm to 50 μm for fingerprint sensors FPS implies a distance of the plurality of second gaps from a center of the plurality of sub-pixel openings is greater than 33 micrometers may be applied to the plurality of second gaps.
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 display substrate of Lim, further in view of Han and Jones, to include a distance of the plurality of second gaps from a center of the plurality of sub-pixel openings is greater than 33 micrometers, as implied by the pitch of Lim’s fingerprint sensors FPS, because such a modification is taught, suggested, or motivated by the art. More specifically, the motivation to modify the display substrate of Lim, further in view of Han and Jones, to include a distance of the plurality of second gaps from a center of the plurality of sub-pixel openings is greater than 33 micrometers is implicitly provided by Lim’s disclosed pitch of 5 μm to 50 μm for their fingerprint sensors FPS, stating that that a separation distance between the fingerprint sensors FPS ranges from 5 μm to 50 μm ([0136]); wherein Figs. 7 – 8 shows the sub-pixels SP overlapping with the fingerprint sensors FPS ([0057]). 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 display substrate of Lim, further in view of Han and Jones, to include a distance of the plurality of second gaps from a center of the plurality of sub-pixel openings is greater than 33 micrometers, as implied by the pitch of Lim’s fingerprint sensors FPS, with the motivation of forming an adequate space for a touch signal to propagate.
Further, a display substrate wherein a distance of the plurality of second gaps from a center of the plurality of sub-pixel openings is greater than 33 micrometers would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, from the disclosure of Lim’s gaps in the drive circuit layer, further in view of [0136] of Lim, 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).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US 20210210557 A1), and further in view of Han et al. (US 20200004381 A1), Jones et al. (US 20170220844 A1), and Cui et al. (US 20230247865 A1).
Regarding dependent Claim 5, Lim, further in view of Han and Jones, teach the display substrate according to claim 1, wherein
each of the plurality of first electrode patterns comprises a main part (Han: Fig. 6; portion of anode, i.e., a portion of the first electrode, E1-1 in the opening of banks 61) and a connection part (Han: Fig. 6; portion of anode, i.e., a portion of the first electrode, E1-1 connecting to the circuit drive layer), and …
However, Lim remains silent regarding:
a plane shape of the main part is polygon or a shape with arc edge, and a plane shape of the plurality of light-blocking patterns is polygon.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Cui teaches a similar light-blocking pattern (Fig. 1; light-shielding layer 4) integrally formed with their first electrode patterns (Fig. 1; first electrode 21). Cui teaches that the first electrode 21 may have a main part that may at least be a quadrilateral, i.e., a polygon; and further teaches that the light-blocking pattern may at least be a quadrilateral, i.e., a polygon (Fig. 1).
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 first electrode patterns and light-blocking patterns of Lim, further in view of Han and Jones, to include Cui’s shape of their first electrode patterns and light-blocking patterns, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Cui’s shape of their first electrode patterns and light-blocking patterns are comparable to the first electrode patterns and light-blocking patterns of Lim, further in view of Han and Jones, because they have the same function and are directed to display devices. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the first electrode patterns and light-blocking patterns of Lim, further in view of Han and Jones, to include Cui’s shape of their first electrode patterns and light-blocking patterns with the predictable result of forming LEDs and portions of the driving circuit layer which are shielded from incident light.
Claims 7 – 9, 11 – 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US 20210210557 A1), and further in view of Han et al. (US 20200004381 A1), Jones et al. (US 20170220844 A1), Zeng (US 20230097396 A1), and Shin et al. (US 20190288043 A1).
Regarding dependent Claim 7, Lim, further in view of Han and Jones, teach the display substrate according to claim 6; however, Lim remains silent wherein
the plurality of sub-pixels comprises red sub-pixels, green sub-pixels and blue sub-pixels,
wherein a plane shape of the main part of the first electrode pattern of the light emitting device of each of the red sub-pixels is hexagon, and a shape of the light-blocking pattern integrally connected with the first electrode pattern of the light emitting device of each of the red sub-pixel is triangle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Zeng teaches a light-blocking pattern integrally connected with the first electrode pattern of the light emitting device (Fig. 9 the auxiliary light-shielding part 700 may be integrally formed with the anode 310. See [0102]); such that Zeng teaches the first electrode patterns have a main pattern with a plane shape, and the light-blocking patterns have a shape. Further, Zeng teaches in [0118] that the auxiliary light-shielding part 700 may include multiple parts, e.g., a first and a second part. Additionally, Zeng teaches in [0106] that each of their LEDs may emit light of different colors.
Regarding the instant feature of the plurality of sub-pixels comprises red sub-pixels, green sub-pixels and blue sub-pixels:
In the same field of endeavor, Shin teaches a similar display device wherein organic LEDs are configured to emit red, green, and blue light ([0045] and Fig. 2); i.e., Shin shows that organic LEDs may be configured to form a plurality of sub-pixels wherein the plurality of sub-pixels comprises red sub-pixels, green sub-pixels and blue sub-pixels. This may be used to supplement the specific colors of the different colors taught by Zeng in [0106].
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 display device of Lim, further in view of Han and Jones, to include sub-pixels that may emit red, green, and blue light, as disclosed by Zeng and Shin, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Zeng’s and Shin’s OLED sub-pixels are comparable to the OLED sub-pixels of Lim and Han, because they function by use of an organic light emitting layer. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sub-pixels of Lim, further in view of Han and Jones, to include sub-pixels that may emit red, green, and blue light, as disclosed by Zeng, further in view of Shin, with the predictable result of forming a display device which displays colored images.
Thus, Lim, further in view of Han and Jones, Zeng, and Shin, teach
the plurality of sub-pixels comprises red sub-pixels (Shin: [0045]), green sub-pixels (Shin: [0045]) and blue sub-pixels (Shin: [0045]),
wherein a plane shape of the main part of the first electrode pattern of the light emitting device of each of the red sub-pixels is hexagon (The annotated pixel electrode of Zeng shown below may be of a red sub-pixel, further in view of Shin), and a shape of the light-blocking pattern integrally connected with the first electrode pattern of the light emitting device (Zeng: [0102]) of each of the red sub-pixel is triangle (The annotated light-blocking pattern of Zeng shown below may belong to the structure of a red sub-pixel, further in view of Shin).
PNG
media_image2.png
325
540
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 shape of the first electrode pattern and the shape of the light-blocking pattern of Lim, further in view of Han, Jones, Zeng, and Shin, to include the shape of the first electrode pattern and the shape of the light-blocking pattern of Zeng, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, the first electrode pattern and the light-blocking pattern of Lim, further in view of Han and Jones, is comparable to the first electrode pattern and the light-blocking pattern of Zeng, further in view of Shin’s teaching of color LEDs, because these display substrates are configured to have the same touch and display function. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the shape of the first electrode pattern and the shape of the light-blocking pattern of Lim, further in view of Han and Jones, to include the shape of the first electrode pattern and the shape of the light-blocking pattern of Zeng, further in view of Shin, with the predictable result of designating portions of the first electrode layer to either function as a sub-pixel’s first electrode or a light-blocking layer.
Regarding dependent Claim 8, Lim, further in view of Han, Jones, Zeng, and Shin, teach the display substrate according to claim 7, wherein
a number of light-blocking patterns integrally connected with the first electrode pattern of the light emitting device of each of the red sub-pixel is two (The annotated light-blocking pattern of Zeng shown below may belong to the structure of a red sub-pixel, further in view of Shin), and the two light-blocking patterns integrally connected with the first electrode pattern of the light emitting device of each of the red sub-pixels are arranged symmetrically (The annotated light-blocking pattern of Zeng shown below may belong to the structure of a red sub-pixel, further in view of Shin).
PNG
media_image3.png
256
540
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding dependent Claim 9, Lim, further in view of Han, Jones, Zeng, and Shin, teach the display substrate according to claim 7, wherein
a plane shape of the main part of the first electrode pattern of the light emitting device of each of the blue sub-pixels is hexagon (The annotated pixel electrode of Zeng shown below may be of a blue sub-pixel, further in view of Shin), and a shape of the light-blocking patterns integrally connected with the first electrode pattern of the light emitting device of each of the blue sub-pixels is triangle or rectangular (The annotated light-blocking pattern of Zeng shown below may belong to the structure of a blue
PNG
media_image3.png
256
540
media_image3.png
Greyscale
sub-pixel, further in view of Shin).
Regarding dependent Claim 11, Lim, further in view of Han, Jones, Zeng, and Shin, teach the display substrate according to claim 7,
a plane shape of the main part of the first electrode pattern of the light emitting device of each of the green sub-pixels is pentagon (The pixel electrode of Zeng shown below may be of a green sub-pixel, further in view of Shin), and a shape of the light-blocking patterns integrally connected with the first electrode pattern of the light emitting device of each of the green sub-pixels is rectangular (The light-blocking pattern of Zeng shown below may belong to the structure of a green sub-
PNG
media_image4.png
158
221
media_image4.png
Greyscale
pixel, further in view of Shin).
Regarding dependent Claim 12, Lim, further in view of Han, Jones, Zeng, and Shin, teach the display substrate according to claim 11, wherein
a number of light-blocking patterns integrally connected with the first electrode pattern of the light emitting device of each of the green sub-pixels is one or two (The annotated light-blocking pattern of Zeng shown below may belong to the structure of a green sub-pixel, further in view of Shin), and the one or two light-blocking patterns integrally connected with the first electrode pattern of the light emitting device of each of the green sub- pixels are integrally connected with one edge or two edges of the first electrode pattern of the light emitting device of each of the green sub-pixels, respectively (The annotated light-blocking pattern of Zeng shown below may belong to the structure of a green sub-pixel, further in view of
PNG
media_image4.png
158
221
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Shin).
Regarding dependent Claim 14, Lim, further in view of Han, Jones, Zeng, and Shin, teach the display substrate according to claim 7, wherein
the light emitting devices of the red sub-pixels and the blue sub-pixels are located in same rows (Shin: Fig. 2 shows emission areas for the red and blue sub-pixels in the same row), the light emitting devices of the green sub-pixels of are substantially located in same rows (Shin: Fig. 2 shows emission areas for the green sub-pixels in the same row), and the rows where the light emitting devices of the red sub-pixel and the blue sub-pixel are located and the rows where the light emitting devices of the green sub-pixels are located are arranged alternately (Shin: Fig. 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 sub-pixel array of Lim, further in view of Han, Jones, Zeng, and Shin, to include the pixel layout of Shin, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Shin’s pixel layout is comparable to the electrode layout of Lim, further in view of Han, Jones, Zeng, and Shin, because they both have sub-pixels arranged in rows. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sub-pixel array of Lim, further in view of Han, Jones, Zeng, and Shin, to include the pixel layout of Shin with the predictable result of forming a display device.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US 20210210557 A1), and further in view of Han et al. (US 20200004381 A1), Jones et al. (US 20170220844 A1), Zeng (US 20230097396 A1), Shin et al. (US 20190288043 A1), and Cui (US 20230247865 A1).
Regarding dependent Claim 10, Lim, further in view of Han, Jones, Zeng, and Shin, teach the display substrate according to claim 9; however, Lim remains silent wherein
a number of light-blocking patterns integrally connected with the first electrode pattern of the light emitting device of each of the blue sub-pixels is three, and the three light-blocking patterns integrally connected with the first electrode pattern of the light emitting device of each of the blue sub-pixels are integrally connected with three edges of the first electrode pattern of the light emitting device of each of the blue sub-pixels.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Cui discloses a similar display device wherein a plurality of sub-pixels include red sub-pixels, blue sub-pixels, and green sub-pixels ([0076]). Further, Cui teaches that light-shielding layer 4 is formed integrally with the LED’s first electrode 21 (Figs. 1 – 2). As shown in the annotated excerpt of Cui’s Fig. 1 below, Cui discloses that a number of light-blocking patterns integrally connected with the first electrode pattern of the light emitting device of each of the blue sub-pixels is three, and the three light-blocking patterns integrally connected with the first electrode pattern of the light emitting device of each of the blue sub-pixels are integrally connected with three edges of the first electrode pattern of the light emitting device of each of the blue sub-pixels.
PNG
media_image5.png
131
139
media_image5.png
Greyscale
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-blocking pattern of Lim, further in view of Han, Jones, Zeng, and Shin, to include a number of light-blocking patterns integrally connected with the first electrode pattern of the light emitting device of each of the blue sub-pixels, as disclosed by Shin, wherein the number is three, and the three light-blocking patterns integrally connected with the first electrode pattern of the light emitting device of each of the blue sub-pixels are integrally connected with three edges of the first electrode pattern of the light emitting device of each of the blue sub-pixels, 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, Shin’s integrated light-blocking pattern permits he blocking of light emitted from an LED which may trigger a false touch event. This known benefit in Shin’s integrated light-blocking pattern is applicable to the light-blocking pattern of Lim, further in view of Han, Jones, Zeng, and Shin, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to touch display devices. Therefore, it would have been recognized that the light-blocking pattern of Lim, further in view of Han, Jones, Zeng, and Shin, to include a number of light-blocking patterns integrally connected with the first electrode pattern of the light emitting device of each of the blue sub-pixels, as disclosed by Shin, wherein the number is three, and the three light-blocking patterns integrally connected with the first electrode pattern of the light emitting device of each of the blue sub-pixels are integrally connected with three edges of the first electrode pattern of the light emitting device of each of the blue sub-pixels 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 Shin’s integrated light-blocking pattern in touch display devices and (ii) the benefits of such a combination would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US 20210210557 A1), and further in view of Han et al. (US 20200004381 A1), Jones et al. (US 20170220844 A1), Cui (US 20230247865 A1), and Kim et al. (US 20150200234 A1).
Regarding dependent Claim 13, Lim, further in view of Han and Jones, teach the display substrate according to claim 1; However, Lim remains silent wherein,
for the sub-pixel opening and the first electrode pattern corresponding to each other, a shape of the sub-pixel opening is the same as a shape of the main part of the first electrode pattern,
a first orthographic projection of the sub-pixel opening on the base substrate is within a second orthographic projection of the main part of the first electrode pattern on the base substrate, and a minimum distance between an edge of the first orthographic projection and an edge of the second orthographic projection is from 1.5 micrometers to 3.5 micrometers.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Cui teaches a similar display substrate wherein the pixel defining layer 3 include an opening portion 31. Cui’s first electrode 21 is located in the opening ([0038]). Fig. 1 shows that for the sub-pixel opening and the first electrode pattern corresponding to each other, a shape of the sub-pixel opening is the same as a shape of the main part of the first electrode pattern.
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 sub-pixel opening of Lim, further in view of Han and Jones, to include Cui’s sub-pixel opening such that a shape of the sub-pixel opening is the same as a shape of the main part of the first electrode pattern, 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, Cui’s sub-pixel opening permits light to transmit from the OLED. This known benefit in Cui’s sub-pixel opening is applicable to the sub-pixel opening of Lim, further in view of Han and Jones, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to touch display devices. Therefore, it would have been recognized that modifying the sub-pixel opening of Lim, further in view of Han and Jones, to include Cui’s sub-pixel opening such that a shape of the sub-pixel opening is the same as a shape of the main part of the first electrode pattern 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 Cui’s sub-pixel opening in touch display devices and (ii) the benefits of such a combination would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art.
Further, in the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches that the widths w1 and w2 of the areas at which the pixel definition layer 432 overlaps the first pixel electrode 131 and the length where the pixel definition layer 432 overlaps the second pixel electrode 231 may be equal to or greater than about 3 micrometers ([0066]). This may be applied to the unspecified length of (W31 – W2)/2, a relationship shown in Fig. 2 of Cui. Thus, Cui, further in view of Kim teach a first orthographic projection of the sub-pixel opening on the base substrate is within a second orthographic projection of the main part of the first electrode pattern on the base substrate, and a minimum distance between an edge of the first orthographic projection and an edge of the second orthographic projection is from 1.5 micrometers to 3.5 micrometers. This relationship may be applied to the display substrate of Lim, further in view of Han and Jones.
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 sub-pixel opening of Lim, further in view of Han, Jones, and Cui, to include Kim’s relationship between the orthographic projections of the first electrode pattern and the sub-pixel opening wherein a minimum distance between an edge of the first orthographic projection and an edge of the second orthographic projection is from 1.5 micrometers to 3.5 micrometers, 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, Kim’s relationship between the orthographic projections of the first electrode pattern and the sub-pixel opening permits allows propagated light to be emitted to the outside/user’s finger efficiently (Kim: [0066]). This known benefit in Kim’s relationship between the orthographic projections of the first electrode pattern and the sub-pixel opening is applicable to the sub-pixel opening of Lim, further in view of Han, Jones, and Cui, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to display devices. Therefore, it would have been recognized that modifying the sub-pixel opening of Lim, further in view of Han, Jones, and Cui, to include Kim’s relationship between the orthographic projections of the first electrode pattern and the sub-pixel opening wherein a minimum distance between an edge of the first orthographic projection and an edge of the second orthographic projection is from 1.5 micrometers to 3.5 micrometers 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 Kim’s relationship between the orthographic projections of the first electrode pattern and the sub-pixel opening in display devices and (ii) the benefits of such a combination would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US 20210210557 A1), and further in view of Han et al. (US 20200004381 A1), Jones et al. (US 20170220844 A1), and Oh et al. (US 20170316739 A1).
Regarding dependent Claim 17, Lim, further in view of Han and Jones, teach the display substrate according to claim [[15]]1; however, Lim remains silent wherein
an orthographic projection of each of the plurality of second gaps on the base substrate is located between an orthographic projection of light emitting control signal line on the base substrate and an orthographic projection of a reset voltage line adjacent to the light emitting control signal line on the base substrate.
However, in the same field of Oh teaches a display substrate wherein an initialization voltage line 124 delivers an initialization voltage Vint, considered by the examiner to be analogous to applicant’s instant reset voltage lines VINT (instant [0073]), and an emission control signal line 123 ([0037]). Fig. 3 of Oh shows the wiring layout of a pixel ([0023]), such that in the space between pixels, a plurality of openings, i.e., plurality of second gaps, may be found between Oh’s initialization voltage line 124 and emission control signal line 123. This wiring layout, of which Lim largely remains silent, may be used to cure the deficiencies of Lim. Thus, Lim, further in view of Han, Jones, and Oh, teach an orthographic projection of each of the plurality of second gaps on the base substrate is located between an orthographic projection of light emitting control signal line on the base substrate and an orthographic projection of a reset voltage line adjacent to the light emitting control signal line on the base 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 display substrate of Lim, further in view of Han and Jones, to include Oh’s wiring layout including an initialization voltage line and emission control signal line, such that an orthographic projection of each of the plurality of second gaps on the base substrate is located between them, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Oh’s wiring layout is comparable to the wiring of the display substrate of Lim, further in view of Han and Jones, because they both function as wiring layers/circuit drive layers/TFT layers in display devices. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display substrate of Lim, further in view of Han and Jones, to include Oh’s wiring layout including an initialization voltage line and emission control signal line, such that an orthographic projection of each of the plurality of second gaps on the base substrate is located between them with the predictable result of forming gaps between the display substrate’s wiring wherein light may be transmitted through.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US 20210210557 A1), and further in view of Han et al. (US 20200004381 A1), Jones et al. (US 20170220844 A1), Oh et al. (US 20170316739 A1), and Song et al. (US 20230351962 A1).
Regarding dependent Claim 18, Lim, further in view of Han, Jones, and Oh, teach the display substrate according to claim 17; however, Lim remains silent wherein
an orthographic projection of each of at least a portion of the plurality of second gaps on the base substrate is located between an orthographic projection of a light emitting control signal line for a blue sub-pixel on the base substrate and an orthographic projection of a reset voltage line for a red sub-pixel on the base substrate, wherein the red sub-pixel is located in a row next to a row where the blue sub-pixel is located and is adjacent to the blue sub-pixel; and/or
an orthographic projection of each of at least a portion of the plurality of second gaps on the base substrate is located between an orthographic projection of a light emitting control signal line for a red sub-pixel on the base substrate and an orthographic projection of a reset voltage line for the blue sub-pixel on the base substrate, wherein the blue sub-pixel is located in a row next to a row where the red sub-pixel is located and is adjacent to the red sub-pixel.
Additionally, Oh remains silent on sub-pixel color.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Song teaches a similar display device wherein sub-pixels are configured to emit red, green, and blue light ([0114] – [0116] and Fig. 4); i.e., Song shows that organic LEDs may be configured to form a plurality of sub-pixels wherein the plurality of sub-pixels comprises red sub-pixels, green sub-pixels and blue sub-pixels. Shin’s disclosure of using RGB OLED may be readily applied to Lim’s and Oh’s disclosures.
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 display device of Lim, further in view of Han, Jones, and Oh, to include sub-pixels that may emit red, green, and blue light, as disclosed by Song, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Song’s OLED sub-pixels are comparable to the OLED sub-pixels of Lim, Han, Jones, and Oh because they function by the use of an organic light emitting layer. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sub-pixels of Lim, further in view of Han, Jones, and Oh to include sub-pixels that may emit red, green, and blue light, as disclosed by Song, with the predictable result of forming a display device which shows colored images.
Thus, Lim, further in view of Han, Jones, Oh, and Song teach a display substrate wherein:
an orthographic projection of each of at least a portion of the plurality of second gaps on the base substrate (Oh: Fig. 3) is located between an orthographic projection of a light emitting control signal line (Oh: Fig. 3; emission control signal line 123) for a blue sub-pixel (Song’s teachings enable the sub-pixel of Oh’s Fig. 3 or Lim’s light emitting element 160 to be blue) on the base substrate (Oh: Fig. 3) and an orthographic projection of a reset voltage line (Oh: Fig. 3; initialization voltage line 124) for a red sub-pixel (Song’s teachings in Fig. 4 enable adjacent OLEDS to the sub-pixel of Oh’s Fig. 3 or Lim’s light emitting element 160 to be red) on the base substrate (Oh: Fig. 3), wherein the red sub-pixel is located in a row next to a row where the blue sub-pixel is located and is adjacent to the blue sub-pixel (Song: Fig. 4); and/or
an orthographic projection of each of at least a portion of the plurality of second gaps on the base substrate (Oh: Fig. 3) is located between an orthographic projection of a light emitting control signal line (Oh: Fig. 3; emission control signal line 123) for a red sub-pixel (Song’s teachings enable the sub-pixel of Oh’s Fig. 3 or Lim’s light emitting element 160 to be red) on the base substrate (Oh: Fig. 3) and an orthographic projection of a reset voltage line (Oh: Fig. 3; initialization voltage line 124) for the blue sub-pixel (Song’s teachings in Fig. 4 enable adjacent OLEDS to the sub-pixel of Oh’s Fig. 3 or Lim’s light emitting element 160 to be blue) on the base substrate (Oh: Fig. 3), wherein the blue sub-pixel is located in a row next to a row where the red sub-pixel is located and is adjacent to the red sub-pixel (Song: Fig. 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 display substrate of Lim, further in view of Han, Jones, Oh, and Song, to include Oh’s wiring layout including an initialization voltage line and emission control signal line, for sub-pixels of a specific color, in view of Song, such that an orthographic projection of each of the plurality of second gaps on the base substrate is located between the initialization voltage line and emission control signal line, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Oh’s wiring layout is comparable to the wiring of the display substrate of Lim, further in view of Han, Jones, Oh, and Song, because they both function as wiring layers/circuit drive layers/TFT layers in display devices. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display substrate of Lim, further in view of Han and Jones, to include Oh’s wiring layout including an initialization voltage line and emission control signal line, such that an orthographic projection of each of the plurality of second gaps on the base substrate is located between them with the predictable result of forming gaps between the display substrate’s wiring wherein light may be transmitted through.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US 20210210557 A1), and further in view of Han et al. (US 20200004381 A1), Jones et al. (US 20170220844 A1), and Kim (US 20150200234 A1).
Regarding dependent Claim 20, Lim, further in view of Han and Jones, teach the display substrate according to claim 1, wherein the drive circuit layer comprises:[,]
a plurality of pixel drive circuits (Lim: Fig. 12; plurality of the thin film transistors 110);[,] and
a first planarization layer (Lim: Fig. 12; planarization layer 150), disposed on a side of the plurality of pixel drive circuits away from the base substrate (Lim: Fig. 12) and comprising a plurality of firs via holes (Lim: [0188]), wherein the plurality of first via holes expose output terminals (Lim: Fig. 12; drain electrode 114) of the plurality of pixel drive circuits (Lim: Fig. 12), respectively,
wherein the first electrode layer is disposed on a side of the first planarization layer away from the base substrate (Lim: Fig. 12), and the plurality of first electrode patterns are connected with the output terminals of the plurality of pixel drive circuits through the plurality of first via holes (Lim: Fig. 12), respectively, …
However, Lim remains silent wherein:
… wherein the display substrate further comprises a spacer layer disposed on a side of the pixel definition layer away from the base substrate, and the spacer layer comprises a plurality of spacers,[[;]]
wherein in the direction perpendicular to the base substrate, the plurality of spacers do not overlap with the plurality of first via holes.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kim discloses a spacer 432e’ (Fig. 4 and [0089]); which may be readily combined to the display substrate of Lim, further in view of Han and Jones, to yield a display substrate wherein:
… the display substrate further comprises a spacer layer (Kim: Fig. 4; spacer 432e’) disposed on a side of the pixel definition layer (Lim: Fig. 12; pixel definition layer 170) away from the base substrate, and the spacer layer comprises a plurality of spacers (Kim: Fig. 4; plurality of spacers 432e’); …
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 pixel definition layer of Lim, further in view of Han and Jones, to include Kim’s spacer layer, because such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. More specifically, the pixel definition layer of Lim, further in view of Han and Jones, as modified by Kim’s spacer layer can yield a predictable result of appropriately spacing a cover layer/additional layers about the pixel definition layer since spacers may be used to set distances between display devices structures. 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.
Thus, naturally yielded through the above combination, Lim, further in view of Han, Jones, and Kim, disclose a display substrate wherein:
… in the direction perpendicular to the base substrate, the plurality of spacers do not overlap with the plurality of first via holes (yielded through the combination of Kim and Lim).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US 20210210557 A1), and further in view of Han et al. (US 20200004381 A1), Jones et al. (US 20170220844 A1), Yoo et al. (US 20230221810 A1), and Kim (US 20150200234 A1).
Regarding dependent Claim 22, Lim, further in view of Han and Jones, teach the display substrate according to claim 1, wherein the drive circuit layer comprises:[[,]]
a plurality of pixel drive circuits (Lim: Fig. 12; plurality of the thin film transistors 110);[[,]] …
However, Lim remains silent on the display substrate wherein:
… a first planarization layer, disposed on a side of the plurality of pixel drive circuits away from the base substrate and comprising a plurality of firs via holes, wherein the plurality of first via holes expose output terminals of the plurality of pixel drive circuits, respectively;[[,]]
a connection electrode layer, disposed on a side of the first planarization layer away from the base substrate and comprising a plurality of connection electrodes, wherein the plurality of connection electrodes are electrically connected with the output terminals of the plurality of pixel drive circuits through the first via holes, respectively;[[,]] and
a second planarization layer, disposed on a side of the connection electrode layer away from the base substrate and comprising a plurality of second via holes, wherein the plurality of second via holes expose the plurality of connection electrodes, respectively,[[;]]
wherein the first electrode layer is disposed on a side of the second planarization layer away from the base substrate, and the plurality of first electrode patterns are electrically connected with the plurality of connection electrodes, respectively,
wherein the display substrate further comprises a spacer layer disposed on a side of the pixel definition layer away from the base substrate, and the spacer layer comprises a plurality of spacers,
wherein, in the direction perpendicular to the base substrate, the plurality of spacers do not overlap with the plurality of second via holes.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Yoo teaches
… a first planarization layer (Fig. 9; first planarization layer 160), disposed on a side of the plurality of pixel drive circuits (Fig. 9; thin film transistors ST1) away from the base substrate (Fig. 9; substrate SUB) and comprising a plurality of firs via holes (Fig. 9; second connection contact hole ANCT2), wherein the plurality of first via holes expose output terminals of the plurality of pixel drive circuits (Fig. 9; the second connection contact hole ANCT2 exposes a route to the terminals of the pixel drive circuits), respectively,
a connection electrode layer (Fig. 9; second anode connection electrode ANDE2), disposed on a side of the first planarization layer away from the base substrate (Fig. 9) and comprising a plurality of connection electrodes (Fig. 9), wherein the plurality of connection electrodes are electrically connected with the output terminals of the plurality of pixel drive circuits through the first via holes (Fig. 9), respectively, and
a second planarization layer (Fig. 9; second planarization layer 180), disposed on a side of the connection electrode layer away from the base substrate (Fig. 9) and comprising a plurality of second via holes (Fig. 9; third connection contact hole ANCT3), wherein the plurality of second via holes expose the plurality of connection electrodes (Fig. 9), respectively;
wherein the first electrode layer is disposed on a side of the second planarization layer away from the base substrate (Fig. 9), and the plurality of first electrode patterns are electrically connected with the plurality of connection electrodes (Fig. 9), respectively, …
Yoo’s display substrate structure may be used modify Lim’s display substrate such that Lim’s display substrate has a double planarization layer structure with a connection electrode disposed between the planarization layers to connect the OLED with the pixel circuitry.
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 display substrate of Lim, further in view of Han and Jones, to include Yoo’s double planarization layer structure in their circuit device layer, because such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. More specifically, the display substrate of Lim, further in view of Han and Jones, as modified by Yoo’s double planarization layer structure in their circuit device layer can yield a predictable result of allowing one of ordinary skill in the art to change the pitch and/or widths of the first gaps in the circuit drive layer, since adding additional layers, e.g., multiple planarization layers leads to a change in the fingerprint distance OD, as disclosed by Lim in at least [0108] and [0115] (Lim: Fig. 12). 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, Kim discloses a spacer 432e’ (Fig. 4 and [0089]); which may be readily combined to the display substrate of Lim, further in view of Han, Jones, and Yoo, to yield a display substrate wherein:
… the display substrate further comprises a spacer layer (Kim: Fig. 4; spacer 432e’) disposed on a side of the pixel definition layer (Lim: Fig. 12; pixel definition layer 170) away from the base substrate, and the spacer layer comprises a plurality of spacers (Kim: Fig. 4; plurality of spacers 432e’); …
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 pixel definition layer of Lim, further in view of Han, Jones, and Yoo, to include Kim’s spacer layer, because such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. More specifically, the pixel definition layer of Lim, further in view of Han, Jones, and Yoo, as modified by Kim’s spacer layer can yield a predictable result of appropriately spacing a cover layer/additional layers about the pixel definition layer since spacers may be used to set distances between display devices structures. 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.
Thus, naturally yielded through the above combination, Lim, further in view of Han, Jones, Yoo, and Kim, disclose a display substrate wherein:
… in the direction perpendicular to the base substrate, the plurality of spacers do not overlap with the plurality of first via holes (yielded through the combination of Kim and Lim).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20210020710 A1 discloses transmissive gaps in a driving circuit layer (e.g., Fig. 9A).
US 20200104562 A1 discloses features relevant to touch displays.
US 20230067816 A1 discloses a similar pixel and drive circuit layer structure (Fig. 6).
US 20200395433 A1 discloses pinhole sizes.
US 20210043692 A1 discloses features relevant to touch displays.
US 20230134963 A1 discloses features relevant to touch displays.
US 20190310724 A1 discloses features relevant to touch displays.
US 20220165085 A1 discloses features relevant to touch displays.
US 20200343312 A1 discloses features relevant to touch displays.
US 20200403168 A1 discloses effective transmissive gap similar to Lim’s.
US 20180129852 A1 discloses features relevant to touch displays.
US 11024682 B2 discloses a similar touch display device (E.g., Fig. 6).
US 20120037905 A1 discloses relevant features to touch display devices.
US 20190295456 A1 discusses the angle of light emitted in a touch display device (E.g., Fig. 1).
US 20200343320 A1 discloses relevant features to touch display devices (Figs. 2 – 7).
US 20200335524 A1 discloses relevant wiring features of a driving circuit layer.
US 20210083013 A1 discloses relevant openings in a driving circuit 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