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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims submitted have overcome the previous objection to the specification and 112 rejections however the amendments have resulted in new 112 rejections as discussed below
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 10-11, 13 and 16-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites “the light-processing layer further comprises a second light-taking structure layer, the second light-taking structure layer at least comprises a first cover layer, a plurality of second light-taking structures arranged on a side of the first cover layer away from the base substrate, and a second cover layer arranged on a side of the plurality of second light-taking structures away from the base substrate, at least one second light-taking structure comprises a prism with a trapezoidal cross section” however there is no embodiment disclosed in which a separate first light taking layer having lenses as required by claim 1 and a second light taking layer having prisms both exist
Regarding claim 11, 13 and 16-17, the claims each recite “the second light-taking structure layer” which is not disclosed for the reasons discussed with respect to claim 1 above
Claims 10-11, 13 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites “the light-processing layer further comprises a second light-taking structure layer, the second light-taking structure layer at least comprises a first cover layer, a plurality of second light-taking structures arranged on a side of the first cover layer away from the base substrate, and a second cover layer arranged on a side of the plurality of second light-taking structures away from the base substrate, at least one second light-taking structure comprises a prism with a trapezoidal cross section” however there is no embodiment disclosed in which a separate first light taking layer having lenses as required by claim 1 and a second light taking layer having prisms both exist, instead the embodiment of Fig. 8 discloses a prisms and lenses in a single light taking layer so that it is unclear if applicant intend the second light taking layer to be distinct from the first for the purpose of examination the claim will be interpreted to mean “the first light-taking structure layer at least comprises a a plurality of second light-taking structures arranged on a side of the first cover layer away from the base substrate, and the second cover layer is arranged on a side of the plurality of second light-taking structures away from the base substrate, at least one second light-taking structure comprises a prism with a trapezoidal cross section”.
Regarding claim 11, 13 and 16-17, the claims each recite “the second light-taking structure layer” which is unclear for the reasons discussed above however these will be interpreted to mean “the first light-taking structure layer” so as to be consistent with claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 10-11, 13, 17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ohta (US 20120217521 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ohta teaches in Figs. 1-6 and 12 with associated text a display substrate comprising a first display region (central part of 1) and a second display region (peripheral part of 1), wherein the second display region at least partially surrounds the first display region, the first display region is configured to perform image display ([0113] and [0202]) and make light pass through (light passes from organic EL unit 10 through 20 Fig. 6), and the second display region is configured to perform image display ([0113] and [0202]); in a plane perpendicular to the display substrate, the first display region at least comprises a display structure layer 14-19 disposed on a base substrate 13 and a light-processing layer 20 disposed on a side of the display structure layer away from the base substrate (Fig. 3), and the light-processing layer at least comprises a light-taking structure (23, 22, 27 and 25) for improving light output efficiency (Fig. 2, [0125]), wherein the light-processing layer at least comprises a color filter structure layer (21 and 26) and a first light-taking structure layer, the color filter structure layer at least comprises a plurality of light filter layers 21 and a black matrix 26 arranged between the light filter layers (Fig. 2, [0134]), the first light-taking structure layer at least comprises a first cover layer 28, a plurality of first light-taking structures 22 arranged on a side of the first cover layer away from the base substrate (Fig. 2), and a second cover layer 27 arranged on a side of the first light-taking structure away from the base substrate (Fig 2), at least one first light-taking structure comprises a plano-convex convex lens (Fig. 2, [0136]).
Regarding claim 10, Ohta teaches he light-processing layer at least comprises a color filter structure layer (21 and 26) and a second light-taking structure layer (28, 22, 25 and 27), the color filter structure layer at least comprises a plurality of light filter layers 21 and a black matrix 26 arranged between the light filter layers (Fig. 2, [0134]), the second light-taking structure layer at least comprises a first cover layer 28, a plurality of second light-taking structures (25c in Fig. 12, [0191]) arranged on a side of the first cover layer 28 away from the base substrate (Figs. 2 and 12), and a second cover layer 27 arranged on a side of the plurality of second light-taking structures away from the base substrate, at least one second light-taking structure comprises a prism with a trapezoidal cross section (rectangular Fig. 12 [0136] and [0191]).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Ohta teaches the color filter structure layer is disposed on a side of the display structure layer away from the base substrate (Fig. 2), and the first light-taking structure layer is disposed on a side of the color filter structure layer away from the base substrate (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Ohta teaches an orthographic projection of the first light-taking structure on the base substrate is within a range of the light filter layer (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Ohta teaches the first cover layer has a first refractive index (128 is the same material as 22 so that the refractive index of 28 is that of 22 and therefore n1 [0136]), the second cover layer has a second refractive index (n2 [0136]), the first light-taking structure has a first light-taking refractive index (n1 [0136]), the first light-taking refractive index is greater than or equal to the first refractive index, and the first light-taking refractive index is greater than the second refractive index [0136].
Regarding claim 7, Ohta teaches the first light-taking structure has a first height, the second cover layer has a cover thickness (thickness between 28 and 24), and a ratio of the first height to the cover thickness is 1/3 to 1/1.1 (see annotated Fig. below).
PNG
media_image1.png
660
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Ohta teaches an orthographic projection of the black matrix on the base substrate is within a range of an orthographic projection of the second light-taking structure on the base substrate (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 17, Ohta teaches the display substrate comprises a plurality of sub-pixels in a plane parallel to the base substrate, and an orthographic projection of at least one sub-pixel on the base substrate at least partially overlaps with orthographic projections of two second light-taking structures on the base substrate (Fig. 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 of this title, 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 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohta as applied to claim 10 and further in view of Park et. Al (US 20190025634 A1 hereinafter Park).
Regarding claim 16, Ohta teaches the display substrate according to claim 10, wherein a sidewall of the second light-taking structure has a gradient angle, the gradient angle is greater than 60 and less than 90.
Ohta does not specify a sidewall of the second light-taking structure has a gradient angle, the gradient angle is greater than 60 and less than 90.
Park discloses in Figs. 4-5 with associated text a sidewall 121s1 of a second light-taking structure 100 similar to that of Ohta has a gradient angle, the gradient angle is greater than 40 and less than 85 (Fig. 5, [0102]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a second light-taking structure having a sidewall similar to that of Park in the device of Ohta because according to Park by using such a structure a sufficient height is formed, and the first partition wall portion 110 with a relatively high optical density is disposed in the groove 120a. Accordingly, a relatively large height can be secured for the first partition wall portion 110 having absorbance, and as a result, the occurrence of a light leakage defect between adjacent pixels can be suppressed [0112].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the arguments on page 9 Ohta teaches in Fig. 9 and paragraph [0125] that layer 28 directly covers a back side of the lenses and the front side of the color filter layer (21 and 26) so that 28 is interpreted to be a cover layer the use of the term cover layer would not necessarily require that said cover layer or the light taking structures thereon are formed by any particular method and so would not require that the lenses are not formed on the first cover layer. Regarding the arguments on page 9, Ohta teaches in Fig, 9 [0136] that layer 27 directly covers a front side of the lenses 22 and is therefore interpreted to be a second cover layer of a light taking layer the claim limitations would not necessarily require any specific optical properties of the second cover layer or that the second cover layer does not have a function of bonding an overlying layer as the applicant appears to suggest in the arguments furthermore examiner notes that although the claim 1 does not specifically require it that Ohta does specifically disclose that the light taking structure 22 and the second cover layer collectively have respective refractive indicies that result in the structure converging light from the underlying pixels and therefore acting as a light taking structure..
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON J GRAY whose telephone number is (571)270-7629. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-4pm.
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, Toledo Fernando can be reached on 5712721867. 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.
/AARON J GRAY/Examiner, Art Unit 2897