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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 10/27/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/27/2025.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “base substrate 01” in paragraph [0027] should say “base substrate 02”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 5, 7, 10 and 20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3, it is unclear if the “gate metal layer” is the same component labeled as the “light-shielding layer” with reference numeral 10, or if these are supposed to be separate components. Clarification is required and clearer claim language is recommended if these components are supposed to be the same part labeled with reference numeral 10.
Regarding claim 5, it is unclear what component in the drawings the claimed “metal layer” is referring to. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 7, it is unclear what component in the drawings the claimed “light-emitting element” is referring to, as there appears to be no depiction or labeling in the specification or drawings. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 10, it is unclear what component in the drawings the claimed “via hole” is referring to. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 20, it is unclear what component in the drawings the claimed “light-emitting element” is referring to, as there appears to be no depiction or labeling in the specification or drawings. Clarification is required.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 8, 10-11 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Muller (US-20200328324-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Muller teaches a display substrate (Fig.1I; ¶0086), comprising:
a base substrate (Fig.1I 6; ¶0086);
a display functional layer (Fig.1H 3; ¶0071) located on a first side surface (top surface) of the base substrate (6), wherein the display functional layer (3) comprises an encapsulation layer (Fig.1I 70; ¶0079); and
a plurality of metal lines (Fig.1I 55; ¶0086) located on a second side surface (bottom surface) of the base substrate (6), a first gap (the lateral spaces between individual instances of 55) being provided between adjacent metal lines (55), and the first side surface (top surface) being opposite to the second side surface (bottom surface),
wherein a first orthographic projection of the encapsulation layer (70) onto the base substrate (6) and a second orthographic projection of the first gap (the lateral spaces between individual instances of 55) onto the base substrate (6) at least partially do not overlap each other, and/or, a light-shielding layer (Fig.1E 22; ¶0070 and ¶0081) is arranged at a side of the encapsulation layer (70) facing the metal lines (55), the light-shielding layer (22) is located on the first side surface (top surface) of the base substrate (6), and a third orthographic projection of the light-shielding layer (22) onto the base substrate (6) at least partially overlaps the second orthographic projection.
Regarding claim 4, Muller teaches the display substrate according to claim 1, wherein the encapsulation layer (70) comprises a plurality of hollowed-out regions (the spaces occupied by 3), and the second orthographic projection (the projection of the gaps on 6) falls within a fourth orthographic projection of each hollowed-out region (the spaces occupied by 3) onto the base substrate (6).
Regarding claim 5, Muller teaches the display substrate according to claim 4, wherein the fourth orthographic projection (the spaces occupied by 3 on 6) does not overlap an orthographic projection of a metal layer (Fig.1I 53; ¶0086) on the first side surface of the base substrate (6) onto the base substrate (6).
Regarding claim 8, Muller teaches the display substrate according to claim 7, wherein the light-emitting element of the display substrate is a mini LED or a micro LED (¶0004).
Regarding claim 10, Muller teaches the display substrate according to claim 1, wherein each metal line (55) is connected to a signal line of the display functional layer (3) through a lead on a side surface of the base substrate (6); or
each metal line (55) is connected to a signal line (Fig.1I 50; ¶0077) of the display functional layer (3) through a via hole (Fig.1I 53; ¶0086) penetrating the base substrate (6).
Regarding claim 11, Muller teaches a display device, comprising the display substrate according to claim 1 (see Fig.1M).
Regarding claim 17, Muller teaches the display device according to claim 11, wherein the encapsulation layer (70) comprises a plurality of hollowed-out regions (the spaces occupied by 3), and the second orthographic projection (the projection of the gaps on 6) falls within a fourth orthographic projection of each hollowed-out region (the spaces occupied by 3) onto the base substrate (6).
Regarding claim 18, Muller teaches the display device according to claim 17, wherein the fourth orthographic projection (the spaces occupied by 3 on 6) does not overlap an orthographic projection of a metal layer (Fig.1I 53; ¶0086) on the first side surface of the base substrate (6) onto the base substrate (6).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 6 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller.
Regarding claim 6, Muller teaches the display substrate according to claim 1.
Muller does not teach wherein the metal lines are fan-out area lines, a line width of each metal line is 60μm to 80μm, and a spacing between adjacent metal lines is 27μm to 47μm.
However, it would have been obvious to form the widths and spacings within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 19, Muller teaches the display device according to claim 11.
Muller does not teach wherein the metal lines are fan-out area lines, a line width of each metal line is 60μm to 80μm, and a spacing between adjacent metal lines is 27μm to 47μm.
However, it would have been obvious to form the widths and spacings within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Claim(s) 2-3, 7, 15-16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller in view of Noh et al. (US-20230187582-A1 – hereinafter Noh).
Regarding claim 2, Muller teaches the display substrate according to claim 1.
Muller does not teach wherein the third orthographic projection fully coincides with the second orthographic projection.
Noh teaches a light-shielding layer (Fig.10 ES; ¶0158 of Noh) for etch stopping a gap formed in a substrate (Fig.10 11; ¶0158 of Noh), where a projection of ES on 11 fully covers the gap.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the gaps between the metal lines (55 of Muller) to be fully overlapped by the light-shielding layer (22 of Muller) as a matter of design choice. Noh serves to teach the point of novelty in the application where laser etching is stopped by a light-shielding layer (as depicted in Fig.10 of Noh) to prevent damage to other parts of an apparatus.
Regarding claim 3, Muller teaches the display substrate according to claim 1.
Muller does not teach wherein the light-shielding layer and a gate metal layer of the display functional layer are arranged at a same layer and made of a same material.
Noh teaches a light-shielding layer (Fig.10 ES; ¶0158 of Noh) that can also serve as a connection electrode (¶0160 of Noh).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the light-shielding layer of Muller (22 of Muller) to serve as a gate metal layer as taught by Noh (ES of Noh) as a matter of design choice, with the device components of Noh around the light-shielding layer of Noh (ES of Noh) matching the device components of Muller around the light-shielding layer of Muller (22 of Muller).
Regarding claim 7, Muller teaches the display substrate according to claim 1.
Muller does not explicitly teach wherein the display substrate comprises:
a buffer layer located on the first side surface of the base substrate;
a gate insulation layer located at one side of the buffer layer away from the base substrate;
an interlayer insulation layer located at one side of the gate insulation layer away from the base substrate;
a planarization layer located at one side of the interlayer insulation layer away from the base substrate;
a passivation layer located at one side of the planarization layer away from the base substrate;
the encapsulation layer located at one side of the passivation layer away from the base substrate; and
a light-emitting element located at one side of the encapsulation layer away from the base substrate.
Noh teaches a display substrate comprising:
a buffer layer (Fig.7 12; ¶0093 of Noh) located on the first side surface (top surface) of the base substrate (Fig.7 11; ¶0093 of Noh);
a gate insulation layer (Fig.7 13; ¶0097 of Noh) located at one side of the buffer layer (12 of Noh) away from the base substrate (11 of Noh);
an interlayer insulation layer (Fig.7 17; ¶0102 of Noh) located at one side of the gate insulation layer (13 of Noh) away from the base substrate (11 of Noh);
a planarization layer (Fig.7 19; ¶0090 of Noh) located at one side of the interlayer insulation layer (17 of Noh) away from the base substrate (11 of Noh);
a passivation layer (Fig.7 51; ¶0131 of Noh) located at one side of the planarization layer (19 of Noh) away from the base substrate (11 of Noh);
the encapsulation layer (Fig.1I 70; ¶0079 of Muller) located at one side of the passivation layer (51 of Noh) away from the base substrate (11of Noh); and
a light-emitting element (Fig.5 30; ¶0084 of Noh) located at one side of the encapsulation layer (70 of Muller) away from the base substrate (11 of Noh).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for all of these components to be present in the device layer (3 of Muller) of Muller because they are well-known in the art for the design of LED devices.
Regarding claim 15, Muller teaches the display device according to claim 11.
Muller does not teach wherein the third orthographic projection fully coincides with the second orthographic projection.
Noh teaches a light-shielding layer (Fig.10 ES; ¶0158 of Noh) for etch stopping a gap formed in a substrate (Fig.10 11; ¶0158 of Noh), where a projection of ES on 11 fully covers the gap.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the gaps between the metal lines (55 of Muller) to be fully overlapped by the light-shielding layer (22 of Muller) as a matter of design choice. Noh serves to teach the point of novelty in the application where laser etching is stopped by a light-shielding layer (as depicted in Fig.10 of Noh) to prevent damage to other parts of an apparatus.
Regarding claim 16, Muller teaches the display device according to claim 11.
Muller does not teach wherein the light-shielding layer and a gate metal layer of the display functional layer are arranged at a same layer and made of a same material.
Noh teaches a light-shielding layer (Fig.10 ES; ¶0158 of Noh) that can also serve as a connection electrode (¶0160 of Noh).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the light-shielding layer of Muller (22 of Muller) to serve as a gate metal layer as taught by Noh (ES of Noh) as a matter of design choice, with the device components of Noh around the light-shielding layer of Noh (ES of Noh) matching the device components of Muller around the light-shielding layer of Muller (22 of Muller).
Regarding claim 20, Muller teaches the display device according to claim 11.
Muller does not explicitly teach wherein the display substrate comprises:
a buffer layer located on the first side surface of the base substrate;
a gate insulation layer located at one side of the buffer layer away from the base substrate;
an interlayer insulation layer located at one side of the gate insulation layer away from the base substrate;
a planarization layer located at one side of the interlayer insulation layer away from the base substrate;
a passivation layer located at one side of the planarization layer away from the base substrate;
the encapsulation layer located at one side of the passivation layer away from the base substrate; and
a light-emitting element located at one side of the encapsulation layer away from the base substrate.
Noh teaches a display substrate comprising:
a buffer layer (Fig.7 12; ¶0093 of Noh) located on the first side surface (top surface) of the base substrate (Fig.7 11; ¶0093 of Noh);
a gate insulation layer (Fig.7 13; ¶0097 of Noh) located at one side of the buffer layer (12 of Noh) away from the base substrate (11 of Noh);
an interlayer insulation layer (Fig.7 17; ¶0102 of Noh) located at one side of the gate insulation layer (13 of Noh) away from the base substrate (11 of Noh);
a planarization layer (Fig.7 19; ¶0090 of Noh) located at one side of the interlayer insulation layer (17 of Noh) away from the base substrate (11 of Noh);
a passivation layer (Fig.7 51; ¶0131 of Noh) located at one side of the planarization layer (19 of Noh) away from the base substrate (11 of Noh);
the encapsulation layer (Fig.1I 70; ¶0079 of Muller) located at one side of the passivation layer (51 of Noh) away from the base substrate (11of Noh); and
a light-emitting element (Fig.5 30; ¶0084 of Noh) located at one side of the encapsulation layer (70 of Muller) away from the base substrate (11 of Noh).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for all of these components to be present in the device layer (3 of Muller) of Muller because they are well-known in the art for the design of LED devices.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller in view of Jang (US-20230069883-A1).
Regarding claim 9, Muller teaches the display substrate according to claim 1.
Muller does not teach wherein the base substrate is transparent.
Jang teaches a transparent base substrate (Fig.2 102; ¶0004 of Jang).
It would be obvious for the base substrate of Muller (6 of Muller) to be transparent because transparent substrates are well-known in the art and constitute an obvious variant
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (US-9246072-B2 and US-20120056223-A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THADDEUS J KOLB whose telephone number is (571)272-0276. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached at (571) 272-7925. 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.
/T.J.K./ Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/ELISEO RAMOS FELICIANO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817