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/Restriction
Applicant’s election with traverse of group 1 in the reply filed on 11/06/2025 is acknowledged. Applicant’s traversal by amendment to claims 1 and 20 is persuasive. The restriction requirement has been withdrawn. Claims 1, 4-10, 12-16, and 18-22 are pending.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 4-10, 12-16, and 18-22.
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 6, 12-14, and 20-23 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.
Claims 6, 12, and 13 recite the term “continuously arranged” in lines 2, 3, and 5 respectively. The term “continuously arranged” in claims 6, 12, and 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “continuously arranged” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of examination, the term “continuously arranged” will be interpreted as meaning “overlapping”, which would fall under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the phrase “continuously arranged”. In all cases in the instant application, the elements that are “continuously arranged” per claims 6, 12, and 13, overlap with each other.
Claim 14 recites the phrase ““the at least one of the plurality of film layers in the light emitting functional layer of at least one of the two adjacent sub-pixels arranged along the third direction is continuously arranged at edge positions, which are close to each other, of light emitting regions of the adjacent two sub-pixels.” in lines 10-13 respectively. The term “continuously arranged” in claim 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. Additionally, the phrase “which are close to each other” in claim 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite.
The terms “continuously arranged” and “which are close to each other” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of examination, the term “continuously arranged” will be interpreted as meaning “overlapping”, which would fall under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the phrase “continuously arranged”. In all cases in the instant application, the elements that are “continuously arranged” per claim 14, overlap with each other. Additionally, for the purposes of examination, the term “which are close to each other” will be interpreted as meaning “which are directly adjacent to each other”.
Additionally, claim 14 recites the element “light emitting regions”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim or any preceding claims of which claim 14 is dependent upon.
Note, to appears to the examiner that claim 14 is generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. The limitations, particularly in lines 10-13 of the claim appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Correction and clarification is suggested, the term “which are close to each other” appears to not be necessary, as omitting the phrase does not appear to change the scope of the claim.
Claim 20 is 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. Currently, claim 20 is written as a hybrid claim, as device limitations have been amended into a method claim rendering the claim indefinite, as the claim currently reads as a product-by-process claim. For convenience and in the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted and examined as a method claim, as the originally filed set of claims lists claim 20 as a method claim, however, appropriate correction is required. See note below.
Note to applicant, it appears that claim 20 has been incorrectly amended, as device claim limitations have been amended into method claim 20. The claim currently reads as a hybrid claim, thus it is suggested to amend “forming” or another equivalent method-type preamble to each claimed layer/element in the device structure, in order to not be considered a product by process type claim. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as a method claim.
Claim 21 recites the term “relatively” (twice) in line 10. The term “relatively” in claim 21 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 22 is 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. Currently, claim 20 includes various grammatical errors leading to a generally narrative and indefinite claim, see note below. For convenience and in the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be examined as only including lines 6-7, which further defines the method step of patterning the defining structure, as it appears that lines 2-5 may be omitted without changing the scope of the claim. Specifically, claim 22 will be examined as the following:
Claim 22: The manufacturing method according to claim 20, wherein forming the first defining structure by patterning comprises patterning the first defining structure material layer with the pixel defining pattern as a mask.
Note, to appears to the examiner that claim 14 is generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. The limitations, particularly in lines 2-5 of the amended claim, specifically “… before patterning the first defining structural material layer, the manufacturing method further comprises forming the pixel defining pattern by patterning on the first defining structural material layer…” appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Correction and clarification is required.
The claimed method “before patterning the first defining structural material layer, the manufacturing method further comprises forming the pixel defining pattern by patterning on the first defining structural material layer” appears to be self-referencing, specifically, a method step of patterning the defining structural layer cannot occur prior to the method step of patterning the first defining layer. The claimed limitations appear to describe the same step and cannot occur one after the other.
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.
(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.
Claims 1,4, 6-10, 12-14, 16, 18-20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2020/0251541 A1 Kim et al (herein “Kim”).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim discloses:
See Figs. 1 and 3. Fig. 1 shows a top-down view of the generic embodiment of a device substrate and sub-pixels, Fig. 3 shows a cross-section view a generic embodiment of the light emitting device layer structure. References are primarily made with respect to elements present in Fig. 3 unless otherwise specified. See also annotated Fig. 3 below. Additional note, reference is made to other embodiments of the disclosed device, specifically embodiments shown in Figs. 6 and/or 7, which are considered different variations of the same device, specifically with a functional layer that extends over the defining structures.
A display substrate (see display device #1 show in in Fig. 3), comprising a display region (see annotated Fig. 3 below, herein #DR), wherein the display substrate (#1) comprises a base substrate (#10) and a plurality of sub-pixels (Fig. 1, #70) located on the base substrate (#10), at least part of the sub-pixels (#70) located in the display region (#DR) comprise a light emitting element (see annotated Fig. 3 below, herein #LE), the light emitting element (#LE) comprises a light emitting functional layer (#40), and a first electrode (#20) and a second electrode (#50) which are located at both sides of the light emitting functional layer (#40) along a direction perpendicular to the base substrate (#10), the first electrode (#20) is located between the light emitting functional layer (#40) and the base substrate (#10), and the light emitting functional layer (#40) comprises a plurality of film layers (#41, #42, #43);
wherein the display substrate (#1) further comprises at least one first defining structure (#31) located between at least two adjacent sub-pixels (Fig. 1, #70), the at least one first defining structure (#31) comprises an end portion (see annotated Fig. 3 below, herein #EP) located between the light emitting functional layer (#40) and the first electrode (#20), and the first electrode (#20) overlaps with the end portion (#EP) in the direction perpendicular to the base substrate (#10);
at least one of the plurality of film layers (#41, #42, #43) in at least one sub-pixel (#70) is disconnected at the end portion (#EP, see disconnection in Fig. 3) of the first defining structure (#31) s
the display substrate (#1) further comprising:
a pixel defining pattern (#30), located at a side of the first electrode (#20) away from the base substrate (#10), the pixel defining pattern (#30) comprising a plurality of openings (not explicitly assigned an element number, see Fig. 1, see paragraph [0061], see also annotated Fig. 3 below, herein #OP), one sub-pixel (#70, see Fig. 1, see paragraphs [0042]-[0043]) corresponding to at least one opening (#OP), at least part of the light emitting element (#40) of the sub-pixel (#70) being located in the opening (#OP) corresponding to the sub-pixel (#70), and at least part of the first electrode (#20) overlapping with the opening (#20),
wherein the pixel defining pattern (#30) comprises a second defining structure (#32) surrounding the opening (#OP), and the second defining structure (#32) covers at least part of the first defining structure (#31), the opening (#OP) corresponding to the at least one sub-pixel (#70) exposes at least part of the end portion (#EP) of the first defining structure (#31), so that at least one of the plurality of film layers (#40) is disconnected at the end portion (#EP).
PNG
media_image1.png
767
563
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kim Fig. 3 – Annotated by Examiner
Regarding Claim 4, Kim discloses:
The display substrate according to claim 1, wherein an orthographic projection of the second defining structure (##32) on the base substrate (#10) completely falls within an orthographic projection of the first defining structure (#31) on the base substrate (#10).
Regarding Claim 6, Kim discloses:
See Fig. 1 showing top down view.
wherein, in the at least one sub-pixel (#70), the second electrode is continuously arranged at the end portion (#EP).
Note, see 112(b) rejection for claim 6 above. As interpreted by the examiner, the phrase “continuously arranged” is interpreted as meaning “overlapping from a top down view”, thus the interpreted limitation would read “wherein, in the at least one sub-pixel, the second electrode overlaps the end portion from a top down view” i.e. the end portion fully surrounds the second electrode from a top down view.
Regarding Claim 7, Kim discloses:
See annotated Fig. 3 above.
The display substrate according to claim 1, wherein a side surface (See annotated Fig. 3 above, herein “SS”) of the end portion (#EP) comprises an inclined surface (#SS, see annotated Fig. 3 above), and an end of the inclined surface (#SS) away from the base substrate (#10) is inclined to a center (middle of sub-pixel) of the at least one sub-pixel (#70) in which the light emitting functional layer (#40) is disconnected by the end portion (#EP); or, an included angle (see annotated Fig. 3 above) between the side surface (see annotated Fig. 3 above) of the end portion (#EP) and the base substrate (#10) is in a range of 10-90 degrees (see annotated Fig. 3 above).
Note, as interpreted by the examiner under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the term “away” in the context of the claimed limitations will be examined by the Merriam Webster Dictionary definition “distant in space or time”. In the case of the claim, there are intervening layers between the base substrate 10 and the bottom surface of the definition layer 31. Thus, the bottom surface is away from the base substrate, therefore, the side surface is also away from the base substrate, and the angle between them, by definition, angles away from the base substrate. Additionally of note, the bottom end of the inclined surface points towards the “middle” of the sub-pixel.
Regarding Claim 8, Kim discloses:
See embodiments in Figs. 6 and/or 7. See also paragraphs [0106]-[0107].
The display substrate according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of film layers (#40) comprises a light emitting layer (#42) and at least one common layer (#41, see also paragraph [0107]), and the at least one common layer (#41) is a film layer shared by at least two sub-pixels (#41, specifically see Fig. 7), and wherein the at least one common layer (#43, specifically see Fig. 7) is disconnected at the end portion (#EP).
Regarding Claim 9, Kim discloses:
The display substrate according to claim 8, wherein only some of the plurality of film layers (#40) are disconnected at the end portion (#EP).
Regarding Claim 10, Kim discloses:
The display substrate according to claim 1, wherein the first defining structure (##31) surrounds and covers at least part of one circle (see Fig. 1 and paragraph [0036]) of an edge of the first electrode (#20) in the at least one sub-pixel (#70).
Regarding Claim 12, Kim discloses:
The display substrate according to claim 1, wherein the at least one of the plurality of film layers (#41, #42, #43) in the light emitting functional layer (#40) of the at least one sub-pixel (#70) is continuously arranged at a partial position at an edge of the opening corresponding to the at least one sub-pixel (#70).
Note, see 112(b) rejection for claim 12 above. As interpreted by the examiner, the phrase “continuously arranged” is interpreted as meaning “overlapping from a top down view”, thus the interpreted limitation would read “…the at least one sub-pixel (#70) overlaps from a top down view at a partial position at an edge of the opening” i.e. the light emitting functional layer overlaps the sub-pixel edge in the opening.
Regarding Claim 13, Kim discloses:
The display substrate according to claim 12, wherein the first defining structure (#31) comprises a ring-shaped first defining structure (see paragraph [0036], pixels may be circular (ring shaped), therefore defining pattern would also have to be ring shaped) surrounding the first electrode (#20) of the at least one sub-pixel (#70),
and the opening (see annotated Fig. 3 above) corresponding to the at least one sub- pixel (#70) only exposes a part of the ring-shaped first defining structure (#31, see Fig. 3, the second defining structure covers a portion of the first defining structure, therefore only a portion (end portions) of the first defining structure is exposed by the opening), so that the plurality of film layers (#40) are continuously arranged at a position of the ring-shaped first defining structure (#40) not exposed by the opening (see annotated Fig. 3 above).
Note, see 112(b) rejection for claim 12 above. As interpreted by the examiner, the phrase “continuously arranged” is interpreted as meaning “overlapping from a top down view”, thus the interpreted limitation would read “…the plurality of film layers overlap a position of the ring-shaped first defining structure not exposed by the opening from a top down view”. For example, see Kim Figs. 6 and 7.
Regarding Claim 14, Kim discloses:
See annotated Fig. 1 below.
The display substrate according to claim 12, wherein the plurality of sub-pixels (#70) are arrayed along a first direction (see annotated Fig. 1 below) and a second direction (see annotated Fig. 1 below), a distance between adjacent edges of light emitting regions of two adjacent sub-pixels arranged along the first direction (see annotated Fig. 1 below) is a first distance (#A, see annotated Fig. 1 below), a distance between adjacent edges of light emitting regions of two adjacent sub-pixels arranged along the second direction (see annotated Fig. 1 below) is a second distance (#B, see annotated Fig. 1 below), the first direction (see annotated Fig. 1 below) is intersected with the second direction(see annotated Fig. 1 below), a distance between adjacent edges of light emitting regions of two adjacent sub-pixels arranged along a third direction (see annotated Fig. 1 below) intersected with both the first direction (see annotated Fig. 1 below) and the second direction (see annotated Fig. 1 below) is a third distance (#C, see annotated Fig. 1 below), and both the first distance (see annotated Fig. 1 below) and the second distance (see annotated Fig. 1 below) are less than the third distance (see annotated Fig. 1 below); and
the at least one of the plurality of film layers (#41, #42, #43) in the light emitting functional layer (#40) of at least one of the two adjacent sub-pixels (#70) arranged along the third direction (see annotated Fig. 1 below) is continuously arranged at edge positions (edges of sub-pixels), which are close to each other, of light emitting regions (see annotated Fig. 3 above) of the adjacent two sub-pixels ().
Note, see 112(b) rejection for claim 12 above. As interpreted by the examiner, the phrase “continuously arranged” is interpreted as meaning “overlapping from a top down view”. Additionally, the phrase “which are close to each other” will be interpreted as meaning “which are directly adjacent to each other”.
PNG
media_image2.png
931
927
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kim Fig. 1 Annotated by Examiner
Regarding Claim 16, Kim discloses:
wherein a material of the first defining structure (#31) comprises an inorganic nonmetallic material (see paragraph [0064] “In some embodiments, the first pixel defining layer 31 may include at least one inorganic material selected from the group consisting of silicon oxide (SiOx), silicon nitride (SiNx), and silicon nitride oxide (SiON). In some embodiments, the second pixel defining layer 32 may include at least one organic material selected from the group consisting of polyimide resin, epoxy resin, acrylic resin, and the like.”).
Regarding Claim 18, Kim discloses:
The display substrate according to claim 1, wherein the first electrode (#20) comprises a plurality of electrode layers (see paragraph [0060]), and at least an electrode layer closest to the light emitting functional layer in the plurality of electrode layers comprises a crystalline structure (see paragraph [0060])
Note, paragraph [0060] discloses the electrode layer may contain a reflective film and/or comprise a laminated film, which, although not explicitly disclosed, implies a plurality of layers. Additional note, although not explicitly disclosed, the property of the electrode layer comprising a crystalline structure is an inherent property of the disclosed materials that the electrode layer is made of. Therefore, Kim teaches the claimed limitation. See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding Claim 19, Kim discloses: display substrate of claim 1.
Kim further discloses:
A display device, comprising the display substrate according to claim 1 (see abstract).
Regarding Claim 20, Kim discloses:
See method figures 11-17. For consistency with the previously rejected claims, Figs. 1 and 3 will be used to show completed device layers unless otherwise specified. Fig. 1 shows a top-down view of the generic embodiment of a device substrate and sub-pixels, Fig. 3 shows a cross-section view a generic embodiment of the light emitting device layer structure. References are primarily made with respect to elements present in Fig. 3 unless otherwise specified. See also annotated Fig. 3 below. Additional note, reference is made to other embodiments of the disclosed device, specifically embodiments shown in Figs. 6 and/or 7, which are considered different variations of the same device, specifically with a functional layer that extends over the defining structures.
A manufacturing method of a display substrate, comprising:
forming a plurality of sub-pixels (Fig. 1, #70) on a base substrate (Fig. 3, #10), wherein the forming the plurality of sub-pixels (#70) comprises sequentially forming a first electrode (#20), a light emitting functional layer (#40), and a second electrode (#50) which are arranged in a stacked manner in a direction perpendicular to the base substrate (#10), and the light emitting functional layer (#40) comprises a plurality of film layers (#41, #42, #43); and
after forming the first electrode (#20) and before forming the light emitting functional layer (#40), the manufacturing method further comprising forming a first defining structure material layer (#31) on the first electrode (#20) and patterning the first defining structure material layer (see paragraph [0133] and Figs. 12 and 13) to form a first defining structure (#31), wherein the first defining structure (#31) comprises an end portion (#EP, see annotated Fig. 3 above) located between the light emitting functional layer (#40) and the first electrode (#20),
wherein a portion of the light emitting functional layer (#40) is formed on the end portion (#EP) of the first defining structure (#31), and at least one of the plurality of film layers (#41, #42, #43) in at least one sub-pixel (#70) is disconnected at the end portion (#EP) of the first defining structure (#31),
the display substrate (#1) further comprising:
a pixel defining pattern (#30), located at a side of the first electrode (#20) away from the base substrate (#10), the pixel defining pattern (#30) comprising a plurality of openings (not explicitly assigned an element number, see Fig. 1, see paragraph [0061], see also annotated Fig. 3 below, herein #OP), one sub-pixel (#70, see Fig. 1, see paragraphs [0042]-[0043]) corresponding to at least one opening (#OP), at least part of the light emitting element (#40) of the sub-pixel (#70) being located in the opening (#OP) corresponding to the sub-pixel (#70), and at least part of the first electrode (#20) overlapping with the opening (#20),
wherein the pixel defining pattern (#30) comprises a second defining structure (#32) surrounding the opening (#OP), and the second defining structure (#32) covers at least part of the first defining structure (#31), the opening (#OP) corresponding to the at least one sub-pixel (#70) exposes at least part of the end portion (#EP) of the first defining structure (#31), so that at least one of the plurality of film layers (#40) is disconnected at the end portion (#EP).
Note to applicant, it appears that claim 20 has been incorrectly amended, as device claim limitations have been amended into method claim 20. The claim currently reads as a hybrid claim, thus it is suggested to amend “forming” or another equivalent method-type preamble to each claimed layer/element in the device structure, in order to not be considered a product by process type claim. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as a method claim.
Regarding Claim 22, Kim discloses:
The manufacturing method according to claim 20, wherein forming the first defining structure (#31) by patterning comprises patterning the first defining structure material layer (#31) with the pixel defining pattern (#40) as a mask (see paragraph [0133]).
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 (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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0251541 A1 Kim et al in view of US 2020/0312930 A1 Choi et al (herein “Choi”).
Regarding Claim 5, Kim discloses the display substrate of claim 1.
Kim further discloses:
the light emitting functional layer (#40) is disconnected by the end portion (#EP).
Kim does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the end portion comprises a partition part and a buffer part, and the buffer part is located at a side of the partition part close to the base substrate, and
wherein the buffer part protrudes relative to an edge of the partition part and extends to a center of the sub-pixel in which the light emitting functional layer is disconnected by the end portion.
However, in analogous art, Choi teaches:
See Fig. 9. See paragraph [0050] –[0055]
wherein the end portion (reference is made to elements 76-1, 76-2, and 76-3, i.e. the pixel definition layer. For consistency with the rest of this document #EP will be used to point to the pixel defining structure as a whole) comprises a partition part (#EP, specifically #76-1, #76-2) and a buffer part (#EP, specifically #76-3), and the buffer part (#EP, #76-3) is located at a side of the partition part (#EP, #76-1, #76-2) close to the base substrate (substrate not explicitly labelled in Choi Fig. 9, see paragraph [0035], substrate referenced as #26 but not explicitly shown), and
wherein the buffer part (#EP, specifically #76-3) protrudes relative to an edge of the partition part (#EP, #76-1, #76-2) and extends to a center of the sub-pixel (sub pixels not explicitly labelled in Choi Fig. 9, see paragraph [0026], pixels referenced as #22 but not explicitly shown with respect to Fig. 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider combining the teachings of Choi to the device disclosed by Kim and include the various defining layers (see Fig. 9, 76-1, 76-2, 76-3) thus forming the claimed structure, in order to tune the desired discontinuities of the organic LED layers formed over the definition layers. Doing so may also reduce the lateral leakage between pixels in the display. See [0055]: “The angles of the edges of portions 76-1, 76-2, and 76-3 may be selected to control the discontinuities of the organic light-emitting diode layers.” See also [0061]: “Organic light-emitting diode layer 45-3 (e.g., the last layer interrupted by the void) may have a higher conductivity than organic light-emitting diode layer 45-4 (e.g., the first layer that is not interrupted by the void). In other words, the discontinuities in the organic light-emitting diode layers may be propagated to ensure discontinuity of a high conductivity organic light-emitting diode layer. This may effectively reduce lateral leakage between pixels in the display. Continuity in the remaining organic light-emitting diode layers (e.g., 45-4 and 45-5) may be maintained while still ensuring satisfactory light leakage levels.”
Regarding Claim 15, Kim in view of Choi discloses: the display substrate according to claim 5.
Choi further teaches:
See Fig. 8. See paragraphs [0048]-[0049].
wherein, in a direction perpendicular to the base substrate (not explicitly labelled in Fig. 8, previously noted #26 in paragraph [0035] ), a thickness of the partition part (#EP, #76-1, #76-2) is greater than a thickness of the buffer part (#EP, #76-3), and wherein a size of the buffer part (#EP, #76-3)between two adjacent sub- pixels (sub pixels not explicitly labelled in Choi Fig. 9, see paragraph [0026], pixels referenced as #22 but not explicitly shown with respect to Fig. 9) along a direction parallel to a central connecting line (connecting lines not explicitly labelled in Choi Fig. 9, see paragraph [0029], lines referenced as #D but not explicitly shown with respect to Fig. 9) of the two adjacent sub-pixels is not greater than 300 nm (see paragraph [0049]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claim 21: The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record as considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure does not teach or suggest the claimed invention having the following limitation, in combination with the remaining claimed limitations. The prior art fails to teach or suggest the claimed limitations, namely: “…etching the first defining structure material layer, wherein an etching rate at a position with a relatively high density in the first defining structure material layer is relatively slow, so that a side surface of the end portion being formed comprises an inclined surface, and an end of the inclined surface away from the base substrate is inclined to a center of the at least one sub- pixel”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew V. Prostor whose telephone number is (571) 272-2686. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00a-4:30p.
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, Christine S Kim can be reached at (571) 272-8458. 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.
/ANDREW VICTOR PROSTOR/Examiner, Art Unit 2812
/CHRISTINE S. KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812