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 Amendments
Applicant's response of 10/24/2025 has been acknowledged. Claims 1, 11 and 13-18 have been amended. Claims 10 is canceled. No new matter has been added.
This office action considers claims 1-9 and 11-19 pending for prosecution and are examined on their merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/24/2025 with respect to the rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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.
Notes: when present, hyphen separated fields within the hyphens (- -) represent, for example, as (30A - Fig 2B - [0128]) = (element 30A - Figure No. 2B - Paragraph No. [0128]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. The same conventions apply to Column and Sentence, for example (19:14-20) = (column19:sentences 14-20). These conventions are used throughout this document.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 11, 13-15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heo et al. (US 20210408163 A1 – hereinafter Heo) in view of Shimoyama et al. (US 20180159080 A1 – hereinafter Shimoyama) and An et al. (US 20200335576 A1 – hereinafter An).
Regarding independent claim 1, Heo teaches
(Currently Amended) A display substrate (100 – Fig. 2 – {[Title] – “Light
Emitting Display Device”}, {[0034] – “substrate 100”), comprising:
a pixel defining layer (150 – Fig. 2 – [0034] – “bank 150”) having a plurality of
openings (Fig. 2 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘30’);
a plurality of light emitting devices (Fig. 2 annotated, see below – hereinafter
‘40’); a portion of each light emitting device (40) in at least a part of the plurality of light emitting devices (40) being located in an opening (Fig. 2 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘301’);
PNG
media_image1.png
377
809
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and the light emitting device (40) including a first light-emitting layer (122a or 122b – Fig. 2 – [0035] – “light emitting layer 122a or 122b”) and a cathode (110a or 110b – Fig. 2 – [0034] – “first electrodes 110a, 110b and 110c” – these are cathodes) that are disposed sequentially (Fig. 2 shows this);
first isolation portions (160a or 160b Fig. 2 – [0034] – “first spacer structure
160a, 160b and 160a having an inverse tapered shape” – these are isolation portions) disposed on the pixel defining layer (150); a first isolation portion (160a – Fig. 3 – [0034] – “first spacer structure 160a, 160b and 160a having an inverse tapered shape” – these are isolation portions) being (301 – Fig. 3 annotated, see below, shows this); and the first isolation portion (160a) separating first light-emitting layers (122a or 122b) and cathodes (110a or 110b) of light emitting devices (40 – Fig. 3 annotated, see below) located in the two adjacent openings (301); [[and]]
a light adjustment layer covering the pixel defining layer (150), the plurality of
light emitting devices (40) and the first isolation portions (160a); and a refractive index of the light adjustment layer being different from a refractive index of the first isolation portion (160a); and
a second isolation portion disposed between the pixel defining layer and the first isolation portion; and a refractive index of the second isolation portion being different from the refractive index of the light adjustment layer and the refractive index of the first isolation portion, wherein the first isolation portion is in contact with the second isolation portion.
PNG
media_image2.png
383
835
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Heo does not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 1.
However, in an analogous art, Shimoyama teaches
a light adjustment layer (116 – Fig. 5 – [0049] – “the protection layer 116” – this
corresponds to the light adjustment layer),
a refractive index of the light adjustment layer (116) being different from a refractive index ([0049] – “the isolating portions 120 are made of a material having a refractive index lower than that of the protection layer 116”) of the first isolation portion,
a refractive index of the second isolation portion being different from the refractive index of the light adjustment layer (116).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the light adjustment layer with a different refractive index structure as taught by Shimoyama into Heo.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Shimoyama in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result to [0004] – “provide a technique of suppressing light leakage between adjacent light emitting elements in a display device.”
To do so would have merely been to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955), MPEP 2144.04. VI. A.
Heo and Shimoyama do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 1.
However, in an analogous art, An teaches
a second isolation portion (132 – Fig. 3 – [0050] – “The isolation structure 130 includes a first isolation layer 132 and a second isolation layer 134 stacked in sequence with each other”) disposed between the pixel defining layer (120 – Fig. 3 – [0050] – “pixel-defining layer 120”) and the first isolation portion (134 – Fig. 3 – [0050] – “The isolation structure 130 includes a first isolation layer 132 and a second isolation layer 134 stacked in sequence with each other”); and a refractive index of the second isolation portion (132) being different from the refractive index of the light adjustment layer and the refractive index of the first isolation portion (134), wherein the first isolation portion (134) is in contact with the second isolation portion (132 – Fig. 3 shows this).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the second isolation portion structure as taught by An into Heo and Shimoyama.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of An in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of [0006] – “The diffraction fringes with different positions can offset with each other, thereby effectively weakening the diffraction effect and preventing unpleasant results caused by the diffraction. When a camera is disposed under the display panel, images captured by the camera can have a high resolution.”
Regarding claim 2, Heo, as modified by Shimoyama and An, teaches claim 1 from which claim 2 depends. Heo further teaches
(Previously presented) The display substrate according to claim 1,
wherein a region occupied by a cross-sectional figure of the first isolation portion (160a) is in a shape of an inverted trapezoid ([0034] – “first spacer structure 160a, 160b and 160a having an inverse tapered shape” – these are inverted trapezoid shapes); and
a cross-section of the cross-sectional figure is a plane (301) and perpendicular to a plane where the display substrate (100 – Fig. 2 – [0034] – “substrate 100”) is located ({[0015] – “FIG. 2 is a cross-sectional view taken along line I-I′ of FIG. 1 according to the first embodiment of the present disclosure”}, {[0016] – “FIG. 3 is a cross-sectional view taken along line II-II′ of FIG. 1 according to the first embodiment of the present disclosure;” – this describes the above limitation as Fig. 1 and Fig. 3 are perpendicular to each other and both show the inverted trapezoid shape).
Regarding claim 4, Heo, as modified by Shimoyama and An, teaches claim 2 from which claim 4 depends. Heo further teaches
(Currently Amended) The display substrate according to claim 2,
wherein at least two first isolation portions (160a) are provided around [[an]] the opening (301 – Fig. 2 annotated shows this), and the at least two first isolation portions (160a) have a gap (Fig. 1 annotated, see below – hereinafter ’Gap’) therebetween.
PNG
media_image3.png
629
812
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Heo, as modified by Shimoyama and An, teaches claim 4 from which claim 5 depends. Heo further teaches
(Previously presented) The display substrate according to claim 4,
wherein each first isolation portion (160a and 160b) in the at least two first isolation portions (160a and 160b) separates first light-emitting layers (122a and 122b) and cathodes (110a and 110b) of at least two light emitting devices (40) adjacent to the first isolation portion (160a – Fig. 3 shows this).
Regarding claim 7, Heo, as modified by Shimoyama and An, teaches claim 1 from which claim 7 depends. Heo further teaches
(Previously presented) The display substrate according to claim 1,
wherein the first isolation portion (160 – Fig. 4 – [0035] – “spacer structure 160: 160a, 160b and 160a” – in this instance 160 represent the isolation portion) includes at least two first isolation sub-portions (160a and 160b – Fig. 4 – [0035] – “spacer structure 160: 160a, 160b and 160a” – in this instance 160 represent the isolation portion and 160a, 160b, and 160a represent sub-portions); and
in the two adjacent openings (301 – Fig. 4 annotated, see below), in a direction from an opening to another opening, the at least two first isolation sub-portions (160a and 160b) are sequentially arranged at intervals (Fig. 4 shows this).
PNG
media_image4.png
459
793
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Heo, as modified by Shimoyama and An, teaches claim 7 from which claim 8 depends. Heo further teaches
(Original) The display substrate according to claim 7, wherein the
two adjacent openings (301 – Fig. 1 annotated, see below) include a first opening (G – Fig. 1 – [0034] – “each of the first to third subpixels SP1, SP2 and SP3 including an emission part B, R or G” – this corresponds to an opening in the pixel defining layer) and a second opening (B – Fig. 1 – [0034] – “each of the first to third subpixels SP1, SP2 and SP3 including an emission part B, R or G” – this corresponds to an opening in the pixel defining layer);
in the at least two first isolation sub-portions (160b and 160a – Fig. 1), a first isolation sub-portion (160a) closest to the first opening (G) surrounds a portion of the first opening (G), and another first isolation sub-portion (160b) closest to the second opening (B) surrounds a portion of the second opening (B – Fig. 1 shows this).
PNG
media_image3.png
629
812
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Heo, as modified by Shimoyama and An, teaches claim 1 from which claim 9 depends. Heo further teaches
the first isolation portion (160a).
Heo and An do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 9.
However, in an analogous art, Shimoyama teaches
(Previously presented) The display substrate according to claim 1, wherein the refractive index of the first isolation portion is less than the refractive index of the light adjustment layer (116 – Fig. 5 – [0049] – “[0049] – “the isolating portions 120 are made of a material having a refractive index lower than that of the protection layer 116”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the light adjustment layer with a different refractive index structure as taught by Shimoyama into Heo.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Shimoyama in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Heo, as modified by Shimoyama and An, teaches claim 1 from which claim 11 depends. Heo and Shimoyama do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 11.
However, in an analogous art, An teaches
(Currently amended) The display substrate according to claim [[10]] 1,
wherein a region occupied by a cross-sectional figure of the second isolation portion (132) is in a shape of an upright trapezoid ([0052] – “isolation layer 132 has a trapezoidal cross section” – Fig. 3 shows this); and
a cross-section (9 [0050] – “FIG. 3 is a schematic cross-sectional view of a display panel”) is a plane (Fig. 3 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘OP’) and perpendicular to a plane where the display substrate (110 – Fig. 3 – [0050] – “substrate 110”) is located.
PNG
media_image5.png
368
888
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 claimed invention, to integrate the second isolation portion structure as taught by An into Heo and Shimoyama.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of An in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of as stated above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Heo, as modified by Shimoyama and An, teaches claim 1 from which claim 13 depends. Heo does not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 13.
However, in an analogous art, Shimoyama teaches
(Currently amended) The display substrate according to claim [[10]] 1,
wherein the refractive index of the first isolation portion is greater than the refractive index of the light adjustment layer (116), and the refractive index of the light adjustment layer (116) is greater than the refractive index of the second isolation portion.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the light adjustment layer with a different refractive index structure as taught by Shimoyama into Heo.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Shimoyama in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result to [0004] – “provide a technique of suppressing light leakage between adjacent light emitting elements in a display device.”
To do so would have merely been to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955), MPEP 2144.04. VI. A.
Heo and Shimoyama do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 1.
However, in an analogous art, An teaches
the first isolation portion (134),
the second isolation portion (132).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the first and second isolation portion structure as taught by An into Heo and Shimoyama.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of An in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of as stated above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Heo, as modified by Shimoyama and An, teaches claim 1 from which claim 14 depends. Heo further teaches
(Currently amended) The display substrate according to claim [[10]]
1, wherein the second isolation portion (132) includes at least two second isolation sub-portions (Fig. 2 shows two isolation structures 160a and 160b between subpixels R and B); and
in the two adjacent openings (Fig. 2 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘OP’), in a direction from an opening to another opening, the at least two second isolation sub-portions (160a and 160b) are sequentially arranged at intervals (Fig. 2 shows this).
PNG
media_image1.png
377
809
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Heo and Shimoyama do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 14.
However, in an analogous art, An teaches
the second isolation portion (132).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the second isolation portion structure as taught by An into Heo and Shimoyama.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of An in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of as stated above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, Heo, as modified by Shimoyama and An, teaches claim 1 from which claim 15 depends. Heo and Shimoyama do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 15.
However, in an analogous art, An teaches
(Currently amended) The display substrate according to claim [[10]] 1,
wherein an orthographic projection of the second isolation portion (132) on a plane where the display substrate (110) is located at least partially overlaps with an orthographic projection of the first isolation portion (134) on the plane where the display substrate (110 – Fig. 3 shows this) is located.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the second isolation portion structure as taught by An into Heo and Shimoyama.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of An in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of as stated above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, Heo, as modified by Shimoyama and An, teaches claim 1 from which claim 19 depends. Heo further teaches
(Previously presented) A display device ([Title] – “Light Emitting
Display Device”), comprising the display substrate (100 – Fig. 2 – [0034] – “substrate 100”) according to claim 1.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heo in view of Shimoyama, An, and Cho et al. (US 20210036073 A1 – hereinafter Cho).
Regarding claim 3, Heo, as modified by Shimoyama and An, teaches claim 2 from which claim 3 depends. Heo further teaches
(Original) The display substrate according to claim 2, wherein
the inverted trapezoid includes a first leg (Fig. 3 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘50A’) and a second leg (Fig. 3 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘50B’);
the first leg (50A) is disposed proximate to an opening (301) in the two
adjacent openings (301); an included angle between the first leg (50A) and the plane where the display substrate (100) is located is α (Fig. 3 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘α’) and a second leg (Fig. 3 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘50B’), and α is greater than 90° and less than or equal to 140° (90°< α ≤ 140°); and
the second leg (50B) is disposed proximate to another opening (301) in the two adjacent openings (301); an included angle between the second leg (50B) and the plane where the display substrate (100) is located is β (Fig. 3 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘β’), and β is greater than 90° and less than or equal to 140° (90° < β ≤ 140°).
PNG
media_image2.png
383
835
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Heo, Shimoyama, and An do not expressly disclose that
α is greater than 90° and less than or equal to 140° (90°< α ≤ 140°),
β is greater than 90° and less than or equal to 140° (90° < β ≤ 140°).
However, in an analogous art, Shimoyama teaches
α is greater than 90° and less than or equal to 140° (90°< α ≤ 140°) (θ1 – Fig. 3 – [0081] – “tapered angle θ1 may be in a range from about 110° to about 130°, but the present disclosure is not limited thereto”),
β is greater than 90° and less than or equal to 140° (90° < β ≤ 140°) (Fig. 3 shows the angles closes to the bottom or the trapezoid are equal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the angles of the protective structure as taught by Cho into Heo, Shimoyama, and An.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Cho in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of forming a inverted trapezoid.
To do so would have merely been to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143 I. D.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heo in view of Shimoyama, An, and Kim et al (US 20130175512 A1 – hereinafter Kim-512).
Regarding claim 6, Heo, as modified by Shimoyama and An, teaches claim 1 from which claim 6 depends. Heo further teaches
(Currently Amended) The display substrate according to
claim 1, wherein the light emitting device further includes a charge generation layer and a second light-emitting layer that are disposed between the first light-emitting layer and the cathode and are sequentially stacked; and
the first isolation portion (160c) further separates charge generation layers (404) of the light emitting devices (40) located in the two adjacent openings (Fig. 3 shows this).
Heo, Shimoyama, and An do not expressly disclose that
the light emitting device further includes a charge generation layer and a second light-emitting layer that are disposed between the first light-emitting layer and the cathode and are sequentially stacked.
However, in an analogous art, Kim-512 teaches
the light emitting device ([0016] – “present invention is directed to an organic light emitting display device”) further includes a charge generation layer (183 – fig. 4 – [0067] – “charge generation layer (CGL) 183”) and a second light-emitting layer (185 – Fig. 4 – [0070] – “”stack 185 includes an EIL, an ETL, a second EML, an HTL, and an HIL, which may be stacked in a multilayer”) that are disposed between the first light-emitting layer (181 – Fig. 4 – [0069] – “first stack 181 includes an electron injection layer (EIL), an electron transport layer (ETL), a first emission layer (EML), a hole transport layer (HTL), and a hole injection layer (HIL)”) and the cathode (190 – Fig. 4 – [0054] – “second electrode 190”) and are sequentially stacked (Fig. 4 shows this).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the light emitting device structure as taught by Kim-512 into Heo, Shimoyama, and An.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Kim-512 in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of [0017] – “present invention is directed to an organic light emitting display device with an improved color reproduction rate.”
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heo in view of Shimoyama, An, and Teng et al. (US 20170047385 A1 – hereinafter Teng).
Regarding claim 12, Heo, as modified by Shimoyama and An, teaches claim 11 from which claim 12 depends. Heo and Shimoyama do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 12.
However, in an analogous art, An teaches
(Original) The display substrate according to claim 11, wherein the upright
trapezoid includes a third leg (Fig. 3 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘3L’) and a fourth leg (Fig. 3 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘4L’);
the third leg (3L) is disposed proximate to an opening (OP) in the two adjacent openings (OP); an included angle between the third leg (3L) and the plane where the display substrate (110) is located is α' (Fig. 3 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘α’'”), and α' is greater than or equal to 40° and less than 90° (40° ≤ α' < 90°);
the fourth leg (4L) is disposed proximate to another opening (OP) in the two
adjacent openings (OP); an included angle between the fourth leg and the plane where the display substrate is located is β' (Fig. 3 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘β''”), and β' is greater than or equal to 40° and less than 90° (40° ≤ β' < 90°).
PNG
media_image5.png
368
888
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 claimed invention, to integrate the leg and angle structure of the second isolation portion as taught by An into Heo and Shimoyama.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of An in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated in claim 1.
Heo, Shimoyama, and An do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 12.
However, in an analogous art, Teng teaches
α' is greater than or equal to 40° and less than 90° (40° ≤ α' < 90°) (Fig. 3F – [0046] – “an angle θ1 between the first sidewall 141a and the first bottom side 141b of 40° to 90°. Thus, the shape of the convex part 141 is an upright trapezoid at a cross-sectional line”),
β' is greater than or equal to 40° and less than 90° (40° ≤ β' < 90°) (Fig. 3F – [0046] – “an angle θ1 between the first sidewall 141a and the first bottom side 141b of 40° to 90°. Thus, the shape of the convex part 141 is an upright trapezoid at a cross-sectional line”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the angles of the protective structure as taught by Teng into Heo, Shimoyama, and An.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Teng in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of forming an upright trapezoid.
To do so would have merely been to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143 I. D.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heo in view of Shimoyama, An, and Yamauchi (US 20040160165 A1 – hereinafter Yamauchi).
Regarding claim 16, Heo, as modified by Shimoyama and An, teaches claim 1 from which claim 16 depends. Heo and Shimoyama do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 16.
However, in an analogous art, An teaches
(Currently amended) The display substrate according to claim [[10]] 1,
wherein the second isolation portion (132) and the first isolation portion (134) are symmetrically arranged with respect to an interface between the second isolation portion (132) and the first isolation portion (134).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the first and second isolation structure of the second isolation portion as taught by An into Heo and Shimoyama.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of An in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated in claim 1.
Heo, Shimoyama, and An do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 16.
However, in an analogous art, Yamauchi teaches
symmetrically (Fig. 8 shows symmetric arrangement between the isolation structure 30 and the bank 13) arranged with respect to an interface.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the symmetrical structure as taught by Yamauchi into Heo, Shimoyama, and An.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Yamauchi in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result to [0034] – “improve further the efficiency of the light emitted from the light-emitting element, thereby enabling to output light having high brightness. Therefore, a display panel in which a plurality of self-emitting elements (display objects) are arranged two dimensionally in a matrix form can provide sharp images having high brightness. Moreover, a display apparatus that includes the display panel according to the present invention and the drive unit that displays images by driving the light-emitting element of the display panel makes it possible to display even brighter image at low electric power.”
It is understood that Yamauchi does not have a distinction between the second isolation portion and the pixel defining layer but that the two are integrated into one structure similar to applicant’s claim 17. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the second isolation portion structure into the pixel defining layer. Doing so would result in ease of manufacturing and decrease in cost due to forming on structure.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heo in view of Shimoyama, An, and Zhu et al. (WO2020181861A1 – hereinafter Zhu).
Regarding claim 17, Heo, as modified by Shimoyama and An, teaches claim 10 from which claim 17 depends. Heo, Shimoyama, and An do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 17.
However, in an analogous art, Zhu teaches
(Currently Amended) The display substrate according to claim 10
(101 – Fig. 4 – 0040] – “pixel defining layer 101 and a controllable deformation layer 102”) and the pixel defining layer (101 – Fig. 4 – [0040] – “pixel defining layer 101 and a controllable deformation layer 102” – the second isolation structure and the pixel defining layer are the same integrated structure) have an integrated structure (Fig. 4 shows this) .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the second isolation portion and the pixel defining layer structure as taught by Zhu into Heo, Shimoyama, and An.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Zhu in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of easing manufacturing and lower costs by forming one structure vice separate ones.
To do so would have merely been to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143 I. D.
Regarding claim 18, Heo, as modified by Shimoyama and An, teaches claim 10 from which claim 18 depends. Heo, Shimoyama, and An do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 18.
However, in an analogous art, Zhu teaches
(Currently Amended) The display substrate according to claim 10
(101 – [0063] – “the material of the pixel defining layer 101 includes an organic insulating material, such as polyimide (PI)”) includes an organic material, and/or a material of the second isolation portion (102 – [0049] – “material of the controllable deformable layer 102 includes azobenzene” – this is the second isolation structure, azobenzene is organic material) includes an organic material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the organic material structure as taught by Zhu into Heo, Shimoyama, and An.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Zhu in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result [0021] – “the material of the controllable deformable layer is a photodeformable material, the first control is a first light; controlling the controllable deformable layer so that the lateral extension of the controllable deformable layer is withdrawn includes: removing the first light, or applying a second light with a wavelength range different from that of the first light to the controllable deformable layer; controlling the size of the lateral extension of the controllable deformable layer by changing at least one of the duration and intensity of the first control includes: controlling the size of the lateral extension of the controllable deformable layer by changing the irradiation time, light intensity, or irradiation time and light intensity of the first light.”
Pertinent Art
For the benefits of the Applicant, US 20230284513 A1, US 20140183501 A1, and CN109742117A are cited on the record as being pertinent to significant disclosure through some but not all claimed features of the defined invention. These references fail to disclose the combination of limitations including first and second isolation portion structures.
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 GARY ABEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-0246. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm (Eastern).
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 M DICKE can be reached at (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 ttps://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.
/GRA/
Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/CHAD M DICKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897