DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Remarks filed on 03/11/2026.
Currently, claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Currently, claims 4-8, 10-13, 15 and 18-20 are withdrawn.
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
In the Office Action dated 12/19/2025, claims 9-16 were withdrawn as they were dependent on claims corresponding to non-elected species. Applicant argues that claims 9-16, which were amended to depend on independent claim 1, correspond to the elected species and should be rejoined into the selected claim set. However, claims 10-13 and 15 are drawn to unelected species because Applicant previously elected Species A, corresponding to Fig. 4 (see pg. 9-10 of Applicant’s Remark’s filed 10/11/2025). Therefore, only claims 9, 14, and 16 will be rejoined into the selected claim set.
Response to Amendments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3 and 17 have been considered. Applicant argues that cited prior art Jung et al. (US Pub. No. 2016,0104865, hereinafter “Jung”) does not teach that “a material of the organic encapsulation layer comprises a mixed material of the organic encapsulation material and the dye”. On pg. 13 of Applicant’s Remarks filed 03/11/2026, Applicant cites ¶ [0063] of Jung and argues that Jung’s protection film 175 may contain a mixture of different types of blue due material instead of a mixed material of the organic encapsulation material and the dye. Applicant posits that Jung’s protection film 175 may include two separate sub-layers of a blue dye and organic encapsulation material instead of a mixed layer.
However, ¶ [0099] of Jung, which was previously cited, explicitly states that “the protection film 175 may be formed using a transparent resin containing the above-described blue dye.” Therefore, Jung’s protection film 175 is not two separated sub-layers as posited by Applicant, but rather a single transparent resin layer that contains the blue dye and can be considered to be at least partially mixed. Further, Jung ¶ [0099] teaches that protection film 175 can perform the same color calibration as adhesion layer 170. Jung ¶¶ [0094]-[0098] teaches that adhesion layer 170 performs color calibration by the even distribution of blue dye within a polymer resin. Jung ¶ [0099] teaches that the protection film can include materials such as polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polycarbonate (PC), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), which are all polymer resins. Therefore, it would be obvious that Jung’s protection film 175 is at least partially mixed in a similar manner to Jung’s adhesion film 170 in order to perform the same function of color calibration.
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, 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.
Claims 1-3 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over SEONG (US Pub. No. 2023/0209962) in view of JUNG et al. (US Pub. No. 2016/0104865).
Regarding independent claim 1, Seong teaches a display substrate (Fig. 3A), comprising a first sub-pixel (Fig. 3A, P1, ¶ [0085] teaches P1 implements red light) with emergent light of a first color, a second sub-pixel (Fig. 3A, P2, ¶ [0085] teaches that P2 implements green light) with emergent light of a second color, and a third sub-pixel with emergent light of a third color (Fig. 3A, P3, ¶ [0085] teaches that P3 implements blue light) disposed on a base substrate (Fig. 3A, 100, ¶ [0050]);
the display substrate comprises a plurality of light emitting devices (Fig. 3A, OLED, ¶ [0053]) disposed on the base substrate for emitting light of the third color (¶ [0089] teaches that Seong’s OLEDs can all emit blue light), and a first encapsulation structure layer (Fig. 3A, 400, ¶ [0060]) and a light conversion layer (Fig. 3A, QD1 + QD2 + TW, ¶¶ [0087]-[0088]) which are sequentially stacked on a side of the plurality of light emitting devices away from the base substrate (Fig. 3A), and each sub-pixel comprises one of the light emitting devices; the light conversion layer is configured to emit the light of the first color and the light of the second color after receiving the light of the third color emitted by the plurality of light emitting devices,
the light conversion layer comprises a first quantum dot material (Fig. 3B, 11, ¶ [0121]) and a second quantum dot material (Fig. 3C, 12, ¶ [0121]), the first quantum dot material is configured to emit the light of the first color after receiving the light of the third color emitted by the light emitting devices (¶¶ [0110], [0121], & [0130]), and the second quantum dot material is configured to emit the light of the second color after receiving the light of the third color emitted by the light emitting devices (¶¶ [0110], [0121], & [0130]);
the first encapsulation structure layer comprises a first inorganic encapsulation layer (Fig. 3A, 410, ¶ [0114]), an organic encapsulation layer (Fig. 3A, 420, ¶ [0114]), and a second inorganic encapsulation layer (Fig. 3A, 430, ¶ [0114]) that are sequentially stacked in a direction away from the base substrate;
However, Seong does not explicitly teach that the organic encapsulation layer comprises an organic encapsulation material and a dye (the Examiner notes that Seong teaches that organic encapsulation layer 420 can include an organic encapsulation material (¶ [0115]), but is silent in regards to a dye), a color of the dye is the same as a color of the light of the third color emitted by the light emitting devices, and a peak wavelength of emergent light of the third color after the light of the third color emitted by the light emitting devices passes through the organic encapsulation layer is different from a peak wavelength of the light of the third color emitted by the light emitting devices; wherein a material of the organic encapsulation layer comprises a mixed material of the organic encapsulation material and the dye
However, Jung is a pertinent art that teaches the organic encapsulation layer (Fig. 1, 175, ¶¶ [0063] & [0099]) comprises an organic encapsulation material (Fig. 1, 175, ¶ [0099] teaches that Jung’s protection film can include a same material as Seong’s organic encapsulation layer) and a dye (¶¶ [0063] & [0099] teaches that 175 can include a blue dye), a color of the dye is the same as a color of the light of the third color emitted by the light emitting devices, and a peak wavelength of emergent light of the third color after the light of the third color emitted by the light emitting devices passes through the organic encapsulation layer is different from a peak wavelength of the light of the third color emitted by the light emitting devices (¶ [0063] teaches that the blue dye can absorb light of 460 to 480 nm. Jung’s blue dye is capable of absorbing a peak blue wavelength and would therefore fulfill this limitation);
wherein a material of the organic encapsulation layer (Fig. 1, 175, ¶¶ [0063] & [0099]) comprises a mixed material (¶ [0099] teaches that Jung’s protection film 175 is a single transparent resin layer that contains the blue dye and can be considered to be at least partially mixed. Further, Jung ¶ [0099] teaches that protection film 175 can perform the same color calibration as adhesion layer 170. Jung ¶¶ [0094]-[0098] teaches that adhesion layer 170 performs color calibration by the even distribution of blue dye within a polymer resin. Jung ¶ [0099] teaches that the protection film can include materials such as polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polycarbonate (PC), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), which are all polymer resins. Therefore, it would be obvious that Jung’s protection film 175 is at least partially mixed in a similar manner to Jung’s adhesion film 170 in order to perform the same function of color calibration) of the organic encapsulation material and the dye (¶¶ [0063] & [0099])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Seong’s organic encapsulation layer to include a blue dye according to the teaching of Jung (Fig. 1) in order to perform image color calibration (Jung ¶¶ [0065] & [0099]).
Regarding claim 2, Seong modified by Jung teaches the display substrate according to claim 1, and Seong teaches that the light conversion layer (Fig. 3A, QD1 + QD2 + TW, ¶¶ [0087]-[0088]) has an integral structure; or, the light conversion layer comprises a first quantum dot layer (Fig. 3A, QD1, ¶ [0087]) located in the first sub-pixel (Fig. 3A, P1, ¶ [0085] teaches P1 implements red light), a second quantum dot layer (Fig. 3A, QD2, ¶ [0087]) located in the second sub-pixel (Fig. 3A, P2, ¶ [0085] teaches that P2 implements green light), and a light transmissive layer (Fig. 3A, TW, ¶ [0088]) located in the third sub-pixel (Fig. 3A, P3, ¶ [0085] teaches that P3 implements blue light); the first quantum dot layer is configured to emit the light of the first color after receiving light of the third color emitted by a light emitting device of the first sub-pixel (¶¶ [0110], [0121], & [0130]), the second quantum dot layer is configured to emit light of the second color after receiving light of the third color emitted by a light emitting device of the second sub-pixel (¶¶ [0110], [0121], & [0130]), and the light transmissive layer is configured to emit light of the third color after the light of the third color emitted by a light emitting device of the third sub-pixel passes through the light transmissive layer (¶ [0088]).
Regarding claim 3, Seong modified by Jung teaches the display substrate according to claim 2, and Jeong teaches that a material of the organic encapsulation layer of each sub-pixel is the same (Seong’s organic encapsulation layer modified by Jeong’s protective film would fulfill this limitation).
Regarding claim 16, Seong modified by Jung teaches the display substrate according to claim 1, and Seong teaches a color filter (Fig. 3A, CF1 + CF2 + CF3, ¶ [0117]) disposed on a side of the light conversion layer (Fig. 3A, Seong modified by Jung’s encapsulation layer 400) away from the base substrate (Fig. 3A, 100, ¶ [0050]) and a second encapsulation structure layer (Fig. 3A, 610, ¶ [0116]) disposed between the light conversion layer and the color filter layer, wherein a material of the second encapsulation structure layer is an inorganic material (¶ [0116] teaches that 610 can be an inorganic sealant).
Regarding claim 17, Seong modified by Jung teaches the display substrate according to claim 1, and Seong teaches that the light emitting devices are blue organic light emitting diode devices (¶ [0089] teaches that Seong’s OLEDs can all emit blue light), the light of the third color is blue light (Fig. 3A, P3, ¶ [0085] teaches that P3 implements blue light), the light of the first color is red light (Fig. 3A, P1, ¶ [0085] teaches P1 implements red light), and the light of the second color is green light (Fig. 3A, P2, ¶ [0085] teaches that P2 implements green light).
Claims 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over SEONG (US Pub. No. 2023/0209962) in view of JUNG et al. (US Pub. No. 2016/0104865) and further in view of TAKEI et al. (US Pub. No. 2004/0263039).
Regarding claim 9, Seong modified by Jung teaches the display substrate according to claim 1.
However, Seong modified by Jung does not explicitly teach a prism layer;
wherein the prism layer comprises a plurality of microprisms disposed in parallel; shapes and sizes of cross sections of the plurality of microprisms are the same, or the plurality of microprisms comprise first microprisms and second microprisms which are disposed alternately, and heights of the first microprisms and second microprisms are different.
However, Takei is a pertinent art that teaches that a prism layer (Figs. 1-2, 3, ¶ [0072]);
wherein the prism layer comprises a plurality of microprisms (Fig. 1, 3A, ¶ [0072]) disposed in parallel (Fig. 1); shapes and sizes of cross sections of the plurality of microprisms are the same (Fig. 1, ¶ [0072]), or the plurality of microprisms comprise first microprisms and second microprisms which are disposed alternately, and heights of the first microprisms and second microprisms are different (the Examiner notes that this limitation is drawn to unelected sub species).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Seong modified by Jung’s device to further include an optical sheet with triangular microprisms according to the teaching of Takei (Fig. 1) in order to increase front luminance and improve light extraction ratio (Takei ¶¶ [0075]-[0076]).
Regarding claim 14, Seong modified by Jung modified by Takei teaches The display substrate according to claim 9, and Takei teaches that the shapes and sizes of the cross sections of the plurality of microprisms (Fig. 1, 3A, ¶ [0072]) are the same (Fig. 1, ¶ [0072]), a cross-sectional shape of each of the microprisms is an isosceles triangle (Fig. 1, ¶ [0072]), the isosceles triangle has an apex angle of 60° to 120° (Fig. 2B, α, ¶ [0075] teaches an angle α of 70 degrees).
However, Seong modified by Jung modified by Takei does not explicitly teach a bottom edge length of 20 μm to 30 μm.
However, Takei recognizes that the pitch of their microprisms impacts color mixture between adjacent pixels (¶ [0078]). It would be obvious that the bottom edge length of Takei’s microprisms impact the pitch. Takei further recognizes the need to suppress color mixture (¶ [0013]). Therefore, the bottom edge length of an isosceles triangle microprism is an art recognized variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive within the range of the claim 14 limitations, in order to achieve the desired balance between the impact of the pitch on color mixture and the need to suppress color mixture as taught by Takei. MPEP 2144.05.
Furthermore, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence of the criticality of the claimed range (i.e., the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range).
However, Seong modified by Jung modified by Takei does not explicitly teach a height of 12 μm to 18 μm.
However, Takei recognizes that height of their optical sheet impacts the suppression of color mixture between pixels (¶ [0092]). Takei further recognizes the need to suppress color mixture (¶ [0013]). Therefore, the height of the optical sheet containing triangular microprisms is an art recognized variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive within the range of the claim 14 limitations, in order to achieve the desired balance between the impact of the height on color mixture and the need to suppress color mixture as taught by Takei. MPEP 2144.05.
Furthermore, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence of the criticality of the claimed range (i.e., the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range).
Cited Prior Art
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant.
Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RHYS P. SHEKER whose telephone number is (703)756-1348. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am to 5 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven B Gauthier can be reached on 571-270-0373. 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.
/R.P.S./
Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights