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 .
Request for Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/27/2025 has been entered.
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s remarks/amendments of claims 1-4, 6-10, 14-18 and 21-22 in the reply filed on June 27th, 2025 are acknowledged. Claims 1 and 16 have been amended. Claims 5 and 19-20 have been cancelled. Claims 11-13 have been withdrawn. Claim 14 is belong to a non-elected specie (Fig. 7) is also withdrawn by examiner. Claims 1-4, 6-13, 15-18 and 21-22 are pending.
Action on merits of claims 1-4, 6-13, 15-18 and 21-22 as follows.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 7-10, 15-16, 18, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant Admitted Prior Art (hereinafter as AAPA) in view of Kim (US 2014/0361260, hereinafter Kim ‘260) and further in view of Choi (US 2018/0151825, hereinafter as Choi ‘825).
Regarding Claim 1, AAPA teaches a display substrate, comprising
a base substrate (Fig. 1, (not shown); [0032]), a pixel definition layer (1’; [0032]) located on the base substrate, a first subpixel and a second subpixel that are adjacent to each other and defined by the pixel definition layer (see Fig. 1), wherein the pixel definition layer (1’; [0032]) comprises a plurality of openings, the plurality of openings comprises a first opening and a second opening, the first subpixel is located at a position corresponding to the first opening and the second subpixel is located at a position corresponding to the second opening, the first subpixel comprises a first hole transport layer (3’), the second subpixel comprises a second hole transport layer (5’), the first hole transport layer and the second hole transport layer are arranged on a side of the pixel definition layer away from the base substrate.
Thus, AAPA is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “a spacer function layer for blocking hole transport between adjacent subpixels; the spacer function layer is arranged between the first hole transport layer and the second hole transport layer and is at least arranged between the first opening and the second opening, the first hole transport layer and the second hole transport layer are not connected in a position arranged with the spacer function layer, a material of the spacer function layer is different from that of the first hole transport layer and the second hole transport layer; wherein the spacer function layer does not cover the light emitting area of subpixel”.
However, Kim ‘260 teaches a spacer function layer (Fig. 4, (40); [0060]) for blocking hole transport between adjacent subpixels (preventing a leakage current; see para. [0060]), the spacer function layer (40) is arranged between the first hole transport layer (34R; [0057]) and the second hole transport layer (34G; [0057]) and is at least arranged between the first opening and the second opening (see Fig. 4), the first hole transport layer (34R) and the second hole transport layer (34G) are not connected in a position arranged with the spacer function layer (40), a material of the spacer function layer (40; [0094]) is different from that of the first hole transport layer and the second hole transport layer (see para. [0085]); wherein the spacer function layer (40) does not cover the light emitting area of subpixel (see Fig. 4).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify AAPA by having a spacer function layer in order to prevent a leakage current between adjacent pixels (see para. [0060]) as suggested by Kim ‘260.
Thus, AAPA and Kim ‘260 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “the spacer function layer extends to a pixel area of one of the first subpixel and the second subpixel, and completely covers a light emitting area of this subpixel”.
Choi ‘825 teaches the spacer function layer (Fig. 4, (170); [0067]) extends to a pixel area of one of the first subpixel and the second subpixel (R, B; [0064]) and completely covers a light emitting area of this subpixel (B, see Fig. 4). Examiner considers the second common layer (170) is the spacer function layer.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify AAPA and Kim ‘260 by having the spacer function layer extends to a pixel area of one of the first subpixel and the second subpixel, and completely covers a light emitting area of this subpixel in order to preventing leakage current causing light emission from flowing toward the adjacent sub-pixel (see para. [0074]-[0075]) for improving color purity (see para. [0101]) as suggested by Choi ‘825.
Amended claims 1 contains functional limitation “for blocking hole transport between adjacent subpixels” (emphasis added). According to MPEP 2173(05) g. "the use of functional language in a claim may fail “to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim” and thus be indefinite. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971). For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2008)”. In the instant case, “for blocking hole transport between adjacent subpixels” is nothing else than the result achieved by the invention.
Regarding Claim 16, AAPA teaches a method for preparing a display substrate, comprising:
forming an anode layer (2’; [0032]) and a pixel definition layer (1’; [0032]) on a base substrate (Fig. 1, (not shown); [0032]), wherein the pixel definition layer (see Fig. 1) defines a first subpixel area and a second subpixel area that are adjacent to each other, the pixel definition layer comprises a plurality of openings, the plurality of openings comprises a first opening and a second opening, the first subpixel area is located at a position corresponding to the first opening and the second subpixel area is located at a position corresponding to the second opening; sequentially forming a first hole transport layer (3’) and a first light emitting layer (4’) of the first subpixel on the anode layer in the first subpixel area; and forming a second hole transport layer and a second light emitting layer of the second subpixel on the anode layer in the second subpixel area.
Thus, AAPA is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “forming a spacer function layer for blocking hole transport between adjacent subpixels; wherein the spacer function layer is arranged between the first hole transport layer and the second hole transport layer and is at least arranged between the first opening and the second opening, the spacer function layer at least covers an edge area of the first hole transport layer of the first subpixel proximate to the second subpixel, so that the first hole transport layer and the second hole transport layer are not connected in a position arranged with the spacer function layer, a material of the spacer function layer is different from that of the first hole transport layer and the second hole transport layer; wherein the spacer function layer does not cover the light emitting area of subpixel”.
However, Kim ‘260 teaches forming a spacer function layer (Fig. 4, (40); [0060]) for blocking hole transport between adjacent subpixels (preventing a leakage current; see para. [0060]), the spacer function layer (40) is arranged between the first hole transport layer (34R; [0057]) and the second hole transport layer (34G; [0057]) and is at least arranged between the first opening and the second opening (see Fig. 4), the first hole transport layer (34R) and the second hole transport layer (34G) are not connected in a position arranged with the spacer function layer (40), a material of the spacer function layer (40; [0094]) is different from that of the first hole transport layer and the second hole transport layer (see para. [0085]); wherein the spacer function layer (40) does not cover the light emitting area of subpixel (see Fig. 4).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify AAPA by having a spacer function layer in order to prevent a leakage current between adjacent pixels (see para. [0060]) as suggested by Kim ‘260.
Thus, AAPA and Kim ‘260 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “the spacer function layer extends to a pixel area of one of the first subpixel and the second subpixel, and completely covers a light emitting area of this subpixel”.
Choi ‘825 teaches the spacer function layer (Fig. 4, (170); [0067]) extends to a pixel area of one of the first subpixel and the second subpixel (R, B; [0064]) and completely covers a light emitting area of this subpixel (B, see Fig. 4). Examiner considers the second common layer (170) is the spacer function layer.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify AAPA and Kim ‘260 by having the spacer function layer extends to a pixel area of one of the first subpixel and the second subpixel, and completely covers a light emitting area of this subpixel in order to preventing leakage current causing light emission from flowing toward the adjacent sub-pixel (see para. [0074]-[0075]) for improving color purity (see para. [0101]) as suggested by Choi ‘825.
Amended claims 1 contains functional limitation “for blocking hole transport between adjacent subpixels” (emphasis added). According to MPEP 2173(05) g. "the use of functional language in a claim may fail “to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim” and thus be indefinite. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971). For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2008)”. In the instant case, “for blocking hole transport between adjacent subpixels” is nothing else than the result achieved by the invention.
PNG
media_image1.png
407
554
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 (Kim ‘260)
Regarding Claims 4 and 18, Kim ‘260 teaches in a section perpendicular to the base substrate, the spacer function layer (40) arranged between the first opening and the second opening comprises side surfaces between the upper surface and the lower surface, the side surfaces comprises a first side surface proximate to the first subpixel and a second side surface proximate to the second subpixel, the first side surface is in direct contact with the first hole transport layer (34R) and the second side surface is in direct contact with the second hole transport layer (34G) (see Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 7, AAPA, Kim ‘260 and Choi ‘825 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “a thickness of the spacer function layer arranged between the first opening and second opening in a direction perpendicular to the base substrate is larger than a thickness of the first hole transport layer in the direction perpendicular to the base substrate”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to have a thickness of the spacer function layer arranged between the first opening and second opening in a direction perpendicular to the base substrate is larger than a thickness of the first hole transport layer in the direction perpendicular to the base substrate on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. 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), the Federal Circuit held 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.
PNG
media_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have a thickness of the spacer function layer arranged between the first opening and second opening in a direction perpendicular to the base substrate is larger than a thickness of the first hole transport layer in the direction perpendicular to the base substrate in order to improve the performance of the display device.
Regarding Claim 8, Kim ‘260 teaches a color emitted by the first subpixel (Red) is different from a color emitted by the second subpixel (Green) (see Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 9, AAPA teaches in a section perpendicular to the base substrate, a size of the first opening is different from a size of the second opening (see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 10, Kim ‘260 teaches a first light emitting layer (35; [0055]), the spacer function layer (40) is in direct contact with the first hole transport layer (34R) and the second hole transport layer (34G).
Choi ‘825 teaches the spacer function layer (170) is in direct contact with the first light emitting layer (181; [0064]) (see Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 15, AAPA, Kim ‘2605 and Choi ‘825 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “the spacer function layer is made of a material having a decomposition temperature not less than 350°C, a hole mobility in a range from 10-5 to 10-3 cm2 v-1s-1, and an electron mobility less than 10-9 cm2 v-1 s-1; the spacer function layer is made of at least one material selected from N,N'-Bis-(1-naphthalenyl)-N,N'-bis- phenyl-(1, I'-biphenyl)-4,4'-diamine (NPB), 2,2',7,7'-tetrakis(diphenylamino)-9,9'- spirobifluorene (spiro-TAD) and 2-(4-biphenylyl)-5-(4-tert-butylphenyl)-1,3,4- oxadiazole (PBD).
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to have the spacer function layer is made of a material having a decomposition temperature not less than 350°C, a hole mobility in a range from 10-5 to 10-3 cm2 v-1s-1, and an electron mobility less than 10-9 cm2 v-1 s-1; the spacer function layer is made of at least one material selected from N,N'-Bis-(1-naphthalenyl)-N,N'-bis- phenyl-(1, I'-biphenyl)-4,4'-diamine (NPB), 2,2',7,7'-tetrakis(diphenylamino)-9,9'- spirobifluorene (spiro-TAD) and 2-(4-biphenylyl)-5-(4-tert-butylphenyl)-1,3,4- oxadiazole (PBD) on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have the spacer function layer is made of a material having a decomposition temperature not less than 350°C, a hole mobility in a range from 10-5 to 10-3 cm2 v-1s-1, and an electron mobility less than 10-9 cm2 v-1 s-1 ; the spacer function layer is made of at least one material selected from N,N'-Bis-(1-naphthalenyl)-N,N'-bis- phenyl-(1, I'-biphenyl)-4,4'-diamine (NPB), 2,2',7,7'-tetrakis(diphenylamino)-9,9'- spirobifluorene (spiro-TAD) and 2-(4-biphenylyl)-5-(4-tert-butylphenyl)-1,3,4- oxadiazole (PBD) in order to improve the performance of the display device.
Claims 2-3, 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA, Kim ‘260 and Choi ‘825 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (US 2013/0248867, hereinafter Kim ‘867).
Regarding Claim 2, Cho ‘035 teaches the spacer function layer (“A”) comprises an upper surface away from the base substrate and a lower surface proximate to the base substrate.
Thus, AAPA, Kim ‘260 and Choi ‘825 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “an area of an orthogonal projection of the upper surface on the base substrate is larger than an area of an orthogonal projection of the lower surface on the base substrate”.
Kim ‘867 teaches an area of an orthogonal projection of the upper surface on the base substrate is larger than an area of an orthogonal projection of the lower surface on the base substrate (Fig. 3F; [0087]). Examiner considers the claim unit (121) is the spacer function layer.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify AAPA, Kim ‘260 and Choi ‘825 by having an area of an orthogonal projection of the upper surface on the base substrate is larger than an area of an orthogonal projection of the lower surface on the base substrate in order to improve reliability of the display apparatus (see para. [0150]) as suggested by Kim ‘867.
Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to have an area of an orthogonal projection of the upper surface on the base substrate is larger than an area of an orthogonal projection of the lower surface on the base substrate on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
PNG
media_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Kim ‘867 teaches the orthogonal projection of the lower surface of the spacer function layer on the base substrate is located inside the orthogonal projection of the upper surface of the spacer function layer on the base substrate (see Fig. 3F).
Regarding Claim 6, AAPA teaches an orthogonal projection of the hole transport part on the base substrate partially overlaps with an orthogonal projection of the first hole transport layer on the base substrate (see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 17, Kim ‘260 teaches the spacer function layer (40) comprises an upper surface away from the base substrate and a lower surface proximate to the base substrate.
Kim ‘867 teaches an area of an orthogonal projection of the upper surface on the base substrate is larger than an area of an orthogonal projection of the lower surface on the base substrate (Fig. 3F; [0087]). Examiner considers the claim unit (121) is the spacer function layer;
and the orthogonal projection of the lower surface on the base substrate is located inside the orthogonal projection of the upper surface on the base substrate (see Fig. 3F).
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA, Kim ‘260 and Choi ‘825 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cho (US 2016/0380035, hereinafter Cho ‘035).
Regarding Claim 21, AAPA, Kim ‘260 and Choi ‘825 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “a hole transport part arranged on a side of the spacer function layer away from the base substrate and arranged between the first opening and the second opening, wherein a material of the hole transport part is the same with that of the second hole transport layer, and wherein the upper surface of the spacer function layer away from the base substrate is in direct contact with the hole transport part, and the hole transport part is separated with the first hole transport layer”.
Cho ‘035 teaches a hole transport part (143; [0055]) arranged on a side of the spacer function layer (A) away from the base substrate and arranged between the first opening and the second opening, wherein a material of the hole transport part is the same with that of the second hole transport layer, and wherein the upper surface of the spacer function layer away from the base substrate is in direct contact with the hole transport part, and the hole transport part is separated with the first hole transport layer (152). It would obviously appear that the material of the hole transporting layer (143; [0055]) and the material of the common hole transporting layer (142; [0055]) is the same.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify AAPA, Kim ‘260 and Choi ‘825 by having a hole transport part arranged on a side of the spacer function layer away from the base substrate and arranged between the first opening and the second opening, wherein a material of the hole transport part is the same with that of the second hole transport layer, and wherein the upper surface of the spacer function layer away from the base substrate is in direct contact with the hole transport part, and the hole transport part is separated with the first hole transport layer in order to reduce a leakage current to an undesired area (see para. [0063]) as suggested by Cho ‘035
Regarding Claim 22, Cho ‘035 teaches forming a hole transport part (143) on a side of the spacer function layer (A) away from the base substrate and between the first opening and the second opening, wherein a material of the hole transport part (143) is the same with that of the second hole transport layer (142), and the upper surface of the spacer function layer away from the base substrate is in direct contact with the hole transport part, and the hole transport part is separated with the first hole transport layer (152).
AAPA teaches an orthogonal projection of the hole transport part on the base substrate partially overlaps with an orthogonal projection of the first hole transport layer on the base substrate (see Fig. 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to semiconductor devices:
Xu (US 2020/0395422 A1)
Lee et al. (US 2018/0151631 A1)
Kimura et al. (US 2017/0117337 A1)
Sato (US 2016/0155785 A1)
Ichikawa (US 2015/0144906 A1)
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DZUNG T TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-3911. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sue Purvis can be reached on (571) 272-1236. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DZUNG TRAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893