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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) submitted on January 16, 2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 9, 11 and 16-21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“an orthogonal projection of the reflection sub-layer onto the base substrate” should read “the orthogonal projection of the reflection sub-layer onto the base substrate” (claim 9, lines 6-7; claim 16, lines 6-7; claim 17, lines 6-7; claim 18; lines 6-7; claim 19, lines 6-7; claim 20, lines 6-7; claim 21, lines 6-7);
“that of” should be inserted between “than” and “the” (claim 11, line 2).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 8, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the surface of the auxiliary electrode away from the base substrate" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested Applicant change "the surface of the auxiliary electrode away from the base substrate" in claim 8, lines 1-2 to "a surface of the auxiliary electrode away from the base substrate". For examination purposes, the limitation in question will be interpreted as: a surface of the auxiliary electrode away from the base substrate. Correction is respectfully requested.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the surface of the auxiliary electrode away from the base substrate" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested Applicant change "the surface of the auxiliary electrode away from the base substrate" in claim 14, line 3 to "a surface of the auxiliary electrode away from the base substrate". For examination purposes, the limitation in question will be interpreted as: a surface of the auxiliary electrode away from the base substrate. Correction is respectfully requested.
Claim 15 is rejected because it depends from claim 14 and therefore inherits the indefiniteness of claim 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6-8 and 12-15, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2023/0077299 A1 (hereinafter “Lee”).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a display substrate, comprising a base substrate (SUB; Fig. 11; [0063] and [0126]), a driving circuit layer (TR, Cst, 210; Fig. 11; [0076]) arranged on the base substrate, and a light-emitting unit (ED; Fig. 11; [0062]) arranged at a side of the driving circuit layer away from the base substrate, wherein the driving circuit layer comprises a source/drain metal layer (SD1, SD2, 210; Fig. 11; [0075]), the source/drain metal layer comprises a source electrode (one of SD1 and SD2; Fig. 11; [0073]), a drain electrode (the other of SD1 and SD2; Fig. 11; [0073]) and an auxiliary electrode (210; Fig. 11; [0074]), the light-emitting unit comprises a first electrode structure (PXL; Fig. 11; [0079]-[0080]), a light-emitting layer (EL; Fig. 11; [0084]) and a second electrode structure (COM; Fig. 11; [0085]) laminated one on another in a direction away from the base substrate, the first electrode structure is electrically coupled to the source electrode and the drain electrode (Fig. 11; [0079]), the second electrode structure is electrically coupled to the auxiliary electrode (Figs. 11, 13; [0132] and [0138]), and the display substrate further comprises an auxiliary connection structure (303; Figs. 11, 13; [0129] and [0134]) arranged at a same layer, and made of a same material, as the first electrode structure,
wherein a protection layer (PAS; Fig. 11; [0077]) and a planarization layer (OC; Fig. 11; [0078]) are laminated one on another in a direction away from the base substrate between the driving circuit layer and the light-emitting unit, the display substrate further comprises a protection hole (CA; Figs. 11, 13; [0127] and [0133]) formed in the planarization layer at a side away from the base substrate and penetrating through at least a part of the planarization layer, an orthogonal projection of the auxiliary connection structure onto the base substrate is located within an orthogonal projection of the protection hole onto the base substrate (Fig. 12; [0128]), and a distance between a surface of the auxiliary connection structure away from the base substrate and the base substrate is less than a distance between a surface of the planarization layer away from the base substrate and the base substrate (Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 3, Lee shows a distance between the surface of the auxiliary connection structure away from the base substrate and the surface of the planarization layer away from the base substrate is greater than a half of a thickness of the planarization layer (Fig. 13).
Furthermore, it has been held that the drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979). MPEP 2125(I).
Regarding claim 4, Lee shows in a direction perpendicular to the base substrate, a thickness of the auxiliary connection structure is less than the thickness of the planarization layer (Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 6, Lee shows the distance between the surface of the auxiliary connection structure away from the base substrate and the base substrate is smaller than a distance between the base substrate and a surface of the second electrode structure in a light-emitting region (“a light emitting area”) of the display substrate close to the base substrate (Fig. 11; [0081]).
Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses the protection hole extends through the planarization layer and the protection layer, and an orthogonal projection of the protection hole onto the base substrate covers an orthogonal projection of the auxiliary electrode onto the base substrate (Figs. 12, 13; [0128] and [0133]).
Regarding claim 8, Lee discloses the surface of the auxiliary electrode away from the base substrate is in contact with a surface of the auxiliary connection structure close to the base substrate (Fig. 13; [0136]).
Regarding claim 12, Lee discloses a display device (100; Fig. 1; [0043]), comprising the display substrate according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Lee discloses a method for manufacturing a display substrate, comprising:
providing a base substrate (SUB; Fig. 11; [0063] and [0126]);
forming a driving circuit layer (TR, Cst, 210; Fig. 11; [0076]) on the base substrate, the driving circuit layer comprising a source/drain metal layer (SD1, SD2, 210; Fig. 11; [0075]), and the source/drain metal layer comprising a source electrode (one of SD1 and SD2; Fig. 11; [0073]), a drain electrode (the other of SD1 and SD2; Fig. 11; [0073]) and an auxiliary electrode (210; Fig. 11; [0074]);
forming a protection layer (PAS; Fig. 11; [0077]) and a planarization layer (OC; Fig. 11; [0078]) in sequence on the driving circuit layer;
forming a protection hole (CA; Figs. 11, 13; [0127] and [0133]) in the planarization layer at a side away from the base substrate, the protection hole penetrating through at least part of the planarization layer;
forming a first electrode structure (PXL; Fig. 11; [0079]-[0080]) and an auxiliary connection structure (303; Figs. 11, 13; [0129] and [0134]) through a single patterning process, the first electrode structure being electrically coupled to the source electrode and the drain electrode (Fig. 11; [0079]), an orthogonal projection of the auxiliary connection structure onto the base substrate being located within an orthogonal projection of the protection hole onto the base substrate (Fig. 12; [0128]), and a distance between a surface of the auxiliary connection structure away from the base substrate and the base substrate being less than a distance between a surface of the planarization layer away from the base substrate and the base substrate (Fig. 13); and
forming a light-emitting layer (EL; Fig. 11; [0084]) and a second electrode structure (COM; Fig. 11; [0085]), the first electrode structure, the light-emitting layer and the second electrode structure forming a light-emitting unit (ED; Fig. 11; [0079]), and the second electrode structure being electrically coupled to the auxiliary electrode (Figs. 11, 13; [0132] and [0138]).
Regarding claim 14, Lee discloses the forming the protection hole comprises forming the protection hole penetrating through the protection layer and the planarization layer so as to expose the surface of the auxiliary electrode away from the base substrate (Fig. 13; [0133]).
Regarding claim 15, Lee discloses the forming the first electrode structure and the auxiliary connection structure through a single patterning process comprises forming the auxiliary connection structure in a region corresponding to the protection hole, and the surface of the auxiliary electrode away from the base substrate is in contact with a surface of the auxiliary connection structure close to the base substrate (Fig. 13; [0136]).
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee.
Regarding claim 5, Lee discloses the display substrate according to claim 4.
Lee does not explicitly disclose the planarization layer has a thickness greater than 2100 nm, the auxiliary connection structure has a thickness of 600 nm to 800 nm, and the distance between the surface of the auxiliary connection structure away from the base substrate and the surface of the planarization layer away from the base substrate is greater than 1400 nm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the planarization layer to have a thickness greater than 2100 nm, to form the auxiliary connection structure to have a thickness of 600 nm to 800 nm, and to form the distance between the surface of the auxiliary connection structure away from the base substrate and the surface of the planarization layer away from the base substrate to be greater than 1400 nm in order to provide a light emitting display device capable of forming an undercut shape of a high peel resistance in a cathode contact region, and thus reducing defects occurring in a manufacturing process and improving productivity (Lee: [0010]).
Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Furthermore, it has been held that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1980). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11 and 16-21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not teach or suggest “an orthogonal projection of the second sub-electrode layer onto the base substrate is greater than an orthogonal projection of the reflection sub-layer onto the base substrate” as recited in claims 9 and 16-21. Claims 10 and 11 depend from claim 9 and therefore would be allowable at least by virtue of their dependency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER M ALBRECHT whose telephone number is (571)272-7813. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM (CT).
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, Lynne Gurley can be reached at (571) 272-1670. 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.
/PETER M ALBRECHT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811