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/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
Claim 15, drawn to the method of manufacturing a display substrate classified under H10K71/00
II. Claims 1-14 and 16-20 drawn to a display substrate classified under H10D86/01.
Although claim 15, has been amended to depend on the product claim 1, the inventions are still distinct each, from the other because of the below reasons, and therefore claims 1-14 and 16-20 are considered as elected from Applicant’s response to election restriction, dated: 1/30/26, by the election of invention II, and claim 15 is withdrawn from consideration.
Inventions I and II are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case the product as claimed can be made by another materially different process, such as; as opposed to irradiating the sacrificial layer, the sacrificial layer can be removed by chemical lift-off or a bi-resist pattern.
Because these inventions are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious burden on the examiner if restriction is not required because the inventions require a different field of search (see MPEP § 808.02), restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species or invention to be examined even though the requirement be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention or species may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions or species are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions or species to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C.103 (a) of the other invention.
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) 1-2,9-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhang (US 20210226096 A1, cited by Applicant)
Regarding claim 1, Zhang teaches display substrate (at least Fig.2,3 and 5), comprising a substrate structure layer; the substrate structure layer comprises a substrate material layer 16, a sacrificial layer 11 and an optical film layer 12 between the substrate material layer 16 and the sacrificial layer which are stacked 11; a reflectivity of the optical film layer is greater than a transmittance of the optical film layer ([0051], [0062] and Fig.6).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang teaches display substrate (at least Fig.2,3 and 5), wherein the optical film layer 12 comprises at least one first dielectric layer 121 and at least one second dielectric layer 122, and a refractive index of the at least one first dielectric layer 1.4-1.6 is less than a refractive index of the at least one second dielectric layer 1.9-2.1; the at least one first dielectric layer and the at least one second dielectric layer are arranged in an overlapped manner along a direction away from the sacrificial layer ([0010]).
Regarding claim 9, Zhang teaches display substrate (at least Fig.2,3 and 5), wherein a material of the sacrificial layer is a photosensitive organic material or a photosensitive photoresist material ([0039]; wherein the material of sacrificial layer 11 is polyimide, and wherein polyimide is well known to be photosensitive; see in science direct: New developments in intrinsic black photosensitive polyimide for advanced display applications - ScienceDirect).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang teaches display substrate (at least Fig.2,3 and 5), wherein a material of the sacrificial layer is the same as a material of the substrate material layer ([0055] : A material of the supplementary substrate 16 is the same as a material of the substrate 11).
Regarding claim 11, Zhang teaches display substrate (at least Fig.2,3 and 5), further comprising a circuit structure layer disposed on a side of the substrate material layer away from the sacrificial layer (13, [0065]).
Regarding claim 12, Zhang teaches display substrate (at least Fig.2,3 and 5), further comprising a light emitting element (14, [0066]) disposed on a side of the circuit structure layer 13 away from the substrate structure layer, and the light emitting element is connected to the circuit structure layer.
Regarding claim 14, Zhang teaches a display device, comprising the display substrate (Abstract).
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.
Claims 3, 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Zhang teaches a film layer in the optical film layer adjacent to the sacrificial layer is a first dielectric layer 121 (Fig.5) (for claim 3) and wherein a film layer in the optical film layer adjacent to the substrate material layer is a second dielectric layer 122, but does not teach:
the optical film layer adjacent to the substrate material layer is also a first dielectric layer (for claim 3) and a film layer in the optical film layer adjacent to the sacrificial layer is a second dielectric layer (for claim 4).
However, Zhang teaches various design choices such as in: [0059],0048], [0061], wherein
[0059] It is noted that when the supplementary substrate 16, the first reflective layer 121, and the second reflective layer 122 are arbitrarily arranged, the limitation is required not to make the films of same material contact each other so as to optimize the laser reflective index;
[0048] In one embodiment, when a first layer in the ultraviolet reflective layer 12 is not specifically limited, the first layer of the ultraviolet reflective layer 12 may be the first reflective layer 121 or the second reflective layer 122.
[0061] When the supplementary substrate 16 is disposed between the first reflective layer 121 and the second reflective layer 121, an ultraviolet reflective layer region including the supplementary substrate 16 is defined as a part 30, and the structure of the part 30 is shown in FIG. 5. Here, the specific position of the supplementary substrate 16 at which layer is not limited and the specific position can be arranged according to actual requirements.
Further even more, Zhang discloses the use of the two refractive index layers 121 and 122 to be:
[0024] Beneficial effects: in the present disclosure, an ultraviolet reflective layer for reflecting excess laser light is disposed between the substrate and the thin film transistor array so as to avoid the problem that the laser damages the structure of the display panel during the rigid substrate stripping process.
As disclosed in Zhang above, Zhang provides various design options in the arrangement of the first and second dielectric layers with respect to the substrate material layer, as long as the first and second films do not contact each other.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the optical film layer adjacent to the substrate material layer as a first dielectric layer or the film layer in the optical film layer adjacent to the sacrificial layer as a second dielectric layer by routine experimentation in order to optimize the reflection.
Regarding claim 8, Zhang teaches a film thickness of the sacrificial layer 11 is 1 nm-100 nm ([0040]) but does not teach 2.0 microns to 5.0 microns. However, the refractive index and thickness are correlated, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a larger thickness as claimed, based on the material and its refractive index, by routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired reflection.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Chen (CN 109496368 A)
Regarding claim 13, Zhang teaches the invention set forth in claim 12 above, but is silent regarding the light emitting element is a micro light emitting diode or a sub-millimeter light emitting diode.
Chen teaches a micro-light-emitting diode (micro-LED) and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a micro-LED in the device of Zhang in order to achieve high brightness, high contrast, fast response and low power consumption (see in Chen: In recent years, proposed and developed miniaturization of an electro-optic device, comprising a micro-light-emitting diode (micro-LED). based on the display panel of the micro-LED with high brightness, high contrast, fast response and low power consumption. micro-LED-based display technology has been widely used in the field of liquid crystal display, comprising an intelligent mobile phone and intelligent watch).
Claims 5,16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Paek (CN 102122649 A)
Regarding claims 5,16 and 17, Zhang teaches the invention set forth in claims 5,16, and 17 above, but is silent regarding the:
at least one first dielectric layer and the at least one second dielectric layer are both made of organic materials.
Paek teaches organic dielectric materials and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the materials as disclosed in Paek, in the device of Zhang in order to achieve easy patterning/manufacturing ([0092]- [0095] of Paek).
Claims 6-7 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of KR (KR 101397108 B1)
Regarding claims 6-7 and 18-20, Zhang teaches the invention set forth in the claims above, but is silent regarding: a refractive index of a film layer in the optical film layer adjacent to the substrate material layer is greater than a refractive index of the substrate material layer (for claims 6,18 and 19) and a refractive index of a film layer in the optical film layer adjacent to the sacrificial layer is greater than a refractive index of the sacrificial layer (for claims 7 and 20).
However, it is a well-known phenomenon towards satisfying a refractive index higher than the upper and/or lower layers, in order to facilitate total reflection. KR provides an example wherein the layers 103 have refractive index that is lower than the first and second dielectric layers.
KR discloses: The multilayer reflective film 104 is formed by alternately laminating the high refractive index layer 104a having the refractive index higher than the refractive index of the sealing portion 103
PNG
media_image1.png
198
424
media_image1.png
Greyscale
KR uses the arrangement for the same purpose, that is: And the multilayer reflective film reflects the laser to protect the organic light emitting portion or the sealing portion and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the refractive index as claimed, in the device of Zhang, in order to facilitate reflection towards protecting the light emitting portions.
Other art
KR 20140036403 A:
PNG
media_image2.png
164
309
media_image2.png
Greyscale
KR 101794828 B1 : A part of the laser beam irradiated to the surface of the base material substrate is reflected by the surface and received by the total reflection. However, a part of the laser beam passing through the base material substrate has a refractive index change at the interface between the base material substrate and the plastic coating film. In the state where the interfaces are completely bonded, the amount of light reflected by the total reflection on the interface becomes large. However, when the interfaces are partially or wholly separated and the bonding force is lowered, the plastic coating film is penetrated through the interface The amount of light to be refracted is increased, so that the amount of reflected light is reduced.
US 20150325752 A1/US 9356198 B2
TW I463717 B:
PNG
media_image3.png
396
454
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fatima Farokhrooz whose telephone number is (571)-272-6043. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday, 9 am - 5 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, James Greece can be reached on (571) 272-3711.
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.
/Fatima N Farokhrooz/
Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights