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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species 1 of claims 1-7 and 11-20 in the reply filed on Apr. 16th 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that technical features in claim are special technical features. This is not found persuasive because:
Applicant submits " Ito teaches away from features in amended claim 1."
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The limitations in the amendment are not in the claims as originally presented. The restriction of the claims as originally presented is proper, because the technical feature in the originally claims is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Patent US 20050112341 to Ito. In addition, given a broadest reasonable interpretation, Ito teaches all limitations of claims 1. Details of rejections are discussed following.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “3” has been used to designate both region with Cp and region with Co in fig. 12. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-5 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ito et al. (US 20050112341 from IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Ito teaches a display substrate (Abstract), comprising:
a base substrate (fig. 2, substrate 10; para. 0057);
a light emitting element (function element unit 40; para. 0057) disposed on the base substrate (10), the light emitting element (40) comprises a first electrode (pixel electrode 41; para. 0055), a light emitting functional layer (functional layer 45; para. 0055), and a second electrode (counter electrode 46; para. 0055) that are sequentially stacked along a direction (upward direction) away from the base substrate (10);
a pixel definition layer (partition 42; para. 0060) disposed on the base substrate (10), the pixel definition layer (42) is provided with a pixel opening (light emitting region Re; para. 0096), the pixel opening (Re) exposes at least a portion of a surface of the first electrode (a portion of top surface of 41), and at least a portion of the second electrode (46) covers the pixel opening (Re);
wherein the pixel definition layer (42) comprises a first side surface (inner side surface) on a side (inner side) close to the first electrode (41), the first side surface (inner side surface) comprises n stages (at least 2 stage) of first steps (inner steps) that are sequentially arranged along a light emitting direction (vertical direction) of the light emitting functional layer (45), each first step (inner steps) comprises a first step side surface (fig. 4A, inner side surface), a slope angle (angle α of first partition 43; para. 0064) of a first step side surface of a first step of an i-th stage (side surface of 43) is greater than a slope angle (angle β of second partition 44; para. 0064) of a first step side surface of a first step of a j-th stage (side surface of 44), and the first step of the i-th stage (43) is located on a side (bottom side) of the first step of the j-th stage (44) close to the base substrate (10);
where i, j and n are all natural numbers, n (at least 2 stage) is greater than 1, and 0 < i < j≤n; and
wherein the first side surface (inner side surface) comprises a 3 stages of first steps (3 stages inner steps) that are sequentially arranged along the light emitting direction (vertical direction) of the light emitting functional layer (45), a slope angle (fig. 2, 90° of vertical 43 next to 41 and bottom of 41) of a first step side surface of a first step of a first stage (43 next to 41) is greater than a slope angle (angle α of 43) of a first step side surface of a first step of a second stage (side surface of 43), and the slope angle (angle α of 43) of the first step side surface of the first step of the second stage (side surface of 43) is greater than a slope angle (angle β of 44) of a first step side surface of a first step of a third stage (side surface of 44).
If the applicant disagrees that Ito meets the limitation of specific features in amended claim 1, the examiner offers the following alternative rejection:
Regarding claim 1, Ito teaches a display substrate (Abstract), comprising:
a base substrate (fig. 2, substrate 10; para. 0057);
a light emitting element (function element unit 40; para. 0057) disposed on the base substrate (10), the light emitting element (40) comprises a first electrode (pixel electrode 41; para. 0055), a light emitting functional layer (functional layer 45; para. 0055), and a second electrode (counter electrode 46; para. 0055) that are sequentially stacked along a direction (upward direction) away from the base substrate (10);
a pixel definition layer (partition 42; para. 0060) disposed on the base substrate (10), the pixel definition layer (42) is provided with a pixel opening (light emitting region Re; para. 0096), the pixel opening (Re) exposes at least a portion of a surface of the first electrode (a portion of top surface of 41), and at least a portion of the second electrode (46) covers the pixel opening (Re);
wherein the pixel definition layer (42) comprises a first side surface (inner side surface) on a side (inner side) close to the first electrode (41), the first side surface (inner side surface) comprises n stages (2 stage) of first steps (inner steps) that are sequentially arranged along a light emitting direction (vertical direction) of the light emitting functional layer (45), each first step (inner steps) comprises a first step side surface (inner steps side surface), a slope angle (angle α of first partition 43; para. 0064) of a first step side surface of a first step of an i-th stage (side surface of 43) is greater than a slope angle (angle β of second partition 44; para. 0064) of a first step side surface of a first step of a j-th stage (side surface of 44), and the first step of the i-th stage (43) is located on a side (bottom side) of the first step of the j-th stage (44) close to the base substrate (10);
where i, j and n are all natural numbers, n (2 stage) is greater than 1, and 0 < i < j≤n; and
If the applicant disagrees that Ito meets the limitation of features in amended claim 1, Ito fails to explicitly teach the first side surface comprises a 3 stages of first steps that are sequentially arranged along the light emitting direction of the light emitting functional layer, a slope angle of a first step side surface of a first step of a first stage is greater than a slope angle of a first step side surface of a first step of a second stage, and the slope angle of the first step side surface of the first step of the second stage is greater than a slope angle of a first step side surface of a first step of a third stage.
However, in an alternative consideration, Ito teaches the first side surface (fig. 9, in an alternative view, the inner side surface) comprises a 3 stages of first steps (3 stages from inner side steps of third partition 43aa, fourth partition 43ab and second partition 44a; para. 0080, similar to two layers 43 and 44 of fig. 4A) that are sequentially arranged along the light emitting direction (vertical direction) of the light emitting functional layer (45), a slope angle (angle of 43aa) of a first step side surface of a first step of a first stage (inner side surface of step of 43aa) is greater (same trace as fig. 4A instead of 4B) than a slope angle (angle of 43ab) of a first step side surface of a first step of a second stage (inner side surface of step of 43ab), and the slope angle (angle of 43ab) of the first step side surface of the first step of the second stage (inner side surface of 43ab) is greater than (same trace as fig. 4A instead of 4B) a slope angle (angle of 44a) of a first step side surface of a first step of a third stage (inner side surface of 44a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add a layer.
Doing so would realize a two-layered structure with a higher lyophilic property to improve the reliability of the OLED element (para. 0084).
Regarding claim 3, Ito teaches the display substrate according to claim 2 including the first step side surface (fig. 4A, inner side surface).
Ito fails to explicitly teach the slope angle of the first step side surface of the first step of the first stage is 65 degrees to 75 degrees; the slope angle of the first side surface of the first step of the second stage is 50 degrees to 60 degrees; and the slope angle of the first step side surface of the first step of the third stage is 40 degrees to 45 degrees.
However, Ito teaches the slope angle (fig. 9 and 4A, slope angle of 43aa) of the first step side surface of the first step of the first stage is 30° to 70° (inner side surface of step of 43aa as part of 43 and 43 is in the range of 30° and 70°; para. 0074), which overlaps the angle range 65 degrees to 75 degrees; the slope angle (slope angle of 43ab) of the first side surface of the first step of the second stage is 30° to 70° (inner side surface of step of 43ab as part of 43 and 43 is in the range of 30° and 70°; para. 0074), which overlaps the angle range 50 degrees to 60 degrees; and the slope angle (slope angle of 44) of the first step side surface of the first step of the third stage is larger than 30° to 70° (inner side surface of step of 44 larger than 43 and 43 in the range of 30° and 70°; para. 0074), which overlaps the angle range 40 degrees to 45 degrees.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the slope angle range of the first stage from 30° to 70° to 65 degrees to 75 degrees; the slope angle range of the second stage from 30° to 70° to 50 degrees to 60 degrees; the slope angle range of the third stage from larger than 30° to 70° to 40 degrees to 45 degrees.
Here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP Chapter 2100-Section 2144.05-Optimization of Ranges).
Regarding claim 4, Ito further teaches the display substrate according to claim 1, wherein a thickness of the first step of the i-th stage (fig. 9 and 14, thickness of 43aa larger than thickness of auxiliary layer 45b, which is thicker than light emitting layer 45a; para. 0081) is greater than a thickness of the first step of the j-th stage (thickness of 43ab around/for thickness of light emitting layer 45a; para. 0081).
Regarding claim 5, Ito further teaches the display substrate according to claim 1, wherein a length of the first step of the i-th stage (fig. 4A and fig. 18, width of 43) is greater than a length of the first step of the j-th stage (width of 44).
Regarding claim 19, Ito further teaches the display substrate according to claim 1, wherein the light emitting functional layer (fig. 4A and 14, 45) comprises a first film layer portion (auxiliary layer 45b; para. 0081) located on a side (bottom side) close to the base substrate (10) and a second film layer portion (light emitting layer 45a; para. 0081) located on a side (top side) away from the base substrate (10), and the first film layer portion (45b) forms at least one protrusion part (protrusion part on the step 43) at the n stages of the first steps (inner side steps).
Regarding claim 20, Ito further teaches a display device (fig. 15, electro-optical device; Abstract), comprising the display substrate (substrate with 40) according to claim 1.
Claims 6-7 and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito in view of Gu et al. (CN 112635537).
Regarding claim 6, Ito teaches the display substrate according to claim 1, wherein the pixel definition layer (fig. 2 and 18, 42) further comprises a second side surface (outside surface) on a side (outside) away from the first electrode (41),
Ito fails to explicitly teach the second side surface comprises one second step, the second step comprises a second step side surface, and a slope angle of the second step side surface of the second step is greater than the slope angle of the first step side surface of the first step of the i-th stage.
However, Gu teaches the second side surface (Gu: fig. 2 and 3, outside) comprises one second step (Gu: step of second inclined surface 33; para. 0033), the second step comprises a second step side surface (Gu: outside side stepped surface include the side wall 34 as part of the outside surface; para. 0033), and a slope angle (Gu: 90° of 34) of the second step side surface (outside side surface) of the second step (Gu: step of 33) is greater than the slope angle slope angle (Gu: slope of inner side) of the first step side surface of the first step of the i-th stage (Gu: inner side surface of top surface 31; para. 0033, similar to acute angle of 43/44 of Ito).
Gu and Ito are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of light emitting devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add a slope angle of the second step side surface of the second step is greater than the slope angle of the first step side surface as taught by Gu.
Doing so would realize a cut off kind disconnected structure to prevent display crosstalk of the pixel unit (Gu: para. 0054).
Regarding claim 7, Ito in view of Gu further teaches the display substrate according to claim 6, wherein the slope angle (Gu: fig. 3, 90° of 34) of the second step side surface of the second step (Gu: outside side surface of step of 33 with 34) is 80 degrees to 90 degrees (90 within 80 degrees to 90 degrees). Furthermore, it has been held that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 11, Ito in view of Gu further teaches the display substrate according to claim 6, wherein an orthographic projection (Gu: fig. 2 and 3, orthographic projection of 33) of at least a portion of the second step side surface of the second step (Gu: step of 33) on the base substrate (Gu: substrate 10; para. 0003, similar to 10 of Ito) is not overlapped with an orthographic projection (orthographic projection of anode 11; para. 0003) of the first electrode (Gu: 11, similar to 41 of Ito) on the base substrate (Gu: 10); and a distance (Gu: distance of right/out edge of 33) between an edge of the second step side surface (outside surface) away from the first side surface (inner side) and an edge (Gu: left edge of 11) of the first electrode away from the first side surface (inner side) is greater than 150 Å (Gu: distance is wider than 11, which is greater than 200nm; para. 0006). Furthermore, it has been held that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 12, Ito in view of Gu further teaches the display substrate according to claim 6, wherein the second electrode (Gu: fig. 2, cathode layer 14; para. 0031, similar to 46 of Ito) comprises a first portion (Gu: inner portion 14) covering the first side surface (inner side surface) and a second portion (Gu: out portion 14) covering the second step (outside), the first portion (Gu: inner portion 14) is connected with the second portion (Gu: out portion 14), a surface of the first portion (Gu: surface of inner portion 14) comprises at least one first curved surface (Gu: curved surface around corner), a surface of the second portion (Gu: surface of out portion 14) comprises at least one second curved surface (Gu: curved surface around corner and near cut off), a curvature change (Gu: curvature change of curved surface around corner of inner portion 14) of the at least one first curved surface is less than a curvature change (Gu: curvature change of curved surface near cut off of out portion 14) of the at least one second curved surface.
Regarding claim 13, Ito in view of Gu further teaches the display substrate according to claim 12, wherein a slope angle of the second portion (Gu: fig. 2, slope of out potion 14) is 35 degrees to 45 degrees (Gu: around 40 to 45° from fig.). Furthermore, it has been held that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 14, Ito in view of Gu further teaches the display substrate according to claim 6, wherein the second side surface (Gu: fig. 2 and 3, outside surface) further comprises one third step (Gu: outside step of first inclined surface 23; para. 0033), the third step (Gu: step of 23) is located between the second step (Gu: step of 33) and the base substrate (Gu: 10), the third step (Gu: step of 23) comprises a third step side surface (Gu: side surface of 23), and a slope angle (Gu: slope of 23) of the third step side surface of the third step (Gu: side surface of step 23) is less than the slope angle (Gu: 90° of 34) of the second step side surface of the second step (Gu: side surface of step of 33).
Regarding claim 15, Ito in view of Gu further teaches the display substrate according to claim 14, wherein a length (Gu: fig. 3, the total length of first top surface 21, 23 and first bottom surface 22; para. 0033) of the third step (Gu: step 23) is greater than a sum of a total length (Gu: sum of total length of inner side incline) of the n stages of the first steps (inner side) and a length (Gu: and length second bottom surface 32; para. 0033) of the second step (Gu: step 33).
Regarding claim 16, Ito in view of Gu further teaches the display substrate according to claim 6, wherein the second side surface (Gu: in an alternative consideration, annotated fig. 3, the second step side surface (dash lines) and third step side surface (solid lines) separate at middle of 34) comprises r stages (Gu: 2 stages from outside steps stages of step 21 and 22) of third steps that are sequentially arranged along the light emitting direction (vertical direction) of the light emitting functional layer (Gu: organic light-emitting layer 13 ; para. 0031, similar to 45 of Ito), the r stages of third steps (Gu: steps 21, 22) are located between the second step (Gu: step of 33) and the base substrate (Gu: 10), each third step (Gu: steps 21,22) comprises a third step side surface (outside surface), a slope angle (Gu: slope of 23) of a third step side surface of a third step of a o-th stage (Gu: outside surface of step 22) is less than a slope angle (Gu: 90° of 34) of a third step side surface of a third step of a p-th stage (Gu: outside surface of step of 21), and the third step of the o-th stage (Gu: step 22) is located on a side (bottom side) of the third step of the p-th stage (Gu: step 21) close to the base substrate (Gu: 10).
PNG
media_image1.png
632
633
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Annotated fig. 3)
Regarding claim 17, Ito teaches the display substrate according to claim 1, wherein a surface of the second electrode (fig. 2, surface of 46) is uneven.
Ito fails to explicitly teach a distance between a highest point of the surface of the second electrode and a lowest point of the surface of the second electrode is less than 800 Å.
However, Gu a distance (Gu: fig. 2, height of cathode layer 14; para. 0031, similar to 46 of Ito) between a highest point of the surface of the second electrode and a lowest point of the surface of the second electrode is 70 to 130 nm (Gu: height of 14 is similar to height of sidewall h1~h3, which is total 70 to 130 nm; para. 0043-0044), which overlaps the distance range less than 800 Å.
Gu and Ito are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of light emitting devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the distance range from 70 to 130 nm to less than 800 Å.
Doing so would realize a structure with a cut off kind disconnected structure to prevent display crosstalk of the pixel unit (Gu: para. 0054). Here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP Chapter 2100-Section 2144.05-Optimization of Ranges).
Regarding claim 18, Ito teaches the display substrate according to claim 1 including a length (fig. 9, a length of incline of 51b) of the first step side surface (inner side surface).
Ito fails to explicitly teach the length of the first step side surface of the first step is 10% to 15% of a thickness of the first electrode.
However, Gu teaches the length (Gu: fig. 2, around 1/3 length of the incline inner surface) of the first step side surface of the first step is around 15% to 20% (Gu: By estimate from the fig. 2, it is 15% to 20% of thickness of anode 11; para. 0003, similar to 41 of Ito), which overlaps the range 10% to 15% of a thickness of the first electrode (Gu: 11).
Gu and Ito are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of light emitting devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the length range from 15% to 20% to 10% to 15% of a thickness of the first electrode.
Doing so would realize a structure with a cut off kind disconnected structure to prevent display crosstalk of the pixel unit (Gu: para. 0054). Here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP Chapter 2100-Section 2144.05-Optimization of Ranges).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHIJUN XU whose telephone number is (571)270-3447. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am-5pm ET.
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, Eva Montalvo can be reached at (571) 270-3829. 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.
/ZHIJUN XU/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/BRIAN TURNER/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights