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 .
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 14, 21, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (USPN 2007/0252518).
With regard to claim 1,
Lee et al. disclose a display substrate, comprising: a base substrate (110); a plurality of mutually independent first electrodes (112) on the base substrate; a pixel definition layer (115) on a side away from the base substrate, of a layer where the plurality of first electrodes are; wherein the pixel definition layer comprises a plurality of pixel openings (150), an overlapping portion and a non-overlapping portion are provided between the pixel opening and the first electrode, the non-overlapping portion surrounds the overlapping portion, and the pixel definition layer covers the non-overlapping portion and a gap between the first electrodes (see fig. 5); a light-emitting material layer (121/120) on a side away from the base substrate, of the pixel definition layer; wherein the light-emitting material layer comprises a plurality of light-emitting parts (See figs), and the light-emitting parts extend from the pixel openings to the pixel definition layer; and a support layer (125) on the pixel definition layer; wherein the support layer is in direct contact with the light-emitting parts (See figs), and an orthographic projection of the support layer on the base substrate overlaps orthographic projections of gaps among the plurality of first electrodes on the base substrate (See figs 3,4).
With regard to claim 2,
Lee et al. disclose the display substrate according to claim 1, wherein the support layer is only in contact with the light-emitting parts at lateral surfaces (see, e.g., fig. 4).
With regard to claim 14,
Lee et al. disclose the display substrate according to claim 2, wherein a shape of an orthographic projection of the pixel opening covered by the light-emitting part on the base substrate is same as a shape of an orthographic projection of the light-emitting part on the base substrate (See figs. 3, 4).
With regard to claim 21,
Lee et al. disclose the display substrate according to claim 1, further comprising: a second electrode (132); wherein the second electrode is disposed on a side away from the pixel definition layer, of the light-emitting material layer on a whole surface (see figs 3,4).
With regard to claim 22,
Lee et al. disclose a display device, comprising the display substrate according to claim 1 (See figs).
Claims 1, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xiong et al. (USPN 2017/0250236).
With regard to claim 1,
Xiong et al. disclose a display substrate, comprising: a base substrate (11); a plurality of mutually independent first electrodes (12) on the base substrate; a pixel definition layer (17) on a side away from the base substrate, of a layer where the plurality of first electrodes are; wherein the pixel definition layer comprises a plurality of pixel openings (in 17), an overlapping portion and a non-overlapping portion are provided between the pixel opening and the first electrode, the non-overlapping portion surrounds the overlapping portion, and the pixel definition layer covers the non-overlapping portion and a gap between the first electrodes (see fig 5b); a light-emitting material layer (14,15) on a side away from the base substrate, of the pixel definition layer; wherein the light-emitting material layer comprises a plurality of light-emitting parts (See figs), and the light-emitting parts extend from the pixel openings to the pixel definition layer; and a support layer (16) on the pixel definition layer; wherein the support layer is in direct contact with the light-emitting parts (See fig 5b), and an orthographic projection of the support layer on the base substrate overlaps orthographic projections of gaps among the plurality of first electrodes on the base substrate (See fig 5b).
With regard to claim 15,
Xiong et al. disclose the display substrate according to claim 1, wherein a lateral surface of the support layer is in contact with a lateral surface of the light-emitting part; and a surface edge on a side away from the base substrate, of the support layer is in contact with a surface edge on a side facing the base substrate, of the light-emitting part (See fig. 5b).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3, 5-13, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (as above).
With regard to claims 3, 5-13,
Lee et al. disclose the display substrate according to claim 2 wherein the plurality of light-emitting parts comprise a plurality of red light-emitting parts, a plurality of green light-emitting parts and a plurality of blue light-emitting parts (See figs). While Lee et al. do not explicitly disclose the claimed subpixel, pixel, and support layer configurations, such configurations were well within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and would have been obvious to the same to try in order to optimize for desired color balance and contrast.
With regard to claim 23,
Lee et al. disclose the light emitting material layer of claim 1. While Lee et al. do not explicitly disclose a fine metal mask with openings corresponding to the light emitting parts, such a mask was well known to and widely used by those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and would have bene obvious to the same to incorporate as the mechanism for forming the patterns described by Lee et al. without misapplication of the layers.
Claims 16, 17 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiong et al. (as above)
With regard to claims 16,17,19,
Xiong et al. disclose the display substrate according to claim 15 wherein the plurality of light-emitting parts comprise a plurality of red light-emitting parts, a plurality of green light-emitting parts and a plurality of blue light-emitting parts (See figs). While Lee et al. do not explicitly disclose the claimed subpixel, pixel, and support layer configurations, such configurations were well within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and would have been obvious to the same to try in order to optimize for desired color balance and contrast.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPN 2019/0013370, 2007/0210706, 2019/0067390, 2023/0014543, 2018/0294322, 2018/0190731.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher Raabe whose telephone number is (571)272-8434. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0530-1430.
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, James R Greece can be reached at (571)272-3711. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M RAABE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875