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 .
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 § 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “basically” in claims 7 and 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “basically” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate clarification and/or correction are/is required within the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 6, 8-11, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. US 11,409,400.
PNG
media_image1.png
458
757
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lee et al. US 11,409,400
Regarding claim 1, Lee et al. in Fig. 5 (annotated above) and col. 10, line 50-col. 14, line 64and col. 10, line 50-col. 14, line 64 discloses a display substrate, comprising:
a base substrate 111;
a light-emitting layer 260, on the base substrate 111 and located in a display region DA of the display substrate;
an encapsulation layer 280, on the light-emitting layer 260, opposite the base substrate 111;
a touch control layer 320, on the encapsulation layer 280, opposite the base substrate 111;
a first organic layer 350, on the touch control layer 320, opposite the base substrate 111, covering at least a portion of an edge of the encapsulation layer 280, and outside a bending region in a non-display region NA of the display substrate; a blocking portion DAM2, at at least one side of the display region DA, and at a side, away from the display region DA, of the edge, of the encapsulation layer 280.
Regarding claim 3, Lee et al. in Fig. 5 (annotated above) and col. 10, line 50-col. 14, line 64discloses wherein the blocking portion 130 is outside the bending region (e.g. non-display region of the display substrate) and blocks the first organic layer 350 from entering the bending region, col. 14, lines 58-64.
Regarding claim 5, Lee et al. in Fig. 5 (annotated above) and col. 10, line 50-col. 14, line 64discloses wherein the encapsulation layer 280 comprises:
an organic encapsulation layer 282, on the light-emitting layer 260, opposite the base substrate 111, and in the display region DA; wherein the blocking portion DAM2 is at a side, away from the display region, of an edge, of the organic encapsulation layer 282; the organic encapsulation layer 282 comprises a slope portion and the slope portion has a non-uniform thickness distribution.
Regarding claim 6, Lee et al. in Fig. 5 (annotated above) and col. 10, line 50-col. 14, line 64discloses wherein the first organic layer 282 comprises an optical compensation portion; wherein an orthographic projection of the slope portion onto the base substrate 111 is within an orthographic projection of the optical compensation portion onto the base substrate 111.
Lee et al. does not expressly teach the optical compensation portion is configured to weaken or eliminate waviness, occurring in a display image, caused by the slope portion.
However, the claim limitation “the optical compensation portion is configured to weaken or eliminate waviness, occurring in a display image, caused by the slope portion” is drawn to a method of use or a device under test. The intended use and other types of functional language must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Casey,152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). In this case the structure is capable of performing this use.
Regarding claim 8, Lee et al. in Fig. 5 (annotated above) and col. 10, line 50-col. 14, line 64discloses the display substrate of claim 6, wherein a material of the organic encapsulation layer 282 (e.g. epoxy resin or acryl resin) is same as a material of the optical compensation portion 350 (e.g. epoxy resin or acryl resin), col. 14, lines 35-44.
Regarding claim 9, Lee et al. in Fig. 5 (annotated above) and col. 10, line 50-col. 14, line 64discloses the display substrate of claim 6, wherein the organic encapsulation layer 282 further comprises a first planar portion, in the display region and adjoining the slope portion;
wherein the first planar portion has a uniform thickness; and
the first organic layer 350 further comprises a second planar portion, in the display region and adjoining the optical compensation portion;
wherein the second planar portion is at a side, of the first planar portion, opposite the base substrate; a surface, of the second planar portion, opposite the base substrate is parallel to the surface, of the base substrate, facing the light-emitting layer 260;
a material of the second planar portion is same as a material of the optical compensation portion; at different positions in the display region, sums of thicknesses of the first organic layer and thicknesses of the organic encapsulation layer are basically same.
Regarding claim 10, Lee et al. in Fig. 5 (annotated above) and col. 10, line 50-col. 14, line 64discloses the display substrate of claim 6, wherein the first organic layer 350 further comprises an edge portion, wherein the edge portion adjoins the optical compensation portion, the edge portion is located in the non-display region NDA, and located outside the bending region.
Regarding claim 11, Lee et al. in Fig. 5 (annotated above) and col. 10, line 50-col. 14, line 64discloses the display substrate of claim 5, wherein the touch control layer comprises a first metal layer BE, an insulation layer 313, and a second metal layer TE; the first metal layer is located at a side, of the organic encapsulation layer 282, opposite the base substrate 111;
the insulation layer 313 is located at a side, of the first metal layer BE, opposite the base substrate 111 and covers the first metal layer BE; and
the second metal layer TE is located at a side, of the insulation layer 313, opposite the base substrate 111, col. 10, lines 59-64.
Regarding claim 18, Lee et al. in Fig. 5 (annotated above) and col. 10, line 50-col. 14, line 64discloses the display substrate of claim 1, wherein a distance between the blocking portion DAM2 and the bending region (i.e. in the NDA region of the display substrate) is less than a distance between the blocking portion DAM2 and the display region DA.
Regarding claim 20, Lee et al. discloses a display apparatus (col. 1, lines 16-17), comprising the display substrate of claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 15-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. US 11,409,400 in view of Park et al. US 10,743,425.
Regarding claim 1, Lee et al. in Fig. 5 discloses a display substrate, comprising:
a base substrate 111;
a light-emitting layer 260, on the base substrate 111 and located in a display region DA of the display substrate;
an encapsulation layer 280, on the light-emitting layer 260, opposite the base substrate 111;
a touch control layer 320, on the encapsulation layer 280, opposite the base substrate 111;
a first organic layer 350, on the touch control layer 320, opposite the base substrate 111, covering at least a portion of an edge of the encapsulation layer 280, and outside a bending region in a non-display region NA of the display substrate.
Lee et al. in Fig. 5 does not expressly disclose a blocking portion, at at least one side of the display region DA, and at a side, away from the display region DA, of the edge, of the encapsulation layer 280.
Park et al. in Figs. 6 and 8 teaches a display device which is capable of preventing an encapsulation film from being formed in a scribing line. The display device includes a buffer layer 130 provided at a predetermined interval from the display area in the non-display area and in contact with an edge of the encapsulation film.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Park et al. in the display device of Lee et al. for the purpose of preventing deterioration in the device.
Regarding claim 2, Lee et al. in view of Park et al. teaches the display substrate of claim 1. Park et al. teaches wherein the blocking portion 130 is located at a side, away from the display region DA, of an edge, of the first organic layer.
Regarding claim 4, Lee et al. in view of Park et al. teaches the display substrate of claim 1. Park et al. in col. 13, lines 38-46, teaches wherein the height of layer 130 is larger than the height of the dam 120. Therefore Park et al. teaches wherein a height of the blocking portion is greater than a height of the first organic layer at an edge, of the first organic layer, away from the display region.
Regarding claim 15, Lee et al. in view of Park et al. teaches the display substrate of claim 1. Park et al. in Fig. 14 teaches wherein there are N blocking portions 132, 134, wherein N is a positive integer; when N is greater than 1, the N blocking portions 132, 134 are sequentially (e.g. logical order or sequence) arranged along a direction pointing from the display region DA to the non-display region NDA.
Regarding claim 16, Lee et al. in view of Park et al. teaches the display substrate of claim 15. Park et al. in Fig. 14 teaches wherein N is greater than 1,and there is a gap between two adjacent blocking portions.
Regarding claim 17, Lee et al. in view of Park et al. teaches the display substrate of claim 15. Park et al. in Fig. 14 teaches wherein N is greater than 1,and the N blocking portions have a same height, or, at least two of the N blocking portions have different heights.
Regarding claim 19, Lee et al. in view of Park et al. teaches the display substrate of claim 5. Park et al. in Fig. 8, teaches the display substrate of claim 5, further comprising a dam 120, wherein the dam 120 is in the non-display region NDA, the dam 120 is at aside, of the blocking portion 130, close to the display region DA, and the dam 120 is not overlapped with the blocking portion 130 along a direction perpendicular to the base substrate 200; and
a distance between the blocking portion 130 and the dam 120 is less than a distance between the blocking portion 130 and the bending region (i.e. in the NDA region of the display substrate).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 neither anticipates nor renders obvious, in the context of the claims: the display substrate of claim 6, wherein at different positions in the display region, sums of thicknesses of the optical compensation portion and thicknesses of the slope portion are basically same, a refractive index of the slope portion is same as a refractive index of the optical compensation portion, and a surface, of the optical compensation portion, opposite the base substrate is parallel to a surface, of the base substrate, facing the light-emitting layer.
Claims 12-14 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 neither anticipates nor renders obvious, in the context of the claims:
The display substrate of claim 11, further comprising:
a second organic layer, located between the touch control layer and the first organic layer, located in the display region and the non-display region, and located outside the bending region; wherein the second organic layer covers the second metal layer.
Claims 13-14 directly or indirectly depend from claim 12 and are therefore allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SONYA D MCCALL-SHEPARD whose telephone number is (571)272-9801. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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, Julio J. Maldonado can be reached at (571)272-1864. 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.
/Sonya McCall-Shepard/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898