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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "PR1" and "11b" have both been used to designate the same layer as illustrated in Figure 8A. 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.
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) 1, 5, 7-9, 12, 13, 17, 27, 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding et al US 11,476,309 and further in view of Yamada et al US 2016/0240794.
The applied reference (Ding et al) has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Pertaining to claim 1, Ding teaches a display substrate, comprising:
a base substrate, comprising a hole region 102, a display region 101, and a frame region 103 located between the hole region and the display region See Figure 2A;
a plurality of sub-pixels 1010 (see Figure 3A) located in the display region 101 (See Figure 3A), wherein the sub-pixel comprises a light-emitting element 1011, the light-emitting element has a light-emitting region, the light-emitting element comprises a first electrode 1012, a light-emitting functional layer 1014, and a second electrode 1013, the second electrode is located on a side of the light-emitting functional layer facing away from the base substrate 13 (See Figure 2A), the first electrode 1012 is located on a side of the light-emitting functional layer close to the base substrate See Figure 2A, and the light-emitting functional layer 1014 comprises a plurality of sub-functional layers See Figure 4 (1019/1018/1015/1016/1017); and
a second separation structure 1031 located in the frame region 103 and comprising a third separation part 1032 and a fourth separation part 1033 which are stacked see Figure 6A (Figure 2A element F), wherein the third separation part 1032 is located on a side of the fourth separation part 1033 close to the base substrate See Figure 2A element F (see Figure 6A),
the fourth separation part 1033 has a second protruding part 1034, the second protruding part 1034 protrudes relative to the third separation part 1032, and at least one sub-functional layer of the light-emitting functional layer 1014 is disconnected at the second protruding part See Figure 2A marked up below, note that “at the” is broad and does not imply any specific arrangement other than location broadly, and
the second separation structure is ring-shaped so as to surround the hole region Col 11 lines 1-10.
PNG
media_image1.png
520
760
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ding fails to teach:
a first separation structure located in the display region and comprising a first separation part and a second separation part which are stacked, wherein the first separation part is located on a side of the second separation part close to the base substrate;
wherein the second separation part has a first protruding part, the first protruding part protrudes relative to the first separation part, and at least one sub-functional layer of the light- emitting functional layer is disconnected at the first protruding part, and
the first separation structure surrounds the light-emitting region.
Yamada teaches:
a first separation structure located in the display region [0219] and comprising a first separation part 954 and a second separation part 955 which are stacked, wherein the first separation part 954 is located on a side of the second separation part 955 close to the base substrate See Figure 5B;
wherein the second separation part has a first protruding part 955 (they are the same layer, see Applicant’s Figure 8A and paragraph [0092] PR1 = 11b), the first protruding part protrudes relative to the first separation part, and at least one sub-functional layer of the light-emitting functional layer is disconnected at the first protruding part See Figure 5B element 955 is disconnected, and
the first separation structure surrounds the light-emitting region See Figure 5A
Note: Based on the Applicants Specification specifically paragraph [0092] the first protruding part is the same thing as the second separation part, in fact PR1 (protruding part) points to the second separation part 11b, the one element shares two ID’s.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the teachings of Yamada into the device of Ding by including separation structures in the display area. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Ding in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of preventing defects in the light-emitting element due to static electricity and others [0219].
Pertaining to claim 5, Ding in view of Yamada teaches the display substrate according to claim 1, further comprising an encapsulation layer, wherein the encapsulation layer comprises a first encapsulation layer 19, a second encapsulation layer 20, and a third encapsulation layer 21, the first encapsulation layer, the second encapsulation layer, and the third encapsulation layer are arranged in sequence see Figure 2A of Ding, the first encapsulation layer is closer to the base substrate than the third encapsulation layer, the first encapsulation layer and the third encapsulation layer have a stacked contact portion 1037 (Ding) see Figure 2A, a plurality of second separation structures are provided see Figure 2A of Ding note that Figure 2A is only representative of one illustrative portion of the overall device and that Ding is teaching a device with many of these portions together, as shown in Figure 3A for example, an orthographic projection of one of the plurality of second separation structures on the base substrate overlaps an orthographic projection of the second encapsulation layer on the base substrate, and an orthographic projection of another one of the plurality of second separation structures on the base substrate overlaps an orthographic projection of the stacked contact portion on the base substrate See Figure 2A of Ding.
Pertaining to claims 7, 8 and 9 Ding in view of Yamada teaches the display substrate according to claim 1, but is not specific as to wherein a thickness of the second separation part is greater than a thickness of the first separation part, wherein a ratio of the thickness of the first separation part to the second separation part is greater than or equal to 0.25 and less than or equal to 1, or wherein a dimension of the first separation part in a direction perpendicular to the base substrate is smaller than a dimension of the third separation part in a direction perpendicular to the base substrate. The elements relied upon in Yamada have a smaller thickness than the elements relied upon in Ding. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of making semiconductor devices to determine the workable or optimal value for the thicknesses through routine experimentation and optimization to obtain optimal or desired device performance because the thicknesses are result-effective variables and there is no evidence indicating that it is critical or produces any unexpected results and it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05
Given the teaching of the references, it would have been obvious to determine the optimum thickness, temperature as well as condition of delivery of the layers involved. See In re Aller, Lacey and Hall (10 USPQ 233-237) “It is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Any differences in the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992).
An Affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979).
Pertaining to claim 12, Ding in view of Yamada teaches the display substrate according to claim 1, wherein a count of film layers included in the first separation part 954 of Yamada is less than or equal to a count of film layers included in the third separation part 1032 of Ding (they each have one).
Pertaining to claim 13, Ding in view of Yamada teaches the display substrate according to claim 1, wherein a material of the first separation structure 954/955/956 of Yamada comprises a conductive material 956 is conductive, and a material of the second separation structure 1031 of Ding comprises a conductive material 1033 is conductive.
Pertaining to claim 17, Ding in view of Yamada teaches the display substrate according to claim 1, wherein materials of the first separation part 954 and the second separation part 955 are different, materials of the third separation part 1032 and the fourth separation part 1033 are different, the materials of the first separation part 954 and the third separation part 1032 are the same, and the materials of the second separation part 955 and the fourth separation part 1033 are the same. See Ding col 11 lines 43-51
Pertaining to claim 27, Ding in view of Yamada teaches the display substrate according to claim 1, wherein the separation structure comprises at least one separation sub-structure, and an orthographic projection of the at least one separation sub-structure on the base substrate at least surrounds one half of an orthographic projection of the light-emitting region on the base substrate. Ding teaches two sets of separation structures 1031 see Figure 5, calling one a “sub-structure” meets the claim limitation which broadly defines the structure as “at least surrounds one half” which can include surrounding the entire region.
Pertaining to claim 28, Ding in view of Yamada teaches a display device, comprising the display substrate according to claim 1. Ding teaches a display panel see Title
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6, 10, 14, 18-20, 22-24 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.
Pertaining to claim 4, the prior art does not teach nor suggest wherein the first separation structure has a gap, the first electrode has a main body part and a connecting part, an orthographic projection of the main body part on the base substrate overlaps an orthographic projection of the light-emitting region on the base substrate, and the connecting part is located at the gap.
Pertaining to claim 6, the prior art does not teach nor suggest the display substrate further comprising a barrier dam, wherein the barrier dam is located in the frame region, and the second separation structure comprises a plurality of second separation structures located on both sides of the barrier dam.
Pertaining to claim 10, the prior art does not teach nor suggest wherein the second separation part and the fourth separation part are located in the same layer, wherein the first separation structure and the second separation structure have the same layer structure.
Pertaining to claim 14, the prior art does not teach nor suggest wherein the conductive material comprises a metal and a conductive metal oxide, wherein the second separation part and the fourth separation part are located in the same layer, and the third separation part comprises a portion located in the same layer as the first separation part.
Pertaining to claim 18, the prior art does not teach nor suggest wherein materials of the first separation part and the third separation part comprise organic materials, and materials of the second separation part 955 and the fourth separation part comprise inorganic insulating materials.
Pertaining to claim 19, the prior art does not teach nor suggest wherein materials of the first separation part and the third separation part comprise organic insulating materials, and materials of the second separation part and the fourth separation part comprise conductive materials.
Pertaining to claim 20, the prior art does not teach nor suggest wherein a material of the first separation part comprises an organic insulating material, a material of the second separation part comprises an organic insulating material, and a material of the third separation part comprises an inorganic insulating material, and a material of the fourth separation part comprises a conductive material.
Pertaining to claim 24, the prior art does not teach nor suggest the display substrate further comprising a conductive structure, wherein an orthographic projection of the conductive structure on the base substrate overlaps an orthographic projection of the first separation structure on the base substrate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS J TOBERGTE whose telephone number is (571)272-6458. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30.
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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at (571) 272-5055. 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.
/NICHOLAS J TOBERGTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights