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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 8/13/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and being examined. Claims 1-3, 7, 9, 14, 17, and 19 have been amended. No claims have been newly added or cancelled. The objections to Claims 1-3, 9, 14, and 17 presented in the previous Office Action (filed 5/14/2026) have been withdrawn due to the amendments to the claims addressing the presented informalities.
Specification
The new title submitted 8/13/2026 is accepted by the Office.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Re Claim 7, it is not entirely clear whether “the protruding structure” in lines 3-4 of Claim 7 is referring to the “protruding structure” in line 9 of Claim 1 or the “one of the plurality of protruding structures” in line 3 of Claim 7. For the purposes of examination, the latter will be assumed.
Re Claim 19, “the lens structure” is used in line 8 and “the protruding structure” is used in line 9, where it is unclear which of the lens structures and plurality of protruding structures (established in line 7 and lines 4-5, respectively), respectively, “the” is referring to. For purposes of examination, “the lens structure” and “the protruding structure” will be interpreted as “a lens structure of the lens structures” (which would read better as “a lens structure of the plurality of lens structures”) and “a protruding structure of the plurality of protruding structures”, respectively.
Appropriate correction is required.
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)(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.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sugi (US 2024/0196644 A1).
Re Claim 1, Sugi discloses a display substrate (FIG. 20; [0290]) comprising:
a substrate (41; [0185]);
a first structural layer (at least 26, 27, 34A, hereafter referred to as 26, 27, 34A; [0290]) disposed on the substrate (41; [0290]) and comprising a plurality of protruding structures (27, portion of 34A horizontally coplanar with 34B, see FIG. Y1 below for visualization of portion of 34A in question; [0290]); and
a lens layer (71; [0259]) disposed on the first structural layer (26, 27, 34A; [0290]) and comprising a plurality of lens structures (71; [0218]);
wherein an orthographic projection of a lens structure (71) of the plurality of lens structures (71) on the substrate (41) overlaps with an orthographic projection of a protruding structure (27, portion of 34A horizontally coplanar with 34B) of the plurality of protruding structures (27, portion of 34A horizontally coplanar with 34B) on the substrate (41; [0290]), and wherein the protruding structure (27, portion of 34A horizontally coplanar with 34B) is on a surface of the first structural layer (26, 27, 34A, specifically 34A is on top of top surface of 26) away from the substrate (41; [0290]).
PNG
media_image1.png
411
475
media_image1.png
Greyscale
FIG. Y1: Annotated version of FIG. 20 of Sugi
Re Claim 2, Sugi discloses the display substrate according to Claim 1, while further disclosing wherein a side of the first structural layer (34A, top side) away from the substrate (41) comprises a plurality of grooves (59; [0290]) located between adjacent protruding structures (27, portion of 34A horizontally planar with 34B) of the plurality of protruding structures (27, portion of 34A horizontally planar with 34B; [0290]), and wherein an orthographic projection of a groove (59) of the plurality of grooves (59) on the substrate (41) does not overlap with the orthographic projection of the lens structure (71) on the substrate (41; [0290]).
Re Claim 3, Sugi discloses the display substrate according to Claim 2, while further disclosing the display substrate comprises a second structural layer (34B, 51; [0290]) disposed between the first structural layer (26, 27, 34A) and the lens layer (71; [0290]), wherein a side of the second structural layer (51, top side) away from the substrate (41) comprises a plurality of notches (including space laterally between 51 and above 59; [0290]), and wherein an orthographic projection of a notch (including space laterally between 51 and above 59) of the plurality of notches (including space laterally between 51 and above 59) on the substrate (41) overlaps with the orthographic projection of the groove (59) on the substrate (41; [0290]).
Re Claim 4, Sugi discloses the display substrate according to Claim 3, while further disclosing wherein the orthographic projection of the groove (59) on the substrate (41) completely overlaps with the orthographic projection of the notch (including space laterally between 51 and above 59) on the substrate (41; [0290]).
Re Claim 6, Sugi discloses the display substrate according to Claim 3, while further disclosing wherein in a direction (direction up/down page of FIG. 20) perpendicular to a surface of the substrate (41), a height of the lens structure (71, centermost height) is greater than a depth of the notch (including space laterally between 51 and above 59; [0290]), and greater than or equal to a depth of the groove (59; [0290]).
Re Claim 7, Sugi discloses the display substrate according to Claim 3, while further disclosing wherein in a direction (direction up/down page of FIG. 20) parallel to a surface of the substrate (41, particularly parallel to side surface contacting isolation region 25), a size (height) difference between an edge of at least one of the plurality of protruding structures (portion of 34A horizontally coplanar with 34B) and an edge of the lens structure (71) on the protruding structure (27, portion of 34A horizontally coplanar with 34B) on a same side is less than or equal to the depth of the groove (59) in a direction (direction up/down page of FIG. 20) perpendicular to of the substrate (41; [0290], see FIG. Z1 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
343
617
media_image2.png
Greyscale
FIG. Z1: Annotated version of FIG. 20 of Sugi
Re Claim 8, Sugi discloses the display substrate according to Claim 3, while further disclosing wherein in a direction (direction up/down page of FIG. 20) parallel to a surface of the substrate (41, particularly parallel to side surface contacting isolation region 25), a maximum size (height of portion of 34A coplanar with 34B) of the protruding structure (27, portion of 34A horizontally coplanar with 34B) is less than or equal to 3.5 um ([0137], considering distance between light emitting region and the lens member to be 0.35 um).
Re Claim 9, Sugi discloses the display substrate according to Claim 3, while further disclosing wherein in a direction (direction left/right page of FIG. 20) parallel to a surface of the substrate (41), a minimum distance between two adjacent protruding structures (34A) of the plurality of protruding structures (27, portion of 34A horizontally coplanar with 34B) is greater than or equal to 0.1 um ([0137], taking interval between adjacent lens member to be 1.2 um).
Re Claim 11, Sugi discloses the display substrate according to Claim 3, while further disclosing wherein the second structural layer (34B, 51) comprises A1203 ([0163]).
Re Claim 12, Sugi discloses the display substrate according to Claim 1, while further disclosing wherein in a direction (direction left/right page of FIG. 20) parallel to a surface of the substrate (41), a maximum size of the lens structure (71) is between 3.0 um and 3.6 um ([0255]), and wherein in a direction (direction up/down page of FIG. 20) perpendicular to the surface of the substrate (41), a height of the lens structure is less than or equal to 2.3 um ([0255]).
Re Claim 13, Sugi discloses the display substrate according to Claim 3, while further disclosing wherein the first structural layer (26, 27, 34A) comprises a plurality of structural layers (26, 27, 34A; [0290]), and wherein the plurality of structural layers (26, 27, 34A) comprise at least one (34A) of an organic material layer or an inorganic material layer ([0229]).
Re Claim 14, Sugi discloses the display substrate according to Claim 13, while further disclosing wherein the plurality of structural layers (26, 27, 34A) comprises a planarization layer (two leftmost portions of 34A in FIG. 20; [0290]) on a side thereof away from the substrate (41; [0290]), wherein the groove (59) is located in the planarization layer (two leftmost portions of 34A in FIG. 20; [0290]), wherein in a direction (direction up/down page of FIG. 20) perpendicular to a surface of the substrate (41) the depth of the groove (59) is less than a thickness of the planarization layer (two leftmost portions of 34A in FIG. 20, central section thickness; [0290]).
Re Claim 15, Sugi discloses the display substrate according to Claim 14, while further disclosing the display substrate comprises a light-emitting device layer (28, 31, 32, 33; [0233]) located between the first structural layer (26, 27, 34A) and the substrate (41; [0290], top portion of first structural layer specifically), wherein the light-emitting device layer (28, 31, 32, 33) comprises a plurality of light-emitting devices (33; [0233]), and wherein the lens structures (71) are arranged in one-to-one correspondence with the light-emitting devices (33; [0233]).
Re Claim 16, Sugi discloses the display substrate according to Claim 15, while further disclosing wherein the plurality of structural layers (26, 27, 34A) comprises a color film layer (34A, three rightmost portions of 34A in FIG. 20) comprising a plurality of color films (34A; [0291]), and wherein the plurality of color films (34A) is arranged in one-to-one correspondence with the plurality of light-emitting devices (33; [0290]).
Re Claim 17, Sugi discloses the display substrate according to Claim 16, while further disclosing wherein the orthographic projection of the groove (59) or the notch (including space laterally between 51 and above 59) on the substrate (41; [0290]) partially overlaps with orthographic projections of at least two adjacent color films (CF_R, CF_B; [0229]) of the plurality of color films (34A) on the substrate (41; [0290]).
Re Claim 18, Sugi discloses the display substrate according to Claim 15, while further disclosing wherein the light-emitting device layer (28, 31, 32, 33) comprises:
a first electrode layer (31; [0231]) and a pixel definition layer (28; [0229]) located on the substrate (41; [0229]);
a light-emitting layer (33; [0233]) located on the first electrode layer (31; [0229]) and the pixel definition layer (28; [0229]); and
a second electrode layer (32; [0229]) located on the light-emitting layer (33; [0229]);
wherein the pixel definition layer (28) defines a plurality of pixel openings (28’; [0229]), and wherein an orthographic projection of the pixel openings (28’) on the substrate (41) does not overlap with the orthographic projection of the groove (59) or the notch (including space laterally between 51 and above 59) on the substrate (41; [0229]).
Re Claim 19, Sugi discloses a method for manufacturing a display substrate (FIG. 20; [0290]), the method comprising:
providing a substrate (41; [0185]);
forming a first structural layer (34A; [0290]) on the substrate (41; [0290]) which comprises a plurality of protruding structures (portion of 34A horizontally coplanar with 34B, see FIG. Y1 for visualization of portion of 34A in question; [0290]); and
forming a lens layer (35, 71; [0259]) on the first structural layer (34A; [0290]); and
forming lens structures (71; [0218]) in the lens layer (35, 71; [0259]);
wherein an orthographic projection of the lens structure (71) on the substrate (41) overlaps with an orthographic projection of the protruding structure (portion of 34A horizontally coplanar with 34B) on the substrate (41; [0290]), and wherein the protruding structure (27, portion of 34A horizontally coplanar with 34B) is on a surface of the first structural layer (26, 27, 34A, specifically 34A is on top of top surface of 26) away from the substrate (41; [0290]).
Re Claim 20, Sugi discloses a display device (FIG. 20; [0194]) comprising the display substrate according to Claim 1.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugi, as applied to Claim 3, in view of Pandey et al (US 2019/0088766 A1, hereafter Pandey).
Re Claim 5, Sugi discloses the display substrate according to Claim 3, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the protruding structure (27, portion of 34A horizontally coplanar with 34B) comprises at least one of a cylinder, an elliptical cylinder, and a polygonal cylinder.
However, Pandey teaches a substrate (FIG. 9; [0025]) wherein the protruding structure (32; [0025]) comprises at least one of a cylinder ([0025]), an elliptical cylinder, and a polygonal cylinder.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display substrate as discussed for Claim 3 with the limitations taught by Pandey to utilize a cylindrical shape for the contact plug (Sugi: 27) as a functionally equivalent shape that provides structure for the transmission of electrical signals as taught by Pandey ([0025]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugi, as applied to Claim 3, in view of Nakamura et al (US 2023/0317894 A1, hereafter Nakamura) and Cathey et al (US 6020683 A, hereafter Cathey).
Re Claim 10, Sugi discloses the display substrate according to Claim 3, but does not explicitly disclose in the current embodiment the display substrate comprises a filling portion filling the groove (59), wherein the filling portion comprises light- shielding material, and wherein the light-shielding material has gas permeability.
However, Nakamura teaches a display substrate (FIG. 6B; [0130]-[0133]) comprising a filling portion (45; [0132]) filling the groove (space between 25R, 25G, 25B; [0132], filling at least partially), wherein the filling portion (45) comprises light-shielding material (45; [0130]).
Additionally, Cathey teaches a display (FIG. 2; column 5, lines 34-36) wherein the light-shielding material (64; column 5, lines 34-36) has gas permeability (column 8, lines 8-10, specifically polyimide impregnated with carbon black).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display substrate as discussed for Claim 3 with the limitations taught by Nakamura to utilize a light-shielding material (Nakamura: 45) in the groove (Sugi: 59) between lens to inhibit light leakage to improve color purity as taught by Nakamura (Nakamura: [0131]), particularly when the layer 34A of Sugi is a color filter layer (Sugi: [0291]).
It would have also been obvious to modify the display substrate as discussed for Claim 3 and the limitations taught by Nakamura with the limitations taught by Sugi with the limitations taught by Cathey to use polyimide impregnated with carbon black as the light-blocking material as a functionally equivalent material that would act as an opaque surface to prevent transmission of light as taught by Cathey (column 5, lines 28-32).
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s argument in Remarks (filed 8/13/2026) pg. 3, para. 1 regarding Claim 1 that “reference numeral 34A is explicitly identified as a protective layer, which in essence is a conformal protective layer covering the second electrode 32. In contrast, the ‘protruding structure’ of the present application is a protruding portion of the first structural layer 220 itself that remains after patterning” is unpersuasive because element 34A being a protective layer does not preclude it from additionally having a protruding structure.
Applicant’s argument in Remarks (filed 8/13/2026) pg. 3, para. 3 regarding Claim 1 that “the ‘protective layer 34A’ that is described as ‘planar’ cannot simultaneously be ‘protruding’” is unpersuasive because the use of “planar” was only intended to describe a location of the protruding portion relative to element 34B (further indicated now by FIG. Y1 below the rejection of Claim 1 above) and not that the protruding structure was continuously flat along an entire plane.
Applicant’s argument in Remarks (filed 8/13/2026) pg. 3, para. 4 regarding Claim 1 that “the layer that has undergone planarization treatment has a flat top surface and does not have any ‘protruding’ morphology” is unpersuasive because the layer (portion of 34A) indicated as the protruding portion in FIG. Y1 and the rejection of Claim 1 having a flat top surface does not preclude said layer from protruding from (in other words, extending from/sticking out from the top surface of 32 and the trench/“area in which ‘protruding structure’ is protruding from” indicated in FIG. Y1.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLIN RUSSELL MCCUTCHEON whose telephone number is (703)756-1897. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 12:30-9:30 EST.
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, DREW N RICHARDS can be reached at (571) 272-1736. 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.
/COLIN RUSSELL MCCUTCHEON/Examiner, Art Unit 2892
/NORMAN D RICHARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2892
Prosecution Insights