CTNF 18/674,957 CTNF 97669 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Specification 06-11 AIA 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. Drawings 06-22-03 AIA 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-3 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 ( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Yang et al. (US 20170213879), hereinafter Yang . Regarding claim 1 , Yang teaches a display substrate (Abstract), comprising: a base substrate (fig. 10, base substrate 1; para. 0038); a light emitting element (cathode layer 4, organic light-emitting layer 21, anode layer 22; para. 0047, 0052) disposed on the base substrate (1), the light emitting element (4, 21, 22) comprises a first electrode (22), a light emitting functional layer (21), and a second electrode (4) that are sequentially stacked along a direction (vertical direction) away from the base substrate (1); a pixel definition layer (pixel defining layer 5; para. 0052) disposed on the base substrate (1), the pixel definition layer (5) is provided with a pixel opening (opening of 5 for 21), the pixel opening (opening of 5) exposes at least a portion of a surface of the first electrode (any portion of 22), and at least a portion of the second electrode (middle portion of 4) covers the pixel opening (opening of 5); wherein the pixel definition layer (5) comprises a second side surface (outside surface) on a side (outside) away from the first electrode (22), the second side surface (outside surface) at least comprises a protrusion structure (protrusion of 5 outside), the protrusion structure (protrusion 5) at least comprises a protrusion structure top surface (Annotated fig. 10, top surface of protrusion 5 as the black arc); the protrusion structure top surface (top surface of protrusion 5) is an arc surface (arc shape), and along a light emitting direction (vertical direction) of the light emitting functional layer (21), a surface (bottom part surface near the grey arc) of the arc surface (arc shape) away from the base substrate (1) is between a surface of the first electrode (top surface of 22) away from the base substrate (1) and a surface of the first electrode (bottom surface of 22) close to the base substrate (1). PNG media_image1.png 139 363 media_image1.png Greyscale (Annotated fig. 10) Regarding claim 2 , Yang further teaches the display substrate according to claim 1, wherein the protrusion structure (Annotated fig. 10, protrusion of 5 outside) further comprises a protrusion structure side surface (side surface of protrusion 5 as the grey arc), an obtuse angle (outside angle is a obtuse angle) is formed between an extension direction of the protrusion structure side surface (side surface of protrusion 5) and a surface of the base substrate (top surface of1), and the protrusion structure side surface (side surface of protrusion 5) is an arc surface (arc shape). Regarding claim 3 , Yang further teaches the display substrate according to claim 1, wherein a thickness of the protrusion structure (Annotated fig. 10, thickness of protrusion of 5 around the side surface as the grey arc) is smaller than a thickness of the first electrode (thickness of 22). Regarding claim 19 , Yang further teaches a display device (organic light-emitting display device; Abstract), comprising the display substrate (organic light-emitting display substrate; Abstract) according to claim 1 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Yoon et al. (KR 100833773 from IDS) . Regarding claim 4 , Yang teaches the display substrate according to claim 1 including the second side surface (fig. 10, outside surface of 5) Yang fails to teach the second side surface further comprises a second step, the protrusion structure is between the second step and the base substrate, the second step comprises a second step side surface, and a slope angle of the second step side surface is 80 degrees to 90 degrees. However, Yoon teaches the second side surface (Yoon: fig. 6h, outside surface of pixel defining layer 130, spacer 140; para. 0037, similar to 5 of Yang) further comprises a second step (Yoon: top step of 140), the protrusion structure (Yoon: protrusion of 130) is between the second step (Yoon: top step of 140) and the base substrate (Yoon: lower substrate 110; para. 0038), the second step (Yoon: top step of 140) comprises a second step side surface (Yoon: vertical side surface), and a slope angle of the second step side surface (Yoon: slope angle of vertical side surface is 90 degree) is 80 degrees to 90 degrees. Yoon and Yang 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 add a second step as taught by Yoon. Doing so would realize a spacer to prevent the panel of the organic light emitting display device from being damaged by external pressure (Yoon: para. 0062). Regarding claim 5 , Yang in view of Yoon further teaches the display substrate according to claim 4, wherein an orthographic projection of at least a portion of the second step side surface (Yoon: fig. 6h, outside step of 140) is not overlapped with an orthographic projection of the first electrode (Yoon: anode electrode 120; para. 0056, similar to 22 of Yang) on the base substrate (Yoon: 110). Regarding claim 6 , Yang in view of Yoon further teaches the display substrate according to claim 4, wherein a thickness of the protrusion structure (Yoon: fig. 6h, thickness of 130) is smaller than a thickness of the second step (Yoon: thickness of top 140) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 7-12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Ito et al. (US 20050112341) . Regarding claim 7 , Yang teaches the display substrate according to claim 1 including the second side surface (fig. 10, outside surface of 5). Yang fails to teach the second side surface comprises m stages of second steps that are sequentially arranged along the light emitting direction of the light emitting functional layer, a second step comprises a second step side surface, a slope angle of a second step side surface of a second step of a z-th stage is greater than a slope angle of a second step side surface of a second step of a k-th stage, and the second step of the z-th stage is on a side of the second step of the k-th stage close to the base substrate; wherein z, k and m are all natural numbers, m is greater than 1, and 0 < z < k≤m. However, Ito teaches the second side surface (Ito: fig. 18 outside surface is same as the inside surface of fig. 4A, similar to outside surface of top 5 of Yang) comprises m stages of second steps (Ito: fig. 4A, at least 2 steps of first partition 43, second partition 44; para. 0063) that are sequentially arranged along the light emitting direction (vertical direction) of the light emitting functional layer (Ito: functional layer 45; para. 0055, similar to 21 of Yang), a second step (Ito: 43, 44) comprises a second step side surface (Ito: side surface of 43, 44), a slope angle (Ito: angle α; para. 0064) of a second step side surface of a second step of a z-th stage (Ito: side surface of stage of 43) is greater than a slope angle (Ito: angle β; para. 0064) of a second step side surface of a second step of a k-th stage (Ito: side surface of stage of 44), and the second step of the z-th stage (Ito: stage of 43) is on a side (bottom side) of the second step of the k-th stage (Ito: stage of 44) close to the base substrate (Ito: substrate 10; para. 0057, similar to 1 of Yang); wherein z, k and m are all natural numbers, m (at least 2 stage) is greater than 1, and 0 < z < k≤m. Ito and Yang 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 add m stages of second steps as taught by Ito. Doing so would realize a pixel definition structure to increase uniformity of light emission brightness (Ito: para. 0099). Regarding claim 8 , Yang teaches the display substrate according to claim 1 including the second side surface (fig. 10, outside surface of 5). Yang fails to teach the second side surface further comprises a second step of a first stage, a second step of a second stage, and a second step of a third stage that are sequentially arranged along the light emitting direction of the light emitting functional layer; there is no overlapping area between any two of an orthographic projection of the second step of the first stage on the base substrate, an orthographic projection of the second step of the second stage on the base substrate, and an orthographic projection of the second step of the third stage on the base substrate; and a slope angle of a second step side surface of the second step of the first stage is greater than a slope angle of a second step side surface of the second step of the second stage, and the slope angle of the second step side surface of the second step of the second stage is greater than a slope angle of a second step side surface of the second step of the third stage. However, Ito teaches the second side surface (Ito: fig. 18 outside surface is same as the inside surface of fig. 9, similar to outside surface of top 5 of Yang) further comprises a second step (Ito: fig. 9, 3 steps side surfaces of third partition 43aa, fourth partition 43ab, second partition 44a; para. 0080) of a first stage (Ito: 44a), a second step of a second stage (Ito: steps side surface of 43ab), and a second step of a third stage (Ito: steps side surface of 43aa) that are sequentially arranged along the light emitting direction (vertical direction) of the light emitting functional layer (Ito: functional layer 45; para. 0055, similar to 21 of Yang); there is no overlapping area between any two of an orthographic projection of the second step of the first stage (Ito: orthographic projection of side surface of 44a) on the base substrate (Ito: substrate 10; para. 0057, similar to 1 of Yang), an orthographic projection of the second step of the second stage (Ito: orthographic projection of side surface of 43ab) on the base substrate (Ito: 10), and an orthographic projection of the second step of the third stage (Ito: orthographic projection of side surface of 43aa) on the base substrate (Ito: 10); and a slope angle (slope angle of side surface) of a second step side surface of the second step of the first stage (Ito: 44a) is greater than a slope angle (slope angle of side surface) of a second step side surface of the second step of the second stage (Ito: 43ab), and the slope angle (slope angle of side surface) of the second step side surface of the second step of the second stage (Ito: 43ab) is greater than a slope angle (slope angle of side surface) of a second step side surface of the second step of the third stage (Ito: 43aa). Ito and Yang 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 add 3 stages of second steps as taught by Ito. Doing so would realize a pixel definition structure to increase uniformity of light emission brightness (Ito: para. 0099). Regarding claim 9 , Yang teaches the display substrate according to claim 1, wherein the pixel definition layer (fig. 10, 5) further comprises a first side surface (inner surface) on a side (inside) close to the first electrode (22). Yang fails to teach the first side surface comprises n stages of first steps that are sequentially arranged along the light emitting direction of the light emitting functional layer, a first step comprises a first step side surface, a slope angle of a first step side surface of a first step of an i-th stage is greater than a slope angle of a first step side surface of a first step of a j-th stage, and the first step of the i-th stage is on a side of the first step of the j-th stage close to the base substrate; wherein i, j and n are all natural numbers, n is greater than 1, and 0 < i < j≤n. However, Ito teaches the first side surface (Ito: fig. 4A, inner side surface of partition 42; para. 0060, similar to 5 of Yang) comprises n stages (at least 2 stage) of first steps (inner steps) that are sequentially arranged along the light emitting direction (vertical direction) of the light emitting functional layer (Ito: functional layer 45; para. 0055, similar to 21 of Yang), a first step (Ito: fig. 4A, inner side surface) comprises a first step side surface, a slope angle (Ito: angle α of first partition 43; para. 0064) of a first step side surface of a first step of an i-th stage (Ito: side surface of 43) is greater than a slope angle (Ito: angle β of second partition 44; para. 0064) of a first step side surface of a first step of a j-th stage e (Ito: side surface of 44), and the first step of the i-th stage (Ito: 43) is on a side (bottom side) of the first step of the j-th stage (Ito: 44) close to the base substrate (Ito: substrate 10; para. 0057, similar to 1 of Yang); wherein i, j and n are all natural numbers, n (at least 2 stage) is greater than 1, and 0 < i < j≤n. Ito and Yang 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 add n stages of first steps as taught by Ito. Doing so would realize a pixel definition structure to increase uniformity of light emission brightness (Ito: para. 0099). Regarding claim 10 , Yang in view of Ito teaches the display substrate according to claim 9 including the first side surface (inner side surface). Yang in view of Ito as applied to claim 9 above fails to explicitly teach the first side surface comprises 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, Ito teaches the first side surface (Ito: fig. 9, inner side surface) comprises 3 stages of first steps (Ito: 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 (Ito: 45), a slope angle (Ito: angle of 43aa) of a first step side surface of a first step of a first stage (Ito: inner side surface of step of 43aa) is greater than (Ito: same trace as fig. 4A instead of 4B) a slope angle (Ito: angle of 43ab) of a first step side surface of a first step of a second stage (Ito: inner side surface of step of 43ab), and the slope angle (Ito: angle of 43ab) of the first step side surface of the first step of the second stage (Ito: inner side surface of 43ab) is greater than (Ito: same trace as fig. 4A instead of 4B) a slope angle (Ito: angle of 44a) of a first step side surface of a first step of a third stage (Ito: 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 LED element (Ito: para. 0084). Regarding claim 11 , Yang in view of Ito teaches the display substrate according to claim 10 including the first step side surface (inner side surface). Yang in view of Ito as applied to claim 10 above 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° (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° (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 10° to 45° (44 larger than 43 and 43 in the range of 10° and 45°; 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 10° to 45° to 40 degrees to 45 degrees. Doing so would realize steeper angles to widen the region and to increase light emission brightness (Ito: para. 0018). 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 12 , Yang in view of Ito teaches the display substrate according to claim 9, wherein a thickness of the first step of the i-th stage (Ito: 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, and a length of the first step of the i-th stage is greater than a length of the first step of the j-th stage (Ito: thickness of 43ab around/for thickness of light emitting layer 45a; para. 0081). Regarding claim 18 , Yang in view of Ito further teaches the display substrate according to claim 9, wherein the light emitting functional layer (Ito: fig. 4A and 14, 45) comprises a first film layer portion (Ito: auxiliary layer 45b; para. 0081) located on a side (bottom side) close to the base substrate (Ito: 10) and a second film layer portion (Ito: light emitting layer 45a; para. 0081) located on a side (top side) away from the base substrate (Ito: 10), and the first film layer portion (Ito: 45b) forms at least one protrusion part (Ito: protrusion part of step 43) at the n stages of the first steps of the first side surface (inner side steps) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Ito as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Gu et al. (CN 112635537 from IDS) . Regarding claim 13 , Yang in view of Ito further teaches The display substrate according to claim 9, wherein the second electrode (Yang: fig. 10, 4) comprises a first portion (Yang: inner portion of 4) covering the first side surface (Yang: inner side surface of 5) and a second portion (Yang: out portion of 4) covering a second step (Ito: step surface) of the second side surface (Yang: outside surface of 5), the first portion (Yang: inner portion of 4) is connected with the second portion (Yang: out portion of 4), a surface of the first portion (Yang: surface of inner portion of 4) comprises at least one first curved surface (Yang: curved top surface), a surface of the second portion (Yang: surface of out portion of 4) comprises at least one second curved surface (Yang: curved top and side surface). Yang in view of Ito fails to explicitly teach a curvature change of the at least one first curved surface is less than a curvature change of the at least one second curved surface. However, Gu teaches a curvature change (Gu: fig. 2, curvature change of curved surface around top corner of inner portion cathode layer 14; para. 0031, similar to 4 of Yang) of the at least one first curved surface is less than a curvature change (Gu: curvature change of curved surface kink near cut off of out portion 14) of the at least one second curved surface. Gu, Ito and Yang 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 a curvature change of the at least one first curved surface is less than a curvature change of the at least one second curved surface. Doing so would realize a structure with a cut off kind disconnected structure to prevent display crosstalk of the pixel unit (Gu: para. 0054). Regarding claim 14 , Yang in view of Ito and Gu further teaches the display substrate according to claim 13, 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°). 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 15 , Yang in view of Ito teaches the display substrate according to claim 9 including the protrusion structure (fig. 10, protrusion of 5 outside). Yang in view of Ito fails to explicitly teach a length of the protrusion structure is greater than a sum of a total length of the n stages of the first steps of the first side surface and a length of a second step of the second side surface. However, Gu teaches a length (Gu: fig. 3, the total length of first top surface 21, 23; para. 0033) of the protrusion structure (Gu: protrusion structure of 21, 23, similar to protrusion of 5 of Yang) is greater than a sum of a total length (Gu: sum of total width of inner side incline, similar to total width of inner steps surface of Ito) of the n stages of the first steps of the first side surface (Ito: inner side step surface) and a length (Gu: and length of second bottom surface 32; para. 0033) of a second step (Gu: step of second inclined surface 33; para. 0033, similar to outside steps surface of Ito) of the second side surface (outside surface). Gu, Ito and Yang 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 add a length of the protrusion structure is greater than a sum of a total length of the n stages of the first steps of the first side surface and a length of a second step of the second side surface. Doing so would realize a structure with a cut off kind disconnected structure to prevent display crosstalk of the pixel unit (Gu: para. 0054). Regarding claim 16 , Yang in view of Ito teaches the display substrate according to claim 9 including a length (Ito: fig. 9, a length of incline of 51b) of the first step side surface (inner side surface). Yang in view of Ito fails to explicitly teach a 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, Ito and Yang 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) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Gu . Regarding claim 17 , Yang teaches the display substrate according to claim 1, wherein a surface of the second electrode (fig. 10, top surface of 4) is uneven. Yang 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 teaches a distance (Gu: fig. 2, height of cathode layer 14; para. 0031, similar to 4 of Yang) 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 Yang 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 smaller size and 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 Application/Control Number: 18/674,957 Page 2 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/674,957 Page 3 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/674,957 Page 4 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/674,957 Page 5 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/674,957 Page 6 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/674,957 Page 7 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/674,957 Page 8 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/674,957 Page 9 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/674,957 Page 10 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/674,957 Page 11 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/674,957 Page 12 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/674,957 Page 13 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/674,957 Page 14 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/674,957 Page 15 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/674,957 Page 16 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/674,957 Page 17 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/674,957 Page 18 Art Unit: 2818
Prosecution Insights