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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application and are currently being examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/29/2024 is being considered by the examiner, except where lined through (see IDS).
Note that CN 110491907, JP 2004-259696, KR 10-0749490, and JP 2000-181366 have NOT been considered as no English equivalent or translation has been provided.
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 § 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.
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.
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(s) 1-5 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 212182332 U, hereafter Li) in view of Gunji (US 2019/0237528 A1).
Regarding claim 1, in Fig. 5 Li discloses a display substrate comprising:
a base substrate (301, [0038]) comprising a first subpixel region (pixel unit, left U, [0030]) and a second subpixel region (pixel unit, right U, [0030]) adjacent to each other,
a dielectric layer (insulating layer, 302 [0038]) located on the base substrate (301), and
a first electrode layer (anode, 303, [0038]), a pixel defining layer (combination of 304 and conductive layer, 307, [0038]), an organic functional layer (organic light-emitting layer, 305, [0038]) and a second electrode layer (cathode layer, 306, [0038]) which are stacked successively on a side, away from the base substrate (301), of the dielectric layer (302), the first electrode layer (303) comprising a first electrode (303 in left U) in the first subpixel region (pixel unit, left U) and a second electrode (303 in right U) in the second subpixel region (pixel unit, right U),
wherein a gap (see annotated Fig. 5) is present between the first electrode (303 in left U) and the second electrode (303 in right U); a portion, which is corresponding to the gap, of the dielectric layer (insulating layer, 302) comprises a first groove, and the gap exposes the first groove (H1, [0038]); a portion, which is corresponding to the first groove (H1), of the second electrode layer (306) comprises a concave structure (see annotated Fig. 5);
the pixel defining layer (304, 307) comprises a pixel defining portion (see annotated Fig. 5) between the first electrode region (303 in left U) and the second electrode (303 in right U), and the pixel defining layer (304, 307) covers the first groove to form a second groove (see annotated Fig. 5); the display substrate has a cross section perpendicular to the base substrate (301); the concave structure comprises a first concave point (see annotated Fig. 5) and a second concave point (see annotated Fig. 5) within the cross section; orthographic projections of the first concave point and the second concave point on the base substrate (301) are both within an orthographic projection of the second groove on the base substrate (301).
Li is silent on within the cross section and along a first direction parallel to a plate surface of the base substrate, a portion, which is on a side of a first side surface of the second groove close to the first electrode, of the pixel defining portion has a length denoted by y1, and a distance between the first concave point and the second concave point in the first direction is less than y1.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would know to use lengths known in the art prior to the effective filing date. Gunji teaches a similar display device with an opening 180 with width W ([0052]) (similar to the concave structure in annotated Fig. 5). The width W can be anywhere from 0.5 to 5 microns [0052]. Gunji also teaches a distance between adjacent sub-pixels, L2 in Fig. 2A ([0039]), which is comparable to the gap in annotated Fig. 5. This subpixel distance L2 can range from 5 to 30 microns [0039]. If one of ordinary skill in the art were to select the largest lengths for W and L2, (5 microns and 30 microns respectively), the distance between the first concave point and second concave point would inherently be less than 5 microns, as it is within the gap/W. The distance of y1 would be 12.5 microns ((pixel distance L2 - gap W) divided by 2). 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 device of Li to have dimensions as taught by Gunji allowing for a distance between the first concave point and the second concave point in the first direction is less than y1.
PNG
media_image1.png
440
1029
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
440
1029
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Li in view of Gunji teach the display substrate according to claim 1, wherein within the cross section and in the first direction, the second groove (see annotated Fig. 5) has a maximum length denoted by L5 (see second groove in annotated Fig. 5); and y1 (see annotated Fig. 5) is greater than L5. As y1 is larger than the gap (12.5 microns compared to 5 microns), and the second groove (L5) is smaller than the gap, y1 is greater than L5.
Regarding claim 3, Li in view of Gunji teach the display substrate according to claim 1, wherein the second electrode layer (cathode layer, 306, [0038]) comprises a protrusion portion (see annotated Fig. 5 below) which is at least partially overlapped with the first electrode (303 in left U) in a direction perpendicular to the base substrate (301, [0038]).
PNG
media_image3.png
440
1029
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Li in view of Gunji teach the display substrate according to claim 1, wherein the first concave point (see annotated Fig. 5) and the second concave point (see annotated Fig. 5) have different distances to the base substrate (see annotated Fig. 5) (As the distance is not defined as a shortest distance, any distance can be drawn, as shown);
the concave structure (see annotated Fig. 5) further comprises a first protrusion point (see annotated Fig. 5) within the cross section; the first protrusion point is between the first concave point and the second concave point; a distance (see annotated Fig. 5) of the first protrusion point to the base substrate is greater than a distance of each of the first concave point and the second concave point to the base substrate (As the distance is not defined as a shortest distance, any distance can be drawn, as shown); and
a greater value of a height difference between the first protrusion point and the first concave point and a height difference between the first protrusion point and the second concave point is denoted by [Symbol font/0x44]h.
PNG
media_image4.png
440
1029
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Li in view of Gunji teach the display substrate according to claim 4, wherein [Symbol font/0x44]h (see annotated Fig. 5) is greater than a height difference between the first concave point (see annotated Fig. 5) and the second concave point (see annotated Fig. 5). As the height difference between the first concave point and the second concave point is 0, [Symbol font/0x44]h is greater than the difference.
Regarding claim 20, Li in view of Gunji teach an electronic apparatus (shown in schematic of Fig. 2 of Li), comprising the display substrate according to claim 1.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li and Gunji as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jeon et al. (US 2010/0052518 A1, hereinafter Jeon).
Regarding claim 18, Li in view of Gunji teach the display substrate according to claim 1, wherein the pixel defining layer (combination of 304 and conductive layer, 307, [0038]) comprises a first surface away from the base substrate (see annotated Fig. 5 below), the first surface of the pixel defining layer comprises a first inclined surface (see annotated Fig. 5 below) corresponding to the first electrode edge and a second inclined surface; shapes of the first inclined surface and the second inclined surface within the cross section both comprise a curve (see annotated Fig. 5 below); and
the first surface of the pixel defining layer further comprises a connection surface (see annotated Fig. 5 below) between the first inclined surface and the second inclined surface, and the connection surface is flat at least in part (see annotated Fig. 5 below).
Li does not explicitly disclose the second inclined surface being joined with the first surface. However, Jeon is provided as evidence to show a typical pixel defining layer (190) surrounding each pixel. 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 inclined surfaces to be curved as taught by Jeon as is known in the art.
PNG
media_image5.png
440
1029
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
638
588
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-17, and 19 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:
Claims 6-17, and 19 are allowed primarily because the prior art of record cannot anticipate or render obvious the following limitations, in combination as recited in dependent claim(s) 6: “[Symbol font/0x44]h is greater than an average thickness of the second electrode layer”.
The closest prior art of record, Li in view of Gunji teaches a display device with a first concave point and a second concave point but fails to teach ”[Symbol font/0x44]h is greater than an average thickness of the second electrode layer”, nor could Examiner find any reason for this limitation.
in dependent claim(s) 11: “the second electrode layer has a sharper angle at the second concave point than at the first concave point”.
The closest prior art of record, Li in view of Gunji teaches a display device with a first concave point and a second concave point but fails to teach “the second electrode layer has a sharper angle at the second concave point than at the first concave point”, nor could Examiner find any reason for this limitation.
in dependent claim(s) 12: “the first groove and the second groove each have an aspect ratio less than 0.5.”.
The closest prior art of record, Li in view of Gunji teaches a display device with a first concave point and a second concave point but fails to teach “the first groove and the second groove each have an aspect ratio less than 0.5.”, nor could Examiner find any reason for this limitation.
in dependent claim(s) 13: “wherein within the cross section and along the first direction, a distance L1 between the first side surface, close to the first electrode, of the second groove and a first electrode edge, close to the first groove, of the first electrode is greater than a distance L2 between the first concave point and the first side surface of the second groove”.
The closest prior art of record, Li in view of Gunji teaches a display device with a first concave point and a second concave point but fails to teach “wherein within the cross section and along the first direction, a distance L1 between the first side surface, close to the first electrode, of the second groove and a first electrode edge, close to the first groove, of the first electrode is greater than a distance L2 between the first concave point and the first side surface of the second groove”, nor could Examiner find any reason for this limitation.
in dependent claim(s) 19: “a ratio of a length of the connection surface within the cross section to L1 is greater than 1/3”.
The closest prior art of record, Li in view of Gunji teaches a display device with a first concave point and a second concave point but fails to teach “a ratio of a length of the connection surface within the cross section to L1 is greater than 1/3”, nor could Examiner find any reason for this limitation.
Claims 7-10 and 14-17 are also objected to by nature of being dependent upon another objected claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMMANTHA K SALAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-2484. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, N. Drew 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.
/SAMMANTHA K SALAZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2892
/ERIC W JONES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2892
Prosecution Insights