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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/11/2024 is being considered by the
examiner.
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.
Claim 10 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.
Claim 10, dependent on Claim 4, recites “wherein the auxiliary electrode layer is not overlapped with the metal patterning layer” and contradicts Claim 4 which recites “wherein the auxiliary electrode layer is overlapped with the metal patterning layer”. It is not clear whether or not the auxiliary electrode layer is overlapped with the metal patterning layer.
For the purpose of examination, Claim 4 will be examined as is.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3, 14, 24, 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tang et al. (WO 2020192313 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Tang et al. discloses a display substrate, comprising:
a base substrate 100 (Fig. 2d: 100, page 6, lines 34 in English translation of Tang et al.);
an anode layer 150 arranged on the base substrate 100 and comprising a plurality of anodes 150 arranged at intervals (Fig. 2d: 150, 100, page 7, line 3 in English translation of Tang et al.);
Note that only one anode corresponding to a single sub-pixel region 120 of the plurality of sub-pixel regions is shown in the Figures.
a pixel defining layer 110 disposed on the base substrate 100, the pixel defining layer 110 defining a plurality of pixel areas 120 and covering an edge area of each of the anodes 150 (Fig. 2d: 110, 150, page 6, lines 34-36 in English translation of Tang et al.);
a light-emitting functional layer 130 arranged on a side of the anode layer 150 away from the base substrate 100, the light-emitting functional layer 130 at least covering the pixel areas 120 (Fig. 2d: 130, 100, 120, 150, page 7, lines 3-12 in English translation of Tang et al.);
and a cathode layer 140 and a metal patterning layer 200 arranged on a side of the light- emitting functional layer 130 away from the base substrate 100 (Fig. 2d: 140, 200, 130, 100, page 7, lines 13-30 in English translation of Tang et al.).
Regarding Claim 2, Tang et al. discloses the display substrate of claim 1,
wherein the cathode layer 140 is disposed as a whole layer (Fig. 2d: 140),
the metal patterning layer 200 is disposed on a side of the cathode layer 140 away from the base substrate 100 (Fig. 2d: 200, 140, 100),
and the metal patterning layer 200 is disposed in the pixel areas 120 (portion 230 of the layer 200 in Fig. 2d is disposed in the pixel area 120);
the display substrate 100 further comprises non-pixel areas between the pixel areas 120 (area surrounding the pixel area 120 and defined by the pixel defining layer 110 of Fig. 2d),
and the display substrate 100 further comprises an auxiliary electrode layer 300 arranged in the non-pixel areas (Fig 2d: 300, page 11, lines 22-31 in English translation of Tang et al.),
the auxiliary electrode layer 300 being arranged on the side of the cathode layer 140 away from the base substrate 100 (Fig 2d: 300, 140, 100),
and the auxiliary electrode layer 300 being in direct contact with the cathode layer 140 (Fig 2d: 300, 140).
Regarding Claim 3, Tang et al. discloses the display substrate of claim 2, wherein the auxiliary electrode layer 300 is overlapped with the metal patterning layer 200 (portion 220 of the layer 200) to form an overlapping region BB therebetween (see annotated Fig. 2d: BB, 300, 200), or the auxiliary electrode layer is not overlapped with the metal patterning layer.
Note that the auxiliary electrode layer 300 is overlapped with the metal patterning layer 200 in the direction of the thickness perpendicular to the plane of the substrate 100 and thus satisfies the claim language.
PNG
media_image1.png
801
1431
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2dof Tang et al. (WO 2020192313 A1)
Regarding Claim 14, Tang et al. discloses the display substrate of claim 1, the display substrate of claim 1, wherein the metal patterning layer 200 is provided on the side of the light-emitting functional layer 130 away from the base substrate 100, and the metal patterning layer (portion 220 of the metal patterning layer 200) is provided in non-pixel areas between adjacent pixel areas 120; and the cathode layer 140 includes cathodes disposed in the pixel areas 120 (Fig. 2d: 220, 200, 130, 100, 120, 140, page 11, lines 1-16 in English Translation of Tang et al.).
Regarding Claim 24, Tang et al. discloses a display apparatus, comprising the display substrate of claim 1 (see abstract in English Translation of Tang et al.).
Regarding Claim 27, Tang et al. discloses a method for manufacturing the display substrate of claim 1, comprising:
manufacturing the anode layer 150 comprising the plurality of anodes 150 arranged at intervals on the base substrate 100 (Fig. 2a: 150, 100, page 7, lines 3-6 in English translation of Tang et al.);
Note that only one anode corresponding to a single sub-pixel region 120 of the plurality of sub-pixel regions is shown in the Figures.
manufacturing the pixel defining layer 110 on the side of the cathode layer 140 away from the base substrate 100, the pixel defining layer 110 defining the plurality of pixel areas 120 and covering the edge area of each anode 150 (Fig. 2a: 111, 100, 120, 140, 150, page 6, lines 29-33 in English translation of Tang et al.);
manufacturing the light-emitting functional layer 130 on the side of the anode layer 150 away from the base substrate 100, the light-emitting functional layer 130 at least covering the pixel areas 120 (Fig. 2a: 130, 100, 120, 140, 150, page 6, lines 29-33 in English translation of Tang et al.);
and manufacturing the cathode layer 140 and the metal patterning layer 200 on the side of the light-emitting functional layer 130 away from the base substrate 100 (Fig. 2b: 140, 200, 100, 130, page 7, lines 23-30 in English translation of Tang et al.).
Regarding Claim 28, Tang et al. discloses method of claim 27, wherein the manufacturing the cathode layer 140 and the metal patterning layer 200 on the side of the light-emitting functional layer 130 away from the base substrate 100 comprises:
manufacturing the cathode layer 140 arranged as a whole layer on the side of the light-emitting functional layer 130 away from the base substrate 100 (Fig. 2a: 140, 130, 100, page 6, line 28 in English Translation of Tang et al.);
depositing a metal patterning material film layer 200 on a side of the cathode layer 140 away from the base substrate 100 (Fig. 2b: 200, 140, 100, page 7, lines 23-30 in English Translation of Tang et al.),
and patterning the metal patterning material film layer 200 to form the metal patterning layer 230 which is arranged in the pixel areas 120 and is arranged on the side of the cathode layer 140 away from the base substrate 100 (Fig. 2c-2d: 230, 200, 140, 100, page 11, lines 11-16 in English Translation of Tang et al.);
and depositing a metal material on a side of the metal patterning layer 230 away from the base substrate 100 to form an auxiliary electrode layer 300, which is in direct contact with the cathode layer 140, in non-pixel areas (Fig. 2d: 300, 230, 100, 140, page 11, lines 21-31 in English Translation of Tang et al.),
or the manufacturing the cathode layer and the metal patterning layer on the side of the light-emitting functional layer away from the base substrate comprises:
depositing a metal patterning material film layer on the side of the light-emitting functional layer away from the base substrate,
and patterning the metal patterning material film layer to form the metal patterning layer arranged in non-pixel areas;
and depositing a metal material on a side of the metal patterning layer away from the base substrate to form the cathode layer in the pixel areas,
or the manufacturing the cathode layer and the metal patterning layer on the side of the light-emitting functional layer away from the base substrate comprises:
manufacturing a first cathode layer arranged as a whole layer on the side of the light-emitting functional layer away from the base substrate;
depositing a metal patterning material film layer on a side of the first cathode layer away from the base substrate,
and patterning the metal patterning material film layer to form the metal patterning layer in a green pixel area and a blue pixel area;
and depositing a metal material on a side of the metal patterning layer away from the base substrate, to form a second cathode layer which is in direct contact with the first cathode layer in a red pixel area, the first cathode layer and the second cathode layer constituting the cathode layer.
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.
Rejection note: Italicized claim limitations are limitations not explicitly disclosed in the primary
reference but disclosed in the secondary reference(s).
Claims 4 and 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (WO 2020192313 A1), as applied to Claim 3 above, further in view of Zhang et al. (US 20210083219 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Tang et al. discloses the display substrate of claim 3,
wherein the auxiliary electrode layer 300 is overlapped with the metal patterning layer 220 to form an overlapping region BB therebetween (see annotated Fig. 2d: BB, 300, 200),
and wherein the metal patterning layer has a thickness ranging from 60nm to 100nm, the auxiliary electrode layer has a thickness ranging from 40nm to 60nm, an edge area of the metal patterning layer has a slope angle ranging from 1° to 20°, an edge area of the auxiliary electrode layer has a slope angle ranging from 5° to 20°, and the overlapping region has a width ranging from 1 µm to 5 µm:
or the metal patterning layer has a thickness ranging from 60 nm to 100 nm, the auxiliary electrode layer has a thickness ranging from 20nm to 40nm, an edge area of the metal patterning layer has a slope angle ranging from 1° to 20°, an edge area of the auxiliary electrode layer has a slope angle ranging from 10° to 50°, and the overlapping region has a width less than 1 µm;
or the metal patterning layer 200 has a thickness ranging from 10 nm to 30 nm (page 3, lines 20-23 in English translation of Tang et al.),
Note that according to page 3, lines 20-23 in English translation of Tang et al., the metal patterning layer has a thickness ranging from 1 nm to 1000 nm, which overlaps the claimed range. According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “In the case 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).
the auxiliary electrode layer has a thickness more than 100nm,
an edge area of the metal patterning layer has a slope angle ranging from 1° to 20°,
an edge area of the auxiliary electrode layer has a slope angle ranging from 160° to 179°,
and the overlapping region has a width ranging from 3 µm to 6 µm (page 10, lines 18-21 in English translation of Tang et al.);
Note that the auxiliary electrode layer has a width L which is less than 26 µm (page 10, lines 18-21 in English translation of Tang et al., annotated Fig. 2d: 300, L). Since the overlapping region BB is about two third of L, the overlapping region BB will have a width of less than 17 µm, which overlaps the claimed range. According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “In the case 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).
or the metal patterning layer has a thickness ranging from 10 nm to 30nm, the auxiliary electrode layer has a thickness ranging from 30 nm to 100 nm, an edge area of the metal patterning layer has a slope angle ranging from 0.5° to 15°, an edge area of the auxiliary electrode layer has a slope angle ranging from 165° to 179.5°, and the overlapping region has a width ranging from 1 µm to 3 µm;
or the metal patterning layer has a thickness ranging from 10 nm to 30 nm, the auxiliary electrode layer has a thickness ranging from 10 nm to 30 nm, an edge area of the metal patterning layer has a slope angle ranging from 0.1° to 30°, an edge area of the auxiliary electrode layer has a slope angle ranging from 150° to 179.9°, and the overlapping region has a width ranging from 0 µm to 1 µm.
Zhang et al. teaches the following limitations not explicitly disclosed in Tang et al.
the auxiliary electrode layer 22 has a thickness h2 more than 100 nm (Fig. 2: 22, paragraph 0070)
Note that the auxiliary electrode layer 22 has a thickness less than or equal to 500 nm, which overlaps the claimed range. According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “In the case 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).
an edge area of the metal patterning layer 231 has a slope angle ranging from 1° to 20° (see Fig. 2: 231),
Note that the an edge area of the metal patterning layer 231 has a slope angle less than 90°, which overlaps the claimed ranges. According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “In the case 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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Tang et al. and Zhang et al. in order to have the auxiliary electrode layer have a thickness a thickness more than 100 nm and an edge area of the metal patterning layer has a slope angle ranging from 1° to 20°. Doing so would lower the sheet resistance of the auxiliary electrode.
Tang et al. teaches an edge area of an edge area of the auxiliary electrode layer 300 has a slope angle of 90° (see Fig. 2d: 200, 300). According to MPEP § 2144.05 (II-A), differences in angles will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such angle is critical. "[W]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).
Since the applicant has not established the criticality of the claimed ranges of angles, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above angles through routine optimization such that an edge area of the auxiliary electrode layer has a slope angle ranging from 160° to 179°.
Regarding Claim 10, Tang et al. discloses the display substrate of claim 4,
wherein the auxiliary electrode layer 300 is not overlapped with the metal patterning layer (portion 230 of the layer 200) (see annotated Fig. 2d: 230, 300, 200),
the metal patterning layer 230 has a thickness ranging from 60 nm to 100nm (page 3, lines 20-23 in English translation of Tang et al.),
Note that according to page 3, lines 20-23 in English translation of Tang et al., the metal patterning layer has a thickness ranging from 1 nm to 1000 nm, which overlaps the claimed range. According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “In the case 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).
the auxiliary electrode layer 300 has a thickness ranging from 10 nm to 20 nm,
an edge area of the metal patterning layer 200 has a slope angle ranging from 1° to 20°,
an edge area of the auxiliary electrode layer 300 has a slope angle ranging from 30° to 90° (see Fig. 2d: 300),
Note that the an edge area of the auxiliary electrode layer 300 has a slope angle of 90° which falls within the claimed ranges. According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “In the case 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).
and a gap between adjacent edges of the auxiliary electrode layer 300 and the metal patterning layer 200 has a width ranging from 1 µm to 5 µm.
Note that the gap between adjacent edges of the auxiliary electrode layer 300 and the metal patterning layer 200 has a width of 0 µm which approaches the claimed range. According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Zhang et al. teaches the following limitations not explicitly disclosed in Tang et al.
the auxiliary electrode layer 22 has a thickness h2 ranging from 10 nm to 20 nm (Fig. 2: 22, paragraph 0070).
Note that the auxiliary electrode layer 22 has a thickness less than or equal to 500 nm, which overlaps the claimed range. According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “In the case 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).
an edge area of the metal patterning layer 231 has a slope angle ranging from 1° to 20° (Fig. 2: 231, paragraph 0050)
Note that the an edge area of the metal patterning layer 231 has a slope angle less than 90°, which overlaps the claimed ranges. According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “In the case 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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Tang et al. and Zhang et al. in order to have the auxiliary electrode layer have a thickness ranging from 10 nm to 20 nm and an edge area of the metal patterning layer has a slope angle ranging from 1° to 20°. Doing so would lower the sheet resistance of the auxiliary electrode.
Note that Claim 10 is examined based on the interpretation provided under the 112(b) rejection above.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (WO 2020192313 A1), as applied to Claim 3 above, further in view of Oh et al. (US 20260013323 A1) claiming foreign priority to KR 10-2022-0083362.
Regarding Claim 11, Tang et al. fails to explicitly disclose the display substrate of claim 3, further comprising a light extraction layer disposed between the cathode layer and the metal patterning layer, the light extraction layer having a pattern identical to a pattern of the metal patterning layer.
However, Oh et al. teaches a display apparatus comprising a light extraction layer 214 disposed between the cathode layer 220 and the metal patterning layer 212, the light extraction layer 214 having a pattern identical to a pattern of the metal patterning layer 212 (Fig. 2: 214, 212, 220, paragraph 0082),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Tang et al. and Oh et al. in order to have a light extraction layer disposed between the cathode layer and the metal patterning layer, the light extraction layer having a pattern identical to a pattern of the metal patterning layer. Doing so would improve the light extraction efficiency of the display device.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (WO 2020192313 A1), further in view of Oh et al. (US 2026/0013323 A1) claiming foreign priority to KR 10-2022-0083362, as applied to Claim 11 above, further in view of Zhang et al. (US 20210083219 A1) .
Regarding Claim 12, Tang et al. teaches the display substrate of claim 11,
wherein the light extraction layer has a thickness ranging from 60nm to 100nm,
the metal patterning layer has a thickness ranging from 10 nm to 30nm (page 3, lines 20-23 in English translation of Tang et al.),
Note that according to page 3, lines 20-23 in English translation of Tang et al., the metal patterning layer has a thickness ranging from 1 nm to 1000 nm, which overlaps the claimed range. According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “In the case 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).
the auxiliary electrode layer has a thickness ranging from 30nm to 100nm,
an edge area of the auxiliary electrode layer 300 has a slope angle ranging from 90° to 170° (see Fig. 2d: 300),
Note that the an edge area of the auxiliary electrode layer 300 has a slope angle of 90° which falls within the claimed ranges. According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “In the case 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).
the auxiliary electrode layer 300 is overlapped with the metal patterning layer 200 to form an overlapping region BB therebetween, and the overlapping region has a width ranging from 0 µm to 1 µm (page 10, lines 18-21 in English translation of Tang et al.).
Note that the auxiliary electrode layer 300 has a width L which is less than 26 µm (see (page 10, lines 18-21 in English translation of Tang et al., annotated Fig. 2d: 300, L). Since the overlapping region BB is about two third of L, the overlapping region BB will have a width of less than 17 µm, which overlaps the claimed range. According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “In the case 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).
Oh et al. teaches the following limitation not disclosed in tang et al.
wherein the light extraction layer 214 has a thickness ranging from 60nm to 100nm (see Table 1).
Note that according to Table 1 of Oh et al. teaches in an embodiment, light extraction layer 214 has a thickness of 90 nm, which falls within the claimed range. According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “In the case 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).
Zhang et al. teaches the following limitations not explicitly disclosed in Tang et al.
the auxiliary electrode layer 22 has a thickness h2 ranging from 10 nm to 20 nm (Fig. 2: 22, paragraph 0070).
Note that the auxiliary electrode layer 22 has a thickness less than or equal to 500 nm, which overlaps the claimed range. According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “In the case 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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Tang et al. and Zhang et al. in order to have the auxiliary electrode layer have a thickness ranging from 30nm to 100nm. Doing so would lower the sheet resistance of the auxiliary electrode.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (WO 2020192313 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Tang et al. fails to explicitly disclose the display substrate of claim 2, wherein a ratio of an area of the auxiliary electrode layer 300 to an area of a display area of the display substrate ranges from 30% to 80%.
However, a person of ordinary skill would have calculated the above ratio using Fig. 11 for a display area AA highlighted in the annotated Fig. 11 below by dotted lines. A sample calculation based on the following assumptions is shown below.
assuming a square pixel area 120 of dimension “a”
width of the auxiliary electrode layer is “b[Symbol font/0x7E]a/3”
Based on the above assumption, a fill factor FF of the auxiliary electrode 300 within a display area AA defined in annotated Fig. 11 can be determined to be:
F
F
=
a
r
e
a
o
f
a
u
x
i
l
i
a
r
y
e
l
e
c
t
r
o
d
e
300
a
r
e
a
o
f
d
i
s
p
l
a
y
a
r
e
a
A
A
=
63
b
2
117
b
2
=
53.8
%
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the a ratio of an area of the auxiliary electrode layer 300 to an area of a display area of the display substrate is around 54%, which falls within the claimed range. According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “In the case 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).
PNG
media_image2.png
816
1227
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 11 of Tang et al. (WO 2020192313 A1)
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (WO 2020192313 A1), as applied to Claim 14 above, further in view of Zhai et al. (US 20210355142 A1) and Zhang et al. (US 20210083219 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Tang et al. discloses the display substrate of claim 14,
wherein each cathode 140 is overlapped with the metal patterning layer 220 to form an overlapping region BB therebetween (see annotated Fig. 2d: BB, 220, 140),
and the metal patterning layer 220 has a thickness ranging from 60nm to 100nm (page 3, lines 20-23 in English translation of Tang et al.),
Note that according to page 3, lines 20-23 in English translation of Tang et al., the metal patterning layer 220 has a thickness ranging from 1 nm to 1000 nm, which overlaps the claimed range. According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “In the case 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).
each cathode has a thickness ranging from 10 nm to 20 nm,
an edge area of the metal patterning layer has a slope angle ranging from 1° to 20°,
an edge area of each cathode 140 has a slope angle ranging from 1° to 30°,
and the overlapping region BB has a width ranging from 1 µm to 5 µm (page 10, lines 18-21 in English translation of Tang et al.);
Note that the auxiliary electrode layer has a width L which is less than 26 µm (page 10, lines 18-21 in English translation of Tang et al., annotated Fig. 2d: 300, L). Since the overlapping region BB is about two third of L, the overlapping region BB will have a width of less than 17 µm, which overlaps the claimed range. According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “In the case 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).
Zhai et al. teaches the following limitation not explicitly disclosed in Tang et al.
each cathode 9 has a thickness ranging from 10 nm to 20 nm (Fig. 1: 9, paragraph 0144),
Note that the cathode 9 has a thickness of 10 nm in an embodiment, which falls within the claimed range. According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “In the case 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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Tang et al. and Zhai et al. in order to have each cathode have a thickness ranging from 10 nm to 20 nm. Doing so would balance electrical conductivity with optical transparency.
Zhang et al. teaches the following limitation not explicitly disclosed in Tang et al.
an edge area of the metal patterning layer 231 has a slope angle ranging from 1° to 20° (Fig. 2: 231, paragraph 0050)
Note that the an edge area of the metal patterning layer 231 has a slope angle less than 90°, which overlaps the claimed ranges. According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “In the case 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).
an edge area of each cathode 27 has a slope angle ranging from 1° to 30° (Fig. 2: 231, paragraph 0051)
Note that the an edge area of each cathode has a slope angle less than 90°, which overlaps the claimed ranges. According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “In the case 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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Tang et al. and Zhang et al. in order to have an edge area of the metal patterning layer has a slope angle ranging from 1° to 20°, an edge area of each cathode have a slope angle ranging from 1° to 30. Doing so would reduce step height experienced by overlying films.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (WO 2020192313 A1), as applied to Claim 14 above, further in view of Zhai et al. (US 20210355142 A1), Oh et al. (US 2026/0013323 A1) claiming foreign priority to KR 10-2022-0083362, and Zhang et al. (US 20210083219 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, Tang et al. discloses the display substrate of claim 14,
wherein each cathode is not overlapped with the metal patterning layer,
and the metal patterning layer 220 has a thickness ranging from 60nm to 100nm (page 3, lines 20-23 in English translation of Tang et al.),
Note that according to page 3, lines 20-23 in English translation of Tang et al., the metal patterning layer 220 has a thickness ranging from 1 nm to 1000 nm, which overlaps the claimed range. According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “In the case 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).
each cathode has a thickness ranging from 1 nm to 10 nm,
an edge area of the metal patterning layer has a slope angle ranging from 1° to 20°,
an edge area of each cathode 140 has a slope angle ranging from 3° to 90° (see Fig. 2d: 300),
Note that the an edge area of each cathode 140 has a slope angle of 90° which falls within the claimed ranges. According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “In the case 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).
and a gap between adjacent edges of each cathode 140 and the metal patterning layer 220 has a width ranging from 0.1 µm to 2 µm.
Note that the gap between adjacent edges of each cathode 400 and the metal patterning layer 220 has a width of 0 µm which approaches the claimed range. According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Oh et al. teaches the following limitation not explicitly disclosed in Tang et al.
wherein each cathode 220 is not overlapped with the metal patterning layer 212 (see Fig. 2: 220, 212, paragraph 0045).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Tang et al. and Oh et al. in order to have each cathode not overlapped with the metal patterning layer. Doing so would minimize step coverage problems that can causing damage at the edges of the cathodes.
Zhai et al. teaches the following limitation not explicitly disclosed in Tang et al.
each cathode 9 has a thickness ranging from 1 nm to 10 nm (Fig. 1: 9, paragraph 0144),
Note that the cathode 9 has a thickness of 10 nm in an embodiment, which falls within the claimed range. According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “In the case 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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Tang et al. and Zhai et al. in order to have each cathode have a thickness ranging from 1 nm to 10 nm. Doing so would balance electrical conductivity with optical transparency.
Zhang et al. teaches the following limitation not explicitly disclosed in Tang et al.
an edge area of the metal patterning layer 231 has a slope angle ranging from 1° to 20° (Fig. 2: 231, paragraph 0050)
Note that the an edge area of the metal patterning layer 231 has a slope angle less than 90°, which overlaps the claimed ranges. According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “In the case 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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Tang et al. and Zhang et al. in order to have an edge area of the metal patterning layer has a slope angle ranging from 1° to 20°. Doing so would improve the step coverage of the auxiliary electrode.
Claim 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (WO 2020192313 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of Choi et al (US 20130328022 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, Tang et al. discloses the display substrate of claim 1,
wherein the pixel areas 120 include a red pixel area, a green pixel area, and a blue pixel area (not shown in Figures, see page 7, lines 3-12 in English translation of Tang et al.),
the cathode layer 140 is disposed as a whole layer, the metal patterning layer 200 is disposed on a side of the cathode layer 140 away from the base substrate 100, and the metal patterning layer 200 is disposed in the green pixel area and the blue pixel area (Fig. 2d: 200, 140, 100),
a thickness of a portion of the cathode layer corresponding to the red pixel area is greater than each of thicknesses of portions of the cathode layer corresponding to the green pixel area and the blue pixel area, the thicknesses of the portions of the cathode layers corresponding to the green pixel area and the blue pixel area being the same.
Choi et al. teaches a display substrate comprising the following limitation not disclosed in Tang et al.,
wherein a thickness of a portion of the cathode layer 62 corresponding to the red pixel area is greater than each of thicknesses of portions of the cathode layer 62 corresponding to the green pixel area and the blue pixel area, the thicknesses of the portions of the cathode layers 62 corresponding to the green pixel area and the blue pixel area being the same (Fig. 1: 62, paragraph 0028, 0038, 0039).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Tang et al. and Choi II in order to have a thickness of a portion of the cathode layer corresponding to the red pixel area greater than each of thicknesses of portions of the cathode layer corresponding to the green pixel area and the blue pixel area, the thicknesses of the portions of the cathode layers corresponding to the green pixel area and the blue pixel area being the same. Doing so
would increase the light transmittance of the cathode layer, as recognized by Choi et al. (paragraph 0038).
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (WO 2020192313 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of second reference Choi et al (US 20130328022 A1), herein referred to as Choi II.
Regarding Claim 20, Tang et al. discloses the display substrate of claim 1, wherein a material of the metal patterning layer 200 is an organic transparent material (page 7, lines 31-33, see also molecular structure of Fig. 3) but fails to explicitly teach the metal patterning layer has a transmittance greater than 90%.
However, Choi II teaches a display substrate comprising a metal patterning layer 233, wherein a material of the metal patterning layer 233 is an organic transparent material and the metal patterning layer 233 has a transmittance greater than 90% (Fig. 1: 233, paragraph 0016, 0098).
Note that the material of the metal patterning layer is the same material disclosed by the applicant for the same (see Claim 21 of originally filed disclosure) and thus would inherently possess the claimed transmittance. According to MPEP § 2112.01 (I), “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established”. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Tang et al. and Choi II in order to have the metal patterning layer have a transmittance greater than 90%. By doing so, the metal patterning layer can perform the patterning function without significantly reducing the emitted light.
Regarding Claim 21, Choi II teaches the display substrate of claim 20, wherein the material of the metal patterning layer 233 comprises: N,N'-diphenyl-N,N-bis(9-phenyl-9H-carbazol-3-yl)biphenyl-4,4'-diamine, N-(biphenyl- 4-yl)-9,9-dimethyl-N-(4-(9-phenyl-9H-carbazol-3-yl)phenyl)-9H-fluoren-2-amine, 4,4',4"-tris(3-methylphenylphenylamino)triphenylamine, N,N'-bis(1-naphthyl)-N,N'- diphenyl[l1,1'-biphenyl]-4,4'-diamine, 4,4'-bis[N-(3-methylphenyl)-N- phenylamino]biphenyl, N4,N4'-diphenyl-N4,N4'-bis(9-phenyl-9H-carbazol-3- yl)diphenyl-4,4'-diamine, or N(diphenyl-4-yl)9,9-dimethyl-N-(4(9-phenyl-9H-carbazol- 3-yl)phenyl)-9H-fluoren-2- amine (paragraph 0016).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (WO 2020192313 A1), as applied to Claim 2 above, further in view of Song et al. (CN 11089406 A).
Regarding Claim 22, Tang et al. teaches the display substrate of claim 2, wherein the auxiliary electrode layer 300 comprises a single layer of metal (Fig. 2d: 300, page 3, lines 22-25);
or the auxiliary electrode layer comprises at least two layers of metal which are stacked together and different in material,
and wherein the material of each layer of the metal comprises Mg, Ag, Al, Li, K, Ca, MgxAg(1-x), LixAl(1-x), LixCa(1-x), or LixAg(1-x).
Song et al. teaches a display substrate comprising the following limitation not disclosed in Tang et al.:
wherein the material of each layer of the metal comprises Mg, Ag, Al, Li, K, Ca, MgxAg(1-x), LixAl(1-x), LixCa(1-x), or LixAg(1-x) (page 3, lines 10-12 in English Translation of Song et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Tang et al. and Song et al. in order to have the material of each layer of the metal comprises Mg, Ag, Al, Li, K, Ca, MgxAg(1-x), LixAl(1-x), LixCa(1-x), or LixAg(1-x). Doing so would ensure good electrical conductivity of the auxiliary electrode.
Claim 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (WO 2020192313 A1), as applied to Claim 24 above, further in view of Jiao et al (US 20200273916 A1) and Oh et al. (US 2026/0013323 A1) claiming foreign priority to KR 10-2022-0083362.
Regarding Claim 25, Tang et al. discloses the display apparatus of claim 24, further comprising:
a color filter layer arranged on a side of the base substrate 100 away from the cathode layer 140 (not shown in Figures, see page 7, lines 9-12 in English Translation of Tang et al.),
and an encapsulation layer arranged on a side of the cathode layer away from the base substrate,
wherein the light-emitting functional layer comprises a hole injection layer, a first hole transport layer, a first blue light-emitting layer, a first electron transport layer, an N- type charge generation layer, a P-type charge generation layer, a second hole transport layer, a second blue light-emitting layer, a second electron transport layer and an electron injection layer which are sequentially stacked and arranged between the anodes and the cathode layer, and the hole injection layer is close to the anodes.
Jiao et al. teaches a display apparatus comprising the following limitations not disclosed in Tang et al.:
and an encapsulation layer TE arranged on a side of the cathode layer 8 away from the base substrate 1 (Fig. 4: 8, Fig. 6: 1, paragraph 0057),
wherein the light-emitting functional layer 3: (33, 32), 4: (41, 42, 45, 46) comprises a hole injection layer 44, a first hole transport layer 41, a first blue light-emitting layer 42, a first electron transport layer 46, a charge generation layer 6, a second hole transport layer 91, a second blue light-emitting layer 32, a second electron transport layer 33 and an electron injection layer 34 which are sequentially stacked and arranged between the anodes 7 and the cathode layer 8, and the hole injection layer 44 is close to the anodes 7 (Fig. 6: 3, 4, Fig. 4: 44, 41, 42, 46, 6, 91, 32, 33, 34, 7, 8, paragraph 0051, 0052).
Note that Fig. 4 shows the detailed structure of the light-emitting layers 3, 4 of Fig. 6
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Tang et al. and Jiao et al. in order to come up with the claimed invention. By doing so, the encapsulation layer would protect the light-emitting element, the charge transport and injection layers would improve charge balance and the multiple blue-emitting layers would improve the external quantum efficiency of the display apparatus.
Oh et al. teaches a display apparatus comprising the following limitations not disclosed in Tang et al.:
an N- type charge generation layer 361 (Fig. 4: 360, paragraph 0075),
a P-type charge generation layer 360 (Fig. 4: 360, paragraph 0075)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Tang et al. and Oh et al. in order to come have an N- type charge generation layer and a P-type charge generation layer. Doing so would enable efficient charge generation at the p-n junction of the N-type and P-type charge generation layers.
Regarding Claim 26, Tang et al. discloses the display apparatus of claim 24, further comprising:
a light extraction layer, an encapsulation layer, a quantum dot color conversion layer and a color filter layer (not shown in Figures, see page 7, lines 9-12 in English Translation of Tang et al.) which are stacked together and arranged on a side of the cathode layer 140 away from the base substrate,
wherein the light-emitting functional layer comprises a hole injection layer, a first hole transport layer, a first blue light-emitting layer, a first electron transport layer, an N- type charge generation layer, a P-type charge generation layer, a second hole transport layer, a second blue light-emitting layer, a second electron transport layer and an electron injection layer which are sequentially stacked and arranged between the anodes and the cathode layer, and the hole injection layer is close to the anodes.
Jiao et al. teaches a display apparatus comprising the following limitations not disclosed in Tang et al.:
an encapsulation layer TE (Fig. 6: TE), a quantum dot color conversion layer 5 which are stacked together and arranged on a side of the cathode layer 8 away from the base substrate 1 (Fig. 6: TE, 5, 1, Fig. 4: 8, paragraph 0053, 0057)
wherein the light-emitting functional layer 3: (33, 32), 4: (41, 42, 45, 46) comprises a hole injection layer 44, a first hole transport layer 41, a first blue light-emitting layer 42, a first electron transport layer 46, a charge generation layer 6, a second hole transport layer 91, a second blue light-emitting layer 32, a second electron transport layer 33 and an electron injection layer 34 which are sequentially stacked and arranged between the anodes 7 and the cathode layer 8, and the hole injection layer 44 is close to the anodes 7 (Fig. 6: 3, 4, Fig. 4: 44, 41, 42, 46, 6, 91, 32, 33, 34, 7, 8, paragraph 0051, 0052).
Note that Fig. 4 shows the detailed structure of the light-emitting layers 3, 4 of Fig. 6
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Tang et al. and Jiao et al. in order to come up with the claimed invention. By doing so, the encapsulation layer would protect the light-emitting element, the quantum-dot color conversion layers would improve the color purity, the charge transport and injection layers would improve charge balance and the multiple blue-emitting layers would improve the external quantum efficiency of the display apparatus.
Oh et al. teaches a display apparatus comprising the following limitations not disclosed in Tang et al.:
a light extraction layer 180 (Fig. 4: 180, paragraph 0061),
an N- type charge generation layer 361 (Fig. 4: 360, paragraph 0075),
a P-type charge generation layer 360 (Fig. 4: 360, paragraph 0075)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Tang et al. and Jiao et al. in order to come have a light extraction layer, an N- type charge generation layer and a P-type charge generation layer. Doing so would improve the light extraction efficiency and enable efficient charge generation at the p-n junction of the N-type and P-type charge generation layers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAMNA F IQBAL whose telephone number is 571-272-1587. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8.30 am - 5.30 pm 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, 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.
/HAMNA FATHIMA IQBAL/Examiner, Art Unit 2817 05/28/2026
/Kretelia Graham/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights