CTNF 18/701,629 CTNF 89637 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. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to foreign application CN202210879182.9 filed on 07/25/2022. The foreign application is not in English. The certified copy of the foreign priority application CN202210879182.9 has been received. Filing Dates for the Claims — All Claims Not Entitled to Priority Date To be entitled to the filing date of the foreign priority application CN202210879182.9 that is not in English, an English translation of the non-English language foreign application CN202210879182.9 and a statement that the translation is accurate in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55 is required to perfect the claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The foreign application must adequately support the claimed subject matter, meaning satisfy the written description and enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a). See MPEP §§ 215 and 216. 37 C.F.R. 1.55(g)(3)(ii)-(iii). To demonstrate compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(a), applicant should point to support for their claimed subject matter in their translations. Response to Amendment Applicant’s amendment dated 04/16/2024, in which claim 14 was amended, has been entered. Specification The amendment to the specification received on 04/16/2024 has not been entered because the substitute specification does not in compliance with §§ 1.125(c) which requires “A substitute specification submitted under this section must be submitted with markings showing all the changes relative to the immediate prior version of the specification of record. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. An accompanying clean version (without markings) must also be supplied. Numbering the paragraphs of the specification of record is not considered a change that must be shown pursuant to this paragraph.” In this case, Applicant’s substitute specification does not include any markings. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-14 are 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. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 1 recites the limitation “ the light emitted by the light-emitting element” in line 7, “the light of a specific color” in lines 7-8, "the sub-functional layer" in line 10, “the refractive index of the first sub-functional layer” in line 12 and “the refractive index of the second sub-functional layer ” in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For the purpose of this Action, the above limitation of claim 1 will be interpreted and examined as --a light emitted by the light-emitting element--, --a light of a specific color--, --the N sub-functional layers--, --a refractive index of the first sub-functional layer-- and –a refractive index of the second sub-functional layer--. Regarding claim 3, claim 3 recites “the refractive index of the material of the first sub-functional layer” . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this Action, the above limitation of claim 3 will be interpreted and examined as --a refractive index of the material of the first sub-functional layer--. Regarding claim 5, claim 5 recites “the refractive index of the material of the second sub-functional layer”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this Action, the above limitation of claim 5 will be interpreted and examined as --a refractive index of the material of the second sub-functional layer--. Regarding claims 6 and 7, claims 6 and 7 each recites “the functional layer comprises N sub-functional layers, and N ≥ 3” while claim 1 on which claims 6 and 7 depends also recites “the functional layer comprises N sub-functional layers disposed in sequence in a direction away from the first base substrate, and N ≥ 3.” It is unclear “N sub-functional layers” recited in claims 6 and 7 is the same or different from “N sub-functional layers” recited in claim 1. For the purpose of this Action, the above limitation of claims 6 and 7 will be interpreted and examined as duplicate and redundant limitation and should be omitted. Regarding claims 8 and 9, claims 8 and 9 each recites “the light-emitting color of the light-emitting module”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this Action, the above limitation of claims 6 and 7 will be interpreted and examined as --the light emitted by the light-emitting element--. Claims depending from the rejected claims noted above are rejected at least on the same basis as the claim(s) from which the dependent claims depend. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-5, 10, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1)/(a)(2 ) as being anticipated by Choong et al. (US Pub. 20060066220) . Regarding claim 1, Choong et al. discloses in Fig. 3, paragraph [0016], [0021] a light-emitting module, comprising: a first base substrate [108], and a functional layer [111] and at least one light-emitting element [114-123] disposed on the first base substrate [108]; wherein, the light-emitting element [114-123] is provided with a first electrode [114], a light-emitting layer [120] and a second electrode [123] in sequence on the functional layer [111] in a direction away from the first base substrate [108]; the functional layer [111] is located on a side of the first electrode [114] close to the first base substrate [108], and is configured to convert a light emitted by the light-emitting element [114-123] into a light of a specific color; wherein the functional layer [111] comprises N sub-functional layers disposed in sequence in a direction away from the first base substrate [108], and N≥3; and the N sub-functional layers [111] comprises at least one first sub-functional layer [TiO 2 , Si x N y , or SiN x ] and at least one second sub-functional layer [SiO 2 ]; the first sub-functional layer [TiO 2 , Si x N y , or SiN x ] and the second sub-functional layer [SiO 2 ] are alternately arranged; and the refractive index of the first sub-functional layer [TiO 2 , Si x N y , or SiN x ] is greater than the refractive index of the second sub-functional layer [SiO 2 ]. Notes, the limitation “configured to convert a light emitted by the light-emitting element into a light of a specific color” directs to manner of operation of the device. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc. , 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. In addition, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Regarding claims 2-3, Choong et al. discloses in Fig. 3, paragraph [0021] wherein, a material of the first sub-functional layer is silicon nitride or silicon oxynitride [silicon nitride: Si x N y , or SiN x ]. wherein, a refractive index of the material of the first sub-functional layer [Si x N y , or SiN x ] is 1.6-2.0. ["Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada , 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.” MPEP 2112.01. In this case, Choong et al. discloses the material of the first sub-functional layer is silicon nitride as claimed. Thus, the silicon nitride SixNy, or SiNx would have a refractive index of 1.6-2.0.] Regarding claims 4-5, Choong et al. discloses in Fig. 3, paragraph [0021] wherein, a material of the second sub-functional layer is silicon oxide [SiO 2 ]; wherein, a refractive index of the material of the second sub-functional layer is 1.2-1.6. ["Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada , 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.” MPEP 2112.01. In this case, Choong et al. discloses the material of the second sub-functional layer is silicon oxide as claimed. Thus, the silicon oxide SiO 2 would have a refractive index of 1.2-1.6]. Regarding claim 10, Choong et al. discloses in paragraph [0022], [0038] wherein, the first electrode [114] is a transparent electrode; and the second electrode [123] is a reflecting electrode. Regarding claim 14, Choong et al. discloses in Fig. 3, paragraph [0052] A light- emitting device, comprising the light-emitting module according to claim 1 . 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-7, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1)/(a)(2 ) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US Pub. 20120018749) . Regarding claim 1, Lee et al. discloses in Fig. 1, paragraph [0012]-[0014], [0055]-[0064] a light-emitting module, comprising: a first base substrate [100], and a functional layer [110] and at least one light-emitting element [120-140] disposed on the first base substrate [100]; wherein, the light-emitting element [120-140] is provided with a first electrode [120], a light-emitting layer [134] and a second electrode [140] in sequence on the functional layer [110] in a direction away from the first base substrate [100]; the functional layer [110] is located on a side of the first electrode [114] close to the first base substrate [108], and is configured to convert a light emitted by the light-emitting element [120-140] into a light of a specific color; wherein the functional layer [110] comprises N sub-functional layers disposed in sequence in a direction away from the first base substrate [100], and N≥3; and the N sub-functional layers [111] comprises at least one first sub-functional layer [112] and at least one second sub-functional layer [111 and/or 113]; the first sub-functional layer [112] and the second sub-functional layer [111 and 113] are alternately arranged; and the refractive index of the first sub-functional layer [112] is greater than the refractive index of the second sub-functional layer [111 and/or 113]. Regarding claims 2-3, Choong et al. discloses in Fig. 3, paragraph [0021] wherein, a material of the first sub-functional layer [112] is silicon nitride or silicon oxynitride [silicon nitride, SiN x ]. wherein, a refractive index of the material of the first sub-functional layer [silicon nitride, SiN x ] is 1.6-2.0. ["Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada , 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.” MPEP 2112.01. In this case, Lee et al. discloses the material of the first sub-functional layer is silicon nitride as claimed. Thus, the silicon nitride, SiN x would have a refractive index of 1.6-2.0.] Regarding claims 4-5, Choong et al. discloses in Fig. 3, paragraph [0021] wherein, a material of the second sub-functional layer [111 and/or 113] is silicon oxide [SiO 2 ]; wherein, a refractive index of the material of the second sub-functional layer [111 and/or 113] is 1.2-1.6. ["Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada , 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.” MPEP 2112.01. In this case, Lee et al. discloses the material of the second sub-functional layer is silicon oxide as claimed. Thus, the silicon oxide SiO 2 would have a refractive index of 1.2-1.6]. Regarding claim 6, Lee et al. discloses in Fig. 1, paragraph [0059] wherein one of the sub-functional layers closest to the light-emitting element is the first sub-functional layer [Lee et al. discloses the DBR layer 110 may include four layers. Thus, when DBR layer 110 includes 4 layers, the fourth layer formed on the third layer would made of the same material (silicon nitride) as the second layer 112 because DBR layer 110 is formed by alternative stacking of silicon oxide layer 111 and silicon nitride layer 112]. Regarding claim 7, Lee et al. discloses in Fig. 1, paragraph [0059] wherein one of the sub-functional layers [111-113] closest to the light-emitting element [134] is the second sub-functional layer [113]. Regarding claim 14, Lee et al. discloses in Fig. 1, paragraph [0009] A light-emitting device, comprising the light-emitting module according to claim 1 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choong et al. (US Pub. 20060066220) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Shimoda et al. (US Pat. 6639250) . Regarding claims 8-9, Choong et al. fails to disclose wherein, when the light emitted by the light-emitting element is orange, the functional layer comprises two layers of the first sub-functional layer and the second sub-functional layer sandwiched between the two layers of the first sub-functional layer; a thickness of the first sub-functional layer is 66 nm; and a thickness of the second sub-functional layer is 50 nm; wherein, when the light emitted by the light-emitting element is red, the functional layer comprises two layers of the first sub-functional layer and the second sub-functional layer sandwiched between the two layers of the first sub-functional layer; a thickness of the first sub-functional layer is 66 nm; and a thickness of the second sub-functional layer is 70 nm. Shimoda et al. discloses in Fig. 1, Fig. 2, column 8, lines 27-67, column 9, lines 1-29 the functional layer comprises two layers of the first sub-functional layer [71] and the second sub-functional layer [72] sandwiched between the two layers of the first sub-functional layer [71]. Shimoda et al. further discloses thicknesses of the first and second layers having different refractive indexes are adjusted so as to agree with the wavelengths in those layers. Choong et al. also discloses in paragraph [0002], “the wavelength of the light output by the display is determined, in part, by the optical length of the microcavity, which can be manipulated by, for example, changing the thickness of the layers that make up the microcavity” and in paragraph [0021], “the multi-layer mirror 111 includes layers of substantially non-absorbing materials of appropriately chosen thickness.” In addition, Applicant has not provided criticality of the claimed thickness values. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Shimoda et al. into the method of Choong et al. to include wherein, when the light emitted by the light-emitting element is orange, the functional layer comprises two layers of the first sub-functional layer and the second sub-functional layer sandwiched between the two layers of the first sub-functional layer; a thickness of the first sub-functional layer is 66 nm; and a thickness of the second sub-functional layer is 50 nm; wherein, when the light emitted by the light-emitting element is red, the functional layer comprises two layers of the first sub-functional layer and the second sub-functional layer sandwiched between the two layers of the first sub-functional layer; a thickness of the first sub-functional layer is 66 nm; and a thickness of the second sub-functional layer is 70 nm. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Choong et al. in the above manner for the purpose of optimization to provide optimal thicknesses of the first and second sub-functional layer to obtain desired wavelength of the light output by the display . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choong et al. (US Pub. 20060066220) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kim (US Pub.20090244906) . Regarding claim 11, Choong et al. fails to disclose wherein, the light-emitting module further comprises a second base substrate disposed opposite to the first base substrate and a reflecting layer disposed on a side of the second base substrate away from the light-emitting element; and an orthographic projection of the reflecting layer on the first base substrate covers an orthographic projection of the second electrode of each of the light-emitting elements on the first base substrate. Kim discloses in Fig. 14, paragraph [0094]-[0109], wherein, the light-emitting module further comprises a second base substrate [810] disposed opposite to the first base substrate [600] and a reflecting layer [840] disposed on a side of the second base substrate [810] away from the light-emitting element [650, 660, 670]; and an orthographic projection of the reflecting layer [840] on the first base substrate [600] covers an orthographic projection of the second electrode [670] of each of the light-emitting elements [650, 660, 670] on the first base substrate [600]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Kim into the method of Choong et al. to include wherein, the light-emitting module further comprises a second base substrate disposed opposite to the first base substrate and a reflecting layer disposed on a side of the second base substrate away from the light-emitting element; and an orthographic projection of the reflecting layer on the first base substrate covers an orthographic projection of the second electrode of each of the light-emitting elements on the first base substrate. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Choong et al. in the above manner for the purpose of preventing deterioration of the driving performance of the light emitting device and the display apparatus due to ultraviolet rays [paragraph [0008], [0010], [0014] of Kim] . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choong et al. (US Pub. 20060066220) in view of Kim (US Pub. 20090244906) as applied to claim 11 above and further in view of Lee et al. (US Pub. 20160093645) Regarding claims 12-13, Choong et al. and Kim fails to disclose wherein, the light-emitting module further comprises an encapsulation base and an encapsulation structure, which are positioned at an edge of the light-emitting module and disposed between the first base substrate and the second base substrate; the encapsulation base is positioned on a side of the functional layer away from the first base substrate; and the second electrode of the light-emitting element positioned at the edge of the light-emitting module partially covers the encapsulation base; and the encapsulation structure is used for sealing the edge of the light-emitting module; wherein, the encapsulation base comprises a main body structure and a plurality of branch structures; and the encapsulation structure is at least partially embedded in a gap formed between the respective branch structures. Lee et al. discloses in Fig. 2A, Fig. 3A, Fig. 3B, paragraph [0022]-[0023], [0030], [0032] wherein, the light-emitting module further comprises an encapsulation base [portion of 18 in PA region] and an encapsulation structure [F], which are positioned at an edge of the light-emitting module and disposed between the first base substrate [11] and the second base substrate [12]; the encapsulation base [portion of 18 in PA region] is positioned on a side of a layer [15] away from the first base substrate [11]; and the second electrode [17] of the light-emitting element positioned at the edge of the light-emitting module partially covers the encapsulation base [portion of 18 in PA region]; and the encapsulation structure [F] is used for sealing the edge of the light-emitting module; wherein, the encapsulation base [portion of 18 in PA region] comprises a main body structure and a plurality of branch structures; and the encapsulation structure [F] is at least partially embedded in a gap [181 or 182] formed between the respective branch structures. Choong et al. discloses the layer formed under the first electrode and away from the first base substrate is the functional layer. Thus, the combination of Choong et al. and Lee et al. would result to “the encapsulation base is positioned on a side of the functional layer away from the first base substrate.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Lee et al. into the method of Choong et al. to include wherein, the light-emitting module further comprises an encapsulation base and an encapsulation structure, which are positioned at an edge of the light-emitting module and disposed between the first base substrate and the second base substrate; the encapsulation base is positioned on a side of the functional layer away from the first base substrate; and the second electrode of the light-emitting element positioned at the edge of the light-emitting module partially covers the encapsulation base; and the encapsulation structure is used for sealing the edge of the light-emitting module; wherein, the encapsulation base comprises a main body structure and a plurality of branch structures; and the encapsulation structure is at least partially embedded in a gap formed between the respective branch structures. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Choong et al. in the above manner for the purpose of reducing degree of the moisture absorption of the functional layer and the element's reliability of the display panel can be thus enhanced [paragraph [0050] of Lee et al.] . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art discloses similar materials, devices and methods . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOPHIA T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1686. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am -5:00 pm, Monday-Friday. 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, BRITT D HANLEY can be reached at (571)270-3042. 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. /SOPHIA T NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/701,629 Page 2 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/701,629 Page 3 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/701,629 Page 4 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/701,629 Page 5 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/701,629 Page 6 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/701,629 Page 7 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/701,629 Page 8 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/701,629 Page 9 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/701,629 Page 10 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/701,629 Page 11 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/701,629 Page 13 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/701,629 Page 14 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/701,629 Page 15 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/701,629 Page 16 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/701,629 Page 17 Art Unit: 2893
Prosecution Insights