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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I (Claims 1-14) in the reply filed on 07/23/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is persuasive to the extent that the requirement relied on US 2024/0414989 A1 which is not a prior art. The requirement is nevertheless maintained on the following corrected basis, The technical features common to Groups I and II are the, a display structure layer , a encapsulation structure layer on it that at least comprises a light extraction structure for improving light emitting efficiency, a color film structure layer on a side of the encapsulation structure layer away from the display structure layer.
These features do not define a contribution over prior art on Choi et al. (US 2014/0339509 A1) which discloses a display structure layer (200) , a encapsulation structure layer (300) on it that at least comprises a light extraction structure (400) for improving light emitting efficiency, a color film structure layer (500, 510) on a side of the encapsulation structure layer away from the display structure layer. [0060]. Also, see (Kim et al. US 20190371866 A1)
Because the common technical features are not special technical features, Group I and II lack unity of invention posteriori under PCT rule 13.2; 37 CFR 1.475(a); MPEP 1850.
Applicants’ arguments that a product and a process specially adapted for it’s a manufacture have unity under 37 CFR 1.475(b)(1) is not persuasive. That provision does not dispense with requirement of 37 CFR 1.475(a) that the claimed inventions share a special technical feature.
Claim 15 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 07/23/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2 ,4 ,13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“at least comprises” is redundant with the open transitional term “comprises”.
Claim 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 recites “a plano-convex convex lens” is redundant and appears to be a translation artifact. Same wording appears in ¶0013, 0091, 0164
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
Regarding Claim 1 recites “for improving light emitting efficiency”. “improving” is a relative term of degree. Specification offers conflicting baselines. ¶0075 and ¶0091combare against light that is not modulated by the structure. ¶0087 compares against substrate in which light passes through the color film structure layer before the light extraction structure. Further, the specification does not say whether ”light extraction efficiency” means external quantum efficiency, current efficiency or on-axis luminance.
Therefore, a POSITA cannot determine whether a given structure falls withing the claim.
For the purposes of examination will interpret for prior art purposes as requiring only that the structure be capable of increasing light output relative to the same substrate without it.
Regarding Claim 4, Claim 1 introduces “a light extraction structure.” Claim 4 introduces “ a plurality of light extraction structures”. It is unclear whether the Claim 1 structure is one member of the plurality or an additional element.
Further, the wherein clause “a refractive index of the light extraction structure is greater than.” could refer to the Claim 1’s structure, to any one member of the plurality or to every member. It is not clear if the index condition must hold for one structure or for all of them.
Claims 5-8 are rejected as being dependent on Claim 4.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the cover layer" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will treat “the cover layer” as --a cover layer--.
Claim 13 recites “a filter layer” is introduced after “a plurality of light filter layers”
It is unclear if this is one of the plurality or an additional element.
For the purposes of examination the examiner will treat “a filter layer” as -one of the plurality of light filter layer”
the cover layer is an organic material, and a difference between a thickness of the cover layer and the light extraction height is greater than or equal to 0.2 μm.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 9 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2019/0371866 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim (Fig. 1, 3, 10) discloses a display substrate, comprising
a display structure layer (111, 112,113, 120, 114), an encapsulation structure layer (115,150,119) provided on the display structure layer, and a color film structure layer (130 above 119 with layers 140 and 118 in between) provided on a side of the encapsulation structure layer away from the display structure layer (Fig. 1), wherein
the encapsulation structure layer (115,150,119) at least comprises a light extraction structure for improving light emitting efficiency. [0067]
Regarding Claim 2, Kim discloses the display substrate according to claim 1, wherein,
the display structure layer at least comprises a base substrate (111), a driving circuit layer (a thin film transistor or the like is disposed on the first substrate 111 ¶0052-0053) provided on the base substrate, and a light emitting structure layer (112, 113) provided on a side of the driving circuit layer away from the base substrate, wherein
the light emitting structure layer at least comprises an anode (112) and a pixel definition layer (113) provided on a side of the anode away from the base substrate, a pixel opening (113 leaves an opening where the emission layer sits) is provided on the pixel definition layer, the pixel opening exposes the anode (112), and an orthographic projection of the pixel opening on the base substrate is within a range of an orthographic projection of the light extraction structure on the base substrate (Wop1>Wpx1, Fig. 1, 3, 10).
Regarding Claim 4, Kim discloses the display substrate according to claim 1, wherein,
the encapsulation structure layer at least comprises a first sublayer (“first planarization layer 115 may include a first layer disposed directly on a surface of the common electrode 114 and including an insulating material”), a second sublayer (a second layer disposed on the first layer and including an inorganic material and/or an organic material) [0064-0065] provided on a side of the first sublayer away from the display structure layer, a plurality of light extraction structures (150a-150c) provided on a side of the second sublayer away from the display structure layer, and a cover layer (119) for covering the plurality of light extraction structures, (150) wherein
a refractive index of the light extraction structure (150) is greater than a refractive index of the cover layer. (119) [¶0022, Claim 15].
Regarding Claim 9, Kim discloses the display substrate according to claim 1, wherein, the light extraction structure (150) comprises any one or more of a plano-convex convex lens, a prism with a trapezoidal cross-section, or a prism with a triangular cross-section. (Fig. 1)
Regarding Claim 14, Kim discloses display device, comprising the display substrate according to claim 1. (Fig. 1 ¶0006)
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2019/0371866 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, T Kim discloses the display substrate according to claim 2, wherein,
a light extraction area of the light extraction structure is 1.4 times to 1.6 times an opening area of the pixel opening, the light extraction area is an area of an orthographic projection of the light extraction structure on the display substrate, and the opening area is an area of an orthographic projection of the pixel opening on the display substrate. (See Fig. 1, 3).
Kim does not explicitly disclose a light extraction area of the light extraction structure is 1.4 times to 1.6 times an opening area of the pixel opening.
However, Kim discloses Lens diameter exceeds the width of emission region.
Claimed ratio of 1.4 to 1.6 is a result effective variable. Prior art recognizes the footprint of the light extraction structure related to the emission opening governs how much edge emitted light is captured.
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 display substrate in Kim such that since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980).
The specific Claimed ratio, absent any criticality, are only considered to be the "optimum" ratio that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine using routine experimentation based, among other things, on the desired adhesive strength, manufacturing costs, etc. (see Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and since neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e., results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained.
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed dimensions or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2019/0371866 A1) in view of Tobsie (US 2011/0062476 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Kim discloses the display substrate according to claim 4, wherein,
Kim does not explicitly disclose a material for the first sublayer comprises silicon nitride, and a thickness of the first sublayer is 0.8 μm to 1.2 μm.
Tobsie discloses a material for the first sublayer comprises silicon nitride, and a thickness of the first sublayer is 0.8 μm to 1.2 μm. (seal layer SiN, 1 μm - 10 μm ¶0161)
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 display substrate in Kim in view Tobsie such that a material for the first sublayer comprises silicon nitride, and a thickness of the first sublayer is 0.8 μm to 1.2 μm in order to sufficient seal and prevent permeation of oxygen and water contained in the air ¶0161 and since the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (See MPEP 2144.07) and since it has been held that the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in a prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2019/0371866 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2015/0115235 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Kim discloses the display substrate according to claim 4.
Kim does not explicitly disclose a material for the second sublayer comprises alumina, and a thickness of the second sublayer is 0.03 μm to 0.05 μm.
Lee discloses a material for an encapsulation structure comprises alumina, and a thickness of the second sublayer is 0.03 μm to 0.05 μm. (230 AlOx layer deposited by ALD to a thickness of 20nm-50nm and a silicon-based inorganic layer formed on an upper surface or a lower surface ¶ 0022, Claim 9, 0068, Table 1, 0135].
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 display substrate in Kim in view Lee such that a material for the second sublayer comprises alumina, and a thickness of the second sublayer is 0.03 μm to 0.05 μm in order to obrain dense moisture and oxygen barrier that resist cracking when substrate is bent, while remaining highly transmissive in the light path ¶0111, 0114, 0135 and since the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (See MPEP 2144.07) and since it has been held that the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in a prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 7 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2019/0371866 A1) in view of Nakai (US 2003/0173599 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Kim discloses the display substrate according to claim 4, wherein, the refractive index of the light extraction structure is greater than 1.92 [greater or equal to 2.0 ¶0068],
Kim does not explicitly disclose the refractive index of the cover layer is less than or equal to 1.5.
Nakai discloses the refractive index of a cover layer is less than or equal to 1.5. [0030].
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 display substrate in Kim in view Nakai such that the refractive index of the cover layer is less than or equal to 1.5 in order to increase refraction at lens surface and since the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (See MPEP 2144.07) and since it has been held that the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in a prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 12, Kim discloses the display substrate according to claim 11,
Kim does not explicitly disclose the cover layer is an organic material, and a difference between a thickness of the cover layer and the light extraction height is greater than or equal to 0.2 μm.
Nakai discloses a cover layer ( a first transparent film 44 of a transparent fluororesin (e.g., CTX-807 available from Asahi Glass Co., Ltd.) having a thickness of about 1.0 .mu.m is formed as covering the condenser lens 43, ) is an organic material (“ transparent fluororesin (e.g., CTX-807 available from Asahi Glass Co., Ltd.) “), and a difference between a thickness of the cover layer (44) and a light extraction height (a condenser lens 43 having a thickness of about 0.8 .mu.m ) is greater than or equal to 0.2 μm.
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 display substrate in Kim in view Nakai such that the cover layer is an organic material, and a difference between a thickness of the cover layer and the light extraction height is greater than or equal to 0.2 μm in order to cover lenses and provide planar surface on which color filter can be formed [0051] and since it has been held that the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in a prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2019/0371866 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 2018/0158879 A1; hereinafter Kim/879).
Regarding Claim 8, Kim discloses the display substrate according to claim 4, wherein,
a transmittance of the cover layer (119) and further discloses minimizing optical loss in transparent layers in the emission pass. Layer 118 has visible light absorption rate of about 10% to about 0% [0122]
Kim does not explicitly disclose that a transmittance of the cover layer is greater than 95% in a wavelength band from 380 nm to 980 nm.
Lee discloses a transmittance of the cover layer is greater than 95% in a wavelength band from 380 nm to 980 nm.
Kim/879 discloses a transmittance of a cover layer is greater than 95% in a wavelength band from 380 nm to 980 nm (“a high total light transmittance of about 90% to about 100%, specifically about 95% to about 100%” and “a wavelength of 400 nm to 700 nm in accordance with ASTM D1003-95.”) [0136]
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 display substrate in Kim in view Kim/879 such that a transmittance of the cover layer is greater than 95% in a wavelength band from 380 nm to 980 nm in order to minimizing loss in transparent layers in the emission pass thereby increasing front face light efficiency. [0137].
The Examiner notes that originally filed specification identifies only one structure that produces the claimed transmittance” a cover layer of “an organic material” for example “an optical resin” [0087], about 2.0-2.6um thick [0088] with refractive index of 1.5 or less [0089]. It discloses no particular composition or process responsible for transmittance recited in [0090]. The cover layer resulting from combination above is substantially identical” an organic acrylate layer, a refractive index of 1.478-1.5 (1.5 or less), a thickness selected from range of about 0.2 to about 15um (encompasses 2.0-2.6um) , measured transmittance of 99% at greater thickness (5um).
Therefore, where the claimed and prior art products are substantially identical in structure or composition, the claimed property is presumed inherent, and the burden shifts to the applicant to shoe that the prior art product does not necessarily posses it. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977) MPEP 2112.01(I), 2112(V)
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2019/0371866 A1) in view of Xia et al. (US 2021/0202916 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Kim discloses the display substrate according to claim 1, wherein,
on a plane parallel to the display substrate, a light extraction width of the light extraction structure, and the light extraction width is a maximum distance between any two points on an edge of the light extraction structure. (Fig. 1)
Kim does not explicitly disclose discloses a light extraction width of the light extraction structure is 3.2 μm to 3.4 μm.
Xia discloses a light extraction width of the light extraction structure is 3.2 μm to 3.4 μm. (hemispherical lens of 2.0 μm radius, 0039, Table 1; therefore width would be about 4 Xia evaluates lens convergence as a function of the lens dimention relative to the encapsulation thickness Table 1.
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 display substrate in Kim in view Xia such that a light extraction width of the light extraction structure is 3.2 μm to 3.4 μm in order to improve light extraction in head-mounted displays where pixels are only few micrometers wide [0047] and since a change in shape of an element was considered a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (MPEP §2144.04) the claimed width of 3.2-3.4 um is close to Xia width of about 4 and one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the same properties MPEP §2144.05 (I)
Regarding Claim 11, Kim discloses the display substrate according to claim 1, wherein,
a light extraction height of the light extraction structure, and the light extraction height is a maximum distance between a surface on a side of the light extraction structure away from the display structure layer and a surface on a side of the light extraction structure close to the display structure layer. (Fig. 1)
Kim does not explicitly disclose a light extraction height of the light extraction structure is 2.0 μm to 2.2 μm.
Xia discloses light extraction height of a light extraction structure is 2.0 μm to 2.2 μm. (hemispherical lens of 2.0 μm radius, 0039, Table 1)
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 display substrate in Kim in view Xia such that a light extraction height of the light extraction structure is 2.0 μm to 2.2 μm in order to improve light extraction in head-mounted displays where pixels are only few micrometers wide [0047]
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A1) as anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2019/0371866 A1) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kim et al. (US 2019/0371866 A1) in view of Choi et al. (US 2014/0339509 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Kim discloses the display substrate according to claim 1, wherein,
the color film structure layer (130) at least comprises a plurality of light filter layers (130 R, G, B) and black matrices provided between the light filter layers (117 “a light-blocking material”), and an orthographic projection of the light extraction structure on a display substrate plane is within a range of an orthographic projection of a light filter layer on the display substrate plane. (Fig. 1)
To the extent Kim is not found to disclose that an orthographic projection of the light extraction structure on a display substrate plane is within a range of an orthographic projection of a light filter layer on the display substrate plane.
Choi discloses an orthographic projection of the light extraction structure (lens shape S1) on a display substrate plane is within a range of an orthographic projection of a light filter layer (510) on the display substrate plane (10) [0060, 0067].
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 display substrate in Kim in view Choi such that an orthographic projection of the light extraction structure on a display substrate plane is within a range of an orthographic projection of a light filter layer on the display substrate plane in order to increase optical efficiency of the organic light-emitting device [0068]
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim et al. (US 2022/0199715 A1) discloses display substrate, OLED, lens and color filter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DMITRIY YEMELYANOV whose telephone number is (571)270-7920. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a.m.-6p.m.
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, Matthew Landau can be reached at (571) 272-1731. 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.
/DMITRIY YEMELYANOV/Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights