DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to a Preliminary Amendment filed on 04/19/2024, in which claims 13-15, 18-20, 23-25, 28-31 and 33-34 are cancelled.
Currently, claims 1-12, 16-17, 21-22, 26-27, 32 and 35 are examined as below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 10/16/2024. The IDS has been considered.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested:
(Marked-Up Version) Display Substrate Comprising Color Shift Adjustment Layer and Display Device
(Clean Version) Display Substrate Comprising Color Shift Adjustment Layer and Display Device
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.
Claims 2-12, 16-17, 21-22, 26-27 and 32 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.
Claim 2 is indefinite, because the limitation “T is in a range of 45 to 95” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what range “T” is in reference to, whether the range “T” is a range of the sum of the thicknesses, the refractive indices, or the optical path lengths.
Claim 5 is indefinite, because the limitation “T is in a range of 65 to 95” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what range “T” is in reference to, whether the range “T” is a range of the sum of the thicknesses, the refractive indices, or the optical path lengths.
Claim 9 is indefinite, because the limitations “a peak range” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what these peak ranges are in reference to, whether or not they are peak wavelength ranges.
Claim 11 renders the claim indefinite, because the limitation “T is in a range of 45 to 55” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what range “T” is in reference to, whether the range “T” is a range of the sum of the thicknesses, the refractive indices, or the optical path lengths.
Claim 12 is indefinite, because:
(1) The abbreviation “lns2” has not been clearly defined in the claim. It is unclear what is necessarily required by the abbreviation “lns2.”
(2) The limitations “a peak range” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what these peak ranges are in reference to, whether or not they are peak wavelength ranges.
Claim 16 renders the claim indefinite, because the limitation “T is in a range of 55 to 65” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what range “T” is in reference to, whether the range “T” is a range of the sum of the thicknesses, the refractive indices, or the optical path lengths.
Claim 17 is indefinite, because:
(1) The abbreviation “lns3” has not been clearly defined in the claim. It is unclear what is necessarily required by the abbreviation “lns3.”
(2) The limitations “a peak range” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what these peak ranges are in reference to, whether or not they are peak wavelength ranges.
Claim 21 renders the claim indefinite, because the limitation “T is in a range of 60 to 65” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what range “T” is in reference to, whether the range “T” is a range of the sum of the thicknesses, the refractive indices, or the optical path lengths.
Claim 22 is indefinite, because:
(1) The abbreviation “lns4” has not been clearly defined in the claim. It is unclear what is necessarily required by the abbreviation “lns4.”
(2) The limitations “a peak range” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what these peak ranges are in reference to, whether or not they are peak wavelength ranges.
Claim 27 is indefinite, because:
(1) The limitation “T is in a range of 65 to 95” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what range “T” is in reference to, whether the range “T” is a range of the sum of the thicknesses, the refractive indices, or the optical path lengths.
(2) The abbreviation “lns5” has not been clearly defined in the claim. It is unclear what is necessarily required by the abbreviation “lns5.”
(3) The limitations “a peak range” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what these peak ranges are in reference to, whether or not they are peak wavelength ranges.
Claim 32 is indefinite, because the abbreviation “split S” has not been clearly defined in the claim. It is unclear what is necessarily required by the abbreviation “split S.”
Note the dependent claims 3-12, 16-17, 21-22 and 26-27 necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2021/0013440 A1 to Kim et al. (“Kim”).
PNG
media_image1.png
893
528
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
684
766
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding independent claim 1, Kim in Figs. 4 and 10 teaches a display substrate DP (Figs. 4, 10, ¶ 142 & ¶ 144, display panel DP including light emitting device of Fig. 5), comprising:
a base substrate BS1 (Fig. 10, ¶ 143, first base substrate BS1);
a first electrode EL1 (Figs. 4, 10, ¶ 55, first electrode EL1) on the base substrate BS1;
a first light-emitting layer EML1 (Figs. 4, 10, ¶ 61, light emitting layer EML1) on a side of the first electrode EL1 away from the base substrate BS1;
a first hole blocking layer HBL1 (Figs, 4, 10, ¶ 101, first hole blocking layer HBL1) on a side of the first light-emitting layer EML1 away from the base substrate BS1;
a first electron transport layer ETL1 (Figs. 4, 10, ¶ 74, first electron transport layer ETL1) on a side of the first hole blocking layer HBL1 away from the base substrate BS1;
an electron injection layer EIL1 (Figs. 4, 10, ¶ 74, first electron injection layer EIL1) on a side of the first electron transport layer ETL1 away from the base substrate BS1;
a second electrode EL2 (Figs. 4, 10, ¶ 55, second electrode EL2) on a side of the electron injection layer EIL1 away from the base substrate BS1;
an optical extraction layer BFL (Fig. 10, ¶ 140, ¶ 177, filling layer BFL improving and/or maintaining the light extraction efficiency i.e., optical extraction layer) on a side of the second electrode EL2 away from the base substrate BS1;
a protective layer CCL (Fig. 10, ¶ 148, light control layer CCL covering thus protecting the components under it) on a side of the optical extraction layer BFL away from the base substrate BS1; and
an encapsulation layer CFL, BS2 (Fig. 10, ¶ 143, a collective of color filter layer CFL and second base substrate BS2 that covers the components under it i.e., encapsulation layer) on a side of the protective layer CCL away from the base substrate BS1, the encapsulation layer CFL, BS2 comprising a plurality of layers (Fig. 10, the layers CFL, BS2).
Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein a refractive index of a material of the optical extraction layer is greater than a refractive index of a material of at least one layer in the encapsulation layer, and the refractive index of the material of the at least one layer in the encapsulation layer is greater than a refractive index of a material of the second electrode.
However, Kim teaches a general condition in which each of a material of the optical extraction layer, a material of at least one layer in the encapsulation layer and a material of the second electrode has a refractive index, since these materials must be light transmissive materials such that the light emitted from the light emitting layer would be able to pass through these materials for display, and every light transmissive material has a refractive index.
According to Section 2144.05 of the MPEP, "[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).
Here, since Kim teaches said general conditions, it would not be inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Unless the Applicant can show that the specific conditions of a refractive index of a material of the optical extraction layer being greater than a refractive index of a material of at least one layer in the encapsulation layer, and the refractive index of the material of the at least one layer in the encapsulation layer being greater than a refractive index of a material of the second electrode produce unexpected results that are different in kind and not different in degree, said general conditions taught by Kim renders claim 1 obvious.
Regarding claim 2, Kim in Figs. 4 and 10 further teaches wherein the display substrate DP comprises a color shift adjustment layer CCL (Fig. 10, ¶ 149-¶ 151, ¶ 161, light control layer CCL includes light control units CCP2, CCP3 comprising quantum dots that improve light viewing angle, which would maintain color uniformity of the display i.e., color shift adjustment layer), the color shift adjustment layer CCL is selected from at least one of the group consisting of: the at least one layer in the encapsulation layer CFL, BS2, the optical extraction layer BFL, the protective layer CCL or the second electrode EL2, and the color shift adjustment layer CCL.
Kim does not explicitly disclose remaining film layers in the display substrate other than the color shift adjustment layer meet:
nsLs+∑niLi/(n1+∑ni) = T,
wherein ns represents a refractive index of a material of the color shift adjustment layer, Ls represents a thickness of the color shift adjustment layer, ni represents a refractive index of a material of one of the remaining film layers, and Li represents a thickness of the one of the remaining film layers; i is a positive integer, and T is in a range of 45 to 95.
However, the ordinary artisan would have recognized “a thickness of the color shift adjustment layer, a refractive index of a material of one of the remaining film layers, and a thickness of the one of the remaining film layers” to be a result effective variables affecting “range (T).” Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the “a thickness of the color shift adjustment layer, a refractive index of a material of one of the remaining film layers, and a thickness of the one of the remaining film layers” to be within the claimed range and such that it satisfies the conditions of formula nsLs+∑niLi/(n1+∑ni) = T, 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, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 3, Kim in Fig. 10 further teaches wherein the light-emitting layer EML1 comprises an R (red) sub-pixel Pxa-R (¶ 124, third pixel region Pxa-R), a G (green) sub-pixel Pxa-G (¶ 124, second pixel region Pxa-G), and a B (blue) sub-pixel Pxa-B (¶ 124, first pixel region Pxa-B), the R sub-pixel Pxa-R is a first light-emitting sub-layer Pxa-R (Fig. 10), the G sub-pixel Pxa-G is a second light-emitting sub-layer Pxa-G (Fig. 10), and the B sub-pixel Pxa-B is a third light-emitting sub-layer Pxa-B (Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 35, Kim in Figs. 4 and 10 further teaches a display device (Figs. 4, 10, ¶ 142 & ¶ 144, display panel DP including light emitting device of Fig. 5) comprising the display substrate DP according to claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 4-12, 16-17, 21-22, 26-27 and 32 are rejected.
Claims 4-12, 16-17, 21-22, 26-27 and 32 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 4 would be allowable, because the prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed elements in claim 4, wherein the encapsulation layer comprises: a first insertion layer on the side of the protective layer away from the base substrate; a first inorganic layer on a side of the first insertion layer away from the base substrate; an organic layer on a side of the first inorganic layer away from the base substrate; and a second inorganic layer on a side of the organic layer away from the base substrate.
Claims 5-9 would be allowable, because they depend from the allowable claim 4.
Claim 10 would be allowable, because the prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed elements in claim 10, wherein the encapsulation layer comprises: a first inorganic layer on the side of the protective layer away from the base substrate; an organic layer on a side of the first inorganic layer away from the base substrate; and a second inorganic layer on a side of the organic layer away from the base substrate.
Claims 11-12, 16-17 and 21-22 would be allowable, because they depend from the allowable claim 10.
Claim 26 would be allowable, because the prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed elements in claim 26, wherein the encapsulation layer comprises: a first inorganic layer on the side of the protective layer away from the base substrate; a second insertion layer on a side of the first inorganic layer away from the base substrate; an organic layer on a side of the second insertion layer away from the base substrate; and a second inorganic layer on a side of the organic layer away from the base substrate.
Claim 27 would be allowable, because they depend from the allowable claim 26.
Claim 32 would be allowable, because the prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed elements in claim 32, wherein the first light-emitting layer is on a side of the second hole transport layer away from the base substrate.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2015/0171371 A1 to Jeon et al. relates to an organic light emitting display (OLED) device including an insulating substrate, a first electrode on the insulating substrate, a second electrode on the first electrode, a light-emitting layer between the first electrode and the second electrode, a hole common layer between the first electrode and the light-emitting layer, an electron common layer between the second electrode and the light-emitting layer, and a scattering layer on the insulating substrate and having a non-planar surface.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIKKA LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-2568. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5AM EST M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached on 571-272-7925. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/ELISEO RAMOS FELICIANO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights