CTNF 18/703,679 CTNF 101830 3DETAILED 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. Note by the Examiner For clarity, references to specific claim numbers are presented in bold. Cited claim limitations are presented in bold the first time they are associated with a particular prior art disclosing the cited limitations, and subsequent reference to the already disclosed claim limitations are presented un-bolded. Certain elements from prior art which are not required by the claims are also presented bolded if they are particularly pertinent to understanding how the references are being combined. Item-to-item matching and examiner explanations for 102 &/or 103 rejections are provided in parenthesis. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the first line of the claim, the claim states "the first overlapping size", however this . Appropriate correction is required. 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 16 and 20 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. With regards to claim 16 , the feature “a third curved surface” stated in the tenth line of the claim is indefinite as no “second curved surface” is claimed in this claim or the claims it depends on. Applicant is advised to either change the dependency of the claim in order to include a “second curved surface”, or change “third curved surface” to “second curved surface”. For examination purposes, “third curved surface” shall be interpretated as a second curved surface. With regards to claim 20 , the feature “at least one fourth curved surface” stated in the third line of the claim is indefinite as no “second curved surface” and “third curved surface” are claimed in this claim or the claims it depends on. Applicant is advised to either change the dependency of the claim in order to include a “second curved surface” and a “third curved surface”, or change “fourth curved surface” to “second curved surface”. For examination purposes, “fourth curved surface” shall be interpretated as a second curved surface. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-3, 20, 25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (Pub. No.: US 20240057391 A1), in view of Yumoto et al. (Pub. No.: US 20250176414 A1), hereinafter as Yumoto . [Polyanskiy ("Refractive index database") and the PhET Interactive Simulations project at the University of Colorado Boulder (Rouinfar et al., “Bending Light”), hereinafter as PhET, is utilized herein as evidence.] PNG media_image1.png 276 306 media_image1.png Greyscale Image A: close up of Lee Fig. 7, showcasing a first light emitting device. PNG media_image2.png 265 248 media_image2.png Greyscale Image B: close up of Lee Fig. 7, showcasing first light transmitting emitting portion and first edge portion. PNG media_image3.png 197 248 media_image3.png Greyscale Image C: close up of Lee Fig. 7, showcasing first curved surface and second curved surface. PNG media_image4.png 447 539 media_image4.png Greyscale Image D: close up of Lee Fig. 7, showcasing first light emitting device being smaller than first light transmitting portion. PNG media_image5.png 212 450 media_image5.png Greyscale Image E: close up of Lee Fig. 7, showcasing a region of overlap. PNG media_image6.png 280 501 media_image6.png Greyscale Image F: closeup up of Lee Fig. 7, showcasing second curved surface. PNG media_image7.png 799 1431 media_image7.png Greyscale Image G: screenshot of PhET, showcasing the approximate simulated behavior of incident light through second curved surface and first color resist of Lee. PNG media_image8.png 803 1432 media_image8.png Greyscale Image H: screenshot of PhET, showcasing brightness-related viewing angles before and after incident light on first color resist. With regards to claim 1 , Lee teaches a display substrate, comprising: a base substrate (see Lee Figs. 3&7, substrate SUB) ; a light emitting functional layer (see Lee Figs. 3&7, light emitting element layer EML) provided on the base substrate (see Lee Figs. 3&7) ; a color resist layer (see Lee Fig. 3, color filter layer CFL) provided on a side of the light emitting functional layer away from the base substrate (see Lee Fig. 3) ; and a first planarization layer (see Lee Fig. 7, planarization layer OC) provided on a side of the color resist layer away from the base substrate (see Lee Fig. 7) , wherein the light emitting functional layer comprises a plurality of light emitting devices (see Lee [0082]: “The light emitting element layer EML may include multiple light emitting elements each including a first electrode, a second electrode, and a light emitting layer to emit light, and a pixel defining layer defining pixels.”) , and the plurality of light emitting devices comprise a first light emitting device (see Image A and Lee Fig. 7) ; wherein the color resist layer comprises a plurality of color resists (see Lee [0086]: “The color filter layer CFL may include multiple color filters respectively corresponding to the emission areas.”) , different color resists allow light of different colors to pass through (see Lee [0086]: “Each of the color filters may selectively transmit light of a specific wavelength and may block or absorb light of a different wavelength.”) , and the plurality of color resists comprise a first color resist (see Lee Fig. 7, color filter CF2) ; and wherein the first color resist comprises a first light transmitting portion (see Image B, first light transmitting portion) , a surface of the first light transmitting portion (see Image C) on a side close to the first planarization layer comprises a first curved surface recessed towards the base substrate (see Image C, first curved surface) , and an orthographic projection of the first light emitting device (see Lee Figs. 6&7, emission area EA2) on the base substrate falls within an orthographic projection of the first light transmitting portion on the base substrate (See Image D) . Lee does not teach that a refractive index of the first color resist is greater than a refractive index of the first planarization layer. Yumoto teaches a refractive index of a first color resist (see Yumoto Fig.3, color filter 50G) is greater than a refractive index of a first planarization layer (see Yumoto Fig.3, planarization layer 80; and see Yumoto [0075]-[0077]: “The refractive index of the first lens 61 is equal to or less than the refractive index of the color filter layer 50… The refractive index of the filling layer 70 is lower than the refractive index of the first lens 61… The refractive index of the planarization layer 80 is equal to or less than the refractive index of the filling layer 70.” which shows that the refractive index of the color filter layer 50 is greater than the refractive index of the planarization layer 80) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the materials of the first color resist and first planarization layer of Lee with the materials taught by Yumoto in order to allow the first color resist to act more as a concave lens and further refract the light. With regards to claim 2 , Lee and Yumoto teach the display substrate according to claim 1, wherein the first color resist (see Lee Fig. 7, color filter CF2) overlaps with other color resists (see Lee Fig. 7, color filter CF1 and CF3) adjacent to the first color resist (see Lee Fig. 7) , and in a region of an overlap between the first color resist and the other color resists adjacent to the first color resist (see Image E) , the first color resist is on a side of the other color resists away from the base substrate (see Lee Fig. 7) . With regards to claim 3 , Lee and Yumoto teach the display substrate according to claim 2, wherein the first color resist (see Lee Fig. 7, color filter CF2) comprises a first edge portion (see Image B, first edge portion) surrounding the first light transmitting portion (see Image B) , a surface (see Image C) of the first edge portion on a side close to the first planarization layer comprises a second curved surface (see Image C, second curved surface) recessed towards the base substrate (see Image C) , and a curvature radius of the first curved surface is greater than a curvature radius of the second curved surface (see Image C) . With regards to claim 20 , Lee and Yumoto teach the display substrate according to claim 1, further comprising an encapsulation layer (see Lee Fig. 7, first encapsulation layer TFE1) between the light emitting functional layer (see Lee Fig. 7, light emitting element layer EML) and the color resist layer (see Lee Fig. 7, color filter layer CFL which include color filters CF1, CF2, and CF3 (see Lee [0086])) , wherein the encapsulation layer comprises at least one second curved surface (see Image F, second curved surface) on a side close to the color resist layer (see Image F) , an orthographic projection of the at least one second curved surface on the base substrate (see Image F and Lee Fig. 7, where the second curved surface falls within the projection of exposed area ER1) at least partially overlaps with an orthographic projection of the first color resist on the base substrate (see Lee Fig. 7, where exposed area ER1 falls within the first color resist and therefore the second curved surface is within the first color resist.) , and the second curved surface and the encapsulation layer are configured such that, for incident light incident on the first color resist through the second curved surface (see Image G) , a brightness-related viewing angle (see Image H) after the incident light is incident on the first color resist (see Image G) is greater than a brightness-related viewing angle (see Image H) before the incident light is incident on the first color resist (see Image G) ; wherein the second curved surface comprises a curved surface (see Image F) protruding towards the first planarization layer (see Image F) , and the refractive index of the first color resist (see Yumoto [0075]-[0077]) is greater than the refractive index of the encapsulation layer (see Lee [0158]: “Each of the first encapsulation layer TFE1 and the third encapsulation layer TFE3 may include one or more inorganic insulating materials. The inorganic insulating material may include aluminum oxide, titanium oxide, tantalum oxide, hafnium oxide, zinc oxide, silicon oxide, silicon nitride, and/or silicon oxynitride.”, where by choosing the encapsulation layer to be made of silicon oxide, specifically silicon dioxide, the layer has a refractive index of 1.4476 (see Polyanskiy). In Yumoto, the refractive index of the color filter layer 50 is greater than the planarization layer 80, which can be made of acrylic resin (see Yumoto [0077]: “The planarization layer 80 is formed of, for example, a material having high light transparency (as an example, a transparent resin material such as an acrylic resin).”). Acrylic resin, also known as PMMA, has a refractive index of 1.4813, which is greater than the refractive index of silicon dioxide (see Polyanskiy). So, the refractive index of the color resist is greater than the refractive index of the encapsulation layer.) ; and wherein the orthographic projection of the at least one second curved surface (see Image F and Lee Fig. 7, where the second curved surface falls within the projection of exposed area ER1.) on the base substrate falls within an orthographic projection of the first curved surface on the base substrate (see Lee Fig. 7, where exposed area ER1 falls within area marked OPT2 where the first curved surface resides) . With regards to claim 25 , Lee teaches a method of manufacturing a display substrate, comprising: forming a base substrate (see Lee Figs. 3&7, substrate SUB) ; forming a light emitting functional layer (see Lee Figs. 3&7, light emitting element layer EML) on the base substrate (see Lee Figs. 3&7) , wherein the light emitting functional layer comprises a plurality of light emitting devices (see Lee [0082]: “The light emitting element layer EML may include multiple light emitting elements each including a first electrode, a second electrode, and a light emitting layer to emit light, and a pixel defining layer defining pixels.”) , and the plurality of light emitting devices comprise a first light emitting device (see Image A and Lee Fig. 7) ; forming a color resist layer (see Lee Fig. 3, color filter layer CFL) on a side of the light emitting functional layer away from the base substrate (see Lee Fig. 3) , wherein the color resist layer comprises a plurality of color resists (see Lee [0086]: “The color filter layer CFL may include multiple color filters respectively corresponding to the emission areas.”) , different color resists allow light of different colors to pass through (see Lee [0086]: “Each of the color filters may selectively transmit light of a specific wavelength and may block or absorb light of a different wavelength.”) , the plurality of color resists comprise a first color resist (see Lee Fig. 7, color filter CF2) , a surface of the first color resist (see Image C) on a side away from the base substrate comprises a first curved surface (see Image C, first curved surface) recessed towards the base substrate (see Image C) , the first curved surface comprises a first light transmitting portion (see Image B, first light transmitting portion) , and an orthographic projection of the first light emitting device (see Lee Figs. 6&7, emission area EA2) on the base substrate falls within an orthographic projection of the first light transmitting portion on the base substrate (See Image D) ; and forming a first planarization layer on a side of the color resist layer away from the base substrate (see Lee Fig. 7, planarization layer OC) . Lee does not teach that a refractive index of the first color resist is greater than a refractive index of the first planarization layer. Yumoto teaches a refractive index of a first color resist (see Yumoto Fig.3, color filter 50G) being greater than a refractive index of a first planarization layer (see Yumoto Fig.3, planarization layer 80; and see Yumoto [0075]-[0077]: “The refractive index of the first lens 61 is equal to or less than the refractive index of the color filter layer 50… The refractive index of the filling layer 70 is lower than the refractive index of the first lens 61… The refractive index of the planarization layer 80 is equal to or less than the refractive index of the filling layer 70.” which shows that the refractive index of the color filter layer 50 is greater than the refractive index of the planarization layer 80) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the materials of the first color resist and first planarization layer of Lee with the materials taught by Yumoto in order to allow the first color resist to act more as a concave lens and further refract the light. With regards to claim 27 , Lee and Yumoto teach a display device (see Lee Fig. 2, display device 10) , comprising the display substrate of claim 1 (see claim 1, the combined device of Lee and Yumoto) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Yumoto, in view of Hirose et al. (Pub. No.: US 20250275438 A1), hereinafter as Hirose . PNG media_image9.png 276 553 media_image9.png Greyscale Image J: closeup up of Lee Fig. 7, showcasing second light transmitting portion, second edge portion, and first portion. PNG media_image10.png 250 553 media_image10.png Greyscale Image K: closeup up of Lee Fig. 7, showcasing first edge portion near first portion. PNG media_image11.png 260 689 media_image11.png Greyscale Image L: closeup up of Hirose Fig. 16A, showcasing second light transmitting portion, second edge portion, first portion, and second portion, with first portion near first color resist and second portion near third color resist . PNG media_image12.png 171 689 media_image12.png Greyscale Image M: closeup up of Hirose Fig. 16A, showcasing first edge portion and first portion . PNG media_image13.png 166 370 media_image13.png Greyscale Image N: closeup up of Hirose Fig. 16A, showcasing first and second overlapping sizes. With regards to claim 4 , Lee and Yumoto teach the display substrate according to claim 3, wherein the other color resists (see Lee Fig. 7, color filter CF1 and CF3) comprise a second color resist (see Lee Fig. 7, color filter CF1) and a third color resist (see Lee Fig. 7, color filter CF3) , and the second color resist comprises a second light transmitting portion (see Image J, second light transmitting portion) and a second edge portion (see Image J, second edge portion) surrounding the second light transmitting portion (see Image J) ; wherein the first edge portion overlaps with the second edge portion (see Lee Fig. 7) , the second edge portion comprises a first portion (see Image J and K, first portion) , and the first edge portion is on a side of the first portion of the second edge portion away from the base substrate (see Image K) . Lee and Yumoto do not teach that the third color resist is on a side of the second color resist away from the first color resist, and the second edge portion comprises a second portion on a side of the third color resist away from the base substrate. Hirose teaches a first color resist (see Hirose Fig. 16A, coloring layer 116R) , a second color resist (see Hirose Fig. 16A, coloring layer 116G) and a third color resist (see Hirose Fig. 16A, coloring layer 116B) , and the second color resist comprises a second light transmitting portion (see Image L, second light transmitting portion) and a second edge portion (see Image L, second edge portion) surrounding the second light transmitting portion (see Image L) ; wherein a first edge portion (see Image M, first edge portion) overlaps with the second edge portion (see Image L and M) , the second edge portion comprises a first portion (see Image L and M, first portion) , and the first edge portion is on a side of the first portion of the second edge portion away from the base substrate (see Image M) ; and wherein the third color resist is on a side of the second color resist away from the first color resist (see Hirose Fig. 16A) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the color resist structure of the combined device of Lee and Yumoto with the color resist structure taught by Hirose in order to simplifying manufacturing process by arranging color resists of the same color in one direction. With regards to claim 5 , Lee, Yumoto, and Hirose teach the display substrate according to claim 4, wherein in a direction from the first color resist (see Hirose Fig. 16A, coloring layer 116R) to the second color resist (see Hirose Fig. 16A, coloring layer 116G) , an overlap between the first edge portion (see Image M, first edge portion) and the first portion (see Image L, first portion) has a first overlapping size (see Image N, first overlapping size) ; wherein in a direction from the second color resist to the third color resist (see Hirose Fig. 16A, coloring layer 116B) , an overlap between the second portion (see Image L, second portion) and the third color resist has a second overlapping size (see Image N, second overlapping size) ; and wherein the first overlapping size is greater than or equal to the second overlapping size (see Image N, where the overlapping sizes are about equal length) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Yumoto, and Hirose, in view of Yao (Patent No.: US 12,532,630 B2) . PNG media_image14.png 266 485 media_image14.png Greyscale Image O: closeup up of Yao Fig. 9, showcasing first predetermined distance and the ratio of first predetermined distance to thickness of 2 nd color resist is about 1:4 . With regards to claim 6 , Lee, Yumoto, and Hirose teach the display substrate according to claim 4. Lee, Yumoto, and Hirose do not teach that an average thickness of either the second color resist or the third color resist is greater than an average thickness of the first color resist, and a difference between the average thickness of either the second color resist or the third color resist and the average thickness of the first color resist is a first predetermined difference, and a ratio of the first predetermined difference to the average thickness of either the second color resist or the third color resist is less than or equal to 1:5. Yao teaches an average thickness (see Image O, thickness of second color resist) of the second color resist (see Yao Fig. 9, blue color resist 1072) is greater than an average thickness (see Image O, thickness of first color resist) of the first color resist (see Yao Fig. 9, red color resist 1071) , and a difference between the average thickness of either the second color resist or the third color resist and the average thickness of the first color resist is a first predetermined difference (see Image O, first predetermined difference) , and a ratio of the first predetermined difference to the average thickness of either the second color resist or the third color resist is less than or equal to 1:5 (see Image O) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the thickness of the first and second color resists the combined device of Lee, Yumoto, and Hirose with the thickness taught by Yao in order to increase the amount of light that makes it through the first color resist if a first light emitting device with weaker output than other light emitting devices in the display substrate is chosen . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Yumoto, in view of Abe et al. (Pub. No.: US 20100302417 A1), hereinafter as Abe . PNG media_image15.png 204 447 media_image15.png Greyscale Image P: closeup up of Abe Fig. 6, showcasing first gap. With regards to claim 7 , Lee and Yumoto teach the display substrate according to claim 1. Lee and Yumoto do not teach a lens layer provided on a side of the first planarization layer away from the base substrate, wherein the lens layer comprises a plurality of lenses, and a first gap is formed between two lenses adjacent to each other; and wherein an orthographic projection of the first gap on the base substrate at least partially overlaps with an orthographic projection of an overlap between color resists adjacent to each other on the base substrate. Abe teaches a lens layer (see Abe Fig. 6, where on-chip lens 140 reside on the same layer) provided on a side of a first planarization layer (see Abe Fig. 6, planarizing film HT) away from a base substrate (see Abe Fig. 6, substrate 101) , wherein the lens layer comprises a plurality of lenses (see Abe Fig. 6, on-chip lens 140) , and a first gap (see Image P) is formed between two lenses adjacent to each other (see Image P and Abe Fig. 6) ; and wherein an orthographic projection of the first gap on the base substrate at least partially overlaps with an orthographic projection of an overlap between color resists (see Abe Fig. 6, color filter 130) adjacent to each other on the base substrate (see Image P and Abe Fig. 6, overlapped region OLrg) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the lens layer taught by Abe to the combined device of Lee and Yumoto in order to further refract light with the lenses. With regards to claim 8 , Lee, Yumoto, and Abe teach the display substrate according to claim 7, wherein the orthographic projection of the first gap (see Image P) on the base substrate (see Abe Fig. 6, substrate 101) covers the orthographic projection of the overlap between the color resists (see Abe Fig. 6, color filter 130) adjacent to each other on the base substrate (see Abe Fig. 6, overlapped region OLrg) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 9-11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Yumoto, and Abe, in view of Kim et al. (Pub. No.: US 20220223769 A1), hereinafter as Kim . PNG media_image16.png 189 307 media_image16.png Greyscale Image Q: closeup up of Kim Fig. 6A, showcasing first gap and groove. PNG media_image17.png 236 223 media_image17.png Greyscale Image R: closeup up of Kim Fig. 6A, showcasing first and second predetermined spacings. PNG media_image18.png 146 273 media_image18.png Greyscale Image S: closeup up of Kim Fig. 6A, showcasing that the second predetermined spacing is less than the height of the lens. With regards to claim 9 , Lee, Yumoto, and Abe teach the display substrate according to claim 7. Lee, Yumoto, and Abe do not teach that the first gap comprises a groove recessed towards a center of a respective lens, the groove comprises a first surface on a side away from the base substrate, and the first surface comprises a flat surface or a smooth curved surface. Kim teaches a first gap (see Image Q, first gap) that comprises a groove (see Image Q, groove) recessed towards a center of a respective lens (see Kim Fig. 6A, microlens 200) , the groove comprises a first surface (see Kim Fig. 6A, side walls 206) on a side away from a base substrate (see Kim Fig. 6A, backplane 400, where “[t]he backplane 400 includes a backplane substrate 410,” (Kim [0029])) , and the first surface comprises a flat surface (see Kim Fig. 7A & 7D, side walls 206) or a smooth curved surface (see Kim Fig. 7B & 7C, side walls 206) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the lens shape of Lee, Yumoto, and Abe with the lens shape taught by Kim in order to reduce internal reflection and backscattering (see Kim [0055]: “As can be seen in FIG. 9A, the majority of the light propagates to the front surface of the microlens 200, with a lower amount backscattering. In contrast, as shown in FIG. 9B, the comparative microlens 201 had a higher amount of backscattering, due having a higher internal reflection. Accordingly, the exemplary microlens 200 provided better collimation and a lower amount of internal reflection, as compared to the comparative microlens 201. The present inventors also discovered that the internal reflection of the exemplary microlens 200 may be further reduced, by utilizing a convex front surface 204, as shown in FIG. 7D.”). With regards to claim 10 , Lee, Yumoto, Abe, and Kim teach the display substrate according to claim 9, wherein in the first gap (see Image Q, first gap) , the groove (see Image Q, groove) is recessed towards a center of each of the two lenses (see Kim Fig. 6A, microlens 200) adjacent to each other (see Kim Fig. 6A) , and comprises two first surfaces (see Kim Fig. 6A, side walls 206) adjacent to each other on the side away from the base substrate (see Kim Fig. 6A) , configured such that edges of the two first surfaces away from the base substrate are spaced apart from each other by a first predetermined spacing (see Image R, first predetermined spacing) , edges of the two first surfaces close to the base substrate are spaced apart from each other by a second predetermined spacing (see Image R, second predetermined spacing) , and the first predetermined spacing is less than the second predetermined spacing (see Image R) . With regards to claim 11 , Lee, Yumoto, Abe, and Kim teach the display substrate according to claim 10, wherein a first overlapping size (see Abe Fig. 6, overlapped region OLrg) is less than the second predetermined spacing (see Image P and Abe Fig. 6; because the shortest distance between two edges of lenses is still greater than overlapped region OLrg, one could assume that the second predetermined spacing is greater than the overlapped region OLrg) . With regards to claim 14 , Lee, Yumoto, Abe, and Kim teach the display substrate according to claim 10, wherein the second predetermined spacing (see Image R, second predetermined spacing) is less than a size of at least one lens (see Kim Fig. 6A, microlens 200) in a thickness direction of the display substrate (see Image S) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Yumoto, Abe, and Kim, in view of Biswas et al. (Pub. No.: US 20250130481 A1), hereinafter as Biswas . PNG media_image19.png 134 407 media_image19.png Greyscale Image T: closeup up of Kim Fig. 6A, showcasing first length and first predetermined angle. PNG media_image20.png 144 164 media_image20.png Greyscale PNG media_image21.png 141 112 media_image21.png Greyscale Image U: closeup up of Kim Fig. 6A, showcasing that the ratio of transparent conductive layer 120 to sidewall 206 is about 2:17.5 . With regards to claim 13 , Lee, Yumoto, Abe, and Kim teach the display substrate according to claim 10, wherein at least one of the first surfaces (see Kim Fig. 6A, side walls 206) has a first length (see Image T, first length; where the first length’s range can be approximately determined to be 175 nm to 5250 nm, as seen in Image U and Kim [0038]: “The thickness of the transparent conductive layer 120 can be in a range from 20 nm to 600 nm,”) in a direction from an edge of the first surface away from the base substrate to an edge of the first surface close to the base substrate (see Image T) ; and wherein the at least one of the first surfaces has a first predetermined angle (see Image T, first predetermined angle) with the first planarization layer (see Image T, first predetermined angle) , and the first predetermined angle is an acute angle (see Image T) . Lee, Yumoto, Abe, and Kim do not teach that the first length is less than the first predetermined spacing. Biswas teaches a first predetermined spacing (see Biswas Fig. 9, distance G; and see Biswas [0102]: “The distance G between adjacent microlenses may be, for example, about −1 microns to about 50 microns, where a negative value means that adjacent microlenses overlap/merge with each other.”, which, by choosing a range from 6 microns to 50 microns, makes the first determined spacing larger than the first length.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first predetermined spacing of the combined device of Lee, Yumoto, Abe, and Kim with the first predetermined spacing taught by Biswas in order to mitigate backscattering in one lens from entering adjacent lenses . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Yumoto, in view of Cho (Pub. No.: US 20230062159 A1) . PNG media_image22.png 460 382 media_image22.png Greyscale Image V: closeup of Cho Fig. 6B, showcasing a ratio of light emitting area LA to 1 st curved surface is about 1:2 and a ratio of first edge portion to half of first light transmitting portion is 1:10 . With regards to claim 23 , Lee and Yumoto teach the display substrate according to claim 3. Lee and Yumoto do not teach a ratio of a light emission area of the first light emitting device to an area of an orthographic projection of the first curved surface on the base substrate is greater than or equal to 1:2; and wherein in a direction from a center of the first color resist to an edge of the first color resist, a ratio of a size of the first edge portion to a size of the first light transmitting portion is greater than or equal to 1:10. Cho teaches a ratio of a light emission area (see Cho Fig. 6B and Image V, light emitting area LA) of a first light emitting device (see Cho Fig. 6B, second-first sub-pixel E21M) to an area of an orthographic projection (see Image V) of a first curved surface (see Image V, first curved surface) on a base substrate (see Cho Fig. 5B, base layer BS, which seventh insulating layer 70 is disposed upon and which second-first sub-color filter CF2-B is disposed upon as well in Cho Fig. 6B) is greater than or equal to 1:2 (see Image V) ; and wherein in a direction from a center (see Image V, center) of a first color resist (see Cho Fig. 6B, second-first sub-color filter CF2-B) to an edge (see Image V, edge) of the first color resist (see Image V) , a ratio of a size of a first edge portion (see Image V, edge portion) to a size of a first light transmitting portion (see Image V, first light transmitting portion) is greater than or equal to 1:10 (see Image V) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ratios of the combined device of Lee and Yumoto with the ratios taught by Cho in order to increase the area and curve in which light is refracted through the lens-like first color resist while keeping the edge portion at a minimum . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Regarding claim 12 , the prior art does not teach or render obvious the display substrate according to claim 10, wherein a spacing between a center of the first curved surface and a surface of the first planarization layer away from the base substrate in a direction perpendicular to the base substrate is greater than or equal to the first predetermined spacing. 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim 26 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Regarding claim 26 , the prior art does not teach or render obvious the manufacturing method according to claim 25, spin-coating the first color resist material according to a second coating thickness less than the first coating thickness, wherein the second coating thickness is configured such that in a process of the spin-coating, the first color resist material between the second color resist and the third color resist forms a first recess, and an edge of the first recess is overlapped on a side of the second color resist away from the base substrate and a side of the third color resist away from the base substrate; and retaining the first recess by exposure and development, so as to obtain the first color resist having the first curved surface. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EKATERINA T BIRCH whose telephone number is (571)272-8676. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8am-4pm ET. 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, Steven Loke can be reached at 5712721657. 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. /E.T.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2818 /STEVEN H LOKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/703,679 Page 2 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/703,679 Page 3 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/703,679 Page 4 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/703,679 Page 5 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/703,679 Page 6 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/703,679 Page 7 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/703,679 Page 8 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/703,679 Page 10 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/703,679 Page 11 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/703,679 Page 12 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/703,679 Page 13 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/703,679 Page 14 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/703,679 Page 15 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/703,679 Page 16 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/703,679 Page 17 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/703,679 Page 18 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/703,679 Page 19 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/703,679 Page 20 Art Unit: 2818
Prosecution Insights