Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/21/2024 is in compliance with time for filing requirements of 37 C.F.R. 1.97, and thus, the information disclosure statement has been considered except as otherwise indicated.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show or define the plot axes in Figures 1, 3B, 4B, 5B, 6B, and 7B as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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: Color Deviation Adjustment Layer in an OLED-based Display Substrate.
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 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 1 recites the limitation “the color deviation adjustment layer further comprises one of the group consisting of a film layer taken from the encapsulation layer except for the first intercalation layer and the second intercalation layer, the second electrode, the optical extraction layer, and the protective layer”, this limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear which of the structures is acceptable to be included in “the group consisting of”. Furthermore, this limitation directly contradicts claims 11, 13, and 15 since the “color deviation adjustment layer[s]” comprises a first intercalation layer, a second intercalation layer and one of the following: a second electrode, a protective layer, or an optical extraction layer. For examination purposes, based on broadest reasonable interpretation, the examiner has interpreted this limitation as “the color deviation layer comprises a first intercalation layer, a second intercalation layer, and a film layer consisting of one of the following: a second electrode, a protective layer, an optical extraction layer, or a third intercalation layer.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (US20220310974A1) in view of Desaki et al. (JP2020134877A).
Regarding Claim 1:
Zhou discloses a display substrate (Fig. 2 element 100), comprising:
a base substrate (Fig. 4 element 10);
a first electrode located on a side of the base substrate (Fig. 4 element ITO/Ag, paragraph 56);
a light-emitting layer located on a side of the first electrode away from the base substrate (blue box; see annotated fig. attached below);
a second electrode located on a side of the light-emitting layer away from the base substrate (Fig. 4 element cathode, paragraph 54);
an optical extraction layer located on a side of the second electrode away from the base substrate (light extraction layer; Fig. 4, paragraph 53);
a protective layer located on a side of the optical extraction layer away from the base substrate (Fig. 4 elements CPl and LiF); and
an encapsulation layer (Fig. 1 element 30) comprising a first intercalation layer (Fig. 16 elements CVD1-4) located on a side of the protective layer (Fig. 4 elements CPl and LiF) away from the base substrate (element 10) and a second intercalation layer located on a side of the first intercalation layer (Fig. 16 elements 33) away from the base substrate;
wherein the display substrate comprises a color deviation adjustment layer (Fig. 4) configured to adjust a color deviation of the display substrate (paragraph 60),
wherein the color deviation adjustment layer (Fig. 4) comprises the first intercalation layer (Fig. 16 elements CVD1-4) and the second intercalation layer (element 33) which are located in the encapsulation layer (Fig. 1 element 30), and the color deviation adjustment layer further comprises one of the group consisting of a film layer taken from the encapsulation layer except for the first intercalation layer and the second intercalation layer, the second electrode, the optical extraction layer, and the protective layer (paragraph 61);
wherein the first electrode (Fig. 4 element ITO/Ag) comprises a reflective layer (paragraph 56), and the second electrode (element cathode) comprises a transparent material (paragraph 56), and
PNG
media_image1.png
543
497
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein a thickness L1 of the first intercalation layer (element 31) is less than (paragraphs 35, 52, and 60) a thickness L2 of the second intercalation layer (element 33).
However, Zhou does not explicitly disclose where the color deviation adjustment layer is configured to adjust a color deviation so that the deviation has a maximum value at an observation angle in a range of 0 to 90 degrees.
Desaki discloses an analogous optical laminate (Figs. 2A-B element 100) within an OLED device, wherein that the color deviation has a maximum value at an observation angle in a range of 0 to 90 degrees (paragraphs 6, 30-33, 74, and 155).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display substrate described in Zhou further in view of Desaki to explicitly include where the color deviation adjustment layer is configured to adjust a color deviation such that the color deviation has a maximum value at an observation angle in a range of 0 to 90 degrees because both are directed to analogous display devices. Doing so improves the display capabilities independent of the viewing angle (Desaki, paragraphs 2-6).
The examiner first notes that Zhou does not explicitly disclose that the thickness of the first intercalation layer is less than the thickness of the second intercalation layer. The examiner next notes the difference in thicknesses is a result effective variable because adjusting the thicknesses can have a direct effect on the color deviation maximum value at a specific observation angle. However, Zhou recognizes that the variations in the thickness of the intercalation layers (Fig. 4 elements 31 and 33) impacts the color deviation based on the viewing angles (paragraph 35). Furthermore, Zhou recognizes for there to be an improvement in the viewing angle dependent color shift, it is necessitated by the thickness of the layers (paragraphs 35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the thicknesses of the first intercalation layer and second intercalation layer as Zhou has identified the thickness as a result-effective variable. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at a thickness of the first intercalation layer that is less than the thickness of the second intercalation layer, in order to achieve the desired reduction in color sensitivity based on viewing angle, as taught by Zhou. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 2:
Zhou and Desaki disclose a display substrate according to claim 1, wherein Zhou discloses a refractive index n1 of a material of the first intercalation layer (Fig. 4 element 31) and a refractive index n2 of a material of the second intercalation layer (element 33) satisfy 0.6 > I n1-n2 I > 0.3 (paragraph 81).
Regarding Claim 3:
Zhou and Desaki disclose a display substrate according to claim 2, but Zhou does not explicitly teach where the color adjustment layer is configured such that a scattered distribution area (S1), of the color deviation, at a first observation angle α1 is greater than a scattered distribution area (S2) at a second observation angle α2.
Desaki, however, discloses an analogous optical laminate (Fig. 1), wherein a color deviation adjustment layer (element 100) is configured such that a scattered distribution area S1 of the color deviation of the display substrate at a first observation angle α1 (Figs. 2A-B element 40) is greater than a scattered distribution area S2 (paragraphs 29-31) of the color deviation of display substrate at a second observation angle α2 (element 42),
where 40°<α1<50°,
0°<α2<40°, or
50°<α2<90° (Figs. 2A-B, paragraphs 30-31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display substrate described in Zhou further in view of Desaki to explicitly include where the color deviation adjustment layer is configured such that a scattered distribution area of the color deviation, of the substrate, at a first observation angle is greater than a scattered distribution area at a second angle – and the specific angle ranges – because both are directed to analogous display devices. Doing so improves the display capabilities independent of the viewing angle (Desaki, paragraphs 2-6 and 11).
Regarding Claim 4:
Zhou and Desaki disclose a display substrate according to claim 3, but Zhou does not explicitly teach a relationship between scattered distribution area S1, S21 and S22 that satisfies S1 > S22 > S21.
Desaki, however, discloses an analogous optical laminate (Fig. 1), wherein when 0°< α2 <40°, the scattered distribution area of the color deviation of the display substrate at the second observation angle α2 is S21 (Figs. 2A-B element 41, paragraphs 30-33),
when 50°< α2 <90°, the scattered distribution area of the color deviation of the display substrate at the second observation angle α2 is S22 (Figs. 2A-B element 41, paragraphs 30-33), and a relationship between S1, S21 and S22 satisfies: S1 > S22 > S21 (paragraphs 74 and 105).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display substrate described in Zhou further in view of Desaki to explicitly include a relationship between scattered distribution areas S1, S21 and S22 that satisfies S1 > S22 > S21 because both are directed to analogous display devices. Doing so improves the display capabilities independent of the viewing angle (Desaki, paragraphs 2-6 and 11).
Regarding Claim 5:
Zhou and Desaki disclose a display substrate according to claim 4, but Zhou does not explicitly teach a ratio of the scattered distribution area S21 to the scattered distribution are S1 that satisfies 0.3 < S21/S1 < 0.55.
Desaki, however, discloses an analogous optical laminate (Fig. 1), wherein a ratio of the scattered distribution area S21 of the color deviation of the display substrate at the second observation angle α2 to the scattered distribution area S1 of the color deviation of the display substrate at the first observation angle α1 satisfies: 0.3 < S21/S1 < 0.55 (paragraphs 29-33, 105, and 129).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display substrate described in Zhou further in view of Desaki to explicitly teach a ratio of the scattered distribution area S21 to the scattered distribution are S1 that satisfies 0.3 < S21/S1 < 0.55 because both are directed to analogous display devices. Doing so improves the display capabilities independent of the viewing angle (Desaki, paragraphs 2-6 and 11).
Regarding Claim 6:
Zhou and Desaki disclose a display substrate according to claim 4, but Zhou does not explicitly teach a ratio of the scattered distribution area S22 to the scattered distribution are S1 that satisfies 0.55 < S22/S1 < 0.95.
Desaki, however, discloses an analogous optical laminate (Fig. 1), wherein a ratio of the scattered distribution area S22 of the color deviation of the display substrate at the second observation angle α2 to the scattered distribution area S1 of the color deviation of the display substrate at the first observation angle α1 satisfies: 0.55 < S22/S1 < 0.95 (paragraphs 29-33, 105, and 129).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display substrate described in Zhou further in view of Desaki to explicitly teach a ratio of the scattered distribution area S22 to the scattered distribution are S1 that satisfies 0.55 < S22/S1 < 0.95 because both are directed to analogous display devices. Doing so improves the display capabilities independent of the viewing angle (Desaki, paragraphs 2-6 and 11).
Regarding Claim 7:
Zhou and Desaki disclose a display substrate according to claim 2, wherein Zhou discloses the film layers (Fig. 5 elements 321) comprised in the color deviation adjustment layer satisfy:
Σ
(
n
i
L
i
)
/
Σ
(
L
i
)
=
K
where n represents a refractive index of a material of each film layer, L represents a thickness of each film layer, i is a positive integer, and K is in a range of 15 to 100 (paragraph 63).
The examiner first notes that Zhou does not explicitly disclose a range for the value of K. However, Zhou recognizes that there is a distinct relationship between the thickness of the film layers and the value of K (paragraphs 63, 97, and 121). Furthermore, Zhou recognizes for there to be an improvement in the viewing angle dependent color shift, it is necessitated by the thickness of the layers (paragraphs 35). The range of the value of K is therefore a result-effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the value of K as Zhou has identified K as a result-effective variable. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at a value of K between 15 and 100, in order to achieve the desired reduction in color sensitivity based on viewing angle, as taught by Zhou. MPEP 2144.05.
Furthermore, the applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed value of K is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e., that the invention would not work without the specific claimed dimensions).
Regarding Claim 8:
Zhou and Desaki disclose a display substrate according to claim 7, wherein Zhou discloses the encapsulation layer (Fig. 1 element 30) further comprises:
a first inorganic layer (Fig. 12 and 16 elements CVD2-4) located on a side of the second intercalation layer (element 33) away from the base substrate (element 10);
an organic layer (elements 32/34/36) located on a side of the first inorganic layer (elements CVD2-4) away from the base substrate (element 10);
a second inorganic layer (elements CVD2-4) located on a side of the organic layer (elements 32/34/36) away from the base substrate (element 10).
Regarding Claim 9:
Zhou and Desaki disclose a display substrate according to claim 8, wherein Zhou discloses the color deviation adjustment layer (Fig. 4) comprises the first intercalation layer (element 31), the second intercalation layer (element 33) and the first inorganic layer (element 32, paragraph 61);
a refractive index (n1; paragraph 63) of a material of the first inorganic layer (element 32) is n3, and a thickness of the first inorganic layer is L3 (Fig. 5 element d1) ; and
film layers (elements 321) comprised in the color deviation adjustment layer satisfy:
(
n
1
L
1
+
n
2
L
2
+
n
3
L
3
)
/
(
L
1
+
L
2
+
L
3
)
=
K
where K is in a range of 40 to 80 (paragraphs 62-64).
The examiner first notes that Zhou does not explicitly disclose a range for the value of K. However, Zhou recognizes that there is a distinct relationship between the thickness of the film layers and the value of K (paragraphs 63, 97, and 121). Furthermore, Zhou recognizes for there to be an improvement in the viewing angle dependent color shift, it is necessitated by the thickness of the layers (paragraphs 35). The range of the value of K is therefore a result-effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the value of K as Zhou has identified K as a result-effective variable. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at a value of K between 40 and 80, in order to achieve the desired reduction in color sensitivity based on viewing angle, as taught by Zhou. MPEP 2144.05.
Furthermore, the applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed value of K is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e., that the invention would not work without the specific claimed dimensions).
Regarding Claim 10:
Zhou and Desaki disclose a display substrate according to claim 9, wherein Zhou discloses the refractive index n2 of the material of the second intercalation layer (Fig. 4 element 33) and a refractive index n3 of a material of the first inorganic layer satisfy (element 32); 0.5> I n2-n3 I >0.2 (paragraph 81).
Regarding Claim 11:
Zhou and Desaki disclose a display substrate according to claim 8, wherein Zhou discloses the color deviation adjustment layer (Fig. 8) comprises the first intercalation layer (element 31), the second intercalation layer (element 33) and the second electrode (elements cathode/34);
a refractive index (n2) of a material of the second electrode is n4, and a thickness of the second electrode is L4 (Fig. 9 element d2); and
film layers (elements 341) comprised in the color deviation adjustment layer satisfy:
(
n
1
L
1
+
n
2
L
2
+
n
4
L
4
)
/
(
L
1
+
L
2
+
L
4
)
=
K
where K is in a range of 91 to 93 (paragraphs 96-98).
The examiner first notes that Zhou does not explicitly disclose a range for the value of K. However, Zhou recognizes that there is a distinct relationship between the thickness of the film layers and the value of K (paragraphs 63, 97, and 121). Furthermore, Zhou recognizes for there to be an improvement in the viewing angle dependent color shift, it is necessitated by the thickness of the layers (paragraphs 35). The range of the value of K is therefore a result-effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the value of K as Zhou has identified K as a result-effective variable. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at a value of K between 91 and 93, in order to achieve the desired reduction in color sensitivity based on viewing angle, as taught by Zhou. MPEP 2144.05.
Furthermore, the applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed value of K is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e., that the invention would not work without the specific claimed dimensions).
Regarding Claim 12:
Zhou and Desaki disclose a display substrate according to claim 11, wherein Zhou discloses the refractive index n1 of the material of the first intercalation layer (Fig. 8 element 31) and the refractive index n4 of the material of the second electrode (elements cathode/34) satisfy 1.5> I n1 - n4 I >1 (paragraphs 81 and 87).
Regarding Claim 13:
Zhou and Desaki disclose a display substrate according to claim 8, wherein Zhou discloses the color deviation adjustment layer (Fig. 8) comprises the first intercalation layer (element 31), the second intercalation layer (element 33) and the protective layer (elements CPl/LiF/34);
a refractive index (n2) of a material of the protective layer is n5, and a thickness of the protective layer is L5 (Fig. 9 element d2); and
film layers (elements 341) comprised in the color deviation adjustment layer satisfy:
(
n
1
L
1
+
n
2
L
2
+
n
5
L
5
)
/
(
L
1
+
L
2
+
L
5
)
=
K
where K is in a range of 16 to 18 (paragraphs 96-98).
The examiner first notes that Zhou does not explicitly disclose a range for the value of K. However, Zhou recognizes that there is a distinct relationship between the thickness of the film layers and the value of K (paragraphs 63, 97, and 121). Furthermore, Zhou recognizes for there to be an improvement in the viewing angle dependent color shift, it is necessitated by the thickness of the layers (paragraphs 35). The range of the value of K is therefore a result-effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the value of K as Zhou has identified K as a result-effective variable. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at a value of K between 16 and 18, in order to achieve the desired reduction in color sensitivity based on viewing angle, as taught by Zhou. MPEP 2144.05.
Furthermore, the applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed value of K is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e., that the invention would not work without the specific claimed dimensions).
Regarding Claim 14:
Zhou and Desaki disclose a display substrate according to claim 13, wherein Zhou discloses the refractive index n1 of the material of the first intercalation layer (Fig. 8 element 31) and the refractive index n5 of the material of the protective layer (elements CPl/LiF/34) satisfy; 0.5> I n1-n5 I >0.2 (paragraphs 81 and 87).
Regarding Claim 15:
Zhou and Desaki disclose a display substrate according to claim 8, wherein Zhou discloses the color deviation adjustment layer (Fig. 8) comprises the first intercalation layer (element 31), the second intercalation layer (element 33) and the optical extraction layer (light extraction layer/34; paragraph 53);
a refractive index (n2) of a material of the optical extraction layer is n6, and a thickness of the optical extraction layer is L6 (Fig. 9 element d2); and
film layers (elements 341) comprised in the color deviation adjustment layer satisfy:
(
n
1
L
1
+
n
2
L
2
+
n
6
L
6
)
/
(
L
1
+
L
2
+
L
6
)
=
K
where K is in a range of 87 to 91 (paragraphs 96-98).
The examiner first notes that Zhou does not explicitly disclose a range for the value of K. However, Zhou recognizes that there is a distinct relationship between the thickness of the film layers and the value of K (paragraphs 63, 97, and 121). Furthermore, Zhou recognizes for there to be an improvement in the viewing angle dependent color shift, it is necessitated by the thickness of the layers (paragraphs 35). The range of the value of K is therefore a result-effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the value of K as Zhou has identified K as a result-effective variable. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at a value of K between 87 and 91, in order to achieve the desired reduction in color sensitivity based on viewing angle, as taught by Zhou. MPEP 2144.05.
Furthermore, the applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed value of K is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e., that the invention would not work without the specific claimed dimensions).
Regarding Claim 16:
Zhou and Desaki disclose a display substrate according to claim 15, wherein Zhou discloses the refractive index n1 of the material of the first intercalation layer (Fig. 8 element 31) and the refractive index n6 of the material of the optical extraction layer (light extraction layer/34; paragraph 53) satisfy; 0.5> I n1-n6 I >0.2 (paragraphs 81 and 87).
Regarding Claim 17:
Zhou and Desaki disclose a display substrate according to claim 8, wherein Zhou discloses the encapsulation layer (Fig. 1 element 30) further comprises: a third intercalation layer (elements CVD2-4 and 36/44/46) located between the first inorganic layer (Fig. 16 element 32) and the organic layer (elements 32/34/36/44/46).
Regarding Claim 18:
Zhou and Desaki disclose a display substrate according to claim 17, wherein Zhou discloses the color deviation adjustment layer (Figs. 12-16) comprises the first intercalation layer (element 31), the second intercalation layer (element 33) and the third intercalation layer (elements CVD2-4 and 36/44/46);
a refractive index (n3) of a material of the third intercalation layer is n7, and a thickness (Fig. 13 element d3) of the third intercalation layer is L7; and
film layers (elements 361) comprised in the color deviation adjustment layer satisfy:
(
n
1
L
1
+
n
2
L
2
+
n
7
L
7
)
/
(
L
1
+
L
2
+
L
7
)
=
K
where K is in a range of 97 to 99 (paragraphs 120-122).
The examiner first notes that Zhou does not explicitly disclose a range for the value of K. However, Zhou recognizes that there is a distinct relationship between the thickness of the film layers and the value of K (paragraphs 63, 97, and 121). Furthermore, Zhou recognizes for there to be an improvement in the viewing angle dependent color shift, it is necessitated by the thickness of the layers (paragraphs 35). The range of the value of K is therefore a result-effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the value of K as Zhou has identified K as a result-effective variable. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at a value of K between 97 and 99, in order to achieve the desired reduction in color sensitivity based on viewing angle, as taught by Zhou. MPEP 2144.05.
Furthermore, the applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed value of K is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e., that the invention would not work without the specific claimed dimensions).
Regarding Claim 24:
Zhou discloses a display device (Fig. 2, paragraph 159) comprising a display substrate (Fig. 2 element 100) according to claim 1.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (US20220310974A1) in view of Desaki et al. (JP2020134877A) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (CN114284329A).
Regarding Claim 19:
Zhou and Desaki disclose a display substrate according to claim 18, wherein Zhou further discloses the refractive index n2 of the material of the second intercalation layer (Figs. 12-16 element 33) and the refractive index n7 of the material of the third intercalation layer (elements CVD2-4 and 36/44/46) satisfy; 0.4> I n2-n7 I >0.1 (paragraphs 81 and 141);
the thickness L7 of the third intercalation layer (elements CVD2-4 and 36/44/46) is in a range of 100 nm to 120 nm (paragraph 127);
the light-emitting layer (blue box; see annotated fig. above) comprises a first wavelength light-emitting layer (Figs. 3-4 element 111), a second wavelength light-emitting layer (element 112) and a third wavelength light-emitting layer (element 113);
a wavelength P1 (λ) of light emitted by the first wavelength light-emitting layer (red; element 111) is in a range of 615 nm to 665 nm (paragraphs 69-72);
a wavelength P2 (λ) of light emitted by the second wavelength light-emitting layer (green; element 112) is in a range of 520 nm to 535 nm (paragraphs 69-72);
a wavelength P3 (λ) of light emitted by the third wavelength light-emitting layer (blue; element 113) is in a range of 455 nm to 470 nm (paragraphs 69-72),
the thickness L1 of the first intercalation layer (Fig. 12 element 31) is in a range of 65 nm to 95 nm (paragraphs 35, 52, 73, 161); and
the thickness L2 of the second intercalation layer (Fig. 12 element 33) is in a range of 95 nm to 135 nm (paragraphs 81, 88, 103, 161),
wherein the display substrate (Fig. 2 element 100) further comprises:
a hole injection layer (Fig. 4 element HIL) located between (paragraphs 54-55) the first electrode (element ITO/Ag) and the light-emitting layer (blue box; see annotated fig. above);
a hole transport layer (element HTL1) located on a side of the hole injection layer away (element HIL) from the base substrate (element 10);
an electronic transport layer (Fig. 4 element ETL) located on a side away from the base substrate (element 10);
an electron injection layer (element EIL) located on a side of the electron transport layer (element ETL) away from the base substrate (element 10).
However, neither Zhou nor Desaki explicitly teach where the display substrate further comprises an electron barrier layer nor a hole barrier layer.
Liu discloses an analogous display substrate (Fig. 4 element 100C), comprising an electron barrier layer (Fig. 4 element 1106) located on a side of the hole transport layer (element 1104) away from the base substrate (element 130); and
a hole barrier layer (element 1107) located between (paragraph 53) the light-emitting layer (element 1105) and the second electrode (element 1110).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display substrate described in Zhou and Desaki further in view of Liu to explicitly include an electron barrier layer and a hole barrier layer because both are directed to analogous display devices. Doing so improves the performance capabilities of display devices (Liu, paragraphs 3-4).
The examiner first notes that Zhou does not explicitly disclose the thickness ranges for the first and second intercalation layers. The examiner next notes the thicknesses are a result effective variable because adjusting the thickness in the intercalation layers can have a direct effect on the color deviation maximum value at a specific observation angle. The examiner additionally notes that the thickness of the first and second intercalation layers is recognized by the prior art as a result-effective variable (Zhou, paragraph 35). The examiner now notes that optimization of result effective variables through routine experimentation is an obviousness expedient and not a patentable distinction. "[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). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display substrate described in Zhou to explicitly include a thickness range for the first intercalation layer and the second intercalation layer. Doing so allows for improvements in order to achieve the desired reduction in color sensitivity based on viewing angle (Zhou, paragraphs 3-4).
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wano et al. (US 20080042154 A1), Menke et al. (WO 2021240268 A1), Bessho et al. (US 20150323711 A1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Chloë E Benton whose telephone number is (571)272-9976. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 8am-6pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Zandra Smith can be reached at (571) 272-2429. 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.
/Chloë E Benton/Examiner, Art Unit 2899
/ZANDRA V SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights