CTNF 18/710,631 CTNF 91724 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement 06-52 The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/12/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Specification The abstract and title are consistent with the requirements set forth in the MPEP 608.01(b) and 606, respectively. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 4 recites “DCM-series.” The expanded name of “DCM” should be used instead . 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. Claims 18-19 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 18 recites the limitation “forming a charge generation layer on a side of the light emitting unit away from the substrate” in line 16 and also recites “forming a charge generation layer between two adjacent light emitting units” in line 19. It is unclear if the charge generation layers in line 16 and 19 are the same. For proper antecedence and examination purposes, the limitation in line 19 is interpreted as “ forming a the charge generation layer being between two adjacent light emitting units.” Appropriate correction is required. Claim 19 recites the limitation "wherein the thickness of the red light emitting layer is 8% to 16% of the thickness of the microcavity, the thickness of the red light emitting auxiliary layer is 1% to 5% of the thickness of the microcavity" in lines 11-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no previous mention of a thickness of the red light emitting layer, a thickness of the microcavity and a thickness of the red light emitting auxiliary layer. For examination purposes and for proper antecedence, the limitation "wherein the thickness of the red light emitting layer is 8% to 16% of the thickness of the microcavity, the thickness of the red light emitting auxiliary layer is 1% to 5% of the thickness of the microcavity" is being interpreted as "wherein the a thickness of the red light emitting layer is 8% to 16% of the a thickness of the microcavity, the a thickness of the red light emitting auxiliary layer is 1% to 5% of the thickness of the microcavity.” Appropriate correction is required. 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-5 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. US PGPub. 2022/0367827 in view of Lee US PGPub. 2015/0188087 (hereinafter called Lee ‘8087). Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a display substrate (fig. 9) [0169], comprising a red sub-pixel (OLED1, fig. 9) [0175], and further comprising: a first electrode layer (210-1, 210-2, 210-3, fig. 9; hereinafter called 210) [0136], a second electrode layer (230, fig. 9) [0136], a plurality of light emitting units (ST1 and ST2, fig. 9) [0189] disposed between the first electrode layer (210) and the second electrode layer (230) and connected in series, and a charge generation layer (224, fig. 9) [0163] disposed between two adjacent light emitting units (ST1, ST2), wherein a microcavity (resonance structure, [0177]; hereinafter called RS) is formed between the first electrode layer (210) and the second electrode layer (230); the light emitting units (ST1, ST2) comprise a first hole transport layer (bottom half portion of HTL, fig. 9; hereinafter called HTL-B), a second hole transport layer (top half portion of HTL, fig. 9; hereinafter called HTL-T) and an emitting layer (222Lm-1, fig. 9) [0175], the emitting layer (22Lm-1) comprises a red light emitting layer (22Lm-1) located at the red sub-pixel (OLED1), at least one of the light emitting units (ST1) further comprises a red light emitting auxiliary layer (222La-1, fig. 9) [0175] located at the red sub-pixel (OLED1), the red light emitting auxiliary layer (222La-1) is disposed between the red light emitting layer (222Lm-1) and the second hole transport layer (HTL-T), and the red light emitting auxiliary layer (222La-1) comprises a hole transport material [0175]; wherein a thickness (t4, fig. 9) [0177] of each of the red light emitting layers (222Lm-1) is % of a thickness of the microcavity (RS)[0177] (Lee et al., fig. 9). But Lee fails to teach wherein a thickness (t4, fig. 9) [0177] of each of the red light emitting layers (222Lm-1) is 8% to 16% of a thickness of the microcavity (RS). However, Lee ‘8087 teaches a display substrate (fig. 1) wherein a thickness (600Å, fig. 1) [0045] of each of the red light emitting layers (135a, fig. 1)[0045] is 19.35% (600/3100=19.35%) of a thickness (3100Å, fig. 1) [0067] of the microcavity (Lee, fig. 1). Since the thickness (3100Å) of the microcavity of Lee, fig. 1 does not include an auxiliary layer, combining the teaching of Lee with that of Lee ‘8087 would obviously have a total thickness including the auxiliary layer that is greater than 3100 and therefore the thickness of each of the red light emitting layers would obviously be less than 19.35% and closer to the claimed range of 8% to 16% of a thickness of the microcavity. Accordingly, at the time before the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to combine the teaching of Lee with that of Lee ‘8087 by using the thickness of the red light emitting layer in the range as claimed in order to improve external quantum efficiency of the light emitting device (Lee ‘8087 [0104) and because the thickness of the auxiliary and red light emitting layer are determined such that the emission layer has a resonance structure as a whole that would improve the luminous efficiency (Lee et al., [0177]). Even further, it has been held that where the general conditions of the claims are discloses in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05. Regarding claim 2, Lee in view of Lee ‘8087 does not teach the display substrate according to claim 1, wherein the thickness of each of the red light emitting layers (222Lm-1) is 8% to 10% of the thickness of the microcavity. However, Lee ‘8087 teaches a display substrate (fig. 1) wherein a thickness (600Å, fig. 1) [0045] of each of the red light emitting layers (135a, fig. 1)[0045] is 19.35% (600/3100=19.35%) of a thickness (3100Å, fig. 1) [0067] of the microcavity (Lee, fig. 1). Since the thickness (3100Å) of the microcavity of Lee, fig. 1 does not include an auxiliary layer, combining the teaching of Lee with that of Lee ‘8087 would obviously have a total thickness including the auxiliary layer that is greater than 3100 and therefore the thickness of each of the red light emitting layers would obviously be less than 19.35% and closer to the claimed range of 8% to 10% of a thickness of the microcavity. Accordingly, at the time before the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to combine the teaching of Lee with that of Lee ‘8087 by using the thickness of the red light emitting layer in the range as claimed in order to improve external quantum efficiency of the light emitting device (Lee ‘8087 [0104) and because the thickness of the auxiliary and red light emitting layer are determined such that the emission layer has a resonance structure as a whole that would improve the luminous efficiency (Lee et al., [0177]). Even further, it has been held that where the general conditions of the claims are discloses in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05. Regarding claim 3, Lee in view of Lee ‘8087 does not teach the display substrate according to claim 1, wherein a thickness (t4’, fig. 9) [0177] of each of the red light emitting auxiliary layers (222La-1) is 1% to 5% of the thickness of the microcavity. Although, Lee show that thickness (t4’, fig. 9) [0177] of each of the red light emitting auxiliary layers (222La-1) less than (close to half as show in fig. 9) a thickness (t4, fig. 9) [0177] of each of the red light emitting layers (222Lm-1). Therefore, at the time before the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to combine the teaching of Lee with that of Lee ‘8087 by using the thickness of the red light emitting layer in the range as claimed in order to improve external quantum efficiency of the light emitting device (Lee ‘8087 [0104) and because the thickness of the auxiliary and red light emitting layer are determined such that the emission layer has a resonance structure as a whole that would improve the luminous efficiency (Lee et al., [0177]). Even further, it has been held that where the general conditions of the claims are discloses in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05. Regarding claim 4, Lee in view of Lee ‘8087 does not teach the display substrate according to claim 3, wherein the thickness (t4’, fig. 9) [0177] of each of the red light emitting auxiliary layers (222La-1) is 3% to 5% of the thickness of the microcavity. Although, Lee show that thickness (t4’, fig. 9) [0177] of each of the red light emitting auxiliary layers (222La-1) less than (close to half as show in fig. 9) a thickness (t4, fig. 9) [0177] of each of the red light emitting layers (222Lm-1). Therefore, at the time before the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to combine the teaching of Lee with that of Lee ‘8087 by using the thickness of the red light emitting layer in the range as claimed in order to improve external quantum efficiency of the light emitting device (Lee ‘8087 [0104) and because the thickness of the auxiliary and red light emitting layer are determined such that the emission layer has a resonance structure as a whole that would improve the luminous efficiency (Lee et al., [0177]). Even further, it has been held that where the general conditions of the claims are discloses in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05. Regarding claim 5, Lee in view of Lee ‘8087 does not teach the display substrate according to claim 1, wherein a total thickness (t4+t4’, fig. 9) [0177] of the red light emitting layer (222Lm-1) and the red light emitting auxiliary layer (222La-1) in one light emitting unit (ST1) is 9% to 17% of the thickness of the microcavity. However, Lee ‘8087 teaches a display substrate (fig. 1) wherein a thickness (600Å, fig. 1) [0045] of each of the red light emitting layers (135a, fig. 1)[0045] is 19.35% (600/3100=19.35%) of a thickness (3100Å, fig. 1) [0067] of the microcavity (Lee, fig. 1). Since the thickness (3100Å) of the microcavity of Lee, fig. 1 does not include an auxiliary layer, combining the teaching of Lee with that of Lee ‘8087 would obviously have a total thickness including the auxiliary layer that is greater than 3100 and therefore the total thickness of the red light emitting layers and the red light emitting auxiliary layer would obviously be less than 19.35% and closer to the claimed range of 9% to 17% of a thickness of the microcavity. Accordingly, at the time before the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to combine the teaching of Lee with that of Lee ‘8087 by using the thickness of the red light emitting layer in the range as claimed in order to improve external quantum efficiency of the light emitting device (Lee ‘8087 [0104) and because the thickness of the auxiliary and red light emitting layer are determined such that the emission layer has a resonance structure as a whole that would improve the luminous efficiency (Lee et al., [0177]). Even further, it has been held that where the general conditions of the claims are discloses in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05. Regarding claim 17, Lee in view of Lee ‘8087 teaches a display apparatus (1, fig. 1) [0060], comprising a display substrate (fig. 9) according to claim 16 (Lee et al., fig. 1, [0060]). Regarding claim 18, Lee in view of Lee ‘8087 teaches a method for manufacturing [0222] a display substrate (fig. 8-9) according to claim 1, comprising: forming a first electrode layer (210-1, 210-2, 210-3, fig. 9; hereinafter called 210) [0136] on a (top) side of a substrate (100, fig. 8) [0067]; forming a first hole transport layer (bottom half portion of HTL, fig. 9; hereinafter called HTL-B) and a second hole transport layer (top half portion of HTL, fig. 9; hereinafter called HTL-T) sequentially on a (top) side of the first electrode layer (210) away from the substrate (100); forming a red light emitting auxiliary layer (222La-1, fig. 9) [0175] located at a red sub-pixel (OLED1, fig. 9) [0175] through an evaporation [0219] method on a (top) side of the second hole transport layer (HTL-T) away from the substrate (100); forming a red light emitting layer (222Lm-1, fig. 9) [0175] located at a red sub-pixel (OLED1) through an evaporation [0219] method on a (top) side of the red light emitting auxiliary layer (222La-1) away from the substrate (100); and forming a green light emitting layer (222Lm-2, fig. 9) [0176] and a blue light emitting layer (222L-3, fig. 9) [0162] respectively located at a green sub-pixel (OLED2, fig. 9) [0107] and a blue sub-pixel (OLED3, fig. 9) [0107] on a (top) side of the second hole transport layer (HTL-T) away from the substrate (100), wherein an emitting layer (222L, fig. 9) [0159] is constituted by the red light emitting layer (222Lm-1), the green light emitting layer (222Lm-2) and the blue light emitting layer (222L-3), and one light emitting unit (ST1, fig. 9) [0189] is constituted by the emitting layer (222Lm-1), the red light emitting auxiliary layer (222La-1), the first hole transport layer (HTL-B) and the second hole transport layer (HTL-T); forming a charge generation layer (224, fig. 9) [0163] on a (top) side of the light emitting unit (ST1) away from the substrate (100); forming at least one light emitting unit (ST2, fig. 9)[0189] on a (top) side of the charge generation layer (224) away from the substrate (100), and forming a charge generation layer (224, fig. 9) [0163] between two adjacent light emitting units (ST1 and ST2); and forming a second electrode layer (224, fig. 9) [0163] (Lee et al., fig. 9). Regarding claim 19, Lee teaches a method for reducing a driving voltage of a display substrate (fig. 9) [0169], wherein, the display substrate comprises a red sub-pixel (OLED1, fig. 9) [0175], and further comprising: a first electrode layer (210-1, 210-2, 210-3, fig. 9; hereinafter called 210) [0136], a second electrode layer (230, fig. 9) [0136], a plurality of light emitting units (ST1 and ST2, fig. 9) [0189] disposed between the first electrode layer (210) and the second electrode layer (230) and connected in series, and a charge generation layer (224, fig. 9) [0163] disposed between two adjacent light emitting units (ST1, ST2), wherein a microcavity (resonance structure, [0177]; hereinafter called RS) is formed between the first electrode layer (210) and the second electrode layer (230); the light emitting units (ST1, ST2) comprise a first hole transport layer (bottom half portion of HTL, fig. 9; hereinafter called HTL-B), a second hole transport layer (top half portion of HTL, fig. 9; hereinafter called HTL-T) and an emitting layer (222Lm-1, fig. 9) [0175], the emitting layer (22Lm-1) comprises a red light emitting layer (22Lm-1) located at the red sub-pixel (OLED1); the method comprises: forming a red light emitting auxiliary layer (222La-1, fig. 9) [0175] located at the red sub-pixel (OLED1) by adopting a hole transport material [0175] between the red light emitting layer (222Lm-1) and the second hole transport layer (HTL-T), wherein the thickness (t4, fig. 9) [0177] of the red light emitting layer (222Lm-1) is a percentage of the thickness of the microcavity (RS), the thickness (t4’, fig. 9) [0177] of the red light emitting auxiliary layer (222La-1) is a percentage of the thickness of the microcavity (MS), and a total thickness (t4+t4’) of the red light emitting layer (222Lm-1) and the red light emitting auxiliary layer (222La-1) in one light emitting unit (ST1) is percentage of the thickness of the microcavity (MS) (Lee et al., fig. 9). The phrase “a method for reducing a driving voltage of a display substrate” is considered to simply be a functional description does not carry patentable weight absent any new and unobvious functional relationship with the known product or method. See MPEP 2111.05. Since Lee teaches the same method, the method of Lee would obviously reduce a driving voltage of a display substrate. But Lee fails to teach wherein the thickness (t4) of the red light emitting layer (222Lm-1) is 8% to 16% of the thickness of the microcavity, the thickness (t4’) of the red light emitting auxiliary layer (222La-1) is 1% to 5% of the thickness of the microcavity, and a total thickness (t4+t4’) of the red light emitting layer (222Lm-1) and the red light emitting auxiliary layer (222La-1) in one light emitting unit (ST1) is 9% to 17% of the thickness of the microcavity. However, Lee ‘8087 teaches a display substrate (fig. 1) wherein a thickness (600Å, fig. 1) [0045] of each of the red light emitting layers (135a, fig. 1)[0045] is 19.35% (600/3100=19.35%) of a thickness (3100Å, fig. 1) [0067] of the microcavity (Lee, fig. 1). Since the thickness (3100Å) of the microcavity of Lee, fig. 1 does not include an auxiliary layer, combining the teaching of Lee with that of Lee ‘8087 would obviously have a total thickness including the auxiliary layer that is greater than 3100 and therefore the thickness of each of the red light emitting layers would obviously be less than 19.35% and closer to the claimed range of 8% to 16% of a thickness of the microcavity. Lee show that thickness (t4’, fig. 9) [0177] of each of the red light emitting auxiliary layers (222La-1) less than (close to half as show in fig. 9) a thickness (t4, fig. 9) [0177] of each of the red light emitting layers (222Lm-1). Since the thickness (3100Å) of the microcavity of Lee, fig. 1 does not include an auxiliary layer, combining the teaching of Lee with that of Lee ‘8087 would obviously have a total thickness including the auxiliary layer that is greater than 3100 and therefore the total thickness of the red light emitting layers and the red light emitting auxiliary layer would obviously be less than 19.35% and closer to the claimed range of 9% to 17% of a thickness of the microcavity. Accordingly, at the time before the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to combine the teaching of Lee with that of Lee ‘8087 by using the thickness of the red light emitting layer in the range as claimed in order to improve external quantum efficiency of the light emitting device (Lee ‘8087 [0104) and because the thickness of the auxiliary and red light emitting layer are determined such that the emission layer has a resonance structure as a whole that would improve the luminous efficiency (Lee et al., [0177]). Even further, it has been held that where the general conditions of the claims are discloses in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 6-16 are 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. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior arts of record taken alone or in combination neither anticipates nor renders obvious a display substrate wherein “the second hole transport layer and the red light emitting auxiliary layer satisfy the following conditions: µ HTL-3 - µ HTL-2 ≥ 1x10-1 @5000V 1/2 m 1/2 ; wherein µ HTL-3 is the mobility of the red light emitting auxiliary layer at 5000V ¹/² m ¹/2 ; µ HTL-2 is the mobility of the second hole transport layer at 5000V ¹/² m ¹/² ” as recited in claim 6 in combination with the rest of the limitations of claims 1 and 5. Claims 7-16 are also objected as allowable for further limiting and depending upon allowable claim 6 . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lee et al. US PGPub. 2024/0265867 (fig. 21), Choi US PGPub. 2023/0157082 (fig. 4) and Kang et al. US PGPub. 2023/0154403 (fig. 11) all teach a light emitting substrate with a red light emitting auxiliary layer between the red light emitting layer and a hole transport layer . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NDUKA E OJEH whose telephone number is (571)270-0291. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 9am - 5pm.. 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, DREW N RICHARDS can be reached at (571) 272-1736. 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. /NDUKA E OJEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2892 Application/Control Number: 18/710,631 Page 2 Art Unit: 2892 Application/Control Number: 18/710,631 Page 3 Art Unit: 2892 Application/Control Number: 18/710,631 Page 4 Art Unit: 2892 Application/Control Number: 18/710,631 Page 5 Art Unit: 2892 Application/Control Number: 18/710,631 Page 6 Art Unit: 2892 Application/Control Number: 18/710,631 Page 7 Art Unit: 2892 Application/Control Number: 18/710,631 Page 8 Art Unit: 2892 Application/Control Number: 18/710,631 Page 9 Art Unit: 2892 Application/Control Number: 18/710,631 Page 10 Art Unit: 2892 Application/Control Number: 18/710,631 Page 11 Art Unit: 2892 Application/Control Number: 18/710,631 Page 12 Art Unit: 2892 Application/Control Number: 18/710,631 Page 13 Art Unit: 2892 Application/Control Number: 18/710,631 Page 14 Art Unit: 2892
Prosecution Insights