DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a length of the first arc surface is greater than a length of the second arc surface” in claim 9 and “a slope angle of the second arc surface is 80 degrees to 90 degrees” in claim 12 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-12 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “second arc surface” in claim 9 is used by the claim to mean “step surface” while the accepted meaning is “curved surface.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. For examination purposes, examiner has interpreted “second arc surface” to be read as “second step surface”. Claims 10-12 would also be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because they are dependent on claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-11, 14-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 20150200234 from IDS), hereinafter Kim.
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a display substrate (Abstract), comprising:
a base substrate (fig. 4, substrate 10; para. 0044);
a light emitting element (first light emitting area 100; para. 0044) disposed on the base substrate (10), the light emitting element (100) comprises a first electrode (first pixel electrode 131; para. 0044), a light emitting functional layer (first intermediate layer 133; para. 0044), and a second electrode (opposite electrode 34; para. 0047) that are sequentially stacked along a direction (vertical direction) away from the base substrate (10);
a pixel definition layer (pixel definition layer 432; para. 0045) disposed on the base substrate (10), the pixel definition layer (432) is provided with a pixel opening (opening for 100), the pixel opening (opening for 100) exposes at least a portion of a surface of the first electrode (top middle portion of 131), and at least a portion of the second electrode (34 on 133) covers the pixel opening (opening for 100);
wherein the pixel definition layer (432) comprises a second side surface (second inclined part 432b) on a side (right side) away from the first electrode (131), the second side surface (432b) comprises a third step (right step of first area (layer) 432d; para. 0089), and the third step (432d) comprises a third step side surface (right step side surface of 432d) comprising a first arc surface (432d has a curved surface).
Regarding claim 2, Kim further teaches the display substrate according to claim 1, wherein the first arc surface (fig. 4, curved 432d) is connected, on a side (bottom side) close to the base substrate (10), to a first flat surface (top surface of second pixel electrode 231; para. 0045) parallel to the base substrate (10).
Regarding claim 3, Kim further teaches the display substrate according to claim 1, wherein the second side surface (fig. 4, curved 432b) comprises r stages (2 stages) of third steps (right step surface of 432d and second area (layer) 432e para. 0089) that are sequentially arranged along a light emitting direction (vertical direction) of the light emitting functional layer (133), and adjacent first arc surfaces (curved 432d) of the r stages of third steps (432d, 432e) are connected through a second flat surface (flat surface of 432d outside 432b), where r is a natural number (r=2>1), and r is greater than 1.
Regarding claim 4, Kim further teaches the display substrate according to claim 3, wherein a length of the first arc surface (fig. 4, length of curved 432b) is greater than a length of the second flat surface (length of flat surface of 432d outside 432b).
Regarding claim 5, Kim further teaches the display substrate according to claim 1, wherein the pixel definition layer (fig. 4, 432) comprises a first side surface (first inclined part 432a; para. 0088) on a side (left side) close to the first electrode (131), the first side surface (432a) comprises n stages (2 stages) of first steps (left step surface of 432d and 432e) that are sequentially arranged along a light emitting direction (vertical direction) of the light emitting functional layer (133), and a first step (left step of 432e) comprises a first step side surface (left side surface of 432e), where n is a natural number (n=2>1), and n is greater than 1.
Regarding claim 7, Kim further teaches the display substrate according to claim 5, wherein a length of the third step (fig. 4, length of side surface of right 432d) is greater than a length of a first step of a first stage (length of side surface of left 432e).
Regarding claim 9, Kim further teaches the display substrate according to claim 1, wherein the second side surface (fig. 4, 432b) further comprises a second step (right step of 432e) on a side (top side) of the third step (step of 432d) away from the base substrate (10), the second step (right step of 432e) comprises a second step side surface (side surface of step of 432e), and the second step side surface (side surface of step of 432e) comprises a second arc surface (curved/step 432e), wherein a length of the first arc surface (length of curved 432d) is greater than a length of the second arc surface (length of curved 432e).
Regarding claim 10, Kim further teaches the display substrate according to claim 9, wherein the second arc surface (fig. 4, curved 432e) is connected to a third flat surface (top surface of flat part 432c; para. 0061) on a side (top side) away from the base substrate (10).
Regarding claim 11, Kim further teaches the display substrate according to claim 9, wherein the pixel definition layer (fig. 4, 432) comprises a first side surface (first inclined part 432a; para. 0088) on a side (left side) close to the first electrode (131), the first side surface (432a) comprises n stages (2 stages) of first steps (left step surface of 432d and 432e) that are sequentially arranged along a light emitting direction (vertical direction) of the light emitting functional layer (133), the length of the second arc surface (length of side surface of right 432e) is smaller than a length of a first step of a first stage (length of side surface of left 432d).
Regarding claim 14, Kim further teaches the display substrate according to claim 1, wherein the second side surface (fig. 4, 432b) further comprises a second step (right step 432e) on a side (top side) of the third step (right step 432d) away from the base substrate (10), the second electrode (34) comprises a first portion (34 on 432a) covering a side surface (left side 432a) of the pixel definition layer (432) close to the first electrode (131) and a second portion (34 on right 432e) and a third portion (34 on right 432d) covering the second side surface (right side 432b) of the pixel definition layer (432), the second portion (34 on right 432e) covers the second step (right 432e), the third portion (34 on right 432d) covers the third step (right 432d), the first portion, the second portion and the third portion (three portions of 34 are connect by 34) are connected in sequence, and a surface of the first portion (34 on 432a) comprises at least one first curved surface (curved surface around top 432e).
Regarding claim 15, Kim further teaches the display substrate according to claim 14, wherein a surface of the second portion (fig. 4, bottom surface of 34 on right 432e) comprises at least one second curved surface (side curved surface between 432e and 432d), and an orthographic projection of the at least one second curved surface (orthographic projection of 34 on side surface of right 432e) on the base substrate (10) is overlapped with an orthographic projection of a second step side surface of the second step (orthographic projection of side surface of right 432e) on the base substrate (10).
Regarding claim 16, Kim further teaches the display substrate according to claim 15, wherein a curvature change of the at least one first curved surface (fig. 4, curvature change of curved surface 34 around top 432e) is less than a curvature change of the at least one second curved surface (curvature change of curved surface 34 between 432e and 432d).
Regarding claim 17, Kim further teaches the display substrate according to claim 14, wherein a surface of the third portion (fig. 4, bottom surface of 34 on right 432d) comprises at least one third curved surface (curved surface on side surface of right 432d), and an orthographic projection of the at least one third curved surface (orthographic projection of curved 34 on side surface of right 432d) on the base substrate (10) is overlapped with an orthographic projection of the first arc surface of the third step (orthographic projection of curved surface of right 432d) on the base substrate (10).
Regarding claim 20, Kim further teaches a display device (organic light emitting display apparatus; Abstract), comprising the display substrate (fig. 4, display elements on 10) according to claim 1.
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.
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.
Claims 6, 13 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Gu et al. (CN 112635537 from IDS).
Regarding claim 6, Kim further teaches the display substrate according to claim 5 including a length of the first step side surface (fig. 4, the length of the straight part of 432a, which is around 1/3 of the total length of the 432a)
Kim fails to explicitly teach the length of the first step side surface of the first step is 10% to 15% of a thickness of the first electrode.
However, Gu teaches the length (Gu: fig. 2, 1/3 length of the incline inner surface, similar to 432a of Kim) of the first step side surface of the first step is around 15% to 20% (Gu: By estimate from the fig. 2, it is 15% to 20% of thickness of anode 11; para. 0003, similar to 41 of Ito), which overlaps the range 10% to 15% of a thickness of the first electrode (Gu: 11).
Gu and Kim are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of light emitting devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the length range from 15% to 20% to 10% to 15% of a thickness of the first electrode.
Doing so would realize a structure with a cut off kind disconnected structure to prevent display crosstalk of the pixel unit (Gu: para. 0054). 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) (MPEP Chapter 2100-Section 2144.05-Optimization of Ranges).
Regarding claim 13, Kim further teaches the display substrate according to claim 9, wherein an orthographic projection of at least a portion of the second arc surface (fig. 4, orthographic projection of curved right 432e) on the base substrate (10) is not overlapped with an orthographic projection of the first electrode (orthographic projection of 131) on the base substrate (10).
Kim fails to explicitly teach a minimum distance between an edge of the second arc surface away from the first electrode and an edge of the first electrode is greater than 150 Å.
However, Gu teaches a minimum distance (Gu: distance of right/out edge of second inclined surface 33 and anode 11; para. 0003, 0033) between an edge of the second arc surface (outside surface, similar to right side 432b of Kim) away from the first electrode (Gu: anode 11; para. 0003, similar to 131 of Kim) and an edge (Gu: left edge of 11) of the first electrode (Gu: 11) is greater than 150 Å (Gu: distance is wider than 11, which is greater than 200nm; para. 0006).
Gu and Kim are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of light emitting devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a minimum distance between an edge of the second arc surface away from the first electrode and an edge of the first electrode is greater than 150 Å as taught by Gu.
Doing so would realize a cut off kind disconnected structure to prevent display crosstalk of the pixel unit (Gu: para. 0054). Furthermore, it has been held that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 18, Kim further teaches the display substrate according to claim 14 including the second portion (fig. 4, 34 on right 432e).
Kim fails to explicitly teach a slope angle of the second portion is 35 degrees to 45 degrees.
However, Gu teaches a slope angle of the second portion (Gu: fig. 2, slope of out potion of cathode layer 14; para. 0031, similar to 34 of Kim) is 35 degrees to 45 degrees (Gu: around 40 to 45° from fig.).
Gu and Kim are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of light emitting devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a slope angle of the second portion is 35 degrees to 45 degrees as taught by Gu.
Doing so would realize a cut off kind disconnected structure to prevent display crosstalk of the pixel unit (Gu: para. 0054). Furthermore, it has been held that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 19, Kim further teaches the display substrate according to claim 1, wherein a surface of the second electrode (fig. 4, 34) is uneven (34 is uneven).
Kim fails to explicitly teach a distance between a highest point of the surface of the second electrode and a lowest point of the surface of the second electrode is less than 800Å.
However, Gu teaches a distance (Gu: fig. 2, height of cathode layer 14; para. 0031, similar to 34 of Kim) between a highest point of the surface of the second electrode and a lowest point of the surface of the second electrode is 70 to 130 nm (Gu: height of 14 is similar to height of sidewall h1~h3, which is total 70 to 130 nm; para. 0043-0044), which overlaps the distance range less than 800 Å.
Gu and Kim are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of light emitting devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the distance range from 70 to 130 nm to less than 800 Å.
Doing so would realize a structure with a cut off kind disconnected structure to prevent display crosstalk of the pixel unit (Gu: para. 0054). 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) (MPEP Chapter 2100-Section 2144.05-Optimization of Ranges).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Ito et al. (US 20050112341).
Regarding claim 8, Kim further teaches the display substrate according to claim 5 including first step side surface (fig. 4, 432a).
Kim fails to explicitly teach a slope angle of a first step side surface of a first step of an i-th stage is greater than a slope angle of a first step side surface of a first step of a j-th stage, and the first step of the i-th stage is located on a side of the first step of the j-th stage close to the base substrate, where i, j are both natural numbers, and 0<i<j≤n.
However, Ito teaches a slope angle (Ito: fig. 4A, angle α of first partition 43; para. 0064) of a first step side surface of a first step of an i-th stage (Ito: side surface of 43, simialr to 432d of Kim) is greater than a slope angle (Ito: angle β of second partition 44; para. 0064) of a first step side surface of a first step of a j-th stage (Ito: side surface of 44, similar to 432e of Kim), and the first step of the i-th stage (Ito: 43) is located on a side (bottom side) of the first step of the j-th stage (Ito: 44) close to the base substrate (Ito: substrate 10; para. 0057, similar to 10 of Kim), where i, j are both natural numbers (i, j as 1, 2), and 0<i<j≤n (0<1<2=n=2).
Ito and Kim are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of light emitting devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the slope angles of first steps as taught by Ito.
Doing so would realize a pixel definition structure to increase uniformity of light emission brightness (Ito: para. 0099).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Yoon et al. (KR 100833773 from IDS).
Regarding claim 12, Kim further teaches the display substrate according to claim 9 including the second arc surface (fig. 4, curved/step 432e).
Kim fails to explicitly teach a slope angle of the second arc surface is 80 degrees to 90 degrees.
However, Yoon teaches a slope angle of the second step side surface (Yoon: fig. 6h, slope angle of outside surface of pixel defining layer 130, spacer 140 is 90 degree; para. 0037, similar to 432 of Kim) is 80 degrees to 90 degrees.
Yoon and Kim are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of light emitting devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a second step as taught by Yoon.
Doing so would realize a spacer to prevent the panel of the organic light emitting display device from being damaged by external pressure (Yoon: para. 0062).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHIJUN XU whose telephone number is (571)270-3447. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am-5pm 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, Eva Montalvo can be reached at (571) 270-3829. 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.
/ZHIJUN XU/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/BRIAN TURNER/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights