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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: missing “and” at the beginning of the last clauses of the respective claims, i.e. “…and the binding opening exposes the pad.” Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 11-12 and 20 is/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.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, which recite the limitation "the binding openings" (lines 1-2). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While the term “binding opening” in the singular has antecedent basis, antecedent basis for the plural “binding openings” is not found in these claims, nor in claim 1, on which these claims depend. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets these claims as instead reciting “binding opening[[s]]” (singular).
Regarding claim 20, which recites the limitation "the pad" (line 2). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets the claim as instead reciting “[[the]] a pad” and further interprets the instance of “a pad” (line 5) as referring to the same pad and instead reciting “[[a]] the pad”.
Further regarding claim 20, the claim features the limitation “an electronic element” (lines 5-6). However, antecedent basis for “an electronic element” has already been provided in this claim (line 1), making it unclear whether its second recitation refers to the same electronic element or a new feature, in which case it is unclear as to which electronic element is referred to in later recitations of the term in the claim and its limitations. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets the claim as referring to the same electronic element in both instances and instead reciting “[[an]] the electronic element” in the second instance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 8-13, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kwak et al. (US 12648224 B2, hereinafter K1).
Regarding independent claim 1, K1 discloses in K1 FIG. 6 and associated text A driving backplane, comprising a base substrate (base layer BSL), a driving layer (the combination of pixel circuit layer and portions of display element layer DPL, excluding bank BNK, is considered the driving layer) and an encapsulation layer (bank BNK is interpreted as an encapsulation layer) sequentially laminated, wherein the driving layer has a pad (anode connection electrode ELTA) for binding an electronic element (ELTA is used to bind to light emitting element LD) and a raised block corresponding to the pad (insulating pattern INP1), the pad is located on a side of the corresponding raised block away from the base substrate (ELTA is on a top side of INP1), and an orthographic projection of the pad on the base substrate is located within an orthographic projection of the corresponding raised block on the corresponding base substrate (ELTA overlaps INP1, therefore its orthographic projection onto BSL is within the orthographic projection of INP1 onto BSL), wherein the encapsulation layer has a binding opening (spaces between BNK, i.e. emission area EMA), an orthographic projection of the raised block on the base substrate is located in an orthographic projection of the binding opening on the base substrate (INP1 is within EMA and their orthographic projections onto BSL overlap), and the binding opening exposes the pad (ELTA is exposed with respect to the gap in BNK).
Regarding dependent claim 2, K1 further discloses in K1 FIG. 6 and associated text the driving backplane according to claim 1, wherein a step height between a surface of the encapsulation layer and a surface of the pad is no more than 0.4 times a maximum thickness of the encapsulation layer (a step height between a top surface of ELTA and a top surface of BNK appears to be about 0.4 times the thickness of BNK; a step height between a bottom surface of ELTA and a bottom surface of BNK appears to be 0).
Regarding dependent claim 3, K1 discloses in K1 FIG. 6 and associated text The driving backplane according to claim 1, wherein a dimension of a gap between the encapsulation layer and the pad is less than 7 times a maximum thickness of the encapsulation layer (the gap between BNK and ELTA is clearly less than 7 times the maximum thickness of BNK).
Regarding dependent claim 4, K1 discloses in K1 FIG. 6 and associated text The driving backplane according to claim 1, wherein a dimension of a gap between the encapsulation layer and the pad is no greater than 1.6 times a maximum thickness of the encapsulation layer (the gap between BNK and ELTA is clearly less than 1.6 times the maximum thickness of BNK).
Regarding dependent claim 5, K1 further discloses in K1 FIG. 6 and associated text The driving backplane according to claim 1, wherein a thickness of the raised block is between 0.3 times and 0.7 times a maximum thickness of the encapsulation layer (the maximum thickness of INP1 appears to be about 0.6 times the maximum thickness of BNK).
Regarding dependent claim 8, K1 further discloses in K1 FIG. 6 and associated text The driving backplane according to claim 1, wherein the raised block comprises a plurality of sub-film layers sequentially laminated (insulating pattern INP (comprising INP1) may have a stepped shape (K1 (106)), the individual steps of the stepped shape being interpreted as sub-film layers of INP1); in two adjacent sub-film layers of the same raised block, an orthographic projection of a sub-film layer away from the base substrate on the base substrate is located within an orthographic projection of a sub-film layer close to the base substrate on the base substrate (the sub-film layers of INP1, as interpreted, are step-shaped, meaning there is overlap of adjacent sub-film layers, therefore the orthographic projections of said sub-film layers onto BSL are within one another).
Regarding dependent claim 9, K1 further discloses in K1 FIG. 6 and associated text The driving backplane according to claim 1, wherein a plurality of pads electrically connected to the same electronic element are located in the same binding opening (ELTA and cathode connection electrode ELTC are within the same binding opening, as interpreted above, and both connect to light emitting element LD).
Regarding dependent claim 10, K1 further discloses in K1 FIG. 6 and associated text The driving backplane according to claim 1, wherein the driving layer comprises a raised layer (second interlayer insulating layer ILD2 is interpreted as a raised layer in that it is raised with respect to BSL and/or in that it has raised portions over underlying electrodes, as shown), a buffer layer (via layer VIA), a driving wiring layer (layer corresponding to electrodes ALE), an insulating layer (first insulating layer INS1), and a pad layer (layer corresponding to connection electrodes ELT) sequentially laminated on a side of the base substrate; wherein the raised block is disposed on the raised layer (INP1 is on VIA), and the pad is disposed on the pad layer (ELTA is interpreted as being on the layer corresponding to ELT in that it is in/is a part of said layer); wherein the insulating layer has a via hole exposing at least a portion of the driving wiring layer and electrically connected with the pad in one-to-one correspondence (portion of ELTA in a gap in INS1 over INP1 is interpreted as a via hole, which exposes a portion of the layer corresponding to electrodes ALE with respect to the INS1; said via hole (portion of ELTA) is electrically connected to the rest of ELTA, i.e. the pad, in one-to-one correspondence between the via hole and pad), the pad is electrically connected with the driving wiring layer through the via hole (ELTA is electrically connected with the driving wiring layer through the via hole).
Regarding dependent claim 11, K1 further discloses in K1 FIG. 9-10 and associated text The driving backplane according to claim 1, wherein in at least a portion of the binding opening, the binding opening is provided with one raised block and a plurality of pads (A thin line indicating the bounds of an insulating pattern INP (a raised block) crossing each of EMU1-EMU4, as shown in K1 FIG. 9 and an annotated version of the figure below, is considered the one raised block within the binding opening corresponding to EMA. K1 FIG. 10 shows electrodes ELT2, ELT3, ELT4, and ELT5 within the same binding opening corresponding to EMA); an orthographic projection of each pad on the base substrate is located in an orthographic projection of the raised block on the base substrate (K1 FIG. 9 shows that the raised block is in each emission part EMU. K1 FIG. 10 shows electrodes ELT2, ELT3, ELT4, and ELT5 correspond to EMU1-EMU4 in the regions where the raised block overlaps the EMUs. Between the two figures it is clear that the plurality of pads ELT2-ELT5 overlap the INP interpreted as the one raised block. Therefore, the orthographic projections of pads ELT2-ELT5 onto BSL are within that of the raised block).
PNG
media_image1.png
765
500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding dependent claim 12, K1 further discloses in K1 FIG. 6 and associated text The driving backplane according to claim 1, wherein in at least a portion of the binding openings, the binding opening is provided with a plurality of raised blocks (INP1 and INP2) and a plurality of pads (ELTA and ELTC); orthographic projections of at least two of the pads on the base substrate are located in orthographic projections of two different raised blocks on the base substrate respectively (the orthographic projections of ELTA and ELTC are within INP1 and INP2 respectively).
Regarding dependent claim 13, K1 further discloses in K1 FIG. 6 and associated text the driving backplane according to claim 1, wherein the pad does not protrude from a surface of the encapsulation layer (ELTA does not protrude from BNK).
Regarding dependent claim 19, K1 further discloses in K1 FIG. 6 and associated text The driving backplane according to claim 1, wherein the encapsulation layer is a white encapsulation layer, a black encapsulation layer, or a transparent encapsulation layer (materials of BNK1 and BNK2 – the elements of BNK – include materials such as epoxy resin (K1 (119), (121)), which is inherently transparent, as is well known to those skilled in the art, therefore BNK itself is transparent).
Regarding independent claim 20, K1 discloses in K1 FIG. 6 and associated text A light emitting substrate, comprising a driving backplane (as detailed below) and an electronic element (light emitting element LD), wherein the electronic element is electrically connected to a pad through a conductive connection structure (LD is electrically connected to the portion of anode connection electrode ELTA atop insulating pattern INP1 – where said portion of ELTA is considered the pad – through other portions of ELTA, e.g., the portion of ELTA along first end EP1 of LD), wherein the driving backplane, comprises a base substrate (base layer BSL), a driving layer (the combination of pixel circuit layer and portions of display element layer DPL, excluding bank BNK, is considered the driving layer) and an encapsulation layer (bank BNK is interpreted as an encapsulation layer) sequentially laminated, wherein the driving layer has the pad (ELTA) for binding the electronic element (ELTA is used to bind to LD) and a raised block corresponding to the pad (insulating pattern INP1), the pad is located on a side of the corresponding raised block away from the base substrate (ELTA is on a top side of INP1), and an orthographic projection of the pad on the base substrate is located within an orthographic projection of the corresponding raised block on the corresponding base substrate (ELTA overlaps INP1, therefore its orthographic projection onto BSL is within the orthographic projection of INP1 onto BSL), wherein the encapsulation layer has a binding opening (spaces between BNK, i.e. emission area EMA), an orthographic projection of the raised block on the base substrate is located in an orthographic projection of the binding opening on the base substrate (INP1 is within EMA and their orthographic projections onto BSL overlap), and the binding opening exposes the pad (ELTA is exposed with respect to the gap in BNK).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over K1, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20230086576 A1, hereinafter K2).
Regarding dependent claim 6, K1 discloses the driving backplane according to claim 1. K1 does not explicitly disclose the raised block is white in color.
However, in the same field of endeavor, K2 discloses the raised block is white in color (bank patterns BNP, corresponding to the raised block, comprise, e.g., epoxy resin, which is transparent, and titanium oxide (K1 [0127], [0149]), which is inherently white, as is well known to those skilled in the art, making BNP itself white).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the composition of a raised block being a white material comprising titanium oxide in epoxy resin of K2 with the backplane of K1 to efficiently recycle light emitted from a light emitting element by scattering said light in the raised block and re-emitting the light toward the front surface of the display (K1 [0149]).
Regarding dependent claim 7, K1 discloses the driving backplane according to claim 1. K1 does not explicitly disclose a material of the raised block is an organic material doped with reflective particles.
However, in the same field of endeavor, K2 discloses a material of the raised block is an organic material doped with reflective particles (bank patterns BNP, corresponding to the raised block, comprise, e.g., epoxy resin, which is organic, and scatterers (K1 [0127], [0149]), which are reflective particles).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the composition of a raised block being an organic material with scatterers of K2 with the backplane of K1 to efficiently recycle light emitted from a light emitting element by scattering said light in the raised block and re-emitting the light toward the front surface of the display (K1 [0149]).
Claims 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over K1, and further in view of Tischler et al. (US 20150221835 A1, hereinafter T1).
Regarding dependent claim 14, K1 discloses the driving backplane according to claim 1. K1 does not explicitly disclose a thickness of the encapsulation layer is not less than 15 µm.
However, in the same field of endeavor, T1 discloses in T1 FIG. 1A and associated text a thickness of the encapsulation layer is not less than 15 µm (the height 252 of frame 270, corresponding to the encapsulation layer, as interpreted above, is in the range 25-500 microns (T1 [0127])).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the frame dimensions of T1 with the encapsulation of K1 to provide measurements to design a backplane according to K1, since no specific measurements of the encapsulation are disclosed in K1. Additionally, T1 identifies frame height as a results effective variable impacting optical characteristics (T1 [0141]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce a backplane wherein a thickness of the encapsulation layer is not less than 15 µm with routine experiment and optimization. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Regarding dependent claim 15, K1 discloses in K1 FIG. 6 and associated text The driving backplane according to claim 1 and that a step height between a top surface of ELTA and a top surface of BNK is about 0.4 times the thickness of BNK. K1 does not explicitly disclose a step height between a surface of the encapsulation layer and a surface of the pad is no more than 12 µm.
Additionally, in the same field of endeavor, T1 discloses in T1 FIG. 1A and associated text the height 252 of frame 270, corresponding to the encapsulation layer, as interpreted above, is in the range 25-500 microns.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the frame dimensions of T1 with the encapsulation of K1 to provide measurements to design a backplane according to K1, since no specific measurements of the encapsulation are disclosed in K1, resulting in, for example, an encapsulation (BNK) which has a thickness of 25 microns and a step height between a surface of the encapsulation layer (e.g. top surface of BNK) and a surface of the pad (e.g. top surface of ELTA) is no more than 12 µm (preserving the approximate step height to encapsulation thickness ratio of 0.4 for an encapsulation having a thickness of 25 microns results in a step height of 10 microns (0.4 * 25 microns = 10 microns)). Additionally, T1 identifies frame height as a results effective variable impacting optical characteristics (T1 [0141]). Step height and frame/encapsulation height are interdependent (changing one may change the other), making step height dependent upon a results effective variable, if not a results effective variable itself. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to preserve the approximate comparative dimensions of elements where no specific measurement is disclosed for one or the other, such as the approximate ratio of step height to encapsulation thickness shown in K1 FIG. 6. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce a backplane wherein a step height between a surface of the encapsulation layer and a surface of the pad is no more than 12 µm with routine experiment and optimization of the encapsulation thickness while preserving the relative dimensions of the raised block. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Regarding dependent claim 16, K1 discloses The driving backplane according to claim 1. K1 does not explicitly disclose a gap between the encapsulation layer and the pad is less than 0.2 mm.
However, in the same field of endeavor, T1 discloses in T1 FIG. 1A and associated text a gap between the encapsulation layer and the pad is less than 0.2 mm (the gap 242 between frame 270 and contacts 220, corresponding to the encapsulation layer and pad respectively, as interpreted above, is less than 5 microns (T1 [0126])).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the gap dimensions of T1 with the encapsulation of K1 to provide measurements to design a backplane according to K1, since no specific measurements of the encapsulation are disclosed in K1. Additionally, T1 identifies the dimension of the gap as a results effective variable impacting efficiency, stating that it is desirable to minimize the gap to achieve high efficiency (T1 [0126]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce a backplane wherein a gap between the encapsulation layer and the pad is less than 0.2 mm with routine experiment and optimization. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Regarding dependent claim 17, K1 discloses The driving backplane according to claim 1. K1 does not explicitly disclose a gap between the encapsulation layer and the pad is not greater than 0.05 mm.
However, in the same field of endeavor, T1 discloses in T1 FIG. 1A and associated text a gap between the encapsulation layer and the pad is not greater than 0.05 mm (the gap 242 between frame 270 and contacts 220, corresponding to the encapsulation layer and pad respectively, as interpreted above, is less than 5 microns (T1 [0126])).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the gap dimensions of T1 with the encapsulation of K1 to provide measurements to design a backplane according to K1, since no specific measurements of the encapsulation are disclosed in K1. Additionally, T1 identifies the dimension of the gap as a results effective variable impacting efficiency, stating that it is desirable to minimize the gap to achieve high efficiency (T1 [0126]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce a backplane wherein a gap between the encapsulation layer and the pad is not greater than 0.05 mm with routine experiment and optimization. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Regarding dependent claim 18, K1 discloses in K1 FIG. 6 and associated text The driving backplane according to claim 1 and that a thickness of INP1 is about 0.6 times the thickness of BNK. K1 does not explicitly disclose a thickness of the raised block is between 10~20 µm.
Additionally, in the same field of endeavor, T1 discloses in T1 FIG. 1A and associated text the height 252 of frame 270, corresponding to the encapsulation layer, as interpreted above, is in the range 25-500 microns.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the frame dimensions of T1 with the encapsulation and raised block of K1 to provide measurements to design a backplane according to K1, since no specific measurements of the encapsulation are disclosed in K1, resulting in, for example, an encapsulation (BNK) which has a thickness of 25 microns and a thickness of the raised block is between 10~20 µm (preserving the approximate raised block to encapsulation thickness ratio of 0.6 for an encapsulation having a thickness of 25 microns results in a step height of 15 microns (0.6 * 25 microns = 15 microns)). Additionally, T1 identifies frame height as a results effective variable impacting optical characteristics (T1 [0141]) and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to preserve the approximate comparative dimensions of elements where no specific measurement is disclosed for one or the other, such as the approximate ratio of raised block to encapsulation thickness shown in K1 FIG. 6. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce a backplane wherein a thickness of the raised block is between 10~20 µm with routine experiment and optimization of the encapsulation thickness while preserving the relative dimensions of the raised block. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Conclusion
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure:
US 20230290790 A1, pertaining to a light emitting substrate similar to that of several claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVERETT TRAJAN RIRIE whose telephone number is (571) 272-9559. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 8:30 am - 6:30 pm.
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, Chad Dicke can be reached at (571) 270-7996. 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.
/EVERETT T RIRIE/Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/CHAD M DICKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights