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 .
Remark
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on August 24, 2026, which has been entered into the file.
By this amendment, the applicant has amended claims 13, 16 and 17, has canceled claims 1-12 and 18-20 and has newly added claims 21-35.
Claims 13-17 and 21-35 remain pending in this application.
Specification
The substitute specification filed August 25, 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the US patent application publication by Zhu et al (US 2017/0045776 A1).
Claim 21 and its dependent claims have been newly added to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
Zhu et al, teaches with regard to claim 21, a display substrate (101, Figures 5 and 6) serves as the base substrate, a black matrix (109) that is comprised of a plurality of first light shielding members arranged on the base substrate and extending in a first direction, (please see Figure 6, is a sectional view with a line formed extends parallel to a gate line of the base substrate, please see paragraph [0034]), and a plurality of filtering units (108) and the black matrix with a plurality of second shielding members arranged on the base substrate and on a same side as the first plurality of light shielding members, (please see Figure 5, is a sectional view with a line formed extends parallel to the data line of the substrate, paragraph [0034]). The plurality of light filtering units (108) are arranged at intervals and the second light shielding members (109) fill in gap between adjacent light filtering units, (please see Figure 5). The second light shielding member extending in a second direction and the first direction intersecting the second direction, (please see Figures 5 and 6).
Zhu et al teaches that the display substrate further comprises an overcoat (205) which is planarization layer (please see paragraph [0031]) that is arranged at a side of the plurality of filtering units and the plurality of second light shielding members away from the base substrate (101, Figure 6). Zhu et al also teaches to include a spacer (206) that is arranged at a side of the planarization layer (205) away from the base substrate.
With regard to claim 23, Zhu et al teaches that the height difference between the light filtering units (108, Figures 5 and 6) and the adjacent second light shielding member is a direction perpendicular to the base substrate away from the base substrate is less than 0.5mm, since they are essential have the same height.
This reference has therefore anticipated the claims.
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.
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication by Ryu (US 2005/0243266A1).
Claim 13 has been amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
Ryu, teaches with regard to claim 13, a method for fabricating a display substrate that is comprised of a step of providing a substrate (110, Figure 5A) serves as the base substrate, a step of forming a black matrix (115, Figure 5B) that is comprised of a plurality of first light shielding members arranged on the base substrate and extending in a first direction, step of forming a plurality of filtering units (120a, 120b, 120c, Figures 5C to 5F) on the base substrate and on a same side as the first light shielding members (with regard to the amendment to claim 13), the plurality of filtering units are arranged at intervals. The black matrix (115) also includes a plurality of second light shielding member such that each second light shielding member fills a gap between adjacent light filtering units, (please see Figure 5F). The second light shielding member may extend in a second direction and the first direction intersects the second direction, since the black matrix with the light shielding members is formed at the boundary region of the pixel P in the open portions (113a, 113b and 113c, please see paragraph [0057]). Ryu teaches an overcoat layer (125, Figure 5F) serves as the planarization layer is formed at a side of the plurality of filtering units and the plurality of second light shielding member away from the base substrate and spacer (150/160, Figures 5G to 5I) at a side of the planarization layer (125) away from the base substrate, (please see paragraphs [0054] to [0065]).
As shown in Figure 5I, in the final product form, the plurality of first light shielding members (115) and the plurality of the light filtering units (113a to 113c) are formed on the base substrate (110).
With regard to claim 14, Ryu teaches that typical display comprises a gate line and a data line, (please see Figure 1). It is either implicitly true or obvious modification to one skilled in the art to make the first light shielding members extend along the data line and to make the second light shielding members extend along the gate line.
With regard to claim 15, Ryu teaches that the black matrix may comprise metal thin film, (please see paragraph [0021]). Ryu teaches that the black matrix material (112, Figure 5A) is formed on the base substrate (110) and patterning the material to form the plurality of light shielding members.
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of the US patent application publication by Liu et al (US 2019/0064616A1) and Xu et al (US 2019/0051857 A1).
The method for fabricating a display substrate taught by Ryu as described in claim 13 above has met all the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 16, Ryu does not teach explicitly to include a third light shielding member arranged between the spacer and the planarization layer. Liu et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a display substrate wherein a light shielding patten (250, Figure 2), serves as the third light shielding member (with regard to the amendment) may be disposed between the planarization layer (240) and the spacer (252). It would then have been obvious to modify the display substrate to include a light shielding pattern or layer between the planarization layer and the spacer for the benefit of providing different design for the substrate. Liu et al teaches that the orthogonal projection of the spacer onto the base substrate is arranged within an orthogonal projection of the light shielding patterns onto the base substrate, (please see Figure 2). The boundary of the orthogonal projection of the spacer onto the base substrate is spaced from a boundary of the orthogonal projection of the light shielding pattern onto the base substrate.
These references do not teach to further comprise an auxiliary pattern arranged between the light shielding pattern and the spacer. Xu et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a display substrate that is comprised of an auxiliary layer (216, Figure 3, please see paragraph [0027]) that is interposed between the spacer layer (205) and the black matrix or light shielding pattern (208). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Xu et al to further provide an auxiliary layer to provide additional function for the spacer layer.
With regard to claim 17, Ryu teaches that the various layers are formed by using masks to expose the layer materials, (please see Figures 5A to 5I), it is within general level skilled in the art to apply the typical mask and exposing method and the etching method to form the various layers.
Claim(s) 22 and 31-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al.
The display substrate taught by Zhu et al as described in claim 21 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claim 22, this reference does not teach explicitly that the surfaces of the plurality of filtering units and the plurality of second light shielding members at a side away from the base substrate have a roughness of less than or equal to 0.5mm. However, Zhu et al does teach that the planarization layer is disposed at the surfaces of the plurality of filtering units and the plurality of second light shielding members at a side away from the base substrate, which means either the surface roughness is small or being smoothed out by the planarization layer.
With regard to claims 31 and 32, Zhu et al teaches that the orthogonal projection of a first surface of the spacer (206) at a side away from the base substrate onto the base substrate is spaced apart from a boundary of an orthogonal projection of a second surface of the spacer at a side closer to the base substrate onto the base substrate, (please see Figures 5 and 6). Zhu et al also teaches that the height to the width of the spacer has a definite ratio. Although this reference does not teach that the spaced apart of the two orthogonal projections has a distance value as claimed and the ratio of the height to width of the spacer has a value of claimed, such modifications are considered to be obvious matters of design choices to one skilled in the art for designing the spacer to have a desired dimensions. The dimensions and shape of the spacer do not seem to change the operation of the display substrate.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al and in view of the US patent application publication by Yao (US 2024/0074275 A1).
The display substrate taught by Zhu et al as described in claim 21 above has met all the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 24, Zhu et al teaches that the overcoat or the planarization layer (205, Figures 5 and 6) has a definite thickness but does not teach explicitly that it is less than 1 mm. Such modification is considered to be obvious matters of design choice to one skilled in the art since the thickness required for the planarization layer is to cover light filtering unit and the light shielding member. Yao in the same field of endeavor teaches the planarization layer typically has a thickness of 1 mm to 10 mm, (please see paragraph [0091]). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Yao to design the thickness of the planarization layer to be about 1 mm.
Claim(s) 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al and in view of the US patent application publication by Tung et al (US 2008/0273130 A1).
The display substrate taught by Zhu et al as described in claim 21 above has met all the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claims 25 and 26, Zhu et al does not teach explicitly that the black matrix of the light shielding member is made by the claimed materials. However typical black matrix is made of materials such as silver (Ag), gold (Au), aluminum (Al), molybdenum (Mo), or titanium (Ti) as explicitly taught by Tung et al, (please see paragraph [0041]). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Tung et al to make the black matrix or light shielding member made by the art well known materials. Since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended used as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al and in view of the US patent application publication by Park et al (US 2021/0295769 A1).
The display substrate taught by Zhu et al as described in claim 21 above has met all the limitations of the claim.
With regard to Claim 27, Zhu et al does not teach explicitly to further include a third light shielding member arranged between the spacer and the planarization layer.
Park et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a display device that is comprised of a light shield layer (306, Figure 4) serves as the third light shielding member that is arranged between a spacer (307) and the planarization layer (305) wherein the orthogonal projection of the spacer onto the base substrate is arranged within an orthogonal projection of the third light shielding member onto the base substrate.
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Park et al to provide additional light shielding member for the benefit of allowing the more accurately separate the different filtering units.
Park et al further teaches the boundary of the orthogonal projection of the spacer onto the base substrate is spaced from a boundary of the orthogonal projection of the light shielding pattern onto the base substrate. Although this reference does not teach explicitly that the spaced distance is between 0 mm and 0.8 mm, such feature is considered to be obvious matters of design choice to one skilled in the art for the benefit of providing a desired design to achieve desired function.
Claim(s) 28 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al and Park et al as applied to claims 21 and 27 above, and further in view of the US patent application publication by Xu et al (US 2019/00518576A1).
The display substrate taught by Zhu et al in combination with the teachings of Park et al as described in claims 21 and 27 above has met all the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 28, these references do not teach to further comprise an auxiliary pattern arranged between the light shielding pattern and the spacer. Xu et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a display substrate that is comprised of an auxiliary layer (216, Figure 3, please see paragraph [0027]) that is interposed between the spacer layer (205) and the black matrix or light shielding pattern (208). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Xu et al to further provide an auxiliary layer to provide additional function for the spacer layer. Xu et al teaches that the orthogonal projection of the spacer onto the base substrate is arranged within an orthogonal projection of the auxiliary layer onto the base substrate and the boundary of the orthogonal projection of the spacer onto the base substrate is spaced apart from a boundary of the orthogonal projection of the auxiliary pattern onto the base substrate, however it does not teach explicitly that the spaced apart distance is of 0 mm to 0.8 mm. But this feature is considered to be obvious design choice to one skilled in the art to provide a desired design for the auxiliary layer.
With regard to claim 29, Xu et al teaches that the boundary of the orthogonal projection of the light shielding pattern onto the base substrate is spaced apart from the boundary of the orthogonal projection of the auxiliary pattern onto the base substrate, however does not teach explicitly that the spaced apart distance is of 0 mm to 0.4 mm. But this feature is considered to be obvious matters of design choice to one skilled in the art to provide a desired design.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al and Park et al as applied to claims 21 and 27 above, and further in view of the US patent application publication by Tung et al (US 2008/0273130A1).
The display substrate taught by Zhu et al in combination with the teachings of Park et al as described in claims 21 and 27 above has met all the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 30, Zhu et al does not teach explicitly that the black matrix of the light shielding member/pattern is made by the claimed materials. However typical black matrix is made of materials such as silver (Ag), gold (Au), aluminum (Al), molybdenum (Mo), or titanium (Ti) as explicitly taught by Tung et al, (please see paragraph [0041]). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Tung et al to make the black matrix or light shielding member made by the art well known materials. Since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended used as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al as applied to claim 22 above and further in view of the US patent application publication by Park et al (US 2021/0295769 A1).
The display substrate taught by Zhu et al as described in claims 21 and 22 above has met all the limitations of the claim.
With regard to Claim 33, Zhu et al does not teach explicitly to further include a third light shielding member arranged between the spacer and the planarization layer.
Park et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a display device that is comprised of a light shield layer (306, Figure 4) serves as the third light shielding member that is arranged between a spacer (307) and the planarization layer (305) wherein the orthogonal projection of the spacer onto the base substrate is arranged within an orthogonal projection of the third light shielding member onto the base substrate.
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Park et al to provide additional light shielding member for the benefit of allowing the more accurately separate the different filtering units.
Park et al further teaches the boundary of the orthogonal projection of the spacer onto the base substrate is spaced from a boundary of the orthogonal projection of the light shielding pattern onto the base substrate. Although this reference does not teach explicitly that the spaced distance is between 0 mm and 0.8 mm, such feature is considered to be obvious matters of design choice to one skilled in the art for the benefit of providing a desired design to achieve desired function.
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al and in view of the US patent application publication by Park et al (US 2021/0295769 A1).
The display substrate taught by Zhu et al as described in claims 23 above has met all the limitations of the claim.
With regard to Claim 34, Zhu et al does not teach explicitly to further include a third light shielding member arranged between the spacer and the planarization layer.
Park et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a display device that is comprised of a light shield layer (306, Figure 4) serves as the third light shielding member that is arranged between a spacer (307) and the planarization layer (305) wherein the orthogonal projection of the spacer onto the base substrate is arranged within an orthogonal projection of the third light shielding member onto the base substrate.
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Park et al to provide additional light shielding member for the benefit of allowing the more accurately separate the different filtering units.
Park et al further teaches the boundary of the orthogonal projection of the spacer onto the base substrate is spaced from a boundary of the orthogonal projection of the light shielding pattern onto the base substrate. Although this reference does not teach explicitly that the spaced distance is between 0 mm and 0.8 mm, such feature is considered to be obvious matters of design choice to one skilled in the art for the benefit of providing a desired design to achieve desired function.
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al and Yao et al as applied to claim 24 above and further in view of the US patent application publication by Park et al (US 2021/0295769 A1).
The display substrate taught by Zhu et al in combination with the teachings of Yao et al as described in claims 21 and 24 above has met all the limitations of the claim.
With regard to Claim 35, Zhu et al does not teach explicitly to further include a third light shielding member arranged between the spacer and the planarization layer.
Park et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a display device that is comprised of a light shield layer (306, Figure 4) serves as the third light shielding member that is arranged between a spacer (307) and the planarization layer (305) wherein the orthogonal projection of the spacer onto the base substrate is arranged within an orthogonal projection of the third light shielding member onto the base substrate.
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Park et al to provide additional light shielding member for the benefit of allowing the more accurately separate the different filtering units.
Park et al further teaches the boundary of the orthogonal projection of the spacer onto the base substrate is spaced from a boundary of the orthogonal projection of the light shielding pattern onto the base substrate. Although this reference does not teach explicitly that the spaced distance is between 0 mm and 0.8 mm, such feature is considered to be obvious matters of design choice to one skilled in the art for the benefit of providing a desired design to achieve desired function.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 25, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The newly amended and newly added claims have been fully considered and they are rejected for the reasons set forth above.
Applicant’s arguments are mainly drawn to the newly amended and newly added claims that have been fully addressed in the reasons for rejection set forth above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDREY Y CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2309. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 9:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Stephone B Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
AUDREY Y. CHANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/AUDREY Y CHANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights