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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 1, paragraph 1, line 2: After “2021,”, add “now U.S. Pat. No. 12,127,447, issued October 22, 2024,”.
Page 4, paragraph 24, line 6: Change “substrate. Wherein” to “substrate, wherein”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6, line 2: Change “an region” to “a region”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claim 18, which depends from claim 16, which depends from claim 15, which depends from claim 1: Claim 15 requires “forming the plurality of sub-pixels on the base substrate….” and claim 16 further defines this step as follows:
wherein forming the plurality of sub-pixels on the base substrate comprises: sequentially forming a first conductive layer, a second insulating layer, a semiconductor layer, a third insulating layer, a second conductive layer, a fourth insulating layer, a third conductive layer, a fifth insulating layer, a fourth conductive layer, a sixth insulating layer, a seventh insulating layer, a fifth conductive layer, an eight insulating layer and a ninth insulating layer on the base substrate, wherein the semiconductor layer, the first conductive layer, the second conductive layer, the third conductive layer, the fourth conductive layer and the fifth conductive layer are located in the display region, and the sixth insulating layer and the ninth insulating layer are hollowed in the light transmittance region.
Thus, claim 16 requires a specific order to the formation of conductive, semiconductor, and insulating layers.
Claim 18, which depends from claim 16, requires “wherein forming the plurality of sub-pixels on the base substrate further comprises: removing the second insulating layer to fifth insulating layer, the seventh insulating layer and the eighth insulating layer in the light transmittance region after forming the eighth insulating layer or after forming the ninth insulating layer.” This limitation requires the removal of the second to fifth, seventh, and eighth insulating layers after the eighth insulating layer or ninth insulating layer has been formed. On the one hand, the ninth insulating layer could be formed and then “hollowed” as required by claim 16, followed by the removal of the second insulating layer to the fifth insulating layer, the seventh insulating layer, and the eighth insulating layer. However, there is no indication on how to remove the second insulating layer to the fifth, seventh, and eighth insulating layers in the presence of the ninth insulating layer, which is on top of the second to fifth insulating layers. Because the disclosure does not indicate how to accomplish this step, claim 18 is rejected for lack of enablement.
There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is "undue." These factors include, but are not limited to:
(A) The breadth of the claims;
(B) The nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
(G) The existence of working examples; and
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
(A) The breadth of the claims: As discussed above, the breadth of the claims encompasses removing the second through fifth, seventh, and eighth insulating layers after the ninth insulating layer has been formed and then removed, but the claims also encompass removing the second through fifth, seventh, and eighth insulating layers after the ninth insulating layer has been formed, but has not been removed.
(B) The nature of the invention: The invention is a display substrate, a display apparatus including the display substrate, and a preparation method for forming the display substrate.
(C) The state of the prior art: The prior art for display devices discloses stacking insulating and conductive layers, followed by removal. See, e.g., Choi, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2022/0020835, Figure 10A, Choi specification ¶ 164 (describing removal steps). In other semiconductor arrangements, such as memory structures, sacrificial layers will be stacked with other layers that will remain after processing, holes will be formed in the layer stack and then filled, and then the sacrificial layers are replaced with other, permanent materials. The undersigned has not seen this technique used with display devices.
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill: One having ordinary skill in the art would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or materials science and 5 years of experience in the semiconductor industry.
(E) The level of predictability in the art: The level of predictability is high for well known methods in the art in which layers are removed in the reverse order in which they were deposited, but low for methods in which the layers are removed in a different order than the reverse order in which they were deposited.
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor: The inventor provides information on removing the layers either after deposition of the layer and before the deposition of a later layer, or in reverse order of deposition. The inventor does not provide information on removal of a layer or layers after another layer has been deposited on the layer or layers.
(G) The existence of working examples: The disclosure has no working examples for removing the second through fifth insulating, seventh, and eighth layers in the presence of the ninth insulating layer, which is on top of the second through fifth, seventh, and eighth insulating layers.
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure: Given the information provided by the inventor, the state of the prior art, and the scope of the claims, the quantity of experimentation is undue. For these reasons, claim 18 is rejected for lack of enablement.
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.
Claims 3 and 16-20 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 claim 3, which depends from claim 1: Claim 1 defines “a plurality of insulating layers” in line 7. Claim 3, which depends from claim 1, also defines “a plurality of insulating layers”, in line 2. This raises a question as to whether the claim 3 plurality of insulating layers is the same as or different from the claim 1 plurality of insulating layers. Because the language is confusing, claim 3 is rejected as indefinite.
Regarding claim 16, which depends from claim 15, which depends from claim 1: Claim 15 defines first and fifth conductive layers. Claim 16, which depends from claim 15, defines “a first conductive layer” in line 3 and “a fifth conductive layer” in line 6. This language makes it unclear whether the newly defined first and fifth conductive layers of claim 16 are different from or the same as the first and fifth conductive layers of claim 15. Because the language is unclear, claim 16 is rejected as indefinite.
Claims 17, 18, and 20 are rejected for depending from rejected base claim 16.
Regarding claim 19, which depends from claim 15, which depends from claim 1: Claim 15 defines first and fifth conductive layers. Claim 19, which depends from claim 15, defines “a first conductive layer” in line 3 and “a fifth conductive layer” in line 6. This language makes it unclear whether the newly defined first and fifth conductive layers of claim 19 are different from or the same as the first and fifth conductive layers of claim 15. Because the language is unclear, claim 19 is rejected as indefinite.
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.
(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, 2, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kim, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0257594, Figures 1-2B, 4-6, and 8.
PNG
media_image1.png
805
831
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1474
845
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1: Kim Figures 1-2B, 4-6, and 8 disclose a display substrate, comprising: a base substrate (100) and a plurality of sub-pixels (P: P1, P2) disposed on the base substrate (100), wherein at least one sub-pixel (P2) of the plurality of sub-pixels (P: P1, P2) comprises a light transmittance region (TA) and a display region (DA2), wherein the display region (DA2) comprises a circuit structure layer (TFT) and a light-emitting element (OLED) which are disposed on the base substrate (100); the light-emitting element (OLED) is connected with the circuit structure layer (TFT); wherein the display substrate further comprises a plurality of insulating layers (111, 112, 113, 115, 117, 118) disposed on the base substrate (100), wherein at least one insulating layer (112, 113, 114, 115, 117, 118) of the plurality of insulating layers (111, 112, 113, 115, 117, 118) is hollowed in the light transmittance region (TA); and wherein the circuit structure layer (TFT) comprises a first conductive layer (BML) and a fifth conductive layer (SE1, DE1) disposed on the base substrate (100); the fifth conductive layer (SE1, DE1) is disposed on a side of the first conductive layer (BML) away the base substrate (100); an orthographic projection of the first conductive layer (SE1, DE1) on the base substrate (100) at least comprises an orthographic projection of the fifth conductive layer (SE1, DE1) on the base substrate (100); a material of the fifth conductive layer (SE1, DE1) comprises copper (Kim specification ¶ 128), and a reflectivity of a material (Cr, Mo; id. ¶ 150) of the first conductive layer (BML) is smaller than a reflectivity of the material of the fifth conductive layer (SE1, DE1). Kim specification ¶¶ 60-85, 101-146, 149-152. Kim uses a similar material as the first conductive layer (BML) as applicants and copper for the fifth conductive layer, thus Kim discloses the reflectivity relationship. To the extent that Kim Figure 8 does not incorporate by reference the earlier figures, one having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date would be motivated to modify Kim Figure 8 to include the earlier elements because the modification would have involved the substitution of an equivalent known for the same purpose.
Regarding claim 2, which depends from claim 1: Kim discloses the plurality of insulating layers (111, 112, 113, 115, 117, 118) comprise at least one organic insulating layer (117, 118) and a plurality of inorganic insulating layers (111, 112, 113, 115); at least one organic insulating layer (117, 118) is hollowed in the light transmittance region (TA), or at least one inorganic insulating layer (112, 113, 115) is hollowed in the light transmittance region (TA). See Kim specification ¶¶ 123, 125, 127, 131-133, 145.
Regarding claim 14: Kim discloses a display apparatus, comprising the display substrate of claim 1. Id. ¶¶ 60-85, 101-146, 149-152. See also the discussion in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 15: Kim Figures 1-2B, 4-6, and 8 discloses a preparation method for a display substrate, which is used for preparing the display substrate of claim 1, the method comprises: forming the plurality of sub-pixels (P: P1, P2) on the base substrate (100), wherein: at least one sub-pixel (P2) of the plurality of sub-pixels (P: P1, P2) comprises the light transmittance region (TA) and the display region (DA2); the display region (DA2) comprises the circuit structure layer (TFT) and the light-emitting element (OLED) which are disposed on the base substrate (100), and the light-emitting element (OLED) is connected with the circuit structure layer (TFT); the circuit structure layer (TFT) comprises the first conductive layer (BML) and the fifth conductive layer (SE1, DE1) disposed on the base substrate (100); the fifth conductive layer (SE1, DE1) is disposed on the side of the first conductive layer (BML) away the base substrate (100); the orthographic projection of the first conductive layer (BML) on the base substrate (100) at least comprises the orthographic projection of the fifth conductive layer (SE1, DE1) on the base substrate (100); the material of the fifth conductive layer (SE1, DE1) comprises copper (Kim specification ¶ 128), and the reflectivity of the material (Cr, Mo; id. ¶ 150) of the first conductive layer (BML) is smaller than the reflectivity of the material of the fifth conductive layer (SE1, DE1); and the display region (DA2) is further provided with the plurality of insulating layers (111, 112, 113, 115, 117, 118), and at least one insulating layer (112, 113, 115, 117, 118) of the plurality of insulating layers (111, 112, 113, 115, 117, 118) is hollowed in the light transmittance region (TA). Id. ¶¶ 60-85, 101-146, 149-152. Kim uses a similar material as the first conductive layer (BML) as applicants and copper for the fifth conductive layer, thus Kim discloses the reflectivity relationship. To the extent that Kim Figure 8 does not incorporate by reference the earlier figures, one having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date would be motivated to modify Kim Figure 8 to include the earlier elements because the modification would have involved the substitution of an equivalent known for the same purpose.
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 1, 2, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, and further in view of Lee, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0066644, Figs. 1 and 4-6.
PNG
media_image3.png
1073
718
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1: To the extent that claim 1’s language requires the pixel electrode to be interpreted as the fifth conductive layer, Kim does not disclose this fifth conductive layer to be copper. However, Lee Figures 1 and 4-6, directed to similar subject matter, disclose a pixel electrode/first electrode (E1) which has a reflective layer made of copper. Lee specification ¶ 75. One having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date would be motivated to modify Kim to use the Lee copper material for the fifth conductive layer because the modification would have involved the substitution of an equivalent known for the same purpose.
The rejections of claims 2, 14, and 15 are incorporated by reference, with the reasoning of claim 1 used in the reasoning of claim 15.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim or Kim and Lee, and further in view of Jeon, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2016/0099296, Figures 1-3.
PNG
media_image4.png
588
851
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, which depends from claim 1: Kim discloses that the light transmittance region (TA) is provided with a plurality of insulating layers (111, which may be a single layer structure or a multilayer structure, Kim specification ¶ 110), but is silent as to whether an absolute value of a refractive index difference between adjacent insulating layers in the plurality of insulating layers is less than or equal to 0.5.
Jeon Figures 1-3, directed to similar subject matter, discloses the light transmittance region (TW) is provided with a plurality of insulating layers (111, 113, 115), and an absolute value of a refractive index difference between adjacent insulating layers in the plurality of insulating layers (111, 113, 115) is less than or equal to 0.5. Jeon specification ¶¶ 62, 64, 19. One having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date would be motivated to modify Kim or Kim and Lee to include the Jeon design because the modification would have involved the substitution of an equivalent known for the same purpose.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim or Kim and Lee, and further in view of Ji, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2018/0180722, Figs. 1 and 5.
PNG
media_image5.png
235
397
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
221
394
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, which depends from claim 1: Kim discloses that the display region (DA2) further comprises: a first anti-reflection layer (BML and/or PSL) located on a side of the circuit structure layer (TFT) close to the base substrate (101), Kim specification ¶¶ 81, 82, but does not disclose a second anti-reflection layer located on a side of the circuit structure layer away from the base substrate.
Ji Figures 1 and 5, directed to similar subject matter, discloses the display region further comprises: a second anti-reflection layer (921) located on a side of the circuit structure layer (200) away from the base substrate (100). Ji specification ¶¶ 37-86. One having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date would be motivated to modify Kim or Kim and Lee to include the Ji design because the second anti-reflection layer (921) prevents the reflection of external light. Id. ¶ 78.
Regarding claim 5, which depends from claim 4: Kim discloses that the first anti-reflection layer (BML portion of first anti-reflection layer (BML and/or PSL)) is integrated with the first conductive layer (BML).
Regarding claim 6, which depends from claim 4: The combination discloses an orthographic projection of the second anti-reflection layer (921) on the base substrate (100) comprises [a] region in the display region (EA) outside an overlapping region of the light-emitting element (500) and the fifth conductive layer (420 or 510) on the base substrate (100). See Ji Figure 5.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim or Kim and Lee, and further in view of Lee, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2017/0186824 [hereinafter Lee ’824], Figure 7.
PNG
media_image7.png
254
389
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, which depends from claim 1: Kim does not disclose an anti-reflective layer located on one side of the base substrate away from the sub-pixel; an orthographic projection of the anti-reflective layer on the base substrate covers the light transmittance region and the display region.
Lee ’824, directed to similar subject matter, discloses an alternate embodiment—not shown—in which an anti-reflective layer located on the bottom of a substrate (210). Lee ’824 specification ¶ 70. One having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date would be motivated to use an anti-reflective layer on one side of the base substrate away from the sub-pixel; an orthographic projection of the anti-reflective layer on the base substrate covers the light transmittance region and the display region, because the modification would “reduce the reflection on the surface of the substrate without decreasing the luminous efficiency.” Id.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-12 and 16-20 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, and in the case of claims 16-20, if the Section 112 rejections were addressed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regard to claim 7: The claim has been found allowable because the prior art of record does not disclose “wherein the second insulating layer to fifth insulating layer, the seventh insulating layer and the eighth insulating layer are inorganic insulating layers, and the sixth insulating layer and the ninth insulating layer are organic insulating layers”, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
With regard to claims 8-12: The claims have been found allowable due to their dependency from claim 7 above.
With regard to claim 16: The claim has been found allowable because the prior art of record does not disclose “the sixth insulating layer and the ninth insulating layer are hollowed in the light transmittance region”, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
With regard to claims 17, 18, and 20: The claims have been found allowable due to their dependency from claim 16 above.
With regard to claim 19: The claim has been found allowable because the prior art of record does not disclose “removing the second insulating layer to the fifth insulating layer of the light transmittance region before forming the sixth insulating layer, and removing the seventh insulating layer and the eighth insulating layer of the light transmittance region before forming the ninth insulating layer”, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA KATHLEEN HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-7567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8 a.m.-5 p.m.
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, Fernando Toledo can be reached at 571-272-1867. 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.
/Victoria K. Hall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights