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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment filed on September 4, 2025. Claims 3-4 have been amended. No new claims have been added. Claims 1-2 and 5-8 have been canceled. Currently, claims 3-4 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed September 4, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicants argue:
The above recited structure is not disclosed in the asserted combination of Choi and
Nagahama. For example, Choi does not disclose at least the presently claimed second light emitting element has luminance lower than luminance of the first light emitting element. Nagahama, which is cited for other purposes, fails to remedy the deficiencies of Choi. Nagahama discloses an inorganic light emitting device using a nitride semiconductor to improve front luminance. Thus, a combination of Nagahama with Choi providing light emitting elements arranged in a component area (CA) would increase the front luminance of the pixels adjacent to a transmissive part. Therefore, any reasonable combination of Choi and Nagahama fail to render obvious the presently recited structure of independent Claim 3.
The Examiner responds:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Nagahama remedies the deficiencies of Choi for the following reasons:
Even though Examiner agrees that Nagahama discloses an inorganic light emitting device using a nitride semiconductor to improve front luminance, the Examiner does not agree that, for a combination of Nagahama with Choi, this necessarily means that the second pixels (modified by Nagahama) in Choi’s CA would have greater luminance than the first pixels in Choi’s MDA. Instead, as set forth in the previous Office Action and in the rejection below, Nagahama modifies the second pixels such that, unlike the first pixels, they have a high-resistance layer (5; para. [0009], lines 140-165). It is known in the art that as resistances of light emitting elements increase, the current decreases; and that as current decreases, the luminance decreases (Choi, [0116]). It would have been obvious for the second pixels (modified by Nagahama) to have higher resistances than the first pixels, and since they are the same size (as set forth in the rejection below), it would have been obvious for the presently claimed second light emitting element to have luminance lower than luminance of the first light emitting element.
Thus, Choi in view of Nagahama renders obvious the limitations of amended claim 3. As a result, the rejection of claims 3-4 is maintained.
All other arguments have been fully addressed in prior Office Actions or in the rejections set forth below.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2021/0376007) in view of Nagahama et al. (WO 02103811 A1, citations made herein refer to the machine translation included with the Office Action mailed on 5/29/2024).
Regarding claim 3, Choi, in Figure 9, teaches a display device comprising: a substrate (100) having a hole (H1) ([0171] and fig. 9); a plurality of pixels (Pm, para. [0103]; Pa, para. [0104]) provided to the substrate and not to the hole (H1) of the substrate; a plurality of light emitting elements (122b and 122b’) provided to the respective pixels (see fig. 9, [0183], [0197]), the light emitting elements being inorganic light emitting diodes ([0152]); and a cathode electrode (123) covering the light emitting elements (see fig. 9), wherein
the pixels including a first pixel (Pm) and a second pixel (Pa) that is located closer to the hole (H1) than the first pixel, the first pixel (Pm) has the light emitting elements (122b) including a first light emitting element (blue Pb of Pm), the second pixel (Pa) has the light emitting element (122b’) including a second light emitting element (blue Pb of Pa),
the first light emitting element and the second light emitting element have a same chip size and emit a common color ([0149], Pb, blue and same size), and
the first light emitting element includes an anode terminal (122a, para. [0185]), a semiconductor layer (122b, para. [0183]), and a cathode terminal (122c, para. [0186]) stacked in order, and an upper surface of the cathode terminal is in contact with the cathode electrode (123) (see fig. 9).
Choi does not explicitly teach that the second light emitting element has luminance lower than luminance of the first light emitting element, and that the second light emitting element comprises a p-type cladding layer, an active layer, an n-type cladding layer, and a high-resistance layer stacked in order on the substrate, the p-type cladding layer, the active layer, and the n-type cladding layer are arranged lower than a lower surface of the high-resistance layer, sheet resistance of the high-resistance layer is higher than sheet resistance of the n-type cladding layer, the high-resistance layer covers a part of the n-type cladding layer and has an opening at a center, and the cathode electrode covers the high-resistance layer and is directly coupled to a center part of the n-type cladding layer through the opening of the high-resistance layer.
In a similar field of endeavor, Nagahama teaches that the second light emitting element comprises a p-type cladding layer (2/11; para. [0009], lines 135-145; para. [0019], lines 375-395), an active layer (3; para. [0009], lines 135-145), an n-type cladding layer (4; para. [0009], lines 140-150; para. [0019], lines 375-395), and a high-resistance layer (5; para. [0009], lines 140-165) stacked in order on the substrate (1) (see Fig. 1),
the p-type cladding layer (2/11), the active layer (3), and the n-type cladding layer (4) are arranged lower than a lower surface of the high-resistance layer (5) (see Fig. 1),
sheet resistance of the high-resistance layer is higher than sheet resistance of the n-type cladding layer (para. [0009], lines 140-165),
the high-resistance layer covers a part of the n-type cladding layer and has an opening at a center (41) (see Fig. 1), and
the cathode electrode (6 and 20) covers the high-resistance layer and is directly coupled to a center part of the n-type cladding layer through the opening of the high-resistance layer (see how in Fig. 1 the electrode is in electrical contact with 4),
in order to “restrict the current path and to disperse the current within the surface by providing an opening, thereby providing an element structure that improves the efficiency of extracting light from the top surface” (para. [0009], lines 150-165).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Choi with the second light emitting element of Nagahama, because the resulting combination allows for a display device that minimizes current spreading to areas that are not desired, such as adjacent light emitting elements, and improves light extracting efficiency.
Choi in view of Nagahama does not explicitly teach that the second light emitting element has luminance lower than luminance of the first light emitting element. Nonetheless, the skilled artisan would know too that the luminance of the light emitting elements would impact resistances of the light emitting elements and amount of electrical current (Choi, [0116]).
The specific claimed luminance, absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” luminance disclosed by Choi in view of Nagahama that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine using routine experimentation (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)) based, among other things, on the desired light emitting element resistances, electrical current amount, manufacturing costs, etc. (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and since neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e. results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long the second light emitting element having luminance lower than luminance of the first light emitting element is used, as already suggested by Choi in view of Nagahama.
Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph) of the range stated and since these ranges are in common use in similar devices in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use these values in the device of Choi in view of Nagahama.
Please note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed range or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2021/0376007) in view of Nagahama et al. (WO 02103811 A1, citations made herein refer to the machine translation included with the Office Action mailed on 5/29/2024) and Park (US 2019/0214601).
Regarding claim 4, Choi, as modified by Nagahama, teaches the limitations of claim 3. Choi further teaches that the substrate includes: a display region (DA) provided with the pixels; and a peripheral region (DPA) surrounding the display region (see fig. 5), the display region is provided with the second light emitting element (ED’; see Fig. 5; paras. [86-87], ED’ is provided to pixel Pa).
Choi, as modified by Nagahama, does not teach a boundary line between the display region and the peripheral region has a recessed line recessed toward the display region, the display region includes a first region and a second region sandwiching the recessed line, and the first region and the second region are provided with the second light emitting element.
In a similar field of endeavor, Park teaches a boundary line (201) between the display region (100) and the peripheral region (251) has a recessed line (210; para. [0030]) recessed toward the display region, the display region includes a first region and a second region sandwiching the recessed line (see fig. 16, first region on left of 210 and second region on right of 210), and the first region and the second region are provided with a light emitting element (para. [0077]), in order to “separate the display region and the light transmitting region from each other” (para. [0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the display device of Choi, as modified by Nagahama, with the configuration of Park, because the resulting combination creates a display device with current spreading tolerance and a clear separation between the display and non-display (peripheral) regions, which is beneficial for isolating electrical components from one another.
Conclusion
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 ERIKA HEERA SON whose telephone number is (703)756-4644. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12:30-9 PM 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, Yara Green can be reached on 571-270-3035. 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.
/ERIKA H SON/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/YARA B GREEN/Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893