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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1,7,8,10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh et al (PG Pub 2016/0104695 A1); Kim et al (PG Pub 2018/0175106 A1, hereafter Kim106); Kim et al, 2011, ‘Stretchable, Transparent Graphene Interconnects for Arrays of Microscale Inorganic Light Emitting Diodes on Rubber Substrates’, Nano Letters, 11, pp. 3881-3886; and Tarcan et al, 2020, ‘Reduced graphene oxide today’, Journal of Materials Chemistry C, 8, pp. 1198-1224.
Regarding claim 1, Yeh teaches an apparatus, comprising: one or more planarization layers (PLN, figs. 8J and 8K), a plurality of micro light-emitting diodes (LEDs) (110 and 110’, paragraph [0024]) formed within the one or more planarization layers, an electrode layer (COM, paragraph [0031]) formed on the one of the one or more planarization layers.
Yeh does not teach a buffer layer or a gate layer.
In the same field of endeavor, Kim106 teaches a buffer layer (BFL, fig. 27); for the benefit of preventing impurity into the substrate (paragraph [0190]), and a gate layer (GE) formed on the buffer layer; for the benefit of driving the light emitting elements (LD1) to turn them on/off.
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a buffer layer and a gate layer formed on the buffer layer; the benefits of preventing impurity into the substrate and driving the light emitting elements to turn them on/off.
Yeh in view of Kim106 teaches “one or more planarization layers formed on the gate layer;” and “one or more planarization layers formed on the gate layer.”
Yeh does not teach the electrode layer to be flexible or comprised of graphene.
In the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches a flexible transparent electrode layer comprised of graphene (abstract), for the benefit of providing an electrode layer that has excellent mechanical, thermal and electronic properties (left column, pp. 3881).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the electrode layer to be flexible and comprised of graphene for the benefit of providing an electrode layer that had excellent mechanical, thermal and electronic properties.
Yeh in view of Kim106 and Kim teaches “a flexible transparent electrode layer formed on the one of the one or more planarization layers that is most distal from the gate layer.”
Kim does not teach the electrode layer comprised of reduced graphene oxide.
In the same field of endeavor, Tarcan teaches reduced graphene oxide has graphene-like qualities, such as impressive electrical properties, but is can be produced with reduced cost and time (pp. 1198 and pp.1199, left column).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the electrode to comprise of reduced graphene oxide for the benefit of achieving graphene-like qualities with with reduced cost and time.
Regarding claim 7, Tarcn teaches the reduced graphene oxide of the electrode layer is further at least partially comprised of Carbon and Oxygen (pp.1198).
Regarding claim 8, Kim106 teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein a plurality of thin-film transistors (TFTs) (T1 and T2, paragraph [0019] and fig. 27) are formed on the buffer layer.
Regarding claim 10, Yeh teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the micro-LED is formed from a compound that comprises Gallium and Nitrogen (paragraph [0043]).
Claim(s) 1,8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh et al (PG Pub 2016/0104695 A1), Kim et al (PG Pub 2018/0175106 A1, hereafter Kim106), Bando et al (PG Pub 2014/0146490 A1), and Tarcan et al, 2020, ‘Reduced graphene oxide today’, Journal of Materials Chemistry C, 8, pp. 1198-1224.
Regarding claim 1, Yeh teaches an apparatus, comprising: one or more planarization layers (PLN, figs. 8J and 8K), a plurality of micro light-emitting diodes (LEDs) (110 and 110’, paragraph [0024]) formed within the one or more planarization layers, an electrode layer (COM, paragraph [0031]) formed on the one of the one or more planarization layers.
Yeh does not teach a buffer layer or a gate layer.
In the same field of endeavor, Kim106 teaches a buffer layer (BFL, fig. 27); for the benefit of preventing impurity into the substrate (paragraph [0190]), and a gate layer (GE) formed on the buffer layer; for the benefit of driving the light emitting elements (LD1) to turn them on/off.
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a buffer layer and a gate layer formed on the buffer layer; the benefits of preventing impurity into the substrate and driving the light emitting elements to turn them on/off.
Yeh in view of Kim106 teaches “one or more planarization layers formed on the gate layer;” and “one or more planarization layers formed on the gate layer.”
Yeh does not teach the electrode layer to be flexible or comprised of graphene.
In the same field of endeavor, Bando teaches a flexible transparent electrode layer comprised of graphene (13, figs. 1A to 1D, paragraph [0032]), for the benefit of forming an electrode layer with high throughput without damaging the substrate (paragraphs [0003][0005]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the electrode layer to be flexible and comprised of graphene for the benefit of forming an electrode layer with high throughput without damaging the substrate.
Kim does not teach the electrode layer comprised of reduced graphene oxide.
In the same field of endeavor, Tarcan teaches reduced graphene oxide has graphene-like qualities, such as impressive electrical properties, but can be produced with reduced cost and time (pp. 1198 and pp.1199, left column).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the electrode to comprise of reduced graphene oxide for the benefit of achieving graphene-like qualities with reduced cost and time.
Regarding claim 8, Kim106 teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein a plurality of thin-film transistors (TFTs) (T1 and T2, paragraph [0019] and fig. 27) are formed on the buffer layer.
Regarding claim 9, Bando teaches the apparatus of claim 8, further comprising a flexible recipient (11, figs. 1A to 1D, paragraph [0032]) substrate adhered to a contact layer (12), the contact layer formed on the electrode layer (13), for the benefit of supporting the flexible electrode during its transferring (figs. 1A to 1D).
Regarding claim 10, Yeh teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the plurality of micro-LEDs are formed from a compound that comprises Gallium and Nitrogen (paragraph [0043]).
Claim(s) 20, 21, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh et al (PG Pub 2016/0104695 A1), Kim et al (PG Pub 2018/0175106 A1, hereafter Kim106), Bando et al (PG Pub 2014/0146490 A1), Tarcan et al, 2020, ‘Reduced graphene oxide today’, Journal of Materials Chemistry C, 8, pp. 1198-1224, and further in view of Tour et al (PG Pub 2013/0048339 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Yeh, Kim106, Bando, and Tarcan teach (see claim 1) a system, comprising: a buffer layer; a gate layer formed on the buffer layer and a first planarization layer (ILD2, fig. 27 of Kim106) formed on the gate layer, the gate layer and first planarization layer comprising a plurality of circuits (T1 and T2 fig. 27 of Kim106) ; a second planarization layer (PLN in fig. 8K of Yeh) comprising a plurality of micro-light emitting diodes (LEDs); a transparent flexible electrode layer formed directly on the second planarization layer; wherein the transparent flexible electrode layer comprises partially reduced graphene oxide (reduced graphene oxide in Tarcan); a bonding layer (12, fig. 1D of Bando) formed on the flexible electrode layer; and a flexible substrate (11 of Bando) formed on the bonding layer.
Yeh does not teach the electrode to comprise a metal mesh.
In the same field of endeavor, Tour teaches a metal grid (24, fig. 1B, paragraph [0054]) formed on top of the graphene (22), for the benefit of providing a robust transparent electrode (paragraph [0068]) and an electrode with reduce electrical resistance (Table 1, items 1 to 10).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form a metal gride on top of the graphene for the benefit of providing a robust transparent electrode with reduced electrical resistance.
Regarding claim 21, Kim106 teaches the system of claim 20, wherein the plurality of circuits comprise a plurality of thin-film transistors (TFTs) (T1 and T2, paragraph [0019] and fig. 27) are formed on the buffer layer.
Regarding claim 23, Tour teaches the system of claim 22, wherein the metal mesh is comprised of one or more of Aluminum, Copper, Platinum, or Gold (paragraph [0014]).
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh et al (PG Pub 2016/0104695 A1), Kim et al (PG Pub 2018/0175106 A1, hereafter Kim106), Bando et al (PG Pub 2014/0146490 A1), and Tarcan et al, 2020, ‘Reduced graphene oxide today’, Journal of Materials Chemistry C, 8, pp. 1198-1224, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huang et al (PG Pub 2022/0087031 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the previous combination remains as applied in claim 1.
The previous combination does not teach a rigid glass substrate upon which is formed a release layer, and the buffer layer is formed upon the release layer.
In the same field of endeavor, Huang teaches a rigid glass substrate (12, fig. 14) upon which is formed a release layer (paragraph [0029]), for the benefits of providing to rigid glass substrate to support the device during the manufacturing process and providing a flexible device by removing the rigid substrate by removing it after the manufacturing process (paragraphs [0024][0029]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a rigid glass substrate upon which was formed a release layer, and the buffer layer was formed upon the release layer, for the benefits of providing to rigid glass substrate to support the device during the manufacturing process and providing a flexible device by removing the rigid substrate by removing it after the manufacturing process.
Regarding claim 3, Huang teaches the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the release layer is comprised of amorphous silicon (paragraph [0029]).
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh et al (PG Pub 2016/0104695 A1); Kim et al (PG Pub 2018/0175106 A1, hereafter Kim106); Kim et al, 2011, ‘Stretchable, Transparent Graphene Interconnects for Arrays of Microscale Inorganic Light Emitting Diodes on Rubber Substrates’, Nano Letters, 11, pp. 3881-3886; and Tarcan et al, 2020, ‘Reduced graphene oxide today’, Journal of Materials Chemistry C, 8, pp. 1198-1224, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huang et al (PG Pub 2022/0087031 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the previous combination remains as applied in claim 1.
The previous combination does not teach a rigid glass substrate upon which is formed a release layer, and the buffer layer is formed upon the release layer.
In the same field of endeavor, Huang teaches a rigid glass substrate (12, fig. 14) upon which is formed a release layer (paragraph [0029]), for the benefits of providing to rigid glass substrate to support the device during the manufacturing process and providing a flexible device by removing the rigid substrate by removing it after the manufacturing process (paragraphs [0024][0029]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a rigid glass substrate upon which was formed a release layer, and the buffer layer was formed upon the release layer, for the benefits of providing to rigid glass substrate to support the device during the manufacturing process and providing a flexible device by removing the rigid substrate by removing it after the manufacturing process.
Regarding claim 3, Huang teaches the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the release layer is comprised of amorphous silicon (paragraph [0029]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh et al (PG Pub 2016/0104695 A1); Kim et al (PG Pub 2018/0175106 A1, hereafter Kim106); Kim et al, 2011, ‘Stretchable, Transparent Graphene Interconnects for Arrays of Microscale Inorganic Light Emitting Diodes on Rubber Substrates’, Nano Letters, 11, pp. 3881-3886; and Tarcan et al, 2020, ‘Reduced graphene oxide today’, Journal of Materials Chemistry C, 8, pp. 1198-1224, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tour et al (PG Pub 2013/0048339 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the previous combination remains as applied in claim 1.
The previous combination does not teach the electrode layer is further comprised of a metal mesh of nanowires formed on top of the reduced graphene oxide.
In the same field of endeavor, Tour teaches a metal mesh of nanowires (24, figs. 1B, paragraph [0012][0054][0125]) formed on top of the graphene (22), for the benefit of providing a robust transparent electrode (paragraph [0068]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form a metal mesh of nanowires on top of the graphene for the benefit of providing a robust transparent electrode.
Tour in view of Tarcan teaches to make the graphene reduced graphene oxide.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh et al (PG Pub 2016/0104695 A1), Kim et al (PG Pub 2018/0175106 A1, hereafter Kim106), Bando et al (PG Pub 2014/0146490 A1), and Tarcan et al, 2020, ‘Reduced graphene oxide today’, Journal of Materials Chemistry C, 8, pp. 1198-1224, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tour et al (PG Pub 2013/0048339 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the previous combination remains as applied in claim 1.
The previous combination does not teach the electrode layer is further comprised of a metal grid formed on top of the graphene.
In the same field of endeavor, Tour teaches a metal grid (24, fig. 1B, paragraph [0054]) formed on top of the graphene (22), for the benefit of providing a robust transparent electrode (paragraph [0068]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form a metal gride on top of the graphene for the benefit of providing a robust transparent electrode.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh et al (PG Pub 2016/0104695 A1); Kim et al (PG Pub 2018/0175106 A1, hereafter Kim106); Kim et al, 2011, ‘Stretchable, Transparent Graphene Interconnects for Arrays of Microscale Inorganic Light Emitting Diodes on Rubber Substrates’, Nano Letters, 11, pp. 3881-3886; and Tarcan et al, 2020, ‘Reduced graphene oxide today’, Journal of Materials Chemistry C, 8, pp. 1198-1224, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shahzad et al, 2016, ‘Biomass-Derived Thermally Annealed Interconnected Sulfur-Doped Graphene as a Shield against Electromagnetic Interference’, Applied Materials & Interfaces, 8, pp. 9361-9369.
Regarding claim 5, the previous combination remains as applied in claim 1.
The previous combination does not teach the graphene of the electrode layer is doped with an organic or inorganic dopant that improves its conductivity.
In the same field of endeavor, Shahzad teaches a graphene is doped with an organic or inorganic dopant that improves its conductivity (abstract).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to dope the graphene of the electrode layer is with an organic or inorganic dopant for the benefit of improving its conductivity.
Regarding claim 6, Shahzad teaches the dopant is at least partially comprised of Nitrogen or Sulfur (abstract).
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh et al (PG Pub 2016/0104695 A1), Kim et al (PG Pub 2018/0175106 A1, hereafter Kim106), Bando et al (PG Pub 2014/0146490 A1), and Tarcan et al, 2020, ‘Reduced graphene oxide today’, Journal of Materials Chemistry C, 8, pp. 1198-1224, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shahzad et al, 2016, ‘Biomass-Derived Thermally Annealed Interconnected Sulfur-Doped Graphene as a Shield against Electromagnetic Interference’, Applied Materials & Interfaces, 8, pp. 9361-9369.
Regarding claim 5, the previous combination remains as applied in claim 1.
The previous combination does not teach the graphene of the electrode layer is doped with an organic or inorganic dopant that improves its conductivity.
In the same field of endeavor, Shahzad teaches a graphene is doped with an organic or inorganic dopant that improves its conductivity (abstract).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to dope the graphene of the electrode layer is with an organic or inorganic dopant for the benefit of improving its conductivity.
Regarding claim 6, Shahzad teaches the dopant is at least partially comprised of Nitrogen or Sulfur (abstract).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh et al (PG Pub 2016/0104695 A1); Kim et al (PG Pub 2018/0175106 A1, hereafter Kim106); Kim et al, 2011, ‘Stretchable, Transparent Graphene Interconnects for Arrays of Microscale Inorganic Light Emitting Diodes on Rubber Substrates’, Nano Letters, 11, pp. 3881-3886; and Tarcan et al, 2020, ‘Reduced graphene oxide today’, Journal of Materials Chemistry C, 8, pp. 1198-1224, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lettow et al (PG Pub 2011/0189452 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the previous combination remains as applied in claim 1.
In the same field of endeavor, Lettow teaches a graphene of the electrode layer is further at least partially comprised of Carbon and Oxygen (paragraph [0037) for the benefit of turning graphene into useful form (paragraph [0003]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the graphene of the electrode layer to further at least partially comprise of Carbon and Oxygen for the benefit of turning graphene into useful form.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh et al (PG Pub 2016/0104695 A1), Kim et al (PG Pub 2018/0175106 A1, hereafter Kim106), Bando et al (PG Pub 2014/0146490 A1), and Tarcan et al, 2020, ‘Reduced graphene oxide today’, Journal of Materials Chemistry C, 8, pp. 1198-1224 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lettow et al (PG Pub 2011/0189452 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the previous combination remains as applied in claim 1.
The previous combination does not the graphene of the electrode layer is further at least partially comprised of Carbon and Oxygen.
In the same field of endeavor, Lettow teaches a graphene of the electrode layer is further at least partially comprised of Carbon and Oxygen (paragraph [0037) for the benefit of turning graphene into useful form (paragraph [0003]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the graphene of the electrode layer to further at least partially comprise of Carbon and Oxygen for the benefit of turning graphene into useful form.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh et al (PG Pub 2016/0104695 A1); Kim et al (PG Pub 2018/0175106 A1, hereafter Kim106); Kim et al, 2011, ‘Stretchable, Transparent Graphene Interconnects for Arrays of Microscale Inorganic Light Emitting Diodes on Rubber Substrates’, Nano Letters, 11, pp. 3881-3886; and Tarcan et al, 2020, ‘Reduced graphene oxide today’, Journal of Materials Chemistry C, 8, pp. 1198-1224, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tischler et al (PG Pub 2012/0146066 A1).
Regarding claim 11, the previous combination remains as applied in claim 1.
Yeh does not teach the one or more planarization layers are comprised of silicon and oxygen.
In the same field of endeavor, Tischler teaches a layer comprised of silicon and oxygen can function as a planarization layer (paragraph [0440]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the one or more planarization layers to be comprised of silicon and oxygen, for the benefit of forming a layer with a planar surface (paragraph [0440]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh et al (PG Pub 2016/0104695 A1), Kim et al (PG Pub 2018/0175106 A1, hereafter Kim106), Bando et al (PG Pub 2014/0146490 A1), and Tarcan et al, 2020, ‘Reduced graphene oxide today’, Journal of Materials Chemistry C, 8, pp. 1198-1224, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tischler et al (PG Pub 2012/0146066 A1).
Regarding claim 11, the previous combination remains as applied in claim 1.
Yeh does not teach the one or more planarization layers are comprised of silicon and oxygen.
In the same field of endeavor, Tischler teaches a layer comprised of silicon and oxygen can function as a planarization layer (paragraph [0440]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the one or more planarization layers to be comprised of silicon and oxygen, for the benefit of forming a layer with a planar surface (paragraph [0440]).
Claim(s) 24 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh et al (PG Pub 2016/0104695 A1), Kim et al (PG Pub 2018/0175106 A1, hereafter Kim106), Bando et al (PG Pub 2014/0146490 A1), Tarcan et al, 2020, ‘Reduced graphene oxide today’, Journal of Materials Chemistry C, 8, pp. 1198-1224, and further in view of Tour et al (PG Pub 2013/0048339 A1), as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Go et al (PG Pub 2015/0062028 A1).
Regarding claim 24, the previous combination remains as applied in claim 20.
The previous combination does not teach the system comprises a foldable display.
In the same field of endeavor, Go teaches a system comprises a foldable display (fig. 2), for the benefit of providing a device that is easy to carry (paragraph [0005]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the system to comprise a foldable display for the benefit of providing a device that is easy to carry.
Regarding claim 25, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the foldable display part of a foldable palm-top device for the benefit of providing a device that is easy to carry.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-11 and 20-25 have been considered but are moot because the currently cited Tarcan et al teaches the amended features. See rejection 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 FEIFEI YEUNG LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1882. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8am to 4pm EST.
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, Dale Page can be reached on 571 270 7877. 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.
/FEIFEI YEUNG LOPEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899