DETAILED ACTION
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24, 29-46 are allowed.
Claims 26-28 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent claim 24, the prior arts of record do not teach anticipate or make obvious, inter alia, the feature of:
wherein a thickness of the insulating film surrounding where the active layer and the second semiconductor layer contact each other is less than a thickness of the insulating layer surrounding where the active layer and the first semiconductor layer contact each other.
Regarding independent claim 35, the prior art of record alone or in combination neither teaches nor makes obvious the invention of a display device, comprising below limitations in combination with other limitations of the instant claim as a whole:
wherein the insulating film includes a first portion surrounding the one end of the light emitting element and the active layer, a second portion contacting the second insulating layer, and a third portion surrounding the other end of the light emitting element, and wherein a thickness of the second portion is greater than that of the first portion and the third portion.
Regarding dependent claim 26, the prior art of record alone or in combination neither teaches nor makes obvious the invention of a display device, comprising below limitations in combination with other limitations of the instant claim as a whole:
wherein the insulating film has a second portion extending from the first portion and covering a portion of a side surface of the second semiconductor layer, and wherein a thickness of the second portion is smaller than a thickness of the first portion.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
[Page 10-11] of REMARKS,
There is no apparent reason why, let alone feasible way to, modify Kang such that the diameter of the active layer (120) is 8.5x larger than the thickness of the insulating film (140 & 330), particularly where the diameter of the active layer 120 of Kang is substantially smaller than the thickness of the insulating film 140 & 330. In other words, Applicant respectfully submits that "the general conditions of" claim 25 are not shown in Kang; rather, Kang appears to show the opposite condition of claim 25.
Examiner’s reply:
Referring to the annotated figure 10 of Kang below, the diameter (height) of the active layer (120) is larger than the thickness of the insulating film (140). Claim 25 doesn’t limit the thickness of the insulating film as the thickness of the central portion of the insulating film. Thus, a general condition is already taught by Kang and it will not be inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
PNG
media_image1.png
1025
585
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 20180175104 A1, hereinafter Kang‘104) of record.
Regarding independent claim 25, Kang‘104 teaches, “A light emitting element (fig. 1-12; ¶ [0051] - ¶ [0147]) comprising:
a first semiconductor layer (110, fig. 10; ¶ [0056]) doped with a first polarity;
a second semiconductor layer (130, ¶ [0058]) doped with a second polarity different from the first polarity;
an active layer (120, ¶ [0057]) between the first semiconductor layer and the second semiconductor layer in a first direction (X); and
an insulating film (330, 140) surrounding an outer surface of at least the active layer (120) and extending in the first direction (X),
wherein a thickness of the insulating film (140) adjacent both ends of the insulating film (140, 330) in the first direction (X) is less than a thickness of the insulating film (140, 330) at a center of the insulating film (140, 330) in the first direction (X),
wherein a diameter of the active layer is in a range of 500 nm to 600 nm,
and
wherein the thickness of a first portion of the insulating film surrounding the active layer is in a range of 60 nm to 80 nm.”
Regarding the limitations, ‘wherein a diameter of the active layer is in a range of 500 nm to 600 nm, and wherein the thickness of a first portion of the insulating film surrounding the active layer is in a range of 60 nm to 80 nm’, Kang‘104 teaches an active layer (120, fig. 10; ¶ [0057]) and an insulating film (330, 140, fig. 10), but are not explicit on the claimed dimensions. While the cited prior art does not explicitly disclose the particular claimed value, the teachings therein would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to discover the claimed value during routine experimentation and optimization. The Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed values are for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e., the invention would not work without the specific claimed values). Also, the applicant has not shown that the claimed values produce a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. Thus, because it has been held that where “the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation" (see MPEP 2144.05; In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 223, 225 (CCPA 1955)), it would have been obvious to add the claimed values to the rest of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 MOHAMMAD M HOQUE whose telephone number is (571)272-6266. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-7PM 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, Kretelia Graham can be reached on (571) 272-5055. 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.
/MOHAMMAD M HOQUE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights