DETAILED ACTION
Request for Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/03/2025 has been entered.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Re claim 16, claim 16 requires “wherein a separation distance between the first electrode and the substrate is less than a separation distance between the second electrode and the substrate” which appears to be drawn to Applicant’s embodiment shown in Fig. 7; however, the independent claim 1 requires “an insulating portion…the insulating portion and the third electrode being at the same layer…wherein the insulating portion is in contact with a lower surface of the first electrode and a distal end portion of the second (currently being interpreted as the third electrode as explained below)” which appears to be drawn to Applicant’s embodiment(s) shown in Fig. 5 and/or Fig. 6.
Support for the limitations of claim 1 and claim 16 in a single embodiment does not appear to exist. That is, the claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The Examiner suggests cancelling claims 16 and 17.
Claims 1-11, 13-17, and 21 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.
Re claim 1, the last clause of claim 1 recites “…wherein the insulating portion is in contact with a lower surface of the first electrode and a distal end portion of the second electrode…” (emphasis added); however, based on Applicant’s specification and arguments, it appears Applicant intended the “second electrode” to be the “third electrode” and the application will be examined as such.
Interview Summary
While applicant’s representative agreed to an examiner’s amendment to replace “…a distal end portion of the second electrode…” with “…a distal end portion of the third electrode…” to put the application in condition for allowance; this amendment has not been entered by the Examiner; because, upon further review, the Examiner has found that the application is not in condition for allowance and has therefore not entered an Examiner’s Amendment. However, the Application has been examined interpreting “…a distal end portion of the second electrode…” as “…a distal end portion of the third electrode…” as described above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1, 2, 13, 15, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Heo et al. (US Pub. 2020/0051962).
Regarding independent claim 1, Heo teaches a display device (Figs. 4B; para. 0074+) comprising:
a first electrode (E2; para. 0086) and a second electrode (E1; para. 0086) disposed on above a substrate (BL1; para. 0074) (Fig. 4B);
at least one light-emitting element (ED; para. 0093) comprising:
a first semiconductor layer (SCN) including a semiconductor of a first type (n) (para. 0103, 0105);
a second semiconductor layer (SCP) including a semiconductor of a second type different from the first type (p) (para. 0103, 0105); and
an active layer (AL) disposed between the first semiconductor layer and the second semiconductor layer (para. 0103, 0105);
a connection electrode (CNE1) on the substrate that electrically connects the second electrode to the at least one light-emitting element (para. 0095);
a third electrode (CNE) above the substrate, electrically connected to the second electrode, having a portion disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode in a plan view, directly contacting a bottom surface of the second electrode, overlapping the at least one light emitting light-emitting element in a plan view (Fig. 4B; para. 0083); and
an insulating portion (L5) above the substrate, the insulating portion and the third electrode being at a same layer (Fig. 4B; para. 0084),
wherein at least a portion of an upper surface of the third electrode is not covered by the second electrode (Fig. 4B), the upper surface being overlapped with the light-emitting element in a plan view (Fig. 4B), and
wherein the insulating portion is in contact with a lower surface of the first electrode and a distal end portion of the second (currently being interpreted as the “third” for reasons described above) electrode (Fig. 4B).
Re claim 2, Heo teaches wherein the second electrode and the third electrode physically contact each other (Fig. 4B).
Re claim 13, Heo teaches wherein the first electrode is disposed on above the insulating portion (Fig. 4B), and wherein a separation distance between the first electrode and the substrate and a separation distance between the second electrode and the substrate are equal (Fig. 4B).
Re claim 15, Heo teaches further comprising a connection pattern above the substrate, the connection pattern and at a same layer as the third electrode (para. 0083).
Re claim 21, Heo teaches an electronic device comprising the display device of claim 1 (para. 0049).
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.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heo et al. (US Pub. 2020/0051962).
Re claim 14, Heo is silent with respect to the material of the third electrode (connection electrode (CNE)); however, Heo teaches the material of other connection electrodes (CNE1, CNE2) including a reflective material (para. 0123 – at least silver, aluminum, and copper meet this limitation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the same materials for the third electrode (connection electrode (CNE)) as connection electrodes (CNE1, CNE2) such that it included a reflective material as claimed with a reasonable expectation of success because Heo teaches these to be appropriate materials to use for connection electrodes. Furthermore, it is considered obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP 2144.07).
Claim(s) 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heo et al. (US Pub. 2020/0051962) in view of Lee (US Pub. 2020/0013929).
Re claim 4, Heo teaches wherein the first semiconductor layer is closer to the second electrode than to the first electrode (Fig. 4B, Figs. 5A-5C), wherein the second semiconductor layer is closer to the first electrode than to the second electrode (Fig. 4B, Figs. 5A-5C).
Heo teaches wherein a height of the first semiconductor layer is the same as a height of the second semiconductor layer in a direction from the first semiconductor layer to the second semiconductor layer.
Lee teaches a light-emitting device (Fig. 13) wherein a height of the first semiconductor layer (11) is greater than a height of the second semiconductor layer (13) in a direction from the first semiconductor layer to the second semiconductor layer (para. 0233).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to predictably substitute the light-emitting device of Heo with the light-emitting device of Lee to arrive at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success. It is considered obvious to substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143, I, B).
Re claim 5, Heo in view of Lee teaches wherein the first semiconductor layer includes an N-type semiconductor, and wherein the second semiconductor layer includes a P-type semiconductor (Heo para. 0105, Lee para. 0242, 0244).
Claim(s) 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heo et al. (US Pub. 2020/0051962) in view of Lee (US Pub. 2020/0013929) and further in view of Chang et al. (US Pub. 2021/0159250).
Re claim 6, Heo in view of Lee teaches does not teach wherein the second semiconductor layer overlaps the first electrode in a plan view.
Chang teaches a display device (Fig. 6) wherein the first and second semiconductor layer(s) of the light-emitting element (300) overlaps the analogous first and second electrode(s) (210, 220) in plan view (Fig. 6). Chang teaches that the overlap improves light emission (para. 0145).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the first electrode of Heo such that the second semiconductor layer overlaps the first electrode in a plan view as claimed for the purpose of improving light emission of the display.
Re claim 7, Heo in view of Lee teaches wherein the active layer is closer to the first electrode than to the second electrode in a plan view (Heo Fig. 4B, Figs. 5A-5D, Lee Fig. 13).
Potential Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 8, 9, 10, and 11 would be 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, assuming all 112 rejections were successfully overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of potential allowable subject matter: there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation from the prior art of record, nor does the prior art of record otherwise make obvious the limitations of…
Re claim 3, “…wherein the first electrode and the third electrode are spaced apart in the first direction…” because Heo teaches the first electrode and third electrode as overlapping and thus, not “spaced apart”.
Re claims 8 and 9, “…wherein the first electrode does not overlap the third electrode in a plan view…” because Heo teaches the first electrode and third electrode as overlapping.
Re claims 10 and 11, “…wherein the first electrode and the third electrode are spaced apart by a second distance…” because Heo teaches the first electrode and third electrode as overlapping and thus, not “spaced apart”.
…in combination with the other limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOLLY KAY REIDA whose telephone number is (571)272-4237. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00PM.
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, Brent Fairbanks can be reached at (408)918-7532. 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.
/MOLLY K REIDA/Examiner, Art Unit 2899