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 .
Drawings
The drawing objection of the last Office action is rescinded. The applicant has added Figures 3-6 to overcome the objection. No matter has been added.
Specification
The instant Specification has been amended on page 4, lines 6 and 14; page 10, line 7; and page 11, line 13 relative to the newly added drawings, Figures 3-6. No matter has been added.
Response to Amendment/Claim Status
Claims 1-11 are currently pending. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 12-14 were previously been canceled.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buretea et al (US 2009/0075468 A1-prior art of record, hereafter Buretea) in view of Banin et al (US 2011/0299001 A1-prior art of record, hereafter Banin).
Re claim 1, Buretea discloses in FIGS. 6A-6C and 20 a method of producing a light-emitting diode having polarized emission, comprising:
applying a liquid (608 in FIG. 6B; [0118]), in which elongated semiconductor nanoparticles (606 in FIG. 6B; [0069]-[0071] and [0112]) are dispersed, to a surface (upper plane) of a substrate (602; [0119]), at least two electrodes (positive/negative; [0166]) across the liquid (608) dispersed with the elongated semiconductor nanoparticles (606), and aligning ([0119] and [0165]-[0166]) the elongated semiconductor nanoparticles (606) applied to the surface (upper plane) of a substrate (602) in an electrical field (DC electric field; [0166]) generated by the electrodes (positive/negative);
transferring (FIG. 6C; [0125]-[0126] and [0129]) the aligned elongated semiconductor nanoparticles (606) from the surface (upper plane) of a substrate (602) to a surface (2008 in FIG. 20; [0159]) of a semifinished light-emitting diode (LED of displays/light sources; [0158] and [0162]); and
completing the light-emitting diode (LED of displays/light sources) by mounting one or more components (2004 and/or unseen components of LED of displays/light sources; [0158]-[0159] and [0162]) on the semifinished light-emitting diode (LED of displays/light sources) containing the elongated semiconductor nanoparticles (606).
Buretea fails to disclose applying the liquid, in which elongated semiconductor nanoparticles are dispersed, to a surface of a substrate containing at least two electrodes.
However,
Banin discloses in FIG. 5a a method of producing a light-emitting diode having polarized emission, comprising: applying a liquid (solution; [0013] and [0094]), in which elongated semiconductor nanoparticles (CdS rods; [0094]) are dispersed ([0094]), to a surface (unspecified plane; [0094]) of a substrate (unseen silicon substrate; [0094]), the substrate (unseen silicon substrate) containing at least two electrodes (102; [0094]), and aligning ([0094]) the elongated semiconductor nanoparticles (CdS rods) applied to the surface (unspecified plane) of the substrate (unseen silicon substrate) in an electrical field (E; [0094]) generated by the electrodes (102).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Buretea by using the teaches of Banin, where the substrate contains at least two electrodes, in order to form a variety multi-layered display devices comprising polarized light emission (Banin; [0010]).
With respect to the limitations aligning the elongated semiconductor nanoparticles applied to the surface of the substrate in an electrical field generated by the electrodes until the liquid, in which the elongated semiconductor nanoparticles are dispersed, has evaporated, the examiner contends that both Buretea and Banin disclose aligning elongated semiconductor nanoparticles applied to the surface of the substrate in an electrical field generated by the electrodes until the liquid (e.g. a solvent), in which the elongated semiconductor nanoparticles are dispersed, has evaporated (Buretea: Example 2; [0185] and Banin: [0042] and [0095]).
Therefore, the newly added limitations to claim 1 are rendered obvious by either Buretea or Banin.
Re Claim 2, Buretea discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the elongated semiconductor nanoparticles (606) are semiconductor nanorods (carbon nanotubes; [0069]-[0071] and [0112]) or semiconductor nanowires ([0069]-[0071] and [0112]).
Re Claim 3, Buretea and Banin disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the electrodes (102 of Banin) are present on the surface (upper plane) of the substrate (602), as would be part of the multi-layered display devices comprising polarized light emission discussed for claim 1.
Re Claim 6, Buretea and Banin disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the electrodes (102 of Banin) are in a mutually superposed arrangement (stacked and separated from each other in planar view of FIG. 5A of Banin), as would be part of the multi-layered display devices comprising polarized light emission discussed for claim 1.
Re Claim 7, Buretea and Banin disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the electrical field (E of Banin) is an electrical alternating field (Banin: AC voltage; [0094]) as an alternative to a direct current (DC) electrical field, as would be part of the multi-layered display devices comprising polarized light emission discussed for claim 1.
Re Claim 11, Buretea discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the transfer comprises applying multiple layers (e.g. doping, metallization and device fabrication steps; [0124]) to the aligned elongated semiconductor nanoparticles (606) present on the surface (upper plane) of a substrate (602), where these layers (e.g. doping, metallization and device fabrication steps) form the semifinished light-emitting diode (LED of displays/light sources), and then removing ([0124]-[0125]) the substrate (602) from the semifinished light-emitting diode (LED of displays/light sources), with the elongated semiconductor nanoparticles (606) remaining at least partly on the surface (2008) of the semifinished light-emitting diode (LED of displays/light sources).
For the record, the examiner is interpreting the surface (2008) of the semifinished light-emitting diode (LED of displays/light sources) of FIG. 20 to be formed according to FIGS 6A-6C of Buretea, and subsequent layers (2006 and/or 2004) to be likewise formed according to FIGS 6A-6C, and applying the multiple layers (e.g. doping, metallization and device fabrication steps) to the aligned elongated semiconductor nanoparticles (606) of subsequent layers (2006/2004) present on the surface (upper plane) of their respective substrate (602).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buretea and Banin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen (US 2019/0165291 A1-prior art of record).
Re Claims 4-5, Buretea and Banin disclose the method of claim 1.
But, fails to disclose wherein at least one of the electrodes is embedded into the substrate; and wherein the electrodes are branched and form an interdigitated electrode arrangement.
However,
Chen discloses in FIGS. 4 and 5 a method of producing a light-emitting diode having polarized emission, comprising: wherein at least one electrode (1061/1062 in FIG. 5; [0063]) for aligning elongated semiconductor nanoparticles (rods 103’) is embedded into a substrate (laminate 101/105; [0062] and [0065]); and wherein electrodes (1061/1062) are branched and form an interdigitated electrode arrangement (staggered; [0063]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Buretea and Banin by using the electrode formation(s) of Chen for the electrode formation(s) of Buretea and Banin, such that at least one of the electrodes is embedded into the substrate; and wherein the electrodes are branched and form an interdigitated electrode arrangement, in order provide specific orientation to the elongated semiconductor nanoparticles of the light emitting diode, the devices comprising the elongated semiconductor nanoparticles having the advantages of low energy consumption, less heat generation, long lifetime and the like, as well as the advantages of high light color purity, high luminescence quantum efficiency, tunable color of light emitted, long service life and the like (Chen; [0003]).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buretea and Banin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rizzo et al (ACS Nano, Vol. 3, No. 6, 1506-1512, published 5/15/2009 – IDS prior art, hereafter Rizzo).
Re Claims 8-9, Buretea and Banin disclose the method of claim 1.
But, fail to disclose wherein the transfer comprises transferring the aligned elongated semiconductor nanoparticles (606) from the surface (upper plane) of the substrate (602) to a surface of an intermediate carrier and then from the surface of the intermediate carrier to the surface of the semifinished light-emitting diode (LED of displays/light sources); and wherein the intermediate carrier is a stamp, a heat-detachable adhesive tape or a polymer film.
However,
Rizzo et al discloses in FIGS. 1 and 5a transferring the aligned (ordered) elongated semiconductor nanoparticles (CdSe/CdS nanorods; page 1507, cols. 1-2) from a surface (upper plane) of a substrate (water; page 1507, cols. 1-2) to a surface (bottom plane) of an intermediate carrier (PDMS stamp pad; page 1507, cols. 1-2) and then from the surface (bottom plane) of the intermediate carrier (PDMS stamp pad; page 1510, cols. 1-2) to the surface of an semifinished light-emitting diode (hybrid LED; page 1510, cols. 1-2); and wherein the intermediate carrier is a stamp (PDMS stamp pad; page 1506, col. 2 and page 1507, cols. 1-2), a heat-detachable adhesive tape or a polymer film (PDMS; page 1506, col. 2 and page 1507, cols. 1-2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Buretea and Banin by using the transfer method of Rizzo, comprising transferring the aligned elongated semiconductor nanoparticles from the surface of the substrate to a surface of an intermediate carrier and then from the surface of the intermediate carrier to the surface of the semifinished light-emitting diode; and wherein the intermediate carrier is a stamp, a heat-detachable adhesive tape or a polymer film, in order to preserve the long-range order of the aligned elongated semiconductor nanoparticles for fabrication of multilayered hybrid LEDs with strongly polarized light along the alignment direction (Rizzo; page 1506, col. 2).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buretea and Banin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shim (US 2010/0047151 A1-prior art of record).
Re Claim 10, Buretea and Banin disclose disclose the method of claim 1.
But, fail to disclose wherein the transfer comprises contacting the surface of the substrate (602) on which the aligned elongated semiconductor nanoparticles (606) are present with the surface of the semifinished light-emitting diode (LED of displays/light sources) and then removing the substrate (602) from the semifinished light-emitting diode (LED of displays/light sources), with the elongated semiconductor nanoparticles (606) remaining at least partly on the surface of the semifinished light-emitting diode (LED of displays/light sources).
However,
Shim discloses in FIGS. 1-16 a method of producing a light-emitting diode having polarized emission, comprising: applying a liquid (500 in FIG. 5; [0025]), in which elongated semiconductor nanoparticles (carbon nanotubes 520; [0025]-[0026]) are dispersed ([0025]), to a surface (exposed planes and inner sidewalls) of a substrate (laminate 100/200; [0023]), and
partially removing (FIG. 16; [0034]) part of substrate (100/200) leaving a remnant substrate (ITO 600; [0034]), with the elongated semiconductor nanoparticles (520) remaining at least partly on the surface of the remnant substrate (ITO 600).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Buretea and Banin to include transferring the remnant substrate (600) to the semifinished light-emitting diode (LED of displays/light sources) for handing and protection from wear and tear (Shim; [0034]), then removing a portion (bottom; [0034]) of the remnant substrate, with the elongated semiconductor nanoparticles remaining at least partly on the surface of the remnant substrate to transmit at least a portion of light rays (Shim; [0034]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reason(s):
A. For claim 1, the applicant argues that the combination of Buretea and Banin fails to disclose aligning elongated semiconductor nanoparticles applied to the surface of the substrate in an electrical field generated by the electrodes until the liquid (e.g. a solvent), in which the elongated semiconductor nanoparticles are dispersed, has evaporated.
The examiner, respectfully, disagrees and points out as discussed above, that Buretea and Banin disclose aligning elongated semiconductor nanoparticles applied to the surface of the substrate in an electrical field generated by the electrodes until the liquid (e.g. a solvent), in which the elongated semiconductor nanoparticles are dispersed, has evaporated (Buretea: Example 2; [0185] and Banin: [0042] and [0095]).
And, therefore, the newly added limitations to claim 1 are rendered obvious by either Buretea or Banin.
Further, the applicant’s arguments that Banin’s disclosure of aligning elongated semiconductor nanoparticles in an electric field for light-emission are not germane to its disclosure of aligning elongated semiconductor nanoparticles, which is what the examiner is relying on for the rejection of claim 1. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
B. For claim 10, the applicant argues that Shim fails to cure perceived deficiencies of Buretea or Banin with respect to the newly added limitations to claim 1, as well as failing to disclose that the nano-materials are transferred from the substrate, let alone to a surface of a semifinished LED.
However, the examiner responds by pointing out that Shim is not being relied for rejecting claim 1, but for rejecting claim 10 by disclosing a transfer procedure that comprises contacting the surface of the substrate (602) on which the aligned elongated semiconductor nanoparticles (606) are present with the surface of the semifinished light-emitting diode (LED of displays/light sources) and then removing the substrate (602) from the semifinished light-emitting diode (LED of displays/light sources), with the elongated semiconductor nanoparticles (606) remaining at least partly on the surface of the semifinished light-emitting diode (LED of displays/light sources) as discussed above.
Therefore, the applicant’s arguments about Shim’s failing to disclose that the nano-materials are transferred from the substrate, let alone to a surface of a semifinished LED are not germane to claim 10.
C. Lastly, for dependent claims 4-5 and 8-9, the applicant does not present arguments against their rejections, rather a statement that the prior art used in their rejections does not cure any deficiencies of the art used to reject claim 1. Therefore, the examiner will offer no response at this time beyond the rebuttal of the arguments against the rejection of claim 1.
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 ERIC W JONES whose telephone number is (408)918-9765. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 AM - 6:00 PM PT.
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, N. Drew Richards can be reached at (571) 272-1736. 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.
/ERIC W JONES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2892