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 .
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed December 11, 2025 have been entered and considered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, Species 1A, Claims 1-4, 6-8 in the reply filed on July 1, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 5, and 9-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention and Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 1, 2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 9153622 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Kim et al. teaches:
A light-emitting element comprising:
a first semiconductor layer [122, Col. 5, Lines 12-23, Fig. 3] doped with an n-type dopant;
a second semiconductor layer [126, Col. 5, Lines 43-55, Fig. 3] disposed on the first semiconductor layer [122, Fig. 3] and doped with a p-type dopant;
a light-emitting layer [124, Col. 5, Lines 24-42, Fig. 3] disposed between the first [122, Fig. 3] and second [126, Fig. 3] semiconductor layers;
an electrode layer [130, Col. 6, Lines 36-50, Fig. 3] disposed on the second semiconductor layer [126, Fig. 3];
an insulating film [140, Col. 6, Lines 51-58, Fig. 3] surrounding at least an outer surface of the light-emitting layer [124, Fig. 3];
a void [area corresponding to 102, Col. 8, Lines 7-13, Fig. 3] formed on the first semiconductor layer [122, Fig. 3], the void [area corresponding to 102, Fig. 3] extending in a direction in which the first semiconductor layer [122, Fig. 3], the light-emitting layer [124, Fig. 3], and the second semiconductor layer [126, Fig. 3] are disposed, and a filler layer [140 in area corresponding to 102, Col. 6, Lines 52-59; Col. 8, Lines 7-22 and 35-39, Fig. 3] disposed in the void [area corresponding to 102, Fig. 3], the filler layer [140 in area corresponding to 102, Col. 8, Lines 52-59, Fig. 3] comprising an insulating material.
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.
Claims 2-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 9153622 B2), in view of Kim et al. (US 20150325621 A1), hereby referred to as Kim ‘621.
Regarding claim 2, Kim et al. teaches the light-emitting element of claim 1.
Kim et al. further teaches:
the filler layer [140 in area corresponding to 102, Col. 6, Lines 52-59; Col. 8, Lines 7-22 and 35-39, Fig. 3].
Kim et al. does not teach:
wherein a specific gravity of the filler layer is lower than each of a specific gravity of the first semiconductor layer, a specific gravity of the light-emitting layer, and a specific gravity of the second semiconductor layer.
Kim ’621 teaches:
wherein a specific gravity of the filler layer [60i, paragraph [0036], Fig. 2] is lower than each of a specific gravity of the first semiconductor layer [53, paragraph [0069], Fig. 2, 12], a specific gravity of the light-emitting layer [55, paragraph [0069], Fig. 2, 12], and a specific gravity of the second semiconductor layer [57, paragraph [0069], Fig. 2, 12].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Kim ‘621 into the teachings of Kim et al. to include wherein a specific gravity of the filler layer is lower than each of a specific gravity of the first semiconductor layer, a specific gravity of the light-emitting layer, and a specific gravity of the second semiconductor layer, for the purpose of decreasing density, and improving production and cost efficiency.
Regarding claim 3, Kim et al. and Kim ‘621 teach the light-emitting element of claim 2.
Kim et al. further teaches:
The insulating material of the filler layer [140 in area corresponding to 102, Col. 6, Lines 52-59, Fig. 3].
Kim et al. does not teach:
wherein the insulating material of the filler layer is different from the insulating film.
Kim ‘621 teaches:
wherein the insulating material of the filler layer [60i, paragraph [0036], Fig. 2] is different from the insulating film [61, paragraph [0038], Fig. 2].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Kim ‘621 into the teachings of Kim et al. and Kim ‘621 to include wherein the insulating material of the filler layer is different from the insulating film, for the purpose of preventing short circuits, and improving heat resistance and performance
Regarding claim 4, Kim et al. and Kim ‘621 teach the light-emitting element of claim 3.
Kim et al. further teaches:
the insulating film [140, Col. 6, Lines 51-58, Fig. 3] includes at least one of silicon oxide, silicon nitride, and silicon oxynitride.
Kim et al. does not teach:
the filler layer includes polyimide.
Kim ‘621 teaches:
the filler layer [60i, paragraph [0036], Fig. 2] includes polyimide.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Kim ‘621 into the teachings of Kim et al. and Kim ‘621 to include the filler layer includes polyimide, for the purpose of improving performance, lifespan and operation. Polyimide has high temperature resistance, high mechanical strength, high electrical insulation to prevent short circuits, high chemical resistance, and high versatility and stability.
Regarding claim 6, Kim et al. and Kim ‘621 teach the light-emitting element of claim 2.
Kim et al. further teaches:
the void [area corresponding to 102, Col. 8, Lines 7-15, Fig. 3] penetrates the light-emitting layer [124, Fig. 3] and the second semiconductor layer [126, Fig. 3] and is formed by etching part of the first semiconductor layer [122, Col. 5, Lines 56-65, Fig. 3].
the filler layer [140 in area corresponding to 102, Col. 8, Lines 16-22, Fig. 3] is in contact with the first semiconductor layer [122, Fig. 3], the light-emitting layer [124, Fig. 3], and the second semiconductor layer [126, Fig. 3].
Regarding claim 7, Kim et al. and Kim ‘621 teach the light-emitting element of claim 6.
Kim et al. further teaches:
wherein a top surface of the filler layer [140 in area corresponding to 102, Col. 7, Lines 17-20; Col. 8, Lines 4-6,16-22, and 35-39, Fig. 3] physically contacts a bottom surface of the electrode layer [160-1, Fig. 3].
Regarding claim 8, Kim et al. and Kim ‘621 teach the light-emitting element of claim 6.
Kim et al. further teaches:
wherein the void [area corresponding to 102, Fig. 3] and the filler layer [140 in area corresponding to 102, Col. 6, Lines 52-59; Col. 8, Lines 7-22 and 35-39, Fig. 3] are shorter than the light-emitting element [120, Col. 5, Lines 4-11, Fig. 3]
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 11, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on pages 1-6, in remarks filed December 11, 2025 that primary reference Kim et al. (US 9153622 B2), fails to teach the amended limitation: “a filler layer disposed in the void, the filler layer comprising an insulating material”. This argument is not persuasive because after a new line of search and consideration of the prior art, it can be seen that Kim et al. teaches an insulating layer [140, Fig. 3] in the void [area corresponding to 102, Fig. 3]. Examiner agrees with Applicant regarding a connection electrode [160-1, Fig. 3] also being disposed in the void [102, Fig. 3], and how replacing the connection electrode [160-1, Fig. 3] with an insulating layer would cause the device of Kim et al. (US 9153622 B2) to not function properly. However, insulating layer [140, Fig. 3] is also disposed in the void [area corresponding to 102, Fig. 3]. Although Kim et al. (US 9153622 B2) does not teach “wherein a specific gravity of the filler layer is lower than each of a specific gravity of the first semiconductor layer, a specific gravity of the light-emitting layer, and a specific gravity of the second semiconductor layer.”; this limitation from claim 2 is taught in secondary reference Kim ‘621 (US 20150325621 A1). One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Kim et al. (US 9153622 B2), with Kim ‘621 (US 20150325621 A1) for the purpose of creating a less dense device, and improving production and cost efficiency. Although Kim et al. (US 9153622 B2) does not teach “the filler layer includes an insulating material different from the insulating film”; this limitation from claim 3 is taught in Kim ‘621 (US 20150325621 A1). One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Kim et al. (US 9153622 B2), with Kim ‘621 (US 20150325621 A1) for the purpose of preventing short circuits, and improving heat resistance and improving performance.
MPEP 2145 (IV) ARGUING AGAINST REFERENCES INDIVIDUALLY states: One cannot show nonobviousness 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., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Where a rejection of a claim is based on two or more references, a reply that is limited to what a subset of the applied references teaches or fails to teach, or that fails to address the combined teaching of the applied references may be considered to be an argument that attacks the reference(s) individually. Where an applicant’s reply establishes that each of the applied references fails to teach a limitation and addresses the combined teachings and/or suggestions of the applied prior art, the reply as a whole does not attack the references individually as the phrase is used in Keller and reliance on Keller would not be appropriate. This is because "[T]he test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to [a PHOSITA]." In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1333, 103 USPQ2d 1219, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
For at least the reasons mentioned above, the amended limitations of independent claim 1, and dependent claims 2-3 can be overcome by previously cited primary reference Kim et al. (US 9153622 B2), and previously cited secondary reference Kim ‘621 (US 20150325621 A1). All claims directly or indirectly dependent on independent claim 1 are also rejected for at least the reasons mentioned 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 DAVID MICHAEL HELBERG whose telephone number is (571)270-1422. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 8am-5pm 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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at (571)270-1435. 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.
/D.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2815 02/25/2026
/MONICA D HARRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815