DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Amendment filed February 9, 2026.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a plurality of electrode” should be replaced with “a plurality of electrodes” on line 20. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 12-18 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 claims contain 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 inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
(1) Regarding claim 1, Applicants did not originally disclose the newly added limitations recited on lines 24-36, because (a) “the height difference” recited on lines 28, 31 and 34 should refer to “a height difference” recited on line 24, (b) however, Applicants did not originally disclose “the height difference between the first light-emitting element and the second light-emitting element is defined by a thickness difference of the active layer of the first light-emitting element and the active layer of the second light-emitting element” as recited on lines 28-30 since Applicants did not originally disclose that “a thickness difference of the active layer of the first light-emitting element and the active layer of the second light-emitting element” is the same with “a thickness difference of the first-type semiconductor layer of the first light-emitting element and the first-type semiconductor layer of the second light-emitting element” recited on lines 25-27 that defines “a height difference” recited on line 24, which should be the same with “the height difference” recited on line 28, and (c) likewise, Applicants did not originally disclose the newly added limitations recited on lines 31-36.
(2) Also regarding claim 1, Applicants did not originally disclose that “the height difference between the first light-emitting element and the second light-emitting element is defined by a thickness difference of at least one of the electrodes of the first light-emitting element and at least one of the electrodes of the second light-emitting element” as recited on lines 31-34, because (a) it appears that this limitation was derived from the thicknesses T240-1 and T240-2 shown in Figs. 7A-7C of current application, which are a pair of one thickness of T240-1 and one thickness of T240-2 rather than “at least one”, i.e. one or more, “of the electrodes of the first light-emitting element and at least one”, i.e. one or more, “of the electrodes of the second light-emitting element” as recited on lines 31-34, and (b) furthermore, Applicants did not originally disclose the difference in the thicknesses of any pair of other electrodes of the first and second light-emitting element is also the same with the difference of T240-2 and T240-1, which is required for more than one of the electrodes of the first light-emitting element and more than one of the electrodes of the second light-emitting element to have “the height difference”; for example, Applicants did not originally disclose that the two electrodes inside the oval shaped areas illustrated below have the thickness difference the same with the thickness difference of T240-2 and T240-1; if arguendo the two electrodes inside the oval shaped areas illustrated below have the same thickness difference with the thickness difference of T240-2 and T240-1, then instead of “at least one of electrodes of the first light-emitting element and at least one of the electrodes of the second light-emitting element” have “a thickness difference” recited on line 32, two electrodes of the first light-emitting element and two electrodes of the second light-emitting element have “a thickness difference” recited on line 32, rendering the amended claim 1 further noncompliant with the written description requirement since the amended claim 1 reciting “at least one electrodes of the first light-emitting element and at least one of the electrodes of the second light-emitting element” is broader than the original disclosure requiring two electrodes of the first light-emitting element and two electrodes of the second light-emitting element having the same thickness difference.
PNG
media_image1.png
520
782
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(3) Further regarding claim 1, Applicants did not originally disclose that “the height difference between the first light-emitting element and the second light-emitting element is defined by a thickness of a layer disposed on the die of the second light-emitting element” as recited on lines 34-36, because (a) this limitation appears to be directed to the embodiment shown in Figs. 2A-2C of current application, (b) however, “the height difference between the first light-emitting element and the second light-emitting element is” not “defined by a thickness of a layer disposed on the die of the second light-emitting element”, but rather is defined by a thickness difference between the color conversion pattern 260 and the light transmitting pattern 270 shown in Figs. 2A-2C of current application that are not parts of the first and second light-emitting element, and (c) therefore, the amended claim 1 reciting “the height difference between the first light-emitting element and the second light-emitting element” that was not originally disclosed fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 2-8 and 12-18 depend on claim 1, and therefore, claims 2-8 and 12-18 also fail to comply with the written description requirement.
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 1-8 and 12-18 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 applicants, regards as the invention.
(1) Regarding claim 1, it is not clear what “a repair light-emitting element” recited on line 14 refers to, because (a) once the claimed display apparatus is completed, the display apparatus itself cannot be repaired organically, spontaneously or automatically, (b) also, for Applicants to claim “a repair light-emitting element”, Applicants first need to claim which part or element is or will be broken down, and how the broken part or element is or will be repaired, (c) it is not clear whether there is any part or element that has already been broken down before the claimed display apparatus is completed, and thus needs a repair inside the claimed display apparatus before using the claimed display apparatus, or there will be any part or element that will be broken down, and thus will need a repair inside the claimed display apparatus, (d) if it is the former, it is not clear why the broken part or element remains is kept unrepaired inside the claimed display apparatus, (e) if it is the latter, it is not clear how one can predict which part or element will be broken down inside the claimed display apparatus since there would be numerous parts or elements that can be broken down, and thus need a repair, (f) without Applicants’ claiming any specific definition of “a repair light-emitting element”, even a single light-emitting element may or may not be “a repair light-emitting element” depending on which part or element is broken down before, during or after the claimed display apparatus is used, (g) furthermore, it is not clear whether the limitation “the second light-emitting element is a repair light-emitting element” suggests that the second light-emitting element would not be broken under any circumstances since when the second light-emitting element is broken down before, during or after the claimed display apparatus is used, the second light-emitting element cannot be referred to as “a repair light-emitting element”, and (h) therefore, it appears that the limitation “a repair light-emitting element” is directed to an intended use of the second light-emitting element, which may not come true, rendering the amended claim 1 indefinite since before an unspecified part or element is broken down, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to tell whether the second light-emitting element is “a repair light-emitting element” or not, or the limitation “a repair light-emitting element” does not break down under any circumstances or does not repair anything when the second light-emitting element itself becomes out of order.
(2) Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: how “a repair light-emitting element” recited on line 14 is constituted and positioned with respect to an unspecified light-emitting element that the repair light-emitting element repairs or replaces, because (a) it does not appear that any (second) light-emitting element would be able to constitute the claimed “repair light-emitting element”, (b) it is not clear which light-emitting element “a repair light-emitting element” repairs or replaces, (c) it is not clear whether “a repair light-emitting element” should be identical in its device structure to an unspecified light-emitting element that “a repair light-emitting element” repairs or replaces, or whether “a repair light-emitting element” can be different in its device structure from the unspecified light-emitting element, (d) if it is the latter, it is not clear whether “a repair light-emitting element” emits light with a spectrum and a peak wavelength identical to the unspecified light-emitting element that “a repair light-emitting element” repairs or replaces since if “a repair light-emitting element” emits light with a spectrum and a peak wavelength different from the unspecified light-emitting element that “a repair light-emitting element” repairs or replaces, it is not clear how that repair or replacement can be referred to as “a repair”, and (e) it is not clear whether “a repair light-emitting element” should be in proximity with an unspecified light-emitting element, and if so, how close “a repair light-emitting element” should be to the unspecified light-emitting element.
(3) Further regarding claim 1, it is not clear what the limitation “the height difference between the first light-emitting element and the second light-emitting element is defined by a thickness of a layer disposed on the die of the second light-emitting element” recited on lines 34-36 suggests, because (a) Applicants have already claimed that “each of the first light-emitting element and the second light-emitting element comprises a die” on lines 19-20, (b) therefore, “a layer disposed on the die of the second light-emitting element (emphasis added)” recited on lines 35-36 is not a part of the second light-emitting element, and (c) however, Applicants claim that “the height difference between the first light-emitting element and the second light-emitting element is defined by a thickness of a layer disposed on the die of the second light-emitting element”, i.e. the claimed height difference between the first light-emitting element and the second light-emitting element is defined by a thickness of “a layer” that is not a part of the second light-emitting element, which does not appear to make a logical sense.
Claims 2-8 and 12-18 depend on claim 1, and therefore, claims 2-8 and 12-18 are also indefinite.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Danesh et al. (US 11,430,830)
Thompson (US 9,941,262)
Wang et al. (US 11,769,685)
Gardner et al. (US 10,177,123)
Chen et al. (US 11,264,537)
Li et al. (US 2016/0111605)
Weng et al. (US 2014/0209930)
Applicants' amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicants are 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 JAY C KIM whose telephone number is (571) 270-1620. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 6:00 PM 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.
/JAY C KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
/J. K./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815 August 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights