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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-5,7-9,11-12,14-23 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.
This rejection is provided in view of applicant’s argument provided 8/12/2025. Applicant has argued that nano-column and nano-wire LEDs were not common knowledge. Applicant has figure 2 which is stated to be a nanowire/nanocolumn but has given no fixed definition of what scale constitutes a nanowire or nanocolumn. There is no fix definition of nanoscale or when a device is a ”nano-wire” or “nano-column.” Thus, a determination of what is and is not covered by a nano-wire and nano-column LED cannot be determined since the term is not well known and nano-scale is arbitrary.
This was previously understood to be understood e.g. Dupont (20190165040) and Schneider (20170323925) both of which cited on the ids. However, applicant argument makes the standard unclear and thus the term in the claim is indefinite.
As to claim 11 Applicant has not linked the outer periphery to the elements already claimed it is unclear how the out periphery relates to the reflector and light emitting element.
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) 1,5,7,9,11,14-15 16, 17, 20-21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo in view/evidenced by Dupont (20190165040) and Schneider (20170323925) both of which cited on the ids.
As to claim 1 and 17 Seo teaches A light-emitting device, comprising: a support member having one surface (figures 5-6 item 117-101); a light-emitting element provided on the one surface of the support member (item 300); a wavelength conversion section disposed in parallel with the light-emitting element on the one surface of the support member (item 522 paragraph 93); and a light reflective member disposed to be opposed to the light-emitting element with the wavelength conversion section interposed therebetween (item 400 paragraph 65), the light reflective member forming a light reflective surface inclined relative to the one surface of the support member (see item 400 relative to the surface of item 117).
The office has previously stated that nano-column and nano-wire devices were known. Applicant contests this, this creates issues (112b above). However, Applicant has previously cited Dupont which uses nanowire devices and specifically set forth definitions (paragraphs 60-65) for LEDs in a display (paragraphs 2 and 3). Likewise, Schneider teaches a display ( title with) nano-wire device (figure 3 and setting forth definition of sizes of nanowires (paragraph 69).
As such as stated in the previous office action: Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide LED of Seo as a nanocolumnar LED to allow for miniaturization and allow integration of more LEDs. Further the nanocolumnar LEDs are functionally the same as the LED for providing light.
b. As to claims 5 and 23, Seo teaches further comprising a partition wall disposed on the one surface of the support member and surrounding a periphery of the light-emitting element and the reflector is partition wall (figure 12 item 400).
c. As to claim 7 Seo teaches, wherein the light-emitting element comprises multiple light-emitting elements, which are provided on the one surface of the support member, and the multiple light-emitting elements are separated from each other by the partition wall (figure 12). Applicant does not set forth that the number of elements in each group Seo teaches multiple group (each group having one LED) of a plurality LEDs the two LEDs. Further it is noted Dupont teaches multiple nanowire LEDs per region.
d. As to claims 9, Seo teaches multiple pixels figure 12. Seo teaches pixels with downconverters and pixels without (figure 5 and 6 vs figure 3) but does not explicitly teach pixel according to claim 1 for red with corresponding converter and a pixel for green according to claim 1 for corresponding converter and a blue pixel according to claim 1 with no downconverter.
However, RGB displays are known and R(ed)G(reen)B(lue) were obtained by providing blue light emitters and down converting as necessary. (See e.g. Dupont abstract paragraph 58, 61 and 97)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the display of Seo with RGB by providing a pixel according to claim 1 for red with corresponding converter and a pixel for green according to claim 1 for corresponding converter and a blue pixel according to claim 1 with no downconverter to provide a full color display.
e. As to claim 11, Seo teaches wherein the wavelength conversion section is provided across an entire outer periphery of the light-emitting element in a plan view (the periphery defined as the region where 52 is located).
f. As to claim 14-15, and 20-21 Seo does not explicitly teach the converters are cadmium free quantum dots.
Dupont teaches using quantum dots for down converting (abstract and paragraphs 58,61, and 97).
Applicant does not teach how to make cadmium free quantum dots. Thus, cadmium free quantum dots must have been known at the time for down converting light and to prevent health concerns due the cadmium in the material. Further quantum dots downconverters were known to be highly efficient compared to phosphors like YAG. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide cadmium free quantum dots as the downconverters in 52 to improve efficiency of conversion and to prevent health risks due to cadmium.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakabayashi in view/evidenced by Dupont (20190165040) and Schneider (20170323925) both of which cited on the ids.
As to claims 1-3 and 17-19,Nakabayashi teaches A light-emitting device, comprising: a support member having one surface (figure 3 item 200); a light-emitting element provided on the one surface of the support member (item 31); a wavelength conversion section disposed in parallel with the light-emitting element on the one surface of the support member (item 34 paragraph 51); and a light reflective member disposed to be opposed to the light-emitting element with the wavelength conversion section interposed therebetween (item 21a paragraph 40), the light reflective member forming a light reflective surface inclined relative to the one surface of the support member (see figure 3). further comprising a light reflective film above the light-emitting element and wherein the light reflective film extends from above the light-emitting element to a portion of the wavelength conversion section (items 26 and 35 paragraphs 25 and 54).
Dupont teaches using nanowire devices and specifically set forth definitions (paragraphs 60-65) for LEDs in a display (paragraphs 2 and 3). Likewise, Schneider teaches a display ( title with) nano-wire device (figure 3 and setting forth definition of sizes of nanowires (paragraph 69).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide LED of Nakabayashi as a nanocolumnar LED to allow for miniaturization and allow integration of more LEDs. Further the nanocolumnar LEDs are functionally the same as the LED for providing light.
b. As to claim 4, Nakabayashi teaches wherein the wavelength conversion section and the light reflective member are each disposed on both sides with the light-emitting element interposed therebetween (Figure 3 item 34 on all sides of the light emitter).
Claim(s) 2-3 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo in view of Nakabayashi (20210247052) in view of Dupont and Schneider.
AS to claims 2-3 and 18-19, Seo teaches a light blocker above the light emitting element (item 530)
As to claims 2-3 Seo in view of Dupont/Schneider does not explicitly teach further comprising a light reflective film above the light-emitting element and wherein the light reflective film extends from above the light-emitting element to a portion of the wavelength conversion section.
Nakabayashi teaches, A light-emitting device, comprising: a support member having one surface (figure 3 item 200); a light-emitting element provided on the one surface of the support member (item 31); a wavelength conversion section disposed in parallel with the light-emitting element on the one surface of the support member (ITEM 34 paragraph 51); and a light reflective member disposed to be opposed to the light-emitting element with the wavelength conversion section interposed therebetween (item 21a paragraph 40), the light reflective member forming a light reflective surface inclined relative to the one surface of the support member (see figure 3). further comprising a light reflective film above the light-emitting element and wherein the light reflective film extends from above the light-emitting element to a portion of the wavelength conversion section (items 26 and 35 paragraphs 25 and 54).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have form 530 of Seo as a reflector to recycle light and improve output from the pixel/subpixel.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo in view of Dupont/Schneider in view of Chan 2012019230.
As to claim 8, Seo in view of Dupont/Schneider does not explicitly teach herein a wall surface of the partition wall provided between the multiple light-emitting elements is provided vertically to the one surface of the support member.
Chan teaches having asymmetric wall with different slopes 54 and 56 figures 1-6.
Thus absent some unexpected showing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide at least on wall between the Light emitters to be vertical to provide the desired guiding of light for the device and to reduce the space between light emitters shallower angles mean the spacing between pixels is larger.
Claim(s) 12, 16, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo in view of Dupont/Schneider in view of Hung 201660101408.
As to claim 12 16 and 22, Seo in view of Dupont/Schneider does not teach a light reflecting metal.
Hung teaches providing a heat dissipation in the cavity outside the light emitter including on the inclines of the reflector items 250 on 260; 260 being a reflecting metal (paragraph 17).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a metal reflector with an additional heat dissipation layer to improve heat dissipation and reflectivity of the cavity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has argued that nano-wire and nano column LED were not well known at the time of filing. This argument is problematic Applicant does not give a fixed definition of when a device structure meets a nano-wire or nano-columnar size. Though applicant depict what applicant defines as a nano-wire and nano-column device in figure 2 there are no scale provided within the disclosure. The term “nano” has no fixed definition in the art as such the term is indefinite and has no meaning in a vacuum. The only way the term makes sense in the specification is if there existed nano-wire and nano-column LEDs at the time of filing. Further Dupont (20190165040) and Schneider (20170323925) both of which cited on the ids already teach nano-wire LEDs. Thus, the arguments are not found persuasive and the rejection is maintained in view of Dupont (20190165040) and Schneider (20170323925) both of which cited on the ids. Further 20140293186 own by Sony assignee cites paragraph 45 and 57 a nano-wire LED was known as of 2014.
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 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 MATTHEW L REAMES whose telephone number is (571)272-2408. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:00 am-4:00 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, William F. Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
/MATTHEW L. REAMES/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896
/MATTHEW L REAMES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896