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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species 2 in the reply filed on 3/2/26 is acknowledged.
Species 2 discloses that first and second insulating layers have the same polarities (fixed positive or fixed negative charges).
Claim 10 was not withdrawn with the election of species.
Claim 10 is directed towards non-elected species 1 where the first and second insulating layers have the different polarities (i.e. fixed positive or fixed negative charges).
Therefore, claim 10 will be treated as withdrawn because it reads on a non-elected species.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a thickness of the second insulating layer which is exposed by the first insulating layer is smaller than a thickness of the second insulating layer which is not exposed by the first insulating layer” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 19-20 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.
Claim 19 discloses “a thickness of the second insulating layer which is exposed by the first insulating layer”.
Claim 20 discloses “ the second insulating layer exposes a part of the first insulating layer”.
First the examiner does not understand claim 19. The examiner is unclear on how the first insulating layer exposes the thickness of the second insulating layer. MPEP 2173.06 II discloses “ there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In reSteele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.” Therefore prior art will not be applied to the claims.
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, 7, 8 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Do et al. (US 2014/0155237) in view of Lee et al. (US 2002/0106536).
Do et al disclose a light emitting element core comprising a first semiconductor layer (11, 140), a second semiconductor layer disposed on the first semiconductor layer (13, 142), and an element active layer (12, 141) disposed between the first semiconductor layer and the second semiconductor layer; a first insulating layer (80, 150) (SiO2 [0076]) formed on a side surface of the light emitting element core to surround the side surface of the light emitting element core and a second layer (90, 160)disposed to surround an outer surface of the first insulating layer (fig. 9, fig 14).
Do et al. fails to disclose the first insulation layer having a first fixed charge; and a second insulating layer disposed to surround an outer surface of the first insulating layer and a second insulating layer containing a material having a second fixed charge different from the first fixed charge.
Lee et al. disclose the first insulation layer (silicon oxide or hafnium oxide)[0058] having a first fixed charge a second insulating layer (aluminum oxide) [0058] containing a material having a second fixed charge different from the first fixed charge.
The combination of Do et al. and Lee et al. would result in the second insulating layer (Lee et al.) taking the place of the second surrounding layer (Do et al.) the outer surface of the first insulating layer.
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (using a first and second insulation layers), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (i.e. the insulation layer will minimize surface defects of the subminiature LED element, which improves life cycle and efficiency [Do, 0075] and second insulation layer will protect the first insulation layer [specification 0034].)
Regarding claims 7 and 8, the combination of Do and Lee et al. disclose the first insulating layer is (SiO2 [0076, Do]) and the second insulating layer is (aluminum oxide, Lee [0048]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Do disclose the first insulating layer (80, 150) (SiO2 [0076]) is disposed directly on side surfaces of the first semiconductor layer(11, 140), the second semiconductor layer(13, 142), and the element active layer(12, 141) (fig. 9, fig 14).
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Do et al. (US 2014/0155237) in view of Lee et al. (US 2002/0106536) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Ma et al. (US 2020/0185501).
The combination of Do and Lee et al. disclose invention supra.
The combination of Do and Lee et al. fail to disclose the fixed charge is the same polarity as the second fixed charge.
Ma et al. disclose dielectric materials can be created to have positive fixed charges and negative fixed charges [0058] and figure 2 discloses dielectrics that can either have fixed positive charges or fixed negative charges.
Ma could be used to make both the first dielectric (ie silicon oxide or hafnium oxide) and the second dielectric (ie aluminum oxide) have either fixed positive charges or fixed negative charges (i.e. same polarity).
The examiner submits this would mean that one ordinary skill could make the first dielectric layer (disclosed in Do or Lee, silicon oxide or hafnium oxide) have the same polarity (fixed positive or negative charge) as the second dielectric layer (disclosed in Lee, aluminum oxide).
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (controlling the polarity of the insulation layer), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (i.e. the insulation layer will minimize surface defects of the subminiature LED element, which improves life cycle and efficiency [Do, 0075] and second insulation layer will protect the first insulation layer [specification 0034] and the positive fixed charges of the material will repel the mobile holes and the negative fixed charges of the material will repel the electrons [0057, Ma].)
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Do et al., Lee et al. and Ma et al. disclose each of the first (positive)(hafnium oxide [0058, Lee]) and second fixed charges (aluminum oxide, Lee [0058]) is a positive fixed charge, and a magnitude of the first fixed charge is smaller than a magnitude of the second fixed charge (Figure 2 of Ma shows the positive hafnium oxide with a lower positive magnitude than the positive aluminum oxide) (paragraph [0059] explains the magnitude).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Do et al. (US 2014/0155237) in view of Lee et al. (US 2002/0106536) and Ma et al. (US 2020/0185501) as applied to claim 2 above.
The combination of Do Lee et al. and Ma et al. disclose invention supra.
The combination of Do Lee et al. and Ma et al., as applied above, fail to explicitly disclose each of the first and second fixed charges is a negative fixed charge, and a magnitude of the first fixed charge is greater than a magnitude of the second fixed charge.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Do and Lee et al. disclose each of the first (SiO2 [0076, Do]) and second (aluminum oxide, Lee [0058]).
Ma disclose forming negative fixed charges in an insulation materials [0057]. So one could make the first and second insulation layers have a negative fixed charge.
Ma also discloses using a concentration of negative fixed charges, e.g. greater than 10.sup.12 negative charges per square centimeter [0057]. The examiner submits a lower concentration of fixed charge will result in a lower magnitude of charge.
MPEP 2144.05 II A discloses “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)”
Do Lee et al. and Ma et al., disclose the claimed invention except for a magnitude of the first fixed charge is greater than a magnitude of the second fixed charge. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to change the magnitude of the second fixed charge of the second dielectric is less than the first by changing the concentration of the concentration of fixed negative charges in the second dielectric, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In Re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (controlling the polarity and magnitude of the insulation layer), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (i.e. the insulation layer will minimize surface defects of the subminiature LED element, which improves life cycle and efficiency [Do, 0075] and second insulation layer will protect the first insulation layer [specification 0034] and the negative fixed charges of the material will repel the electrons [0057, Ma].)
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Do et al. (US 2014/0155237) in view of Lee et al. (US 2002/0106536) as applied to claim 8 above and further in view of Ma et al. (US 2020/0185501).
The combination of Do and Lee et al. disclose invention supra.
The combination of Do and Lee et al. fail to disclose each of the first fixed charge of the silicon oxide (SiOx) and the second fixed charge of the aluminum oxide (AlxOy) is a positive fixed charge, and the first fixed charge is smaller than the second fixed charge.
Ma disclose forming positive fixed charges in an insulation materials [0057]. So one could make the first and second insulation layers have a positive fixed charge.
Ma also discloses using a concentration of positive fixed charges, e.g. greater than 10.sup.12 negative charges per square centimeter [0057]. The examiner submits a lower concentration of fixed charge will result in a lower magnitude of charge.
MPEP 2144.05 II A discloses “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)”
Do Lee et al. and Ma et al., disclose the claimed invention except for a magnitude of the first fixed charge is greater than a magnitude of the second fixed charge. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to change the magnitude of the first dielectric fixed charge so that it is less than the second dielectric fixed charge by changing the concentration of the concentration of fixed positive charges in the first dielectric, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In Re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (controlling the polarity and magnitude of the insulation layer), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (i.e. the insulation layer will minimize surface defects of the subminiature LED element, which improves life cycle and efficiency [Do, 0075] and second insulation layer will protect the first insulation layer [specification 0034] and the positive fixed charges of the material will repel the holes [0057, Ma].)
Claim(s) 12 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US 2018/0019369) in view of Do et al. (US 2014/0155237) and Lee et al. (US 2002/0106536).
Cho et al. disclose a substrate (100); a first electrode (22)[0055] disposed on the substrate; a second electrode (21)[0055] disposed on the substrate and spaced apart from the first electrode (fig. 3); and a light emitting element (40)[0055] disposed on the substrate and having both ends disposed on the first electrode and the second electrode, respectively herein the light emitting element comprises: a light emitting element core comprising a first semiconductor layer (430) (fig. 5a), a second semiconductor layer (440) (fig. 5a) disposed on the first semiconductor layer, and an element active layer(450) (fig. 5a) disposed between the first semiconductor layer and the second semiconductor layer [0057]; a first insulating layer (470) (fig. 5a) [0063] formed on a side surface of the light emitting element core to surround the side surface of the light emitting element core.
Cho et al. fails to disclose the first dielectric having a first fixed charge; and a second insulating layer disposed to surround an outer surface of the first insulating layer and containing a material having a second fixed charge different from the first fixed charge.
Do et al. disclose a first insulating layer (80, 150) (SiO2 [0076]) formed on a side surface of the light emitting element core to surround the side surface of the light emitting element core and a second layer (90, 160)disposed to surround an outer surface of the first insulating layer (fig. 9, fig 14).
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (forming two layers on the side of the LED), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (i.e. the insulation layer will minimize surface defects of the subminiature LED element, which improves life cycle and efficiency [Do, 0075]).
Cho and Do et al fail to disclose the first dielectric having a first fixed charge and a second insulating layer disposed to surround an outer surface of the first insulating layer and containing a material having a second fixed charge different from the first fixed charge.
Lee et al. disclose the first insulation layer (silicon oxide or hafnium oxide)[0058] having a first fixed charge a second insulating layer (aluminum oxide) [0058] containing a material having a second fixed charge different from the first fixed charge.
The combination of Cho Do et al. and Lee et al. would result in the fixed charge second insulating layer (Lee et al.) taking the place of the second surrounding layer (Do et al.) the outer surface of the first insulating layer.
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (using a first and second insulation layers), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (i.e. the insulation layer will minimize surface defects of the subminiature LED element, which improves life cycle and efficiency [Do, 0075] and second insulation layer will protect the first insulation layer [specification 0034].)
Regarding claim 18, Cho et al. disclose a first insulating layer (470) disposed on the light emitting element to expose both ends of the light emitting element (fig. 5A); a first contact electrode (62) disposed on the first electrode (22) and in contact with one end of the light emitting element exposed by the first electrode and the first insulating layer; and a second contact electrode (61) disposed on the second electrode (21) and in contact with the other end of the light emitting element exposed by the second electrode and the first insulating layer (fig. 4).
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US 2018/0019369) Do et al. (US 2014/0155237) in view of Lee et al. (US 2002/0106536) as applied to claim 12 above and further in view of Ma et al. (US 2020/0185501).
The combination of Cho, Do and Lee et al. disclose invention supra.
The combination of Cho, Do and Lee et al. fail to disclose the fixed charge is the same polarity as the second fixed charge.
Ma et al. disclose dielectric materials can be created to have positive fixed charges and negative fixed charges [0058] and figure 2 discloses dielectrics that can either have fixed positive charges or fixed negative charges.
Ma could be used to make both the first dielectric (ie silicon oxide or hafnium oxide) and the second dielectric (ie aluminum oxide) have either fixed positive charges or fixed negative charges (i.e. same polarity).
The examiner submits this would mean that one ordinary skill could make the first dielectric layer (disclosed in Do or Lee, silicon oxide or hafnium oxide) have the same polarity (fixed positive or negative charge) as the second dielectric layer (disclosed in Lee, aluminum oxide).
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (controlling the polarity of the insulation layer), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (i.e. the insulation layer will minimize surface defects of the subminiature LED element, which improves life cycle and efficiency [Do, 0075] and second insulation layer will protect the first insulation layer [specification 0034] and the positive fixed charges of the material will repel the mobile holes and the negative fixed charges of the material will repel the electrons [0057, Ma].)
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Do et al., Lee et al. and Ma et al. disclose each of the first (positive)(hafnium oxide [0058, Lee]) and second (positive) fixed charges (aluminum oxide, Lee [0058]) is a positive fixed charge, and a magnitude of the first fixed charge is smaller than a magnitude of the second fixed charge (Figure 2 of Ma shows the positive hafnium oxide with a lower positive magnitude than the positive aluminum oxide) (paragraph [0059] explains the magnitude).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US 2018/0019369) Do et al. (US 2014/0155237) and Lee et al. (US 2002/0106536) and Ma et al. (US 2020/0185501) as applied to claim 13 above.
The combination of Cho, Do, Lee et al. and Ma et al. disclose invention supra.
The combination of Cho, Do, Lee et al. and Ma et al., as applied above, fail to explicitly disclose each of the first and second fixed charges is a negative fixed charge, and a magnitude of the first fixed charge is greater than a magnitude of the second fixed charge.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Do and Lee et al. disclose each of the first (SiO2 [0076, Do]) and second (aluminum oxide, Lee [0058]).
Ma disclose forming negative fixed charges in an insulation materials [0057]. So one could make the first and second insulation layers have a negative fixed charge.
Ma also discloses using a concentration of negative fixed charges, e.g. greater than 10.sup.12 negative charges per square centimeter [0057]. The examiner submits a lower concentration of fixed charge will result in a lower magnitude of charge.
MPEP 2144.05 II A discloses “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)”
Cho, Do, Lee et al. and Ma et al., disclose the claimed invention except for a magnitude of the first fixed charge is greater than a magnitude of the second fixed charge. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to change the magnitude of the second fixed charge of the second dielectric is less than the first by changing the concentration of the concentration of fixed negative charges in the second dielectric, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In Re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (controlling the polarity and magnitude of the insulation layer), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (i.e. the insulation layer will minimize surface defects of the subminiature LED element, which improves life cycle and efficiency [Do, 0075] and second insulation layer will protect the first insulation layer [specification 0034] and the negative fixed charges of the material will repel the electrons [0057, Ma].)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY K SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-1884. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10am-6pm.
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, Marlon Fletcher can be reached at 571-272-2063. 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.
/BRADLEY SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817