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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/24/2025 has been entered.
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al (US 20170358563 A1) in view of Zhang (CN 110350063 A where US 11342376 B2 is used as the English translation and is cited accordingly).
Cho et al teaches
[claim 1] A display device, comprising: a substrate comprising a plurality of sub pixels; a first electrode disposed at a center area of each of the in the plurality of sub pixels; a second electrode disposed in the plurality of sub pixels, and disposed to be spaced apart from the first electrode and surrounding adjacent to the first electrode (abstract, paragraph 0080, figures 2B and 4D, where figure 2B and 4D is a pixel in a display device where there are multiple sub pixels in the device, element 21 is the first electrode at the center of the plurality of pixels [as seen best by figure 4D], and element 22 is the second electrode spaced apart from the first electrode and surrounding adjacently to the first electrode [as seen by figure 4D]);
and a plurality of light emitting elements between the first electrode and the second electrode, and wherein the plurality of light emitting elements are radially disposed between a side surface of the first electrode and a side surface of the second electrode, and are configured to horizontally overlap with the side surface of the first electrode and the side surface of the second electrode (paragraph 0080, figures 2B and 4D, where the light emitting devices [element 40] are attached to the first electrode [element 21] and the second electrode [element 22] and spaced radially around the first electrode and overlap both a side surface of the first and second electrode).
However, Cho et does not specifically disclose
[claim 1] a first magnetic layer between the first electrode and the second electrode; , wherein the light emitting element comprises at least one second magnetic layer configured to be in contact with the first magnetic layer.
However, Zhang teaches
a first magnetic layer between the first electrode and the second electrode (col 11 lines 33 – col 12 line 8, where the first magnetic layer is situated between the first and second electrodes, by exemplary example figure 3 element 203 is a magnetic layer situated between elements 201 and 202 [first and second electrode pads connected to electrodes], which would correlate to elements 21 and 22 in Cho et al, figure 2B);
and a plurality of light emitting elements between the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein the light emitting element comprises at least one second magnetic layer in contact with the first magnetic layer (col 9 line 27 – col 10 line 38, where the light emitting elements are placed into the display - meaning that figure 2, part of the transfer substrate that includes the micro LED substrate, is placed on figure 3, display substrate, to connect all the five elements on both figures [meaning element 101 connects to 201, 102 connects to 202, etc.., see col 4 lines 20-48] and the first magnetic layer attracts the light emitting device via a second magnetic layer [element 103 is the second magnetic layer and connects to element 203 [[first magnetic layer]] where both are situated between the electrodes]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the teachings of Cho et al to incorporate the teachings of Zhang in order to secure the device to the electrodes in an efficient manner [i.e. through magnetism] in deposition of the LED’s on to the device [i.e. instead of deposing the LED one by one, they can be placed in regions close to the required location and then be magnetically connected], improving versatility of the LED [i.e. allowing greater flexibility of where to deposit the device] and efficiency.
Claim(s) 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al (US 20170358563 A1) and Zhang (CN 110350063 A) in further view of Shim et al (US 20190326144 A1).
Cho et al as modified teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim, claim 1, but does not specifically disclose
[claim 2] wherein the at least one second magnetic layer of the light emitting element is disposed on the first magnetic layer.
However, Shim et al does teach
[claim 2] wherein the at least one second magnetic layer of the light emitting element is disposed on the first magnetic layer (figure 9, paragraph 0092, where elements 1056a and 1056b are both made of magnetic material and thus are magnetic layers, where element 1056a is the second magnetic layer and is disposed on the first magnetic layer, element 1056b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the teachings of Cho et al as modified to incorporate the teachings of Shim et al in order to improve stability of the LED as it connects to the display substrate by introducing a second magnetic layer that strengths the magnetic field and thus attachment of the light emitting device to any circuitry and/or substrate that controls the display.
Claim(s) 3-4 and 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al (US 20170358563 A1) and Zhang (CN 110350063 A) in further view of Lim et al (US 2017007348 A1).
Regarding 3-4, 6-8, and 10-12, Cho et al as modified teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim, claim 1, but does not specifically disclose
[claim 3] The display device of claim 1, wherein the first magnetic layer is in contact with the first electrode between the first electrode and the second electrode.
[claim 4] The display device of claim 1, wherein the first electrode has an upper surface higher than an upper surface of the first magnetic layer.
[claim 6] The display device of claim 1, wherein the light emitting element comprises: a first conductivity type semiconductor layer; a second conductivity type semiconductor layer; and an active layer between the first conductivity type semiconductor layer and the second conductivity type semiconductor layer, wherein the at least one second magnetic layer is adjacent to at least one of the first conductivity type semiconductor layer and the second conductivity type semiconductor layer.
[claim 7] The display device of claim 6, further comprising: a first blocking layer on an outer surface of the at least one second magnetic layer.
[claim 8] The display device of claim 7, wherein the first blocking layer is an insulating material or a metal.
[claim 10] The display device of claim 7, wherein the first electrode includes: a first electrode portion; and a second electrode portion extending from the first electrode portion toward the second electrode.
[claim 11] The display device of claim 10, wherein the second electrode portion has an upper surface lower than an upper surface of the first electrode portion.
[claim 12] The display device of claim 10, wherein the first magnetic layer is disposed on the second electrode portion.
However, Lim et al. does teach
[claim 3] The display device of claim 1, wherein the first magnetic layer is in contact with the first electrode between the first electrode and the second electrode (figure 9, paragraphs 0096-0098, where element 745 is the first magnetic layer and is contact with the first electrode, element 733 and 753 combined, where element 733 and 753 create a U-shape, thus the magnetic layer is situated between at least a portion of the first electrode and the second electrode, element 751 and 731 combined).
[claim 4] The display device of claim 1, wherein the first electrode has an upper surface higher than an upper surface of the first magnetic layer (figure 9, paragraphs 0096-0098, where element 753 of the first electrode has an upper surface above the first magnetic layer, element 745).
[claim 6] The display device of claim 1, wherein the light emitting element comprises: a first conductivity type semiconductor layer; a second conductivity type semiconductor layer; and an active layer between the first conductivity type semiconductor layer and the second conductivity type semiconductor layer, wherein the at least one second magnetic layer is adjacent to at least one of the first conductivity type semiconductor layer and the second conductivity type semiconductor layer (figure 9, paragraphs 0096-0098, where the light emitting portion has a first semiconductor layer of first conductivity type, element 725, a second semiconductor layer of second conductivity type, element 721, and an active layer, element 723, and the second magnetic layer, element 741, is adjacent to the first semiconductor layer, element 725).
[claim 7] The display device of claim 6, further comprising: a first blocking layer on an outer surface of the at least one second magnetic layer (figure 9, paragraphs 0096-0098, where element 770 is a first blocking layer and it extends beyond an outer surface of the second magnetic layer, element 741).
[claim 8] The display device of claim 7, wherein the first blocking layer is an insulating material or a metal (paragraphs 0096-0098, where element 770, the first blocking layer, is made of a reflective metal).
[claim 10] The display device of claim 7, wherein the first electrode includes: a first electrode portion; and a second electrode portion extending from the first electrode portion toward the second electrode (figure 9, paragraphs 0096-0098, where the first electrode, elements 733 and 753 combined, contains a first part which is element 753 which contains both a horizontal and vertical component attached to the second portion, element 733, which extends from the vertical portion of the first part towards the second electrode [elements 731 and 751 combined]).
[claim 11] The display device of claim 10, wherein the second electrode portion has an upper surface lower than an upper surface of the first electrode portion (figure 9, paragraphs 0096-0098, where element 733 which is the second electrode portion has an upper surface lower than an upper surface of element 753 which is the first electrode portion).
[claim 12] The display device of claim 10, wherein the first magnetic layer is disposed on the second electrode portion (figure 9, paragraphs 0096-0098 where element 745, the first magnetic layer, is deposited on the second electrode portion [element 733]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the teachings of Cho et al as modified to incorporate the teachings of Lim et al in order to adequately protect the light emitting components from other common magnetic circuitry of LED’s, thus improving performance of the LED by optimizing the light-emitting portion with a specific structural design with magnetic layers and fields to allow adequate voltage to light emitting portions while protecting the semiconductor layers from any adverse stray magnetic effects.
Regarding claim 9, Cho et al as modified lacks specifically [claim 9] the display device of claim 7, wherein the width of the first magnetic layer is at least greater than the sum of the thickness of the at least one second magnetic layer and the thickness of the first blocking layer
Per MPEP 2144.05
I. OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range).
Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See also Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865 (1997) (under the doctrine of equivalents, a purification process using a pH of 5.0 could infringe a patented purification process requiring a pH of 6.0-9.0); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%); In re Scherl, 156 F.2d 72, 74-75, 70 USPQ 204, 205-206 (CCPA 1946) (prior art showed an angle in a groove of up to 90° and an applicant claimed an angle of no less than 120°); In re Becket, 88 F.2d 684 (CCPA 1937) ("Where the component elements of alloys are the same, and where they approach so closely the same range of quantities as is here the case, it seems that there ought to be some noticeable difference in the qualities of the respective alloys."); In re Dreyfus, 73 F.2d 931, 934, 24 USPQ 52, 55 (CCPA 1934)(the prior art, which taught about 0.7:1 of alkali to water, renders unpatentable a claim that increased the proportion to at least 1:1 because there was no showing that the claimed proportions were critical); In re Lilienfeld, 67 F.2d 920, 924, 20 USPQ 53, 57 (CCPA 1933)(the prior art teaching an alkali cellulose containing minimal amounts of water, found by the Examiner to be in the 5-8% range, the claims sought to be patented were to an alkali cellulose with varying higher ranges of water (e.g., "not substantially less than 13%," "not substantially below 17%," and "between about 13[%] and 20%"); K-Swiss Inc. v. Glide N Lock GmbH, 567 Fed. App'x 906 (Fed. Cir. 2014)(reversing the Board's decision, in an appeal of an inter partes reexamination proceeding, that certain claims were not prima facie obvious due to non-overlapping ranges); In re Brandt, 886 F.3d 1171, 1177, 126 USPQ2d 1079, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2018)(the court found a prima facie case of obviousness had been made in a predictable art wherein the claimed range of "less than 6 pounds per cubic feet" and the prior art range of "between 6 lbs./ft3 and 25 lbs./ft3" were so mathematically close that the difference between the claimed ranges was virtually negligible absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality.).
"[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (claimed alloy held obvious over prior art alloy that taught ranges of weight percentages overlapping, and in most instances completely encompassing, claimed ranges; furthermore, narrower ranges taught by reference overlapped all but one range in claimed invention). However, if the reference’s disclosed range is so broad as to encompass a very large number of possible distinct compositions, this might present a situation analogous to the obviousness of a species when the prior art broadly discloses a genus. Id. See also In re Baird, 16 F.3d 380, 383, 29 USPQ2d 1550, 1552 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ("[a] disclosure of millions of compounds does not render obvious a claim to three compounds, particularly when that disclosure indicates a preference leading away from the claimed compounds."); MPEP § 2144.08; and subsection III.D below for an additional discussion on consideration of prior art disclosures of a broad range.
A range can be disclosed in multiple prior art references instead of in a single prior art reference depending on the specific facts of the case. Iron Grip Barbell Co., Inc. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1322, 73 USPQ2d 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The patent claim at issue was directed to a weight plate having 3 elongated openings that served as handles for transporting the weight plate. Multiple prior art patents each disclosed weight plates having 1, 2 or 4 elongated openings. 392 F.3d at 1319, 73 USPQ2d at 1226. The court stated that the claimed weight plate having 3 elongated openings fell within the "range" of the prior art and was thus presumed obvious. 392 F.3d at 1322, 73 USPQ2d at 1228. The court further stated that the "range" disclosed in multiple prior art patents is "a distinction without a difference" from previous range cases which involved a range disclosed in a single patent since the "prior art suggested that a larger number of elongated grips in the weight plates was beneficial… thus plainly suggesting that one skilled in the art look to the range appearing in the prior art." Id.
In Lim et al, figure 9, the first magnetic layer, element 745, has a width that is comparable to the thickness of the second magnetic layer with the blocking layer [elements 741 and 770]. Per MPEP 2144.05, using routine experimentation to optimize the device such that the blocking layer and magnetic layers function according to their desired functions properly, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at a width of element 745 to be greater than a thickness of elements 741 and 770 combined in order to maximize magnetic coupling and increase stability of the device.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al (US 20170358563 A1), Zhang (CN 110350063 A) and Lim et al (US 20170077348 A1) in further view of Shim et al (US 20190326144 A1).
Cho et al as modified teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim, claim 4, but does not specifically disclose
[claim 5] The display device of claim 4, wherein the upper surface of the first electrode is located higher than an upper surface of the light emitting element disposed on the first magnetic layer.
However, Shim et al does teach
[claim 5] The display device of claim 4, wherein the upper surface of the first electrode is located higher than an upper surface of the light emitting element disposed on the first magnetic layer (figure 9, paragraph 0091-0092, where element 1052 is the first electrode and it is located higher than an upper surface of the light emitting element, 1055 of element 1050, which is disposed on the first magnetic layer element 1056).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the teachings of Cho et al as modified to incorporate the teachings of Shim et al in order to structure the device such that the light emitting portion is beneath an electrode so in a vertical orientation a voltage can be applied across the light emitting element to emit light thus necessitating that the electrode be above the light emitting element.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al (US 20170358563 A1) and Zhang (CN 110350063 A) in further view of Liu et al (CN110634906 A).
Cho et al as modified teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim, claim 1, but does not specifically disclose
[claim 20] wherein the first electrode has a dot shape, and wherein the second electrode has a closed loop structure surrounding the first electrode.
However, Liu et al does teach
[claim 20] The display device of claim 1, wherein the first electrode has a dot shape, and wherein the second electrode has a closed loop structure surrounding the first electrode (paragraph 0046, where the electrodes are two circles, one inside shaped like a ‘dot’ and the second a closed ring around it).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the teachings of Cho et al as modified in order to incorporate the teachings of Liu et al to use a circular shape for electrodes to evenly distribute the electric field to multiple light emitting devices as a circle doesn’t have any edges like a square where there can be adverse electric field effects.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Specifically, claim 13 is objected to, and all dependent claims upon 13, claims 14-19, are objected to as they further limit the scope of objected claim 13.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant’s arguments filed on 12/24/2025, the arguments on pages 9-12 regarding previously used art, Li and Zhang, are overcome by the amendments in made in claim 1. However, a new rejection is formulated below on a new base reference Cho et al. combined with Zhang is still used in a similar capacity as described, but the rejection formulates how elements 103 and 203 are to be supplanted onto Cho et al’s LED in a reasonable manner, such that it is different than how Zhang and Li are combined in the previous final rejection dated 10/29/2025.
ConclusionAny inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW ZABEL whose telephone number is (703)756-4788. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5PM ET.
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, Jeff W Natalini can be reached at 572-272-2266. 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.
/ANDREW JOHN ZABEL/ Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/JEFF W NATALINI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2818