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 .
Status of the Application
Acknowledgement is made of the amendment received on 10/15/2025. Claims 1-19 are pending in this application. Claims 1-8 are previously withdrawn. Claims 9 and 12 are amended.
Claims 9-19 are presented in this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 9, line 3, “side surfaces face each other” should read --side surfaces of adjacent lower electrodes face each other-- (emphasis added).
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.
Claim 9-19 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 9 further recites the limitation “a thickness perpendicular to the width and the plane is smaller than the length” in lines 6-7. The phrase “the plane” is unclear because which is a two-dimensional concept, to “the length”, which is a one-dimensional measure. As written, it is not reasonably clear what characteristic of the plane is being compared to the length or how such a comparison is to be made.
For best understand and examination purpose, the claim will be best considered based on drawings, disclosure, and/or any applicable prior arts; and the claim limitation “the plane is smaller than the length” will be interpreted as “the thickness of the micro-nanofin LED element, measured in a direction perpendicular to a plane defined by the length and width, being smaller than the length” in the instant Office Action.
Claims 10-19 are rejected due to their dependency.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 9-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Do et al. (US 2019/0113185; hereinafter ‘Do’) in view of Park et al. (US 2022/0399313; hereinafter ‘Park’) and Komiya et al. (JP 2012/004535; hereinafter ‘Komiya’).
Regarding claim 9, Do teaches a micro-nanofin LED electrode assembly (FIG. 1, [0058]), comprising:
a lower electrode line (110, 111) including a plurality of lower electrodes (111) spaced apart at a predetermined interval (111 arranged at uniform interval in a horizontal direction) so that side surfaces face each other (shown in FIG, 1);
a plurality of micro-nanofin LED elements (120) which are rod-type elements (120 is a rod shape) in which each of the plurality of micro-nanofin LED elements (120) includes a plane having a length and width of nano or micro size (120 is a nanoscale device), and in which a first conductive semiconductor layer (120b, FIG. 5, [0077]), a photoactive layer (120c), a second conductive semiconductor layer (120d), and an electrode layer or a polarization (120e is a second electrode layer) inducing layer are sequentially stacked in a thickness direction (shown in FIG. 5), and in which the thickness direction of the micro-nanofin LED elements is perpendicular to an upper surface of the lower electrode (the thickness of 120 is perpendicular to the upper surface of 111, shown in FIG. 1); and
an upper electrode line (130, 131) disposed on the plurality of micro-nanofin LED elements (120).
Do does not teach the micro-nanofin LED electrode assembly comprising: a plurality of micro-nanofin LED elements having a thickness perpendicular to the width and the plane is smaller than the length and any one surface of the thickness direction of the micro-nanofin LED elements is disposed to be in contact with an upper surface of at least two of the adjacent lower electrodes.
Park teaches a micro-nanofin LED electrode assembly (1450, FIG. 13(b), [0022, 0186]) comprising: a plurality of micro-nanofin LED elements having a thickness perpendicular to the width and the plane is smaller than the length (the thickness of 1450 is smaller than the length).
As taught by Park, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize and modify the above teaching into Do to obtain and achieve the micro-nanofin LED electrode assembly comprising: a plurality of micro-nanofin LED elements having a thickness perpendicular to the width and the plane is smaller than the length as claimed, because adopting a flat configuration with symmetrical electrode placement promotes self-alignment by allowing the device to settle in a predictable orientation during assembly [0027, 0214].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Park in combination with Do due to above reason.
Do in view of Park does not teach the micro-nanofin LED electrode assembly comprising: any one surface of the thickness direction of the micro-nanofin LED elements is disposed to be in contact with an upper surface of at least two of the adjacent lower electrodes.
Komiya teaches a micro-nanofin LED electrode assembly (1450, FIG. 29, [0161]) comprising: any one surface of the thickness direction of the micro-nanofin LED elements (1760 having semiconductor layers including 2123 sequentially stacked in a thickness direction, FIG. 34B, [0182]) is disposed to be in contact with an upper surface of at least two of the adjacent lower electrodes (the upper surfaces of adjacent 1751 and 1752, FIG. 29, [0167]).
As taught by Komiya, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize and modify the above teaching into Do in view of Park to obtain and achieve the micro-nanofin LED electrode assembly comprising: any one surface of the thickness direction of the micro-nanofin LED elements is disposed to be in contact with an upper surface of at least two of the adjacent lower electrodes as claimed, because the light emitting element is rod-shaped, one end of the light emitting element can be fixed on a first electrode and the other end can be fixed on a second electrode, thereby improving alignment accuracy and further teaches that the rod-shaped light emitting element follows electric lines of force and is attracted to electrodes by electrostatic force and/or dielectrophoretic force [0037, 0082-0083].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Komiya in combination with Do in view of Park due to above reason.
Regarding claim 10, Do in view of Park and Komiya teaches the micro-nanofin LED electrode assembly of claim 9,
wherein one of the first conductive semiconductor layer and the second conductive semiconductor layer includes a p-type GaN semiconductor layer (Do: 120d includes a p-type GaN, [0082]), and the other includes an n-type GaN semiconductor layer (120b includes a n-type GaN, [0080]),
a thickness of the p-type GaN semiconductor layer is 10 to 350 nm (a thickness of 120d is 50 to 500nm, [0082]), a thickness of the n-type GaN semiconductor layer is 100 to 3000 nm (a thickness of 120b is 500 to 5000 nm, [0080]), and a thickness of the photoactive layer is 30 to 200 nm (a thickness of 120c is 10 to 200 nm, [0081]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Do to obtain and achieve the micro-nanofin LED electrode assembly wherein one of the first conductive semiconductor layer and the second conductive semiconductor layer includes a p-type GaN semiconductor layer, and the other includes an n-type GaN semiconductor layer, a thickness of the p-type GaN semiconductor layer is 10 to 350 nm, a thickness of the n-type GaN semiconductor layer is 100 to 3000 nm, and a thickness of the photoactive layer is 30 to 200 nm as claimed, because it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Alter, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 11, Do in view of Park and Komiya teaches the micro-nanofin LED electrode assembly of claim 9, wherein a protrusion having a predetermined width and thickness is formed on a lower surface of the first conductive semiconductor layer of the micro-nanofin LED element in a longitudinal direction of the micro-nanofin LED element (Do: 120a is formed on a lower surface of 120b, FIG. 5).
Regarding claim 12, Do in view of Park and Komiya teaches the micro-nanofin LED electrode assembly of claim 11, Do in view of Komiya does not teach the micro-nanofin LED electrode assembly wherein the width of the protrusion is 50% or less of the width of the micro-nanofin LED element.
Park teaches that the n-type electrode 252 is formed on a lower surface of n-type semiconductor layer 253 and 252 is 50 % or less of the width of the light emitting element 250 (FIG. 9, [0134]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Park to obtain and achieve the micro-nanofin LED electrode assembly wherein the width of the protrusion is 50% or less of the width of the micro-nanofin LED element as claimed, because the width difference between the protrusion and the overall structure of the LED element induces directional alignment during self-assembly, thereby ensuring reliable positioning on the assembly substrate.
Regarding claim 13, Do in view of Park and Komiya teaches the micro-nanofin LED electrode assembly of claim 9, Do in view of Komiya does not teach the micro-nanofin LED electrode assembly wherein an emission area of the micro-nanofin LED element is more than twice an area of a longitudinal cross-section of the micro-nanofin LED element.
Park teaches that the light emitting element 250 has a flat structure where the width (X-axis) is greater than the thickness (z-axis), and the depth along the y-axis is assumed to be consistent across the structure, the emission area (surface of 254) defined by the wider surface (x-y plane) becomes more than twice the longitudinal cross-sectional area (x-z plane) (FIG. 9, [0134]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Park to obtain and achieve the micro-nanofin LED electrode assembly wherein an emission area of the micro-nanofin LED element is more than twice an area of a longitudinal cross-section of the micro-nanofin LED element as claimed, because unlike vertically stacked rod-type LEDs, it expends horizontally in the length and width direction, resulting in a wide emission area.
Regarding claim 14, Do in view of Park and Komiya teaches a light source (FIG. 15, [0143]) comprising:
a support body (Do: 300); and
the micro-nanofin LED electrode assembly of claim 9 (331/332/333) provided so that the lower electrode line is disposed on the support body (310 is disposed on 300).
Regarding claim 15, Do in view of Park and Komiya teaches the light source of claim 14, further comprising a color conversion material (Do: fluorescent substance, [0148]) excited by light irradiated from the micro-nanofin LED electrode assembly.
Regarding claim 16, Do in view of Park and Komiya teaches the light source of claim 14, wherein 2 to 100,000 micro-nanofin LED elements are included per unit area of 100×100 μm2 of the micro-nanofin LED electrode assembly (Do: approximately 60 of 120 exist in 9,546.6 μm2, equivalent to ~62.85 per unit area of 100×100 μm2, FIG. 13B).
Regarding claim 17, Do in view of Park and Komiya teaches the light source of claim 14, wherein the micro-nanofin LED element emits any one type of light color among blue, green, yellow, amber, and red (Do: 120 emits blue, green, yellow, amber, red, [0031]).
Regarding claim 18, Do in view of Park and Komiya teaches the light source of claim 14, wherein a plurality of the micro-nanofin LED electrode assemblies is provided so as to emit at least two light colors of blue, green, yellow, amber, and red (Do: 120 emits one or more blue, green, yellow, amber, red, [0033]), and each of the micro-nanofin LED electrode assemblies includes the micro-nanofin LED element that emits substantially the same light color (120 independently include one among the nano-scale color LED device, [0031]).
Regarding claim 19, Do in view of Park and Komiya teaches the light source of claim 15,
wherein in a case that the micro-nanofin LED electrode assembly includes the micro-nanofin LED element irradiating UV, the color conversion material includes any one or more of blue, cyan, yellow, green, amber, and red, so that the light source is realized to emit white color (Do: 120 emits UV light, the fluorescent material includes one or more blue, yellow, green, amber, and red to realize white light emission, [0033]), or
in a case that the micro-nanofin LED electrode assembly includes the micro-nanofin LED element that emits blue light, the color conversion material includes any one or more of yellow, cyan, green, amber, and red, so that the light source emits white color (120 emits blue light, the fluorescent material includes one or more yellow, green, amber, and red to achieve white light emission, [0151]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection. Response to arguments on newly added limitations are responded to in the above rejection.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIYOUNG OH whose telephone number is (703)756-5687. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM-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, EVA MONTALVO can be reached on (571) 270-3829. 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.
/JIYOUNG OH/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/DUY T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818 1/21/26