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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) presented 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.
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 claimed field shielding member 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 1-7 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.
The claims are rejected specifically in view of the limitation wherein the field shielding member comprises a metal layer directly contacting the switching device, extending through the backplane layer, penetrating the micro-LED layer and directly contacting at least one of the plurality of micro-LEDs. A person having ordinary skills in the art will find the limitation indefinite because the structure of the field shield member cannot be definitely determined.
As noted, the written specification does not clearly point out the structure of the field shielding member. Referring to the drawings of the application based on the claimed limitation, the structure that seems to correspond to the claimed field shielding member, is structure 146/148 as depicted in Fig. 1.
However, that understanding makes the limitation a field shielding member provided between the plurality of micro-LEDs and the switching device indefinite because it is unclear how the structure 148/149 is between the plurality of micro-LEDs and the switching device. It is noted that an interpretation that the limitation between is to be understood as extending from (forming a path (electrical)) the plurality of micro-LEDs and the switching device would make the claim limitation definite. However, that understanding would make the limitation the field shielding member is configured to shield the switching device from a field applied to the switching device from the micro-LED during an operation of the micro-LED display unclear. The limitation will be unclear because it is uncertain how the field shielding member which is a conductive path between the switching device and micro-LED shields fields emitted/radiated by the micro-LED from the switching device.
Referring to the written specification of the application, it seems that the intended claimed field shielding member is structure 120. Paragraph 68 of the written specification states “reflective layer 120 may be described as a bottom gate effect blocking layer. In addition, because the reflective layer 120 serves to block or shield a bottom gate effect as well as to reflect light, it may be described as a multifunctional layer.”
Based on this assessment, the limitation “a field shielding member provided between the micro-LED and the switching device, the field shielding member is configured to shield the switching device from a field applied to the switching device from the micro-LED during an operation of the micro-LED display” would seems more practical.
For examination purpose, the claimed field shielding member that is between the plurality of micro-LEDs and the switching device would be understood to be layer 120 as depicted in Fig. 1, and the field shielding member extending through the backplane layer, penetrating the micro-LED layer and directly contacting at least one of the plurality of micro-LEDs would be understood to be layers 146/148 as depicted in Fig. 1 and would be termed conductive member.
It should be noted that the allowability of claims 10-12 is based on the understanding that the field shielding member of the invention is layer 120 of the device.
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akimoto [US PPGUB 20240014354].
Regarding claim 1, Akimoto teaches an ultra-high pixel per inch (ppi) micro-light-emitting diode (LED) display comprising:
a micro-LED layer (layer 156 to include device 550, Fig. 27, Para 29) comprising a micro-LED (550, Para 318; micro-LED because the invention is related to micro-LEDs (Para 4)); and
a backplane layer (structure on layer 156, Fig. 27, Para 94) comprising a switching device (103, Para 94) connected to the micro-LED layer (Fig. 27), and
a field shielding member (330, Para 319; i.e., layer 330 shielding field (light emitted by the micro-LED) provided between the micro-LED and the switching device (Fig. 27), the field shielding member is configured to shield the switching device from a field applied to the switching device from the micro-LED during an operation of the micro-LED display (Para 319),
wherein the micro-LED layer and the backplane layer form a single body in a sequentially stacked structure (Fig. 27), and
wherein the conductive member (111d/110d/561a, Fig. 27, Para 107/320) comprises a metal layer (Para 109) directly contacting the switching device (Fig. 27), extending through the backplane layer (Fig. 27), penetrating the micro-LED layer (Fig. 27) and directly contacting at the micro-LED (Fig. 1).
In the embodiment of Fig. 27, Akimoto does not specifically disclose a plurality of micro-LEDs.
However, it is noted that Akimoto’s invention is related to display devices comprising plurality pixels (Para 65, Fig. 3) and the use of micro-LEDs (Para 4).
In view of such further teaching by Akimoto, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the embodiment of Fig. 27 with that of Fig. 3 at least based on the rationale of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143.I.C) or relying on teachings, suggestions, or motivations in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention (MPEP 2143.I.G).
Regarding claim 2, Akimoto teaches micro-LED display wherein the field shielding member comprises
a reflective layer (560a, Para 330) configured to reflect light emitted from the plurality of micro-LEDs (Fig. 27); and
wherein the metal layer is provided as a contact terminal and configured to apply a voltage to the reflective layer (Para 320).
Allowable Subject Matter
Based on the analysis and understanding relied upon for rejection of the claims of the application, claims 3-7 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.
Claims 10-12 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 10-12 are allowed because all prior arts on record on record either singularly or in combination fail to anticipate or render obvious an ultra-high pixel per inch (ppi) micro-light-emitting diode (LED) display comprising:
wherein the field shielding member comprises:
a single metal layer corresponding to the plurality of switching devices and separated from the plurality of micro-LEDs; and
a metal layer provided as a contact terminal and configured to apply a voltage to the single metal layer, (as claimed in claim 10), in combination with the rest of claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
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 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 ISMAIL A MUSE whose telephone number is (571)272-1470. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM-5:00 PM.
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 Partridge can be reached at (571)270-1402. 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.
/ISMAIL A MUSE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812