DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Response to Amendment/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, Species I (Embodiment 1), and Claims 1-3 and 6-17 in the reply filed on January 06, 2026 is acknowledged. Thus, Claims 4-5 and 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 06, 2026.
Specification
The title of the invention is broad and not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 1-3 and 6-17 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. As to claim 1, the limitation “the light emitting element” fails to refer to which of the plural “light emitting elements” is directed to. Thus, the limitation renders the claims indefinite and clarification is required. As to claim 14, the limitation “a substrate” is recited twice. It is not clear whether they refer to the same or different substrate. Further, the limitation “the light emitting element” fails to refer to which of the plural “light emitting elements” is directed to. Thus, the limitation renders the claims indefinite and clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-8, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0159064 A1 to Sakariya et al. (“Sakariya”). As to claim 1, Sakariya discloses a display device comprising: a substrate (100); pixel electrodes (104, 122) on the substrate (100); light emitting elements (400) on the pixel electrodes (104, 122) and extending in a thickness direction of the substrate (100); a first insulating layer (142) extending around sides of the light emitting element (400); and a connection electrode (132) between one of the pixel electrodes (104, 122) and a corresponding one of the light emitting elements (400), the connection electrode (132) comprising: a connection portion (on 116) bonding the pixel electrode (104, 122) to the light emitting element (400); and a reflection portion (on 114) integral with the connection portion (on 116) and extending around the sides of the light emitting element (400) on the first insulating layer (142) (See Fig. 2, Fig. 3, Fig. 5, Fig. 7, Fig. 8, Fig. 15, ¶ 0102, ¶ 0108, ¶ 0111, ¶ 0112, ¶ 0114, ¶ 0115, ¶ 0119, ¶ 0120, ¶ 0121, ¶ 0123, ¶ 0124, ¶ 0125, ¶ 0126, ¶ 0134, ¶ 0135, ¶ 0141, ¶ 0142, ¶ 0144, ¶ 0148, ¶ 0149, ¶ 0151, ¶ 0185, ¶ 0188) (Notes: the recited “pixel electrodes” are met by the connection to an end of each light emitting element in each pixel).
As to claim 2, Sakariya further discloses wherein the connection portion (on 116) and the reflection portion (on 114) comprise the same material (See ¶ 0124).
As to claim 3, Sakariya further discloses wherein the connection portion (on 116) and the reflection portion (on 114) comprise gold (See ¶ 0124).
As to claim 6, Sakariya discloses further comprising a second insulating layer (150, 170) on an upper surface and sides of the reflection portion (on 114) and sides of the connection portion (on 116) (See Fig. 7, ¶ 0148, ¶ 0149, ¶ 0151).
As to claim 7, Sakariya discloses further comprising a common electrode (160) on the light emitting elements (400) and the second insulating layer (150, 170) (See ¶ 0148).
As to claim 8, Sakariya discloses further comprising a planarization layer (100 covering 120 with 113 therein, 110) between the pixel electrodes (104, 122), wherein the second insulating layer (150, 170) is on the planarization layer (100 covering 120 with 113 therein, 110) (See Fig. 15, ¶ 0111, ¶ 0112). As to claim 14, Sakariya discloses a display device comprising: a substrate (100); pixel electrodes (104, 122) on a substrate (100); light emitting elements (400) on the pixel electrodes (104, 122) and extending in a thickness direction of the substrate (400); a first insulating layer (142) extending around sides of the light emitting element (400); and a connection electrode (132) between one of the pixel electrodes (104, 122) and a corresponding one of the light emitting elements (400), the connection electrode (132) having a connection portion (on 116) bonding the pixel electrode (104, 122) to the light emitting element (400) and a reflection portion (on 114) comprising the same material as the connection portion (on 116) and extending around the sides of the light emitting element (400) on the first insulating layer (142) (See Fig. 2, Fig. 3, Fig. 5, Fig. 7, Fig. 8, Fig. 15, ¶ 0102, ¶ 0108, ¶ 0111, ¶ 0112, ¶ 0114, ¶ 0115, ¶ 0119, ¶ 0120, ¶ 0121, ¶ 0123, ¶ 0124, ¶ 0125, ¶ 0126, ¶ 0134, ¶ 0135, ¶ 0141, ¶ 0142, ¶ 0144, ¶ 0148, ¶ 0149, ¶ 0151, ¶ 0185, ¶ 0188) (Notes: the recited “pixel electrodes” are met by the connection to an end of each light emitting element in each pixel).
As to claim 15, Sakariya further discloses wherein the connection portion (on 116) and the reflection portion (on 114) comprise gold (See ¶ 0124).
As to claim 16, Sakariya discloses further comprising: a second insulating layer (150, 170) on an upper surface and sides of the reflection portion (on 114) and sides of the connection portion (on 116); and a common electrode (160) on the light emitting elements (400) and the second insulating layer (150, 170) (See Fig. 7, ¶ 0148, ¶ 0149, ¶ 0151).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 9-12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0159064 A1 to Sakariya et al. (“Sakariya”) as applied to claims 7 and 16 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0105980 A1 to Sim et al. (“Sim”). The teaching of Sakariya has been discussed above. As to claim 9, Sakariya in view of Sim discloses further comprising: partition walls (124) partitioning light emission areas (at 400/110) and a non-light emission area (adjacent at 400/110); and a wavelength conversion layer (128, 130, 132) between the partition walls (124) and overlapping the light emitting elements (400/110) in the light emission areas (adjacent at 400/110) (See Sakariya Fig. 15 and Sim Fig. 2, ¶ 0019, ¶ 0020, ¶ 0032, ¶ 0033, ¶ 0034, ¶ 0036, ¶ 0037, ¶ 0038, ¶ 0042) such that multicolor is obtained while preventing optical interference and improving light extraction efficiency. As to claim 10, Sakariya in view of Sim discloses further comprising: a third insulating layer (127) between the wavelength conversion layer (128, 130, 132) and the common electrode (160); and a reflective film (404) between the wavelength conversion layer (128, 130, 132) and the partition walls (124) (See Sakariya Fig. 15 and Sim Fig. 2, ¶ 0032, ¶ 0037, ¶ 0038). As to claim 11, Sakariya in view of Sim further discloses wherein the reflective film (404) comprises a reflective metal (See Sim ¶ 0038). As to claim 12, Sakariya in view of Sim discloses further comprising: a light blocking member (127, 404) on the partition walls (124); and color filters (¶ 0033) on the wavelength conversion layer (128, 130, 132) (See Fig. 2, Sim ¶ 0033, ¶ 0037, ¶ 0038). As to claim 17, Sakariya in view of Sim discloses further comprising: partition walls (124) partitioning light emission areas (at 400/110) and a non-light emission area (adjacent at 400/110); and a wavelength conversion layer (128, 130, 132) between the partition walls (124) and overlapping the light emitting elements (400/110) (See Sakariya Fig. 15 and Sim Fig. 2, ¶ 0019, ¶ 0020, ¶ 0032, ¶ 0033, ¶ 0034, ¶ 0036, ¶ 0037, ¶ 0038, ¶ 0042) such that multicolor is obtained while preventing optical interference and improving light extraction efficiency.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0159064 A1 to Sakariya et al. (“Sakariya”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,923,630 B1 to Pynn et al. (“Pynn”). The teaching of Sakariya has been discussed above. As to claim 13, Sakariya in view of Pynn further discloses wherein the light emitting elements (400/1000) comprise a first semiconductor layer (1040), an electron blocking layer (1035), an active layer (1030), a superlattice layer (1025), and a second semiconductor layer (1020) that are sequentially stacked in the thickness direction of the substrate (100) (See Sakariya Fig. 15 and Pynn Fig. 10, Column 26, lines 21-52) such that the light emitting elements having reduced electron leakage current and improved efficiency are obtained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7438. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12-6.
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, JOSHUA BENITEZ can be reached at (571) 270-1435. 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.
/DAVID CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815