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/Restriction
Applicant’s election of Group 2 drawn to a device (Claims 11-19) is acknowledged. Claims 1-19 remain pending. Claims 1-10 are withdrawn from consideration.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded
in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise
extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple
assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not
identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference
claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious
over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re
Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed.
Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164
USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to
overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the
reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application,
or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research
agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file
provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject
to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be
signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double
patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a
reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional
the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action,
see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration
while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§
706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit
www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed
determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A
web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal
Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission.
For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-
online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 11-16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10 -15 of the copending Application No. 18221255 (reference application US 2024/0021769) Do’769 in view of Yang (US 2022/0045123).
Regarding Claim 11, Do’769 discloses an ultra-thin pin LED electrode assembly (Claim 10) including:
a lower electrode line (Claim 10);
a plurality of ultra-thin pin LED devices (Claim 10) comprising, based on mutually perpendicular x-axis, y-axis and z-axis wherein the x-axis direction is a major axis and a plurality of layers are stacked in the z-axis direction (Claim 10),
a first surface (Claim 10) and a second surface (Claim 10) opposite to each other in the z-axis direction, and other side surfaces (Claim 10),
the ultra-thin pin LED devices (Claim 10) being disposed such that one surface thereof (Claim 10) is in contact with the upper surface (Claim 10) of the lower electrode (Claim 10); and
an upper electrode line (Claim 10) disposed on the ultra-thin pin LED devices (Claim 10);
wherein the plurality of ultra-thin pin LED devices (Claim 10) disposed have a drivable mounting ratio of 55% or more (Claim 10) in which the first or second surface (Claim 10) of each device (Claim 10) is mounted so as to come into contact with the upper surface (Claim 10) of the lower electrode (Claim 10).
Do’769 does not disclose
a plurality of lower electrodes spaced apart at predetermined intervals.
Yang, in the related art of semiconductor devices that include LED devices, discloses
a plurality of lower electrodes (lower electrodes 25 [0015] Fig 2) spaced apart at predetermined intervals (shown in Fig 2).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Do’769 to include a plurality of lower electrodes spaced apart at predetermined intervals as taught by Yang in order to avoid the lower conductive line breaking at a point between the driving circuit and the upper electrode [0002]. Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that avoiding breakage in the electrode line would be advantageous in improving the reliability and durability of the device (see MPEP 2143.I(D)).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Do’769 and Yang discloses the limitations of claim 11 as explained above. The combination of Do’769 and Yang further discloses
wherein the ultra-thin pin LED device (Claim 11) has a length of 1 to 10 µm (Claim 11) in the x-axis direction and a thickness of 0.1 to 3 µm (Claim 11) in the z-axis direction.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Do’769 and Yang discloses the limitations of claim 11 as explained above. The combination of Do’769 and Yang further discloses
wherein the width (Claim 12) of the ultra-thin pin LED device (Claim 12), which is the length (Claim 12) in the y-axis direction, is smaller (Claim 12) than the thickness (Claim 12), which is the length (Claim 12) in the z-axis direction.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Do’769 and Yang discloses the limitations of claim 11 as explained above. The combination of Do’769 and Yang further discloses
wherein the drivable mounting ratio (Claim 13) of the plurality of ultra-thin pin LED devices (Claim 13) disposed is 70% or more (Claim 13).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Do’769 and Yang discloses the limitations of claim 11 as explained above. The combination of Do’769 and Yang further discloses
wherein a selective mounting ratio (Claim 14), which is a ratio of devices mounted (Claim 14) such that one of the first (Claim 14) and second surfaces (Claim 14) thereof is in contact with the upper surface (Claim 14) of the lower electrode (Claim 14) among the plurality of ultra-thin pin LED devices (Claim 14) disposed, satisfies 70% or more (Claim 14).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Do’769 and Yang discloses the limitations of claim 15 as explained above. The combination of Do’769 and Yang further discloses
wherein the selective mounting ratio (Claim 15) satisfies 85% or more (Claim 15).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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.
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.
Claims 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 2022/0045123) in view of Do’245 (US 2016/0211245).
Regarding Claim 11, Yang discloses an LED electrode assembly (micro-LED display panel 100 [0013] Fig 2) including:
a lower electrode line (layer of lower electrode 25 [0015]) comprising a plurality of lower electrodes (lower electrodes 25 [0015]) spaced apart at predetermined intervals (shown in Fig 2);
a plurality of LED devices (micro-LEDs 20 [0013]) comprising, based on mutually perpendicular x-axis, y-axis and z-axis wherein the x-axis direction is a major axis and a plurality of layers are stacked in the z-axis direction (shown in annotated Fig 2),
a first surface (shown in annotated Fig 2) and a second surface (shown in annotated Fig 2) opposite to each other in the z-axis direction (shown in annotated Fig 2), and other side surfaces,
the LED devices (20) being disposed such that one surface thereof is in contact with the upper surface of the lower electrode (25); and
an upper electrode line (upper electrodes 27 [0019]) disposed on the LED devices (20);
wherein the plurality of LED devices (20) disposed have a drivable mounting ratio of approximately 50% (shown in Fig 2, as the drawings are not drawn to scale) or more in which the first or second surface of each device (20) is mounted so as to come into contact with the upper surface of the lower electrode (25)
PNG
media_image1.png
881
1398
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yang does not directly disclose
an ultra-thin pin LED electrode assembly;
wherein the plurality of ultra-thin pin LED devices disposed have a drivable mounting ratio of 55% or more in which the first or second surface of each device is mounted so as to come into contact with the upper surface of the lower electrode.
Do’245, in the related art of semiconductor devices that include nano LED devices, discloses
an ultra-thin pin LED electrode assembly (nano-scale LED devices 120 [0158] Fig 7).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yang to include an ultra-thin pin LED electrode assembly as taught by Do’245 in order to maximize light extraction efficiency, and minimize display defects due to pixel defects [0022] and because it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to optimize the LED device since such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of the component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art In Re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) MPEP 2144.04.IV(A).
The combination of Yang and Do’245 does not directly disclose
wherein the plurality of ultra-thin pin LED devices disposed have a drivable mounting ratio of 55% or more in which the first or second surface of each device is mounted so as to come into contact with the upper surface of the lower electrode.
However, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that having a plurality of ultra-thin pin LED devices disposed have a drivable mounting ratio of 55% or more in which the first or second surface of each device mounted so as to come into contact with an upper surface of the lower electrode would be a result effective variable in that having a higher drivable mounting ratio would further optimize the electrical functioning capability of the device due to having more drivable surface area.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yang and Do’245 to include wherein the plurality of ultra-thin pin LED devices disposed have a drivable mounting of 55% or more in which the first or second surface of each device mounted so as to come into contact with an upper surface of the lower electrode in order to optimize the electrical functioning capability of the device due to having more drivable surface area and because it has been held that "[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 re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Yang and Do’245 discloses the limitations of claim 11 as explained above. The combination of Yang and Do’245 further discloses
wherein the ultra-thin pin LED device has a length of 1 to 10 µm (100nm-10 µm length [0026] Do’245) in the x-axis direction and a thickness of 0.1 to 3 µm ((height is greater than or equal to 0.5Z = 0.5 (100nm-10 µm) [0023]-[0026] Do’245) = (50nm - 5 µm)) in the z-axis direction.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Yang and Do’245 discloses the limitations of claim 11 as explained above. The combination of Yang and Do’245 further discloses
wherein the width of the ultra-thin pin LED device (20 Yang/120 Do’245), which is the length in the y-axis direction, is smaller than the thickness, which is the length in the z-axis direction (shown in the combination of annotated Fig 1 and annotated Fig 2 Yang).
PNG
media_image2.png
833
706
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
881
1398
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Yang and Do’245 discloses the limitations of claim 11 as explained above. The combination of Yang and Do’245, as applied to claim 11, does not directly disclose
wherein the drivable mounting ratio of the plurality of ultra-thin pin LED devices disposed is 70% or more.
However, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that having a plurality of ultra-thin pin LED devices disposed have a drivable mounting ratio of 70% or more in which the first or second surface of each device mounted so as to come into contact with an upper surface of the lower electrode would be a result effective variable in that having a higher drivable mounting ratio would further optimize the electrical functioning capability of the device due to having more drivable surface area.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yang and Do’245 to include wherein the plurality of ultra-thin pin LED devices disposed have a drivable mounting of 70% or more in which the first or second surface of each device mounted so as to come into contact with an upper surface of the lower electrode in order to optimize the electrical functioning capability of the device due to having more drivable surface area and because it has been held that "[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 re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Yang and Do’245 discloses the limitations of claim 11 as explained above. The combination of Yang and Do’245 further discloses
wherein a selective mounting ratio, which is a ratio of devices (20 Yang/120 Do’245) mounted such that one of the first (shown in annotated Fig 2 Yang) and second surfaces (shown in annotated Fig 2 Do’245) thereof is in contact with the upper surface of the lower electrode (25 Yang) among the plurality of ultra-thin pin LED devices (20 Yang/120 Do’245) disposed, satisfies 70% or more (the selective mounting ratio of the devices shown in Fig 1 Do’245 and Fig 2 Yang appears to be 50% or greater, although not drawn to scale).
PNG
media_image2.png
833
706
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
881
1398
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The combination of Yang and Do’245 does not directly disclose
wherein the selective mounting ratio satisfies 70% or more.
However, a person of ordinary skill in the art would know that the selective mounting ratio as indicated in the claim language is a result effective variable in that more LED elements that can be provided in the required space would improve and optimize the electrical and optical functioning of the device, i.e. color, brightness etc.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of thew claimed invention to modify the combination of Yang and Do’245 to include wherein the selective mounting ratio satisfies 70% or more in order to optimize the electrical and optical functioning of the device, i.e. color, brightness etc., and because it has been held that "[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 re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP 2144.05). Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that having a greater selective mounting ratio would also provide more structural support to the device which would improve the reliability and durability of the device (see MPEP 2143.I(D)).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Yang and Do’245 discloses the limitations of claim 15 as explained above. The combination of Yang and Do’245 does not directly disclose
wherein the selective mounting ratio satisfies 85% or more.
However, a person of ordinary skill in the art would know that the selective mounting ratio as indicated in the claim language is a result effective variable in that more LED elements that can be provided in the required space would improve and optimize the electrical and optical functioning of the device, i.e. color, brightness etc.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of thew claimed invention to modify the combination of Yang and Do’245 to include wherein the selective mounting ratio satisfies 85% or more in order to optimize the electrical and optical functioning of the device, i.e. color, brightness etc., and because it has been held that "[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 re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP 2144.05). Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that having a greater selective mounting ratio would also provide more structural support to the device which would improve the reliability and durability of the device (see MPEP 2143.I(D)).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Yang and Do’245 discloses the limitations of claim 11 as explained above. The combination of Yang and Do’245, as applied to claim 11, does not directly disclose
a light source comprising: a support, and the ultra-thin pin LED electrode assembly according to claim 11 provided such that a lower electrode line is disposed on the support.
However, Do’245, in the related art of semiconductor devices that include nano LED devices, discloses
a light source (light source [0005]) comprising: a support (substrate 100 [0107] Fig 1A), and the ultra-thin pin LED electrode assembly (nano-scale LED devices 120 [0158] Fig 7) according to claim 11 provided such that a lower electrode line (lower electrodes [0330]) is disposed on the support (100)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yang and Do’245 to include a light source comprising: a support, and the ultra-thin pin LED electrode assembly according to claim 11 provided such that a lower electrode line is disposed on the support a taught by Do’245 in order to act as a RGB full-color display and maximize light extraction efficiency, and minimize display defects due to pixel defects [0022]. Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that having a RGB full-color display would be advantageous in optimizing the functional capability of the device to include different colors and improved display capability (see MPEP 2143.I(D)).
The combination of Yang and Do’245 now discloses
a light source (light source [0005] Do’245) comprising: a support (substrate 10 [0014] Fig 2 Yang), and the ultra-thin pin LED electrode assembly (micro-LED display panel 100 [0013] Fig 2 Yang/nano-scale LED devices 120 [0158] Fig 7 Do’245) according to claim 11 provided such that a lower electrode line (layer of lower electrode 25 [0015] Yang) is disposed on the support (10 Yang).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Yang and Do’245 discloses the limitations of claim 17 as explained above. The combination of Yang and Do’245 further discloses
further comprising: a color conversion material (color conversion layers [0030] Do’245) excited by light irradiated from the ultra-thin pin LED electrode assembly (micro-LED display panel 100 [0013] Fig 2 Yang/nano-scale LED devices 120 [0158] Fig 7 Do’245).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Yang and Do’245 discloses the limitations of claim 17 as explained above. The combination of Yang and Do’245 further discloses
wherein the ultra-thin pin LED device (micro-LEDs 20 Yang/nano-scale LED devices 120 [0158] Fig 7 Do’245) provided in the ultra-thin pin LED electrode assembly (micro-LED display panel 100 [0013] Fig 2 Yang/nano-scale LED devices 120 [0158] Fig 7 Do’245) is a device emitting light of any one of UV, blue, green, yellow, amber, and red (blue, green, red [0047] Do’245).
Related Cited Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kapur et al (US 2008/0272391) which discloses fabrication techniques for forming a semiconductor device that may include coupling of SOI waveguides to Ge-based LEDs [0042], and Akatsuka et al (US 2021/0280740) which discloses a light emitting apparatus [0020].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID PAUL SEDOROOK whose telephone number is (571)272-4158. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am -5pm.
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 B Partridge can be reached on (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.
/D.P.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2812
/William B Partridge/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812