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 Claims
Claims 1-8 are pending. Claim 7 is withdrawn. Claims 1, 2, 5 are amended.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 23, 2024 containing six (6) pages is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 4, 2023 containing seven (7) pages is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement filed four (4) and thirty-three (33) pages files August 4, 2023 coded “IDS” are not an appropriate listing as required by 37 C.F.R. 1.98(a)(1) and fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because MPEP 609.05(a) state: "If an information disclosure statement does not comply with the requirements based on the time of filing of the IDS as discussed in MPEP § 609.04(b), including the requirements for fees and/or statement under 37 CFR 1.97(e), the IDS will be placed in the application file, but none of the information will be considered by the examiner.
Also, MPEP 609.02(II)(A)(2) states: "If resubmitting a listing of the information, applicant should submit a new listing that complies with the format requirements in 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1) and the timing requirements of 37 CFR 1.97." NOTE: consistent with the form paragraph above, MPEP 6.49.08 also states. "Applicants are strongly discouraged from submitting a list that includes copies of PTO/SB/08 or PTO-892 forms from other applications. A completed PTO/SB/08 form from another application may already have initials of an examiner and the application number of another application. This information will likely confuse the record. Furthermore, when the spaces provided on the form have initials of an examiner, there are no spaces available next to the documents listed for the examiner of the subsequent application to provide his or her initials, and the previously relevant initials may be erroneously construed as being applied for the current application."
It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: claim 1 recites “a plurality of light blockers disposed above the pixel-defining layer and spaced apart from each other in a plan view” in the 7-8 lines of the claim language.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the light blockers" in the last paragraph of the claim language. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purpose of examination and compact prosecution, examiner shall interpret “the light blockers” to be “the plurality of light blockers”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 objected to for the same analogous reasons as claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1. Claim 1 recites the limitation “a plurality of light blockers disposed above the pixel-defining layer and spaced apart from each other in a plan view” in lines 7-8 of the claim language.
Applicant does not have writing support in the originally filed specifications for a plurality of light blockers disposed above the pixel-defining layer and spaced apart from each other in a plan view.
Claims 2-6 and 8 are rejected for dependence upon a 112(a) rejected instance claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bibl et al (U.S. 2014/0367705).
Regarding claim 1. Bibl et al disclose a display apparatus (FIG. 13A) comprising: a substrate (FIG. 9, item 102);
at least a first pixel (FIG. 13A, item 128 with item 400R), a second pixel (FIG. 13A, item 128 with item 400G) and a third pixel (FIG. 13A, item 128 with item 400B) emitting light having different color to each other ([0049]);
a pixel-defining layer (FIG. 9, item 126; [0047])) disposed above the substrate (FIG. 9, item 102) and comprising concave portions (see FIG. 13A with respect to FIG. 9, item 128) which define emission regions ([0047]) of the first pixel (FIG. 13A, item 128 with item 400R), the second pixel (FIG. 13A, item 128 with item 400G) and the third pixel (FIG. 13B, item 128 with item 400B); and
light blocker (FIG. 9, item 318; FIG. 13A, item 318) disposed above the pixel-defining layer
wherein each of the first pixel (FIG. 13A, item 128 with item 400R), the second pixel (FIG. 13B, item 128 with item 400G) and the third pixel (FIG. 13A, item 128 with item 400B) comprises a light-emitting diode (FIG. 9, item 400; FIG. 13A, item 400) disposed in a corresponding concave portion (see FIG. 13A with respect to FIG. 9, item 128) among the concave portions (see FIG. 13A with respect to FIG. 9, item 128), and
wherein a light blocker (FIG. 13A, item 318) covers light-emitting diodes of the first pixel (FIG. 13A, item 128 with item 400R), the second pixel (FIG. 13A, item 128 with item 400G) and the third pixel (FIG. 13A, item 128 with item 400B).
wherein a light blocker (FIG. 13A, item 318) simultaneously ([0087]) covers light emitting diodes (FIG. 13A, item 400) of the first pixel (FIG. 13A, item 128 with item 400R), second pixel (FIG. 13A, item 128 with item 400G) and third pixel (FIG. 13A, item 128 with item 400B).
Bibl et al fails to explicitly disclose a plurality of light blockers and spaced apart from each other in plan view in FIG. 13A.
Although Bibl et al FIG. 13A does not disclose a plurality of light blockers, the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
The courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04 Section VI B.
Furthermore, Bibl et al in [0096] states it would become apparent to one skilled in the art that combinations or variations of the above embodiments are possible for integrating a plurality of micro LED devices into a corresponding plurality of reflective bank structures of a light emitting device.
Bibl et al teaches in FIG. 13B a plurality ([0088]) of light blockers (FIG. 13B, item 318) and spaced apart ([0088]) from each other in plan view ([0088], i.e. formation of a plurality of separate top electrode layers 318).
Since Bibl FIG. 13A and Bibl FIG. 13B teach top electrodes, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art of semiconductors before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the display apparatus as disclosed to modify Bibl FIG. 13A with the teachings of a plurality of light blockers and spaced apart from each other in plan view as disclosed by Bibl FIG. 13B. The use of formation of a plurality of separate top electrode layers in Bibl provides for practical approach for patterning the individual top electrode layers without requiring a separate mask layer for each particular configuration in the redundancy and repair scheme (Bibl, [0089]).
Regarding claim 2. Bibl et al discloses all the limitation of the display apparatus of claim 1 above.
Bibl et al further wherein the light-emitting diode (FIG. 9, item 400; FIG. 13A, item 400) of the first pixel (FIG. 13A, item 128 with item 400R) is disposed adjacent ([0087]) to a first inner side surface (FIG. 13A, inner surface of item 128 with item 400R) a the first concave portion (FIG. 13A, item 128 with item 400R) among the concave portions (FIG. 13A, item 128), the light-emitting diode (FIG. 9, item 400; FIG. 13A, item 400) of the second pixel (FIG. 13A, item 128 with item 400G) is disposed adjacent ([0087]) to a first inner side surface (FIG. 13A, inner surface of item 128 with item 400G) of a second concave portion (see FIG. 13A with respect to FIG. 9, item 128) among the concave portions (FIG. 13A, item 128) and the light-emitting diode (FIG. 9, item 400; FIG. 13A, item 400) of the third pixel (FIG. 13A, item 128 with item 400R) is disposed adjacent ([0087]) to a first inner side surface (FIG. 13A, inner surface of item 128 with item 400B) of a third concave portion (see FIG. 13A with respect to FIG. 9, item 128) among the concave portions (FIG. 13A, item 128).
Regarding claim 3. Bibl et al discloses all the limitation of the display apparatus of claim 2 above.
Bibl et al further wherein the first inner side surface (FIG. 13A, inner surface of item 128 with item 400R) of the first concave portion (FIG. 13A, item 128 with item 400R) and the first inner side surface (FIG. 13A, inner surface of item 128 with item 400G) of the second concave portion (FIG. 13A, item 128 with item 400G) face to each other (FIG. 13A, item 106; [0087]).
Regarding claim 4. Bibl et al discloses all the limitation of the display apparatus of claim 2 above.
Bibl et al further disclose wherein the first inner side surfaces of the first (see FIG. 13A with respect to FIG. 9, item 128), second (see FIG. 13A with respect to FIG. 9, item 128) and third concave portions (see FIG. 13A with respect to FIG. 9, item 128) are disposed adjacent ([0087]) to each other (FIG. 13A, item 106).
Regarding claim 5. Bibl et al discloses all the limitation of the display apparatus of claim 1 above.
Bibl et al further disclose wherein the light blocker (FIG. 9, item 318; FIG. 13A, item 318) among the light blockers (FIG. 13B, item 318) is electrically connected to upper surfaces ([0087], i.e. the top electrode layer 318 is formed over all of the micro LED devices 400 in the pixel area) of the light-emitting diodes (FIG. 9, item 400; FIG. 13A, item 400) of the first pixel (FIG. 13A, item 128 with item 400R), the second pixel (FIG. 13A, item 128 with item 400G) and the third pixel (FIG. 13A, item 128 with item 400B), and
a voltage ([0045]) for driving ([0045]) the light-emitting diodes (FIG. 9, item 400; FIG. 13A, item 400) is applied via the light blocker (FIG. 9, item 318; FIG. 13A, item 318; [0087]).
Regarding claim 6. Bibl et al discloses all the limitation of the display apparatus of claim 1 above.
Bibl et al further disclose further comprising a light guide (FIG. 9, item 210; [0070]) filled in the concave portions (see FIG. 13A with respect to FIG. 9, item 128).
Regarding claim 8. Bibl et al discloses all the limitation of the display apparatus of claim 2 above.
Bibl et al further disclose wherein the first pixel (FIG. 9, item 400; FIG. 13A, item 128 with item 400R), the second pixel (FIG. 13A, item 128 with item 400G) and the third pixel (FIG. 13A, item 128 with item 400B) form a unit body (FIG. 13A, item 106) and the unit body (FIG. 13A, item 106) is repeatedly arranged above the substrate (FIG. 13A, item 102).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s arguments on page 6regarding the IDS, the examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons stated above.
On pages 8 and 9 of applicant’s remarks, applicant appears to argue Bibl et al FIG. 13A and Bibl et al FIG. 13B separately fails to disclose all the limitations of applicant’s amended claim 1.
Examiner respectfully points out that Bibl et al FIG. 13A and Bibl et al FIG. 13B in combination teaches all the limitations of applicant amended claim 1.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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 SCOTT E BAUMAN whose telephone number is (469)295-9045. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 CST.
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.
/S.E.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 2815 /JOSHUA BENITEZ ROSARIO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Prosecution Insights