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
Claims 1-20 remain pending in this application. Acknowledgement is made of the amendment received 01/23/2026. Claims 1-14, 16, 19, and 20 are amended.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 18/139,285, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are not entitled to the benefit of the prior application:
Regarding claims 1-15, claim 1 recites the limitation “a first molding layer disposed on the third light emitting structure, wherein the first molding layer converts a wavelength of light emitted from the third light emitting structure”, which is unsupported by the prior-filed application. Claims 2-15 are dependent on claim 1, and are therefore not entitled to the benefit.
Regarding claims 16-20, claim 16 recites the limitation “a first molding layer disposed on the third light emitting structure, wherein a light emitted through the first molding layer comprises a fourth FWHM, the first FWHM being greater than the fourth FWHM”, which is unsupported by the prior-filed application. Claims 17-20 are dependent on claim 16, and are therefore not entitled to the benefit.
Applicant’s argument in response have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that ¶0092 of the prior-filed application, which discloses a first cover that layer that “may include a light reflective or light absorbing material”, and ¶0099, which discloses a second cover layer that “may include a translucent material”, implicitly of inherently support the wavelength-conversion limitation. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Light reflection, light absorption, and translucency are each distinct optical phenomena from wavelength conversion that do not inherently encompass it. The cover layers of the prior-filed applications appear to serve structural encapsulation functions instead. Applicant further argues that ¶0125 describes optional additional layers that provides implicit support. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. None of the addition layers perform wavelength conversion, and open-ended language about unspecified “additional function” appears insufficient to provide a written description support for a specific optical function, not otherwise disclosed. Further, the specific materials of “polymide, an epoxy molding compound, silicone, or the like” do not inherently possess wavelength conversion properties.
Therefore, it appears disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 18/139,285, still fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application, and the above is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pan (CN 114725151 A, hereafter Pan, English translation of description provided).
Regarding claim 1, Pan teaches: A pixel device (Pan 20, fig 1, 2, 15, ¶0054) comprising:
a first light emitter (Pan 202, ¶0054) including an upper surface (Annotated Pan fig 1 below, surface A, surface of 202 adjacent 10) and a lower surface (Annotated Pan fig 1, surface B, surface of 202 away from 10);
a second light emitter (Pan 203, ¶0054) disposed under the lower surface of the first light emitter (Annotated Pan fig 1) and having a width that is less than or equal to a width of the first light emitter (Pan fig 1, ¶0054, “orthographic projection of … 203 onto the upper surface of … 202 is located within the upper surface of … 202”);
a third light emitter (Pan 201, ¶0054) disposed horizontally side-by-side to the first light emitter (Pan fig 1, ¶0054); and
a first molding layer (Pan 204) disposed on the third light emitter (Pan fig 1, at least disposed on the bottom of 201), wherein a horizontal level of a lower surface of the first molding layer (Annotated Pan fig 1, surface C, surface of 204 and 201 is at least lower than a surface of 204 and 10, therefore is at least a lower surface of 204) is higher than a horizontal level of a lower surface of the second light emitter (Annotated Pan fig 1, surface D, surface of 203 away from 10. The surface C is higher than D),
wherein the first molding layer converts a wavelength of light emitted from the third light emitter (Pan ¶0054, “204 … convert the light emitted by … 201”).
PNG
media_image1.png
326
773
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Rotated Pan fig 1
Regarding claim 3, Pan teaches: The pixel device according to claim 1, further comprising: a second molding layer (Pan 30, ¶0069) disposed on the first light emitter (Pan 202)(Pan fig 15).
Regarding claim 4, Pan teaches: The pixel device according to claim 1, wherein the first light emitter (Pan 202) and the third light emitter (Pan 201) emit the same color-based light (Pan ¶0054, blue).
Regarding claim 5, Pan teaches: The pixel device according to claim 4, wherein the first light emitter (Pan 202) and the third light emitter (Pan 201) emit blue-based light (Pan ¶0054, blue) and the first molding layer (Pan 204) converts light emitted from the third light emitter into red-based light through wavelength conversion (Pan ¶0054, “convert the light emitted by … 201 into red light”).
Regarding claim 8, Pan teaches: The pixel device according to claim 1, further comprising: a first cover layer (Pan 30, ¶0069) surrounding exposed side surfaces and lower surfaces of the first light emitter (Pan 202), the second light emitter (Pan 203), and the third light emitter (Pan 201)(Pan fig 15).
Regarding claim 9, Pan teaches: The pixel device according to claim 1, further comprising: an ohmic layer (Pan ¶0059, “P-type ohmic contact layer”) disposed on a lower surface of a second conductivity type semiconductor layer (Pan ¶0059, “P-type compound semiconductor layer”) of at least one of the first light emitter (Pan 202), the second light emitter (Pan 203), and the third light emitter (Pan 201)(Pan ¶0059).
Regarding claim 10, Pan teaches: The pixel device according to claim 1, further comprising: a plurality of electrode pads (Pan 2011, 2021, 2031, ¶0060) electrically connected to at least one of the first light emitter (Pan 202), the second light emitter (Pan 203), and the third light emitter (Pan 201)(Pan fig 2, 15).
Regarding claim 11, Pan teaches: The pixel device according to claim 10, further comprising: a plurality of connection layers (Pan 11, 2012, 2022, 2032, ¶0061, 0107) connected to the multiple electrode pads (Pan 2011, 2021, 2031, ¶0060), respectively (Pan fig 2, 15).
Regarding claim 12, Pan teaches: The pixel device according to claim 1, wherein a first conductivity type semiconductor layer (Pan 23) of the first light emitter (Pan 202) is integrally formed with a first conductivity type semiconductor layer of the third light emitter (Pan 201)(Pan fig 11, 12).
Regarding claim 14, Pan teaches: The pixel device according to claim 1, further comprising: a bonding layer (Pan 209, ¶0065) bonding the first light emitter (Pan 202) to the second light emitter (Pan 203)(Pan fig 15, ¶0065).
Regarding claim 15, Pan teaches: A display apparatus comprising:
a circuit substrate (Pan 10, fig 1, 15, ¶0055); and
the pixel device (Pan 20) according to claim 1 disposed on the circuit substrate (Pan fig 1, 15, ¶0054).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 2, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan (CN 114725151 A, hereafter Pan, English translation of description provided), as applied to claims 1 or 5, and further in view of Juang et al (US 20190181306 A1, hereafter Juang).
Regarding claim 2, Pan teaches: The pixel device according to claim 1.
Pan does not teach: wherein a peak wavelength of light emitted from the first molding layer has a full width at half maximum (FWHM) of 50 nm or less.
Juang, in the same field of endeavor of semiconductor device manufacturing, teaches: a wavelength conversion material (Juang 100) having a FWHM of 50nm or less (Juang ¶0048, 0051, “a full width at half maximum of 8 nm to 30 nm”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the first molding layer of Pan with the wavelength conversion material of Juang, such that “the first molding layer has a full width at half maximum (FWHM) of 50 nm or less”, in order to improve the color purity of the pixel device (Juang ¶0003, 0050).
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the FWHM is for a particular unobvious purpose, produces an unexpected result, or is otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the device would possess utility using another FWHM. It has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 6, Pan teaches: The pixel device according to claim 5.
Pan does not explicitly teach: wherein light emitted from the first light emitter and the third light emitter has a peak wavelength in the range of 430 nm to 470 nm.
Pan further teaches: wherein the first light emitter (Pan 202) and the third light emitter (Pan 201) emit blue-based light (Pan ¶0054, blue).
Juang, in the same field of endeavor of semiconductor device manufacturing, teaches: red quantum dots irradiated by a light with a wavelength of 390 nm to 500 nm (Juang ¶0029) emitting light with a peak wavelength of 605 nm to 680 nm (Juang ¶0029); and
a wavelength conversion material (Juang 100) emits a light having a peak wavelength of 430 nm to 470 nm (Juang ¶0029).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to adjust the peak wavelength of the first light emitter and the third light emitters of Pan, such that they have “a peak wavelength in the range of 430 nm to 470 nm”, in order to omit a need for converting light emitted by the first light emitting structure (Takeya ¶0182), thereby eliminating a manufacturing step, while maintaining a blue light required to achieve 100% NTSC color gamut (Juang ¶0050, 0051).
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the peak wavelength is for a particular unobvious purpose, produces an unexpected result, or is otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the device would possess utility using another rang of peak wavelengths. It has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 7, Pan teaches: The pixel device according to claim 5.
Pan does not explicitly teach: wherein light emitted from the first molding layer has a peak wavelength in the range of 600 nm to 680 nm.
Pan further teaches: wherein the first molding layer (Pan 204) converts a wavelength of light emitted from the third light emitter (Pan 201) to red light (Pan ¶0054, “convert the light emitted by … 201 into red light”).
Juang, in the same field of endeavor of semiconductor device manufacturing, in at least one embodiment, teaches: wherein light emitted from a wavelength conversion material (Juang 100) has a peak wavelength in the range of 605 nm to 680 nm (Juang ¶0029).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the first molding layer of Pan with the wavelength conversion material of Juang, such that “the first molding layer has a peak wavelength in the range of 600 nm to 680 nm”, in order to improve the color purity of the pixel device (Juang ¶0003, 0050), and/or to achieve 100% NTSC color gamut (Juang ¶0050, 0051).
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the peak wavelength is for a particular unobvious purpose, produces an unexpected result, or is otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the device would possess utility using another peak wavelength. It has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical (MPEP 2144.04).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan (CN 114725151 A, hereafter Pan, English translation of description provided), as applied to claim 12, and further in view of Iguchi et al (US 20200266233 A1, hereafter Iguchi).
Regarding claim 13, Pan teaches: The pixel device according to claim 12.
Pan does not explicitly teach: a concave portion formed under a portion corresponding to a connecting portion between the first conductivity type semiconductor layer of the first light emitter and the first conductivity type semiconductor layer of the third light emitter.
Iguchi, in the same field of endeavor of semiconductor device manufacturing, teaches: a concave portion (Iguchi 6d) formed under a portion corresponding to a connecting portion (portion of Iguchi 11d within 6d) between a first conductivity type semiconductor layer (Iguchi 11d, “N-side layer”) of a first light emitter (Iguchi 100dB) and the first conductivity type semiconductor layer of a third light emitter (Iguchi 100dR)(Iguchi fig 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the first conductivity type semiconductor layer of Pan to include a concave portion of the first conductivity type semiconductor layer, as taught by Iguchi, such that “a concave portion formed under a portion corresponding to a connecting portion between the first conductivity type semiconductor layer of the first light emitter and the first conductivity type semiconductor layer of the third light emitter”, in order to simplify manufacturing process of the first and third light emitters (Iguchi ¶0122), and/or in order to maintain electrical isolation between the first and third light emitters (Iguchi ¶0054).
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan (CN 114725151 A, hereafter Pan, English translation of description provided) in view of Juang et al (US 20190181306 A1, hereafter Juang).
Regarding claim 16, Pan teaches: A pixel device comprising:
a first light emitter (Pan 202, ¶0054) generating a first light (Pan ¶0054, blue) and including an upper surface (Annotated Pan fig 1 above, surface A, surface of 202 adjacent 10) and a lower surface (Annotated Pan fig 1, surface B, surface of 202 away from 10);
a second light emitter (Pan 203, ¶0054) disposed under the lower surface of the first light emitter (Annotated Pan fig 1) and having a width that is less than or equal to a width of the first light emitter (Pan fig 1, ¶0054, “orthographic projection of … 203 onto the upper surface of … 202 is located within the upper surface of … 202”);
a third light emitter (Pan 201, ¶0054) disposed horizontally side-by-side to the first light emitter (Pan fig 1, ¶0054); and
a first molding layer (Pan 204) disposed on the third light emitter (Pan fig 1, at least disposed on the bottom of 201), wherein a horizontal level of a lower surface of the first molding layer (Annotated Pan fig 1, surface C, surface of 204 and 201 is at least lower than a surface of 204 and 10, therefore is at least a lower surface of 204) is higher than a horizontal level of a lower surface of the second light emitter (Annotated Pan fig 1, surface D, surface of 203 away from 10. The surface C is higher than D).
Pan does not explicitly teach: a first light having a first full width at half maximum (FWHM);
a second light emitting structure having a second FWHM;
a third light emitting structure having a third FWHM; and
a light emitted through the first molding layer comprises a fourth FWHM,
the first FWHM being greater than the fourth FWHM.
Pan further teaches: the first light emitter (Pan 202) and the third light emitter (Pan 201) emit blue-based light (Pan ¶0054, blue) and the first molding layer (Pan 204) converts light emitted from the third light emitter into red-based light through wavelength conversion (Pan ¶0054, “convert the light emitted by … 201 into red light”).
Juang, in the same field of endeavor of semiconductor device manufacturing, and in at least one embodiment, teaches: a green color light having a first FWHM of 40 nm to 108 nm (Juang ¶0045);
a blue color light having a second FWHM of 15 nm to 60 nm (Juang ¶0029);
a red light emitted through conversion comprises a fourth FWHM of 8 nm to 30 nm (Juang ¶0051);
the first FWHM being greater than the fourth FWHM (40 nm to 108 nm being greater than 8 nm to 30 nm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Pan to adjust the emission spectra for each color, such that the limitations of claim 16 are met, in order to achieve 100% NTSC color gamut (Juang ¶0050, 0051), thereby improving the color space and/or purity available to a pixel device.
Regarding claim 17, Pan in view of Juang teaches: The pixel device according to claim 16, wherein the second FWHM (Pan 203 as modified by Juang to have a FWHM of 15 nm to 60 nm) is greater than the first FWHM (Pan 202 as modified by Juang to have a FWHM of 40 nm to 108 nm)(at least wherein the first and second FWHM is between 40-60 nm).
Further, the adjustment of FWHM is a matter of routine optimization. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05). In the instant case, the general conditions of adjusting FWHM is disclosed by Juang, and therefore discovering the optimum or working range of “the second FWHM is greater than the first FWHM" involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 18, Pan in view of Juang teaches: The pixel device according to claim 16, wherein the third FWHM (Pan 201 as modified by Juang to have a FWHM of 15 nm to 60 nm) is greater than the fourth FWHM (Pan 204 as modified by Juang to have a FWHM of 8 nm to 30 nm)(at least wherein the fourth FWHM is less than 15nm).
Further, the adjustment of FWHM is a matter of routine optimization. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05). In the instant case, the general conditions of adjusting FWHM is disclosed by Juang, and therefore discovering the optimum or working range of “the third FWHM is greater than the fourth FWHM" involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 19, Pan in view of Juang teaches: The pixel device according to claim 1, further comprising: a second molding layer (Pan 30, ¶0069) disposed on the first light emitter (Pan 202)(Pan fig 15).
Regarding claim 20, Pan in view of Juang teaches: The pixel device according to claim 16, further comprising: a bonding layer (Pan 209, ¶0065) bonding the first light emitter (Pan 202) to the second light emitter (Pan 203)(Pan fig 15, ¶0065).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 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.
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 NICHOLAS B. MICHAUD whose telephone number is (703)756-1796. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 0800-1700 Eastern Time.
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 at (571) 272-3829. 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.
/NICHOLAS B. MICHAUD/
EXAMINER
Art Unit 2818
/Mounir S Amer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818