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) 1, 4, 6-8, 10 and 13-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground below.
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 “wherein the protective layer is not disposed except on the nanopore structure” 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 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, 4, 6-8, 10 and 13-20 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.
The specification fails to disclose “wherein the protective layer is not disposed except on the nanopore structure”.
Claims 1, 10, and 13 have been amended to include “wherein the protective layer is not disposed except on the nanopore structure”.
In the remarks filed 6/1/25 page 9 of applicant’s response notes “Figure 17 of the application depicts an example of this, where the protective layer 370 is disposed on the nanopore structure 360, and the protective layer 370 is not disposed on regions other than the nanopore structure 360.”
The examiner notes figure 17 shows a middle structure (pixel/led) 312 that does not have nanopores and has the protective layer 370 on top of it.
Paragraph [216] of the specification discloses “FIG. 16(c) is a cross-sectional view illustrating a structure in which a nanopore structure is formed in the first semiconductor layer.”
The examiner submits this shows that nanopores are not formed in the middle section that would become pixel/led 312 in figure 17.
Paragraph [228] of the specification discloses “FIG. 16(f) is a cross-sectional view illustrating a structure in which a protective layer 370 is formed on the first conductive semiconductor layer 340 to cover the light conversion layer.”
Paragraph [231] of the specification discloses “ FIG. 16(g) is a cross-sectional view illustrating that singulation of a semiconductor wafer is performed to correspond to each unit pixel.”
The specification fails to disclose “wherein the protective layer is not disposed except on the nanopore structure”, because the protective layer 370 is shown to be over 340 in pixel/led 312 which does not have a nanopore structure.
MPEP 2163 II 3a ii) discloses "[T]he written description must lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to understand that the inventor possessed the entire scope of the claimed invention. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1353–54”. In this case the applicant has not shown possession of “wherein the protective layer is not disposed except on the nanopore structure” because the protective layer is on a structure without nanopores.
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, 4, 6-8, 10 and 13-20 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.
Claims 1, 10, and 13 have been amended to include “wherein the protective layer is not disposed except on the nanopore structure”.
As noted above the specification fails to disclose the full scope of the amended claim limitation “wherein the protective layer is not disposed except on the nanopore structure”.
This amended claim limitation would have at least two interpretations based on the current specification. The first interpretation is that the protective layer is not disposed except on the nanopore structure as described by the claims. The second interpretation is the protective layer is disposed on structures without nanopores.
MPEP 2173.06 II discloses “where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In reSteele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.” Therefore, the examiner will not address the limitation “wherein the protective layer is not disposed except on the nanopore structure” with respect to the prior art.
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.
Claim(s) 10, 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Han et al. (US 2020/0152841).
Regarding claim 10, Han et al. disclose forming a plurality of semiconductor light emitting elements (102) (fig 1A), each of which includes a semiconductor light emitting element of a first color (blue)[0056]; disposing a barrier on one surface of some of the semiconductor light emitting elements (202) (figs. 2B and 2C); and forming a light conversion layer (114) that converts the first color into a second or third color [0056, 0057] in a semiconductor light emitting element on which the barrier is not disposed among the semiconductor light emitting elements(figs. 2B and 2C), wherein forming the light conversion layer includes: converting a color of at least one semiconductor light emitting element disposed neighboring a semiconductor light emitting element having a color to be converted into the second color (green, using green quantum dots)[0005, 0023, 0056, 0057], into the second color; and converting a color of at least one semiconductor light emitting element disposed neighboring a semiconductor light emitting element having a color to be converted into the third color, into the third color (red, using red quantum dots)[0005, 0023, 0056, 0057] the first color is blue [0005, 0006, 0056] forming a nanopore structure (114)[0072-0075]; and injecting (using a solution with suspended quantum dots to carry quantum dots into the nanopores) a wavelength conversion material into the nanopore structure [0076] forming a protective layer (ITO) on at least one side of the semiconductor light emitting element to cover the nanopore structure (figs. 2D and 3F).
Regarding claims 14, Han et al. disclose the nanopore structure includes a wavelength conversion material (quantum dots) [0073].
Regarding claims 16, Han et al. disclose the barrier (202) is located a surface of one of the plurality of semiconductor light emitting elements among a group of three semiconductor light emitting elements (figs. 2B and 2C).
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.
Claim(s) 1,4, 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhee (WO 2019/142965 published 7/25/2019, the examiner will use US 2020/0343426 as the English translation) in view of Han et al. (US 2020/0152841).
Regarding claim 1, Rhee disclose the first pixel ( fig 2,purple line below in marked up figure 2, and fig 3B) and the second pixel ( fig 2,green line below in marked up figure 2), each of which includes a plurality of unit pixels (150); wherein at least one of the plurality of unit pixels includes a semiconductor light emitting element of a first color (blue)[0068]; remaining unit pixels among the plurality of unit pixels include the semiconductor light emitting element of the first color and a light conversion layer (181, 182) configured to convert the first color into a second or third color; and the light conversion layer of the unit pixel disposed neighboring the second pixel among the plurality of unit pixels included in the first pixel is formed to have a same color as the light conversion layer (181 for red) of the unit pixel disposed neighboring the first pixel among the plurality of unit pixels included in the second pixel (see marked up figure 2 below and figure 3A). Rhee disclose the first color is blue [0068].
PNG
media_image1.png
426
742
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Rhee et al. fails to disclose the light conversion layer has a nanopore structure, and is formed in the semiconductor light emitting element and the nanopore structure includes a wavelength conversion material and a protective layer formed on at least one side of the semiconductor light emitting element to cover the nanopore structure
Han et al. disclose the light conversion layer has a nanopore structure (114), and is formed in the semiconductor light emitting element (figs. 2B, 2C, fig 3B and 3F) the nanopore structure includes a wavelength conversion material [0073]. Han et al. disclose a protective layer (ITO) formed on at least one side of the semiconductor light emitting element to cover the nanopore structure (figs. 2D and 3F).
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (using a nanopore structure to hold quantum dots), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (the nanopore structure would hold quantum dots).
Regarding claims 4, Han et al. disclose the nanopore structure includes a wavelength conversion material (quantum dots) [0073].
Regarding claim 6, Rhee disclose pixel electrodes of the plurality of unit pixels included in the first pixel are formed to be point-symmetrical to pixel electrodes of the plurality of unit pixels included in the second pixel. The examiner submits first pixel electrodes (LED electrodes) will be the same (i.e. point symmetrical) as second pixel electrodes (LED electrodes) as shown in the marked up figure above. The examiner notes that figure 2 is the same as figure 2 in the current application.
Regarding claim 7, Rhee disclose pixel electrodes of the plurality of unit pixels included in the first pixel are formed to be line-symmetrical to pixel electrodes of the plurality of unit pixels included in the second pixel. The examiner submits first pixel electrodes (LED electrodes) of the plurality of unit pixels will be the same (i.e. line symmetrical) as second pixel electrodes (LED electrodes) of the plurality of unit pixels as shown in the marked up figure above.
Regarding claim 8, Rhee disclose the first pixel and the second pixel are integrated into a substrate (210) (single chip) (fig 2). The applicant does not define the composition of the “chip”, and the examiner submits the polyimide substrate would serve as the claimed chip.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhee (WO 2019/142965 published 7/25/2019, the examiner will use US 2020/0343426 as the English translation) in view of Han et al. (US 2020/0152841) and Jung et al. (US 2015/0091037).
Rhee disclose a semiconductor light emitting element (150)(fig. 2) configured to display light of a first color (blue) [0068].
Rhee fails to disclose a light conversion layer disposed inward from one surface of the semiconductor light emitting element, and formed in a nanopore structure to convert the first color into a second color different from the first color.
Han et al. disclose a light conversion layer (114) disposed inward from one surface of the semiconductor light emitting element, and formed in a nanopore structure to convert the first color into a second color different from the first color (figs. 2B, 2C, fig 3B and 3F).
The combination would result in the light conversion layer being formed in Rhee’s layer 153 (figure 4).
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (using a nanopore structure to hold quantum dots), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (the nanopore structure would hold quantum dots which would convert the color).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US 2020/0152841) as applied to claim 14 above and further in view of Ojmeijer et al. (US 2018/0327661).
Han disclose the invention supra.
Han fails to disclose the quantum dot is impregnated into the nanopore structure using an inkjet method.
Ojmeijer et al. et al. disclose using ink jet method to deposit quantum dots [0284].
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (using inkjet deposition), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (the ink jet would deposit the quantum dots in the nanopores, because one using the same process would expect the same results).
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US 2020/0152841) as applied to claim 16 above and further in view of Rhee (WO 2019/142965 published 7/25/2019, the examiner will use US 2020/0343426 as the English translation).
Regarding claim 10, Han et al. disclose the invention supra.
Han et al. fails to disclose the group of three semiconductor light emitting elements forms a first pixel and a second pixel.
Rhee disclose a group of three semiconductor elements forms a first pixel ( fig 2,purple line above in marked up figure 2, and fig 3B) and the second pixel ( fig 2,green line above in marked up figure 2).
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (forming multiple pixels with three colors of LEDs) and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (forming multiple pixels will allow one to make a display device).
Regarding claim 18, Rhee disclose the light conversion layer of the unit pixel disposed neighboring the second pixel among the plurality of unit pixels included in the first pixel is formed to have a same color as the light conversion layer of the unit pixel disposed neighboring the first pixel among the plurality of unit pixels included in the second pixel (fig 2).
Regarding claim 19, Rhee disclose pixel electrodes of the plurality of unit pixels included in the first pixel are formed to be point-symmetrical to pixel electrodes of the plurality of unit pixels included in the second pixel. The examiner submits first pixel electrodes (LED electrodes) will be the same (i.e. point symmetrical) as second pixel electrodes (LED electrodes) as shown in the marked up figure above. The examiner notes that figure 2 is the same as figure 2 in the current application.
Regarding claim 20, Rhee disclose pixel electrodes of the plurality of unit pixels included in the first pixel are formed to be line-symmetrical to pixel electrodes of the plurality of unit pixels included in the second pixel. The examiner submits first pixel electrodes (LED electrodes) of the plurality of unit pixels will be the same (i.e. line symmetrical) as second pixel electrodes (LED electrodes) of the plurality of unit pixels as shown in the marked up figure above.
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 BRADLEY K SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-1884. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10am-6pm.
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, Marlon Fletcher can be reached at 571-272-2063. 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.
/BRADLEY SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights