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/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-8, in the reply filed on 12/29/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/29/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO-1449. The IDS has been considered.
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 first area overlapping the cover layer in a plan view, and the second area not overlapping the cover layer in a plan view, as found in claim 3;
a portion of the N-type semiconductor layer disposed in the second area not overlapping the cover layer in a plan view, as found in claim 4;
the barrier layer and well layer as found in claim 5; and
the silicon dopant having a concentration range within a predetermined range not to form a peak concentration along the stacked direction in the N-type semiconductor layer as found in claim 6,
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. For claims 3 and 4, it appears the cover layer is only shown in relation to claimed elements through cross-sectional views, rather than plan views.
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 Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “to be adjacent to the barrier layer” should likely read -- and adjacent to the barrier layer --. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 6 is 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.
(Re Claim 6) It is unclear what the values of the “predetermined range” are, as claimed. The predetermined range is not defined in the specification or the claims themselves, and neither is there a known standard by which the predetermined range is calculated. What the predetermined range is appears to be the result of each would-be practitioner’s calculation rather than the ultimate device itself. A claim may be rendered indefinite when a limitation of the claim is defined by reference to an object and the relationship between the limitation and the object is not sufficiently defined. In Brummer, the Board held that a limitation in a claim to a bicycle that recited "said front and rear wheels so spaced as to give a wheelbase that is between 58 percent and 75 percent of the height of the rider that the bicycle was designed for" was indefinite because the relationship of parts was not based on any known standard for sizing a bicycle to a rider, but on a rider of unspecified build. Brummer, 12 USPQ2d at 1655.
Furthermore, it is unclear what “peak concentration” is meant to be. The specification only describes the meaning of peak concentration by circular reference to peak concentration (Instant: ¶102). A peak concentration may be understood to be the maximum value of the concentration, or it may be understood to require a particular curve geometry, where the concentration values on either side of the peak concentration in the region of interest are less than the peak concentration itself – like a mountain peak.
During examination, “has a concentration range within a predetermined range not to form a peak concentration” was understood to require only that there is a concentration of silicon dopants in the N-type semiconductor layer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by He et al. (US 2020/0328327).
(Re Claim 1) He teaches a display device comprising: a base layer (503; Fig. 6C); and light emitting elements (520d+520e+520f; Fig. 6C) disposed on the base layer, the light emitting elements including an N-type semiconductor layer (505; Fig. 6C, ¶57), a P-type semiconductor layer (540; Fig. 6C, ¶60), and an active layer (530; Fig. 6C, ¶65) disposed between the N-type semiconductor layer and the P-type semiconductor layer (Fig. 6C), wherein the light emitting elements include a first light emitting element (520a; Fig. 6C) emitting light of a first color (¶59) and a second light emitting element emitting light (520b; Fig. 6C) of a second color (¶59), the N-type semiconductor layer includes a first N-type semiconductor layer of the first light emitting element (boxed area on the left beneath the corresponding active area; Fig. 6C markup) and a second N-type semiconductor layer of the second light emitting element (boxed area in the middle beneath the corresponding active area; Fig. 6C markup), the active layer includes a first active layer (left 530; Fig. 6C) of the first light emitting element and a second active layer (middle 530; Fig. 6C) of the second light emitting element, and the first N-type semiconductor layer and the second N-type semiconductor layer are integral with each other, and form a plane surface in an area where the active layer is disposed (Fig. 6C).
PNG
media_image1.png
681
1037
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Re Claim 2) He teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the first light emitting element and the second light emitting element include a same N-type semiconductor layer (both include 505; ¶57).
(Re Claim 3) He teaches display device of claim 1, further comprising: a cover layer (620; Fig. 6C) disposed between the light emitting elements adjacent to each other, wherein the N-type semiconductor layer includes a first area and a second area, the first area overlaps the cover layer in a plan view, the second area does not overlap the cover layer in a plan view, and the active layer and the p-type semiconductor layer are disposed in the second area (Fig. 6C markup).
PNG
media_image2.png
658
1048
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Re Claim 4) He teaches the display device of claim 3, wherein a portion (under the middle active layer 530) of the N-type semiconductor layer disposed in the second area does not overlap the cover layer in a plan view (Fig. 6C markup).
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.
Claims 5 and 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (US 2020/0328327) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Su et al. (US 2012/0235116).
(Re Claim 5) He teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the first active layer and the second active layer are formed on the plane surface formed by the first N-type semiconductor layer and the second N-type semiconductor layer.
He has not been shown to explicitly teach the display device wherein the active layer includes a barrier layer and a well layer and the N-type semiconductor layer is in contact with the active layer to be adjacent to the barrier layer.
He teaches that the active layer may include at least one quantum well (He: ¶65).
Su teaches forming an active layer (208; Fig. 2F) including a barrier layer (272; Fig. 2F) and a well layer (quantum well contacting 272; Fig. 2F), such that an N-type semiconductor layer (206; Fig. 2F) is in contact with the active layer to be adjacent to the barrier layer.
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to form each light emitting element stack of He, such that the active layer of He contacts the N-type semiconductor layer utilized for contact – He’s N-type semiconductor 505 (note contact metal location in Fig. 6C) – as taught by Su, as the active layer configuration taught by Su provides improved quantum efficiency (Su: ¶43).
Modified He then teaches the active layer includes a barrier layer (Su: 272; Fig. 2F) and a well layer (quantum well contacting 272; Fig. 2F), and the N-type semiconductor layer (He: 505) is in contact with the active layer to be adjacent to the barrier layer (compare the location of Su’s 206 with He’s 505).
(Re Claim 7) He teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the N-type semiconductor layer includes GaN (¶77) doped with a first conductivity type dopant (n-type dopant; ¶57), and the P-type semiconductor layer includes GaN (¶77) doped with a second conductivity type dopant (p-type dopant; ¶60).
He has not been shown to explicitly teach the display device wherein the active layer includes a well layer including InGaN and a barrier layer including GaN.
He teaches that the active layer may include at least one quantum well (He: ¶65).
Su teaches forming an active layer (208; Fig. 2F) including a barrier layer (272; Fig. 2F) and a well layer (quantum well contacting 272; Fig. 2F), such that an N-type semiconductor layer (206; Fig. 2F) is in contact with the active layer to be adjacent to the barrier layer.
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to form each light emitting element stack of He, such that the active layer of He contacts the N-type semiconductor layer utilized for contact – He’s N-type semiconductor 505 (note contact metal location in Fig. 6C) – as taught by Su, as the active layer configuration taught by Su provides improved quantum efficiency (Su: ¶43).
Furthermore, Su teaches forming quantum wells using InGaN and barrier layers using GaN (¶¶46, 51).
A PHOSITA would find it obvious to utilize InGaN to form the quantum wells, and GaN to form the barrier layers, of modified He, as Su teaches these are suitable materials to respectively form the quantum wells and barrier layers from. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). "Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.). See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (US 2020/0328327) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hasegawa et al. (US 2016/0372631).
(Re Claim 6) He teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the N-type semiconductor layer, the active layer, and the P-type semiconductor layer are sequentially disposed in a stacked direction (stacked direction is from bottom to top; Fig. 6C), the N-type semiconductor layer includes a dopant (n-type; ¶57), and the dopant has a concentration range within a predetermined range not to form a peak concentration along the stacked direction in the N-type semiconductor layer (non-zero concentration; see 112(b) rejection above).
He has not been shown to explicitly teach that the dopant is a silicon dopant.
Hasegawa teaches that GaN is n-type doped using silicon dopant (¶42).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to utilize silicon dopant to dope the GaN of the N-type semiconductor layer, as this is a known n-type dopant for GaN.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (US 2020/0328327) and Su et al. (US 2012/0235116) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Hu (US 2013/0214247).
(Re Claim 8) Modified He teaches the display device of claim 7, but has not been shown to explicitly teach the display device wherein the light emitting elements further include: a superlattice layer disposed between the active layer and the N-type semiconductor layer, and an electron blocking layer disposed between the active layer and the P-type semiconductor layer.
Su teaches forming an electron blocking layer (EBL; Fig. 2F) between the active layer (208; Fig. 2F) and a P-type semiconductor layer (212; Fig. 2F, ¶49).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to incorporate the electron blocking layer of Su between the active layer and the P-type semiconductor layer of modified He, as electron blocking layers help confine radiative recombination within the active layer (Su: ¶48).
Hu teaches forming a superlattice layer between an active layer (145; Fig. 3) and an N-type semiconductor layer (140; Fig. 3).
A PHOSITA would find it obvious to form a superlattice layer between the active layer and the N-type semiconductor layer of modified He, in order to release stresses within the layers and improve internal quantum efficiency of the light emitting elements (Hu: ¶11).
Modified He then teaches that the light emitting elements further include:
a superlattice layer (Hu: 145; Fig. 3) disposed between the active layer (Su: 208; Fig. 2F) and the N-type semiconductor layer (He: 505; Fig. 6C), and
an electron blocking layer (Su: EBL; Fig. 2F) disposed between the active layer (Su: 208; Fig. 2F) and the P-type semiconductor layer (He: 540; Fig. 6C).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kusunoki et al. (US 2007/0278509) teaches that emission wavelength is determined by indium composition (¶33).
Raring et al. (US 2011/0056429) teaches the formation of a superlattice (Fig. 1, ¶26).
Charles (US 2021/0119075) teaches using a mask (20; Fig. 2C-2D) to form light emitting elements (Fig. 3A-3D).
Wang (US 2021/0335884) teaches using a mask (104; Fig. 1b) to form light emitting elements (Fig. 1c) used for a display (¶43).
Cho (US 2022/0352444) teaches using monolithically integrated light emitting elements in a display (Fig. 5 and 11).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher A Schodde whose telephone number is (571)270-1974. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 1000-1800 EST.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at (571)272-2339. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER A. SCHODDE/Examiner, Art Unit 2898
/JESSICA S MANNO/SPE, Art Unit 2898