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 .
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.
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 & 8-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sung (US 20170317228) in view of Amada et al. (US 6727792).
Regarding claim 1, Sung discloses that a light emitting element, comprising:
a first semiconductor layer 30a/52;
an emission layer 30b disposed on the first semiconductor layer;
a second semiconductor layer 30c/53c disposed on the emission layer;
an insulating film 30f/53f enclosing a side surface of the first semiconductor layer, a side surface of the emission layer, and a side surface of the second semiconductor layer; and an electrode layer 30e/53e disposed on the second semiconductor layer 30f and the insulating film, wherein the insulating film does not enclose the electrode layer (Fig. 2 & 7).
Sung fails to teach that wherein, in a plan view, the electrode layer comprises a plurality of protrusions, each of the plurality of protrusions crossing a virtual outer peripheral profile of the light emitting element.
However, Amanda suggests that wherein , in a plan view, the electrode layer comprises a plurality of protrusions, each of the plurality of protrusions crossing a virtual outer peripheral profile of an element (Fig. 1(A) & (B)).
PNG
media_image1.png
302
774
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of applicant(s) claimed invention was made to provide Sung with wherein, in a plan view, the electrode layer comprises a plurality of protrusions, each of the plurality of protrusions crossing a virtual outer peripheral profile of the light emitting element.as taught by B in order to improve efficient of mounting (col. 15, lines 30) and also, the claim would have been obvious because a particular know technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
The combination of Sung & Amanda teach that electrodes of Amanda 2 & 1b can be substitute to Sung’s electrodes (MPEP 2144.04, IV-B changes in shape).
PNG
media_image2.png
474
855
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Reclaim 2, Sung & Amanda disclose that an upper surface of the second semiconductor layer 53c and an upper surface of the insulating film 53f are located in a substantially identical plane, and the electrode layer 53e is directly disposed on the upper surface of the insulating film (Sung, Fig. 7).
Reclaim 3, Sung & Amanda disclose that a diameter of the first semiconductor layer and a diameter of the second semiconductor layer are substantially identical to each other (Sung, Fig. 7).
Reclaim 4, Sung & Amanda disclose that a thickness of a portion of the insulating film that physically contacts the second semiconductor layer and a thickness of another portion of the insulating film that physically contacts the first semiconductor layer are substantially identical to each other (Sung, Fig. 7).
Reclaim 5, Sung & Amanda disclose that the electrode layer has a bottle cap shape (Fig. 7).
Reclaim 6, Sung & Amanda disclose that, in the plan view, protrusions protrude further than sides of a virtual hexagon corresponding to the light emitting element (Sung, Fig. 7 in view of Amanda, note: change in hexagon shape is obvious due to MPEP 2144.04) .
Reclaim 8, Sung & Amanda disclose that in a plan view, a diameter of the electrode layer is greater than a diameter of the insulating film (Sung, Fig. 7).
Reclaim 9, Sung & Amanda disclose that the electrode layer partially covers a side surface of the insulating film that is adjacent to an upper surface of the insulating film (Sung, Fig. 7).
Reclaim 10, Sung & Amanda disclose that relative to an upper surface of the second semiconductor layer, the electrode layer has an inclination angle of about 90° or less (Sung, Fig. 7).
Reclaim 11, Sung & Amanda disclose that relative to an upper surface of the second semiconductor layer, the electrode layer has an inclination angle of about 90° or more (Sung, Fig. 7).
Reclaim 12, Sung & Amanda disclose that, on a boundary between the insulating film and the electrode layer, a diameter of the electrode layer is greater than a diameter of the second semiconductor layer and less than a diameter of the insulating film (Sung, Fig. 7).
Reclaim 13, Sung & Amanda disclose that, relative to an upper surface of the second semiconductor layer, the electrode layer has an inclination angle of about 90° or less (Sung, Fig. 7).
Reclaim 14, Sung & Amanda disclose that, relative to an upper surface of the second semiconductor layer, the electrode layer has an inclination angle of about 90° or more (Sung, Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 15, Sung & Amanda disclose that a display device, comprising:
a pixel comprising:
a first electrode 56d;
a second electrode 56e; and
a light emitting element 56a-c including a first end electrically connected to the first electrode, and a second end electrically connected to the second electrode, wherein the light emitting element comprises:
a first semiconductor layer, an emission layer, a second semiconductor layer 56a-c, and an electrode layer that are successively disposed in a direction from the second end to the first end; and an insulating film enclosing a side surface of the first semiconductor layer, a side surface of the emission layer, and a side surface of the second semiconductor layer, the electrode layer partially covers the insulating film, and the insulating film does not enclose the electrode layer (Sung, Fig. 12 & 7), wherein, in a plan view, the electrode layer comprises a plurality of protrusions, each of the plurality of protrusions crossing a virtual outer peripheral profile of the light emitting element (Sung in view of Amanda’s electrode shape in Fig. 1(A)&(B), MPEP 2144.04 change in shape).
Reclaim 16, Sung & Amanda disclose that a diameter of the first semiconductor layer and a diameter of the second semiconductor layer are substantially identical to each other (Sung, Fig. 7).
Reclaim 17, Sung & Amanda disclose that the electrode layer has a bottle cap shape (Sung, Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 18, Sung & Amanda disclose that a method of fabricating a light emitting element, comprising: successively forming a first semiconductor layer, an emission layer and a second semiconductor layer on a substrate Fig. ; patterning a stack including the first semiconductor layer, the emission layer, and the second semiconductor layer in a rod shape; forming an insulating film on a side surface of the stack; forming an electrode layer on the second semiconductor layer and the insulating film; and separating a light emitting element including the stack, the insulating film, and the electrode layer from the substrate (Sung, Fig. 7 & 10, para. 0017-0019) and wherein, in a plan view, the electrode layer comprises a plurality of protrusions, each of the plurality of protrusions crossing a virtual outer peripheral profile of the light emitting element (Sung in view of Amanda’s electrode shape in Fig. 1(A)-(B)).
Reclaim 19, Sung & Amanda disclose that the forming of the electrode layer comprises: primarily forming, using a sputtering technique, the electrode layer that covers only an upper end of the stack; and
etching, using a wet etching technique, the electrode layer primarily formed (Sung, Fig. 10, para. 0100).
Reclaim 20, Sung & Amanda disclose that a diameter of the first semiconductor layer and a diameter of the second semiconductor layer are substantially identical to each other (Sung, Fig. 7).
Reclaim 21, Sung & Amanda disclose that the electrode layer has a bottle cap shape. (Sung, Fig. 7).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sung (US 20170317228) in view of Amanda et al. (US 6727792) and further in view of Kususe et al. (US 7511311 ).
Reclaim 7, Sung & Amanda disclose fail to specify that per one side of the virtual hexagon, the electrode layer includes at least two protrusions.
However, Kususe suggests that an electrode M1 can be hexagon that includes at least two protrusions (Fig. 52B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of applicant(s) claimed invention was made to provide Sung & Amanda with an electrode M1 can be hexagon that includes at least two protrusions as taught by Kususe in order to enhance variation of shapes and also, the claim would have been obvious because a particular know technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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 SU C KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-5972. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 to 5:00.
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, Dale Page can be reached at 571-270-7877. 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.
/SU C KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899