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
Claims 10-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/05/2025.
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) 1-3 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE et al. (US. Pub: 2016/0126224 A1~ hereinafter “LEE”) in view of Zou et al. (US. Pat: 11,024,773 B2~ hereinafter “Zou”) of record.
Regarding claims 1 and 7, LEE discloses (in at least fig. 11) a display device (title) comprising: a pixel circuit layer ([0141]; i.e. the active matrix circuit layer) including a base layer (1010) and a pixel circuit (not shown; as evident by [0141]; i.e. the active matrix pixel circuit); a first electrode (1020) disposed on the pixel circuit layer on the base layer (1010); light emitting elements (1050) disposed on the first electrode (1020); a second electrode (1040) disposed on the light emitting elements; a first organic layer (1030) disposed between the light emitting elements (1050); and a contact layer (1152) disposed on a side surface of the light emitting elements (11050) in contacted the light emitting elements.
LEE does not expressly disclose a second organic layer disposed between the light emitting elements and spaced apart from the light emitting elements; and a contact layer disposed between the first organic layer and the second organic layer and contacting a side surface of the light emitting elements.
Zou in the same field of a display device discloses (in at least fig. 2) a first organic layer (203; col. 4, lines 21-22; i.e. the polymer such as PCB, PBO and polyimide) disposed between the light emitting elements (see at least fig. 2), a second organic layer (213; col. 5, lines 11-17; i.e. molding compound, curable paste, polymer or elastomer) disposed between the light emitting element and spaced apart from the light emitting elements; and a contact layer (211) disposed between the first organic layer (203) and the second organic layer (213) and contacting a side surface of the light emitting elements (see fig. 2) for the benefit of providing a display device with enhancing heat dissipation efficiency (col. 1, lines 55-59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the display device of LEE with the teaching of Zou for the benefit of providing a display device with enhancing heat dissipation efficiency (col. 1, lines 55-59).
Regarding claim 2, LEE discloses (in at least fig. 11) the contact layer (1152) extends along the side surface of the light emitting elements (1050) to contact the second electrode (1040).
Regarding claim 3, LEE as modified by Zou discloses (in at least fig. 11 LEE; fig. 2 Zou) the second electrode (1040) includes a light transmissive material (see at least fig. 11B), and the contact layer (211) includes a light reflective material (col. 4, lines 1-2 Zou).
Regarding claim 8, LEE discloses (in at least fig. 11) the second electrode (1040) extends along the side surface of the light emitting elements (150).
Regarding claim 9, LEE discloses (in at least fig. 11) the second electrode (1040) includes a light transmissive material (as evident by at least fig. 11B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest each of the light emitting elements comprises: a first semiconductor layer including a semiconductor of a first type; a second semiconductor layer including a semiconductor of a second type different from the first type; an active layer disposed between the first semiconductor layer and the second semiconductor layer; an electrode layer disposed on the second semiconductor layer; a reflective layer disposed on the electrode layer; a connection electrode layer disposed on the reflective layer and contacting the first electrode; and an insulating layer covering a side surface of the first semiconductor layer. Claims 5 and 6 are objected due to their dependency upon claim 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELMITO BREVAL whose telephone number is (571)270-3099. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th~ 7:30-5:30.
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, James R. Greece can be reached at 571-272-3711. 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.
ELMITO BREVAL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2875
/ELMITO BREVAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875