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 Invention I in the reply filed on 03/28/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 6-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (US20190206849A1, hereinafter Jang) in view of Chae et al. (US20190165037A1, hereinafter Chae).
Regarding claim 1, Jang teaches a solid-state light-emitting device comprising:
a plurality of light-emitting components, sequentially stacked in a vertical direction and connected in series to form a stacked light-emitting structure (Fig. 17B rightmost subpixel B comprises a plurality of LED stacks 23/33/43 stacked vertically to form a stacked light-emitting structure);
wherein the first electrode of one of every adjacent two light-emitting components of the plurality of light-emitting components is bonded to the second electrode of the other of the adjacent two light- emitting components in the vertical direction to form an electrical connection of the adjacent two light- emitting components (Fig. 17B first LED stack 23 is sequentially bonded in a vertical direction to ohmic electrode 35 of second LED stack 33 which is in turn sequentially bonded in a vertical direction ohmic electrode 45 of the third LED stack 43).
Jang does not appear to teach
wherein each light-emitting component comprises a first electrode, a second electrode, a first semiconductor layer, a source layer and a second semiconductor layer, and the first semiconductor layer, the source layer and the second semiconductor layer are sequentially stacked between the first electrode and the second electrode in the vertical direction.
Chae teaches
wherein each light-emitting component comprises a first electrode, a second electrode, a first semiconductor layer, a source layer and a second semiconductor layer, and the first semiconductor layer, the source layer and the second semiconductor layer are sequentially stacked between the first electrode and the second electrode in the vertical direction (Par. 245 teaches that “the common electrode pad 281 d is electrically connected in common to the second conductivity type semiconductor layer 223 b of the first LED stack 223” and par. 148 teaches “[t]he first LED stack 23…include[s] an n-type semiconductor layer, a p-type semiconductor layer, and an active layer interposed therebetween” with transparent electrode 35 on the bottom).
Being in analogous arts, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because as both Jang and Chae teach suitable LED layer stacks for use in a multi LED stack, it would have been obvious to substitute Jang’s LED layer structure with Chae’s LED with a multi-quantum well structure to achieve the predictable result of forming an LED with a multi-quantum well structure.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Jang and Chae teaches the solid-state light-emitting device as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the first electrode of the light-emitting component disposed at a bottom of the stacked light-emitting structure in the vertical direction comprises a planar metal electrode (Jang fig. 17B reflective electrode 25 at the bottom of the stack comprises a planar metal electrode), and the second electrode of the light- emitting component disposed at a top of the stacked light-emitting structure in the vertical direction comprises a planar transparent electrode (Jang fig. 17B topmost ohmic electrode 49 disposed at the top of the stack comprises a planar electrode and par. 156 teaches that “ohmic electrode 45…may be transparent with respect to light generated from the first LED stack 23 and the second LED stack”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Jang and Chae teaches the solid-state light-emitting device as claimed in claim 1,
wherein a gap is defined between every adjacent two light-emitting components due to thicknesses of the first electrode and the second electrode, and a transparent material is filled in the gap (Jang fig. 17B the plurality of LED stacks 23/33/43 stacked vertically each have a bonding layer 55/57 between any two adjacent light-emitting component and par. 167 teaches that “[t]he third bonding layer 57 may be formed of a transparent organic material”).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Jang and Chae teaches the solid-state light-emitting device as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the plurality of light-emitting components are a plurality of light-emitting components with same colors (Jang fig. 17B teaches that each of the light emitting elements 23/33/43 being red, green, and blue, respectively. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have each of the light emitting elements 23/33/43 emit the same color as there are a finite combination of color combinations of three LEDs with red, green or blue and so it would been obvious to choose from the finite combinations to choose an embodiment in which they all were the same color).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Jang and Chae teaches the solid-state light-emitting device as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the plurality of light-emitting components are a plurality of light-emitting components with different colors (Jang par. 227 teaches that “[t]he first LED stack 223 of the first subpixel R emits light having a first wavelength, the second LED stack 233 of the second subpixel G emits light having a second wavelength, and the third LED stack 243 of the third subpixel B emits light having a third wavelength”).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Jang and Chae teaches the solid-state light-emitting device as claimed in claim 1,
wherein each light- emitting component is a micro light-emitting diode (micro-LED) chip (Jang par. 24 “[t]he first, second, and third subpixels may include a micro LED”), the source layer is a multi- quantum well layer (Chae par. 148 “[t]he active layer may have a multi-quantum well structure”), and a length, a width, and a height of the micro-LED chip are all less than 100 µm (Chae par. 464 teaches “the pixels have a small size of 200 μm or less” which overlaps the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Jang and Chae teaches the solid-state light-emitting device as claimed in claim 6,
wherein a refractive index of the transparent material is in a range from 1.4 to 1.6 (Jang par. 162 teaches that “[t]he first bonding layer 53 may be formed of…polyimide” and examiner notes that polyimide has a refractive index of 1.5 which falls within the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Jang and Chae teaches a display device, comprising:
a driving substrate (Jang fig. 17B substrate 51); and
a plurality of display pixels, disposed on the driving substrate and electrically connected to the driving substrate (Jang fig. 17B plurality of display pixels R/G/B disposed on and electrically connected to substrate 51);
wherein each display pixel comprises a plurality of sub-pixels with different colors, and each sub- pixel utilizes the solid-state light-emitting device as claimed in claim 1 (Jang fig. 17B rightmost subpixel B comprises a plurality of LED stacks 23/33/43 stacked vertically to form a stacked light-emitting structure, see above rejection of claim 1 for full mapping).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Jang and Chae teaches the display device as claimed in claim 11,
wherein the driving substrate is a passive matrix driving substrate or an active matrix driving substrate (Jang par. 392 teaches that “the pixels are described as being driven in a passive matrix manner…and the pixels may be driven in an active matrix manner” and so Jang teaches wherein substrate 51 is either a passive matrix driving substrate or an active matrix driving substrate).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Jang and Chae teaches the display device as claimed in claim 11,
wherein the first electrode of the light- emitting component disposed at a bottom of the stacked light-emitting structure in the vertical direction comprises a planar metal electrode (Jang fig. 17B reflective electrode 25 at the bottom of the stack comprises a planar metal electrode); and
the second electrode of the light-emitting component disposed at a top of the stacked light-emitting structure in the vertical direction comprises a planar transparent electrode (Jang fig. 17B topmost ohmic electrode 49 disposed at the top of the stack comprises a planar electrode and par. 156 teaches that “ohmic electrode 45…may be transparent with respect to light generated from the first LED stack 23 and the second LED stack”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4-5, and 13 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 2, the closest prior art (US20190206849A1, US20190165037A1) teaches the solid-state light-emitting device as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the first electrode of the light-emitting component disposed at a bottom of the stacked light-emitting structure in the vertical direction comprises a planar metal electrode (Jang fig. 17B reflective electrode 25 at the bottom of the stack comprises a planar metal electrode).
However, the closest prior art does not teach in combination with the other claimed elements
the second electrode of the light-emitting component disposed at a top of the stacked light-emitting structure in the vertical direction comprises a plurality of punctate electrodes or a plurality of strip-shaped electrodes.
Examiner notes that while there are embodiments within the prior art, see Jang fig. 17B and above teachings by Chae, that teach a stacked LED with a single planar electrode on the topmost stack, examiner's search of the prior art did not find an embodiment nor any motivation to combine embodiments such that the second electrode of the light-emitting component disposed at a top of the stacked light-emitting structure in the vertical direction comprises a plurality of punctate electrodes or a plurality of strip-shaped electrodes in addition with the other limitations of the independent claim.
Examiner additionally notes par. 61 of the specification which describes the difference in performance associated with the allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 4, the closest prior art (US20190206849A1, US20190165037A1) teaches the solid-state light-emitting device as claimed in claim 1,
wherein shapes of the bonded first and second electrodes are the same (Jang fig. 17B reflective electrode 25 at the bottom of the stack and the topmost ohmic electrode 49 both comprises a planar metal electrode).
However, the closest prior art does not teach in combination with the other claimed elements
each of the bonded first and second electrodes comprises a plurality of punctate electrodes or a plurality of strip-shaped electrodes.
Examiner notes that while there are embodiments within the prior art, see Jang fig. 17B and above teachings by Chae, that teach a stacked LED with a single planar electrode on the topmost stack, examiner's search of the prior art did not find an embodiment nor any motivation to combine embodiments such that each of the bonded first and second electrodes comprises a plurality of punctate electrodes or a plurality of strip-shaped electrodes in addition with the other limitations of the independent claim.
Examiner additionally notes par. 61 of the specification which describes the difference in performance associated with the allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 5, the closest prior art (US20190206849A1, US20190165037A1) teaches the solid-state light-emitting device as claimed in claim 1,
wherein each of the bonded first and second electrodes comprises a strip-shaped electrode group (Jang fig. 17B reflective electrode 25 at the bottom of the stack and the topmost ohmic electrode 49 both comprises a strip-shaped electrode)
However, the closest prior art does not teach in combination with the other claimed elements
the strip-shaped electrode group of the first electrode is perpendicular with the strip-shaped electrode group of the second electrode to form a vertical grid connection of the bonded first and second electrodes.
Examiner notes that while there are embodiments within the prior art, see Jang fig. 17B and above teachings by Chae, that teach a stacked LED with a single planar electrode on the topmost stack, examiner's search of the prior art did not find an embodiment nor any motivation to combine embodiments such that the strip-shaped electrode group of the first electrode is perpendicular with the strip-shaped electrode group of the second electrode to form a vertical grid connection of the bonded first and second electrodes in addition with the other limitations of the independent claim.
Regarding claim 13, the closest prior art (US20190206849A1, US20190165037A1) teaches the display device as claimed in claim 11,
wherein the first electrode of the light- emitting component disposed at a bottom of the stacked light-emitting structure in the vertical direction comprises a planar metal electrode (Jang fig. 17B reflective electrode 25 at the bottom of the stack comprises a planar metal electrode).
However, the closest prior art does not teach in combination with the other claimed elements
the second electrode of the light-emitting component disposed at a top of the stacked light-emitting structure in the vertical direction comprises a plurality of punctate electrodes.
Examiner notes that while there are embodiments within the prior art, see Jang fig. 17B and above teachings by Chae, that teach a stacked LED with a single planar electrode on the topmost stack, examiner's search of the prior art did not find an embodiment nor any motivation to combine embodiments such that the second electrode of the light-emitting component disposed at a top of the stacked light-emitting structure in the vertical direction comprises a plurality of punctate electrodes in addition with the other limitations of the independent claim.
Examiner additionally notes par. 61 of the specification which describes the difference in performance associated with the allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLE LEON LINDSEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4028. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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, Christine Kim can be reached at (571)272-8458. 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.
/COLE LEON LINDSEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2812 /CHRISTINE S. KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights