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
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.
Claims 1-4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (KR 20220157584) in view of Jung (KR 102397458).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim et al discloses a method of manufacturing (method of manufacturing [page 4, lines 1-14]) an ultra-thin fin light emitting diode (LED) electrode assembly (micro-LED assembly [page 4, lines 1-14]), the method comprising:
operation (1) of forming an alignment guide (alignment groove/trench groove LAA [page 8, lines 1-23] Fig 5-6) extending in a first direction (D2 (vertical direction) shown in Fig 6) with a width (shown in Fig 5) smaller than a width (shown in Fig 5) of a lower electrode (electrode layers 22, 24 [page 8, lines 16-24] Fig 5-6) on an upper surface of each of a plurality of lower electrodes (22, 24 Fig 5-6) extending in the first direction (D2 (vertical direction) shown in Fig 6) and spaced apart (shown in Fig 6) from each other in a second direction (D1 (horizontal direction) shown in Fig 6);
operation (2) of self-aligning (aligned in fluid by an electric field after voltage is applied [page 9, lines 14-33]) a plurality of ultra-thin fin LED elements (micro LEDs ML [page 9, lines 14-33] Fig 8 and Fig 10) such that both ends of the ultra-thin fin LED elements (ML Fig 10) in a long axis direction (shown in Fig 7-8) are in contact with upper surfaces of two adjacent lower electrodes (22, 24 Fig 5-10) by inputting, onto the lower electrodes (22, 24 Fig 5-10), a solution (fluid FL [page 9, lines 14-33] Fig 10) including the ultra-thin fin LED elements (ML Fig 10) and by applying assembly power (applying the first voltage [page 9, lines 14-33]) to the lower electrodes (22, 24 Fig 5-10);
wherein a dielectric constant (ԑ1) of a solvent (fluid FL may include ethanol [page 9, lines 14-33]/ ethanol ԑ1=29.4) included in the solution is greater than or equal to a dielectric constant (ԑ2) of the alignment guide (insulating material 30 which the alignment guide LAA is formed in may be SiO2 [page 6, lines 1-2]/ SiO2 ԑ2 = 3.5-4.9).
Kim et al does not directly disclose
the ultra-thin fin LED elements of which an X axis is a long axis with respect to an x axis, a y axis and a z axis perpendicular to each other and in which a plurality of layers to be included therein are laminated in a z axis direction; and
operation (3) of forming an upper electrode line on the plurality of self-aligned ultra- thin fin LED elements.
Jung, in the related art of semiconductor devices that include light emitting devices, discloses
the ultra-thin fin LED elements (micro-LED (LED) [page 6, lines 1-13] Fig 3-4) of which an X axis is a long axis with respect to an x axis (horizontal x direction Fig 3-4), a y axis (into the page direction Fig 3-4) and a z axis (vertical y direction Fig 3-4) perpendicular to each other and in which a plurality of layers (p-type semiconductor layer 101, active layer 103, n-type semiconductor layer 105 [page 6, lines 1-13] Fig 3-4) to be included therein are laminated in a z axis direction (vertical y direction Fig 3-4); and
forming an upper electrode line (upper electrode 60 [page 5, lines 25-38] Fig 4) on the plurality of ultra- thin fin LED elements (LED).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim et al to include the ultra-thin fin LED elements of which an X axis is a long axis with respect to an x axis, a y axis and a z axis perpendicular to each other and in which a plurality of layers to be included therein are laminated in a z axis direction; and forming an upper electrode line on the plurality of self-aligned ultra- thin fin LED elements as taught by Jung in order to have a functioning LED since these elements are typically used in LEDs [page 6, lines 13-17]. Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that having a p-type layer, an active layer, an n-type layer, and an upper electrode would optimize the electron mobility and improve the electrical functioning of the device (see MPEP 2143.I(D)).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Kim et al and Jung discloses the limitations of claim 1 as explained above. The combination of Kim et al and Jung, since Fig 10 is not drawn to scale, does not directly disclose
wherein the width of the alignment guide is smaller than or equal to a half of the width of the lower electrode, and a thickness of the alignment guide is smaller than or equal to a thickness that is a length of the ultra-thin fin LED element in a z axis direction.
However, a person of ordinary skill in the art would know that the width of the alignment guide relative to the length of the ultra-thin fin LED and the lower electrode would be a result effective variable in that having just the right size would allow for the electric field to align the LED element in an optimal location.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kim et al and Jung to include wherein the width of the alignment guide is smaller than or equal to a half of the width of the lower electrode, and a thickness of the alignment guide is smaller than or equal to a thickness that is a length of the ultra-thin fin LED element in a z axis direction as it appears in Fig 10 Kim et al in order to allow for the electric field to align the LED element in an optimal location and because it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to optimize the width and thickness of the alignment guide since such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of the component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art In Re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) MPEP 2144.04.IV(A).
The combination of Kim et al and Jung now discloses
wherein the width of the alignment guide (LAA Kim et al) is smaller than or equal to a half of the width of the lower electrode (22 Fig 10 Kim et al), and
a thickness of the alignment guide (LAA Kim et al) is smaller than or equal to a thickness that is a length of the ultra-thin fin LED element (ML Kim et al) in a z axis direction (vertical direction Fig 10 Kim et al).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Kim et al and Jung discloses the limitations of claim 1 as explained above. The combination of Kim et al and Jung further discloses
wherein the ultra-thin fin LED element (ML) has an aspect ratio (a/b) of 3.0 (aspect ratio of 5/1 = 5) or more between a length (b) of a short axis (shown in annotated Fig 10 viewed from 90 degrees) corresponding to a larger length among lengths in a y axis direction or the z axis direction and a length (a) of a long axis (shown in annotated Fig 10 viewed from 90 degrees) corresponding to an x axis.
PNG
media_image1.png
904
1046
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Kim et al and Jung discloses the limitations of claim 1 as explained above. The combination of Kim et al and Jung further discloses
wherein the solvent (fluid FL may include ethanol [page 9, lines 14-33] Kim et al/ ethanol ԑ1=29.4) has a dielectric constant that is smaller than or equal to 30.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Kim et al and Jung discloses the limitations of claim 1 as explained above. The combination of Kim et al and Jung further discloses
wherein the dielectric constant (ԑ1) (fluid FL may include ethanol [page 9, lines 14-33] Kim et al/ ethanol ԑ1=29.4) of the solvent is greater than the dielectric constant (ԑ2) (insulating material 30 which the alignment guide LAA is formed in may be SiO2 [page 6, lines 1-2]/ SiO2 ԑ2 = 3.5-4.9) of the alignment guide by 5.0 or more.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (KR 20220157584) in view of Jung (KR 102397458), and in further view of Sung (US 2018/0287010).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Kim et al and Jung discloses the limitations of claim 1 as explained above. The combination of Kim et al and Jung further discloses
wherein the assembly power applied in operation (2) has a frequency in a range of 1 kHz to 100 MHz (10 Hz to 100 MHz [page 11, lines 1-20] Kim et al).
The combination of Kim et al and Jung does not directly disclose
a voltage in a range of 5 Vpp to 100 Vpp.
Sung, in the related art of semiconductor devices that include LED devices, discloses
a voltage in a range of 5 Vpp to 100 Vpp (40 to 100 Vpp [0127]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kim et al and Jung to include a voltage in a range of 5Vpp to 100Vpp as taught by Sung in order to have enough voltage to sufficiently form an electric field without having excessive electrical power being applied and damaging the device [0127] and because it has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP 2144.05).
Claims 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (KR 20220157584) in view of Jung (KR 102397458), and in further view of Do et al (KR 101627365).
Regarding Claim 7, Kim et al discloses an ultra-thin fin light emitting diode (LED) electrode assembly (micro-LED assembly [page 4, lines 1-14]) comprising:
a plurality of lower electrodes (electrode layers 22, 24 [page 8, lines 16-24] Fig 5-6) extending long and spaced apart from each other in a first direction (D2 (vertical direction) shown in Fig 6);
an alignment guide (alignment groove/trench groove LAA [page 8, lines 1-23] Fig 5-6) disposed on an upper surface of each of the plurality of lower electrodes (22, 24 Fig 5-6) and extending in the first direction (D2 (vertical direction) shown in Fig 6) with a width smaller than that of each of the lower electrodes (22, 24 Fig 5-6);
a plurality of ultra-thin fin LED elements (micro-LEDs ML [page 9, lines 14-33] Fig 8 and Fig 10) arranged such that both ends of the ultra-thin fin LED elements (ML Fig 10), of which an X axis is a long axis with respect to x axis (shown in Fig 7-8) are in contact with upper surfaces of two adjacent lower electrodes (22, 24 Fig 5-10).
Kim et al does not directly disclose
a plurality of ultra-thin fin LED elements of which an X axis is a long axis with respect to an x axis, a y axis and a z axis perpendicular to each other and in which a plurality of layers to be included therein are laminated in a z axis direction; and
an upper electrode line disposed on the plurality of ultra-thin fin LED elements, wherein, among all the arranged ultra-thin fin LED elements, a vertical mounting percentage that is a ratio of the ultra-thin fin LED elements of which a mounting angle formed between the long axis direction of the ultra-thin fin LED element and a second direction perpendicular to the first direction of the lower electrode satisfies 50 or less is 75% or more.
Jung, in the related art of semiconductor devices that include light emitting devices, discloses
the ultra-thin fin LED elements (micro-LED (LED) [page 6, lines 1-13] Fig 3-4) of which an X axis is a long axis with respect to an x axis (horizontal x direction Fig 3-4), a y axis (into the page direction Fig 3-4) and a z axis (vertical y direction Fig 3-4) perpendicular to each other and in which a plurality of layers (p-type semiconductor layer 101, active layer 103, n-type semiconductor layer 105 [page 6, lines 1-13] Fig 3-4) to be included therein are laminated in a z axis direction (vertical y direction Fig 3-4); and
an upper electrode line (upper electrode 60 [page 5, lines 25-38] Fig 4) on the plurality of ultra- thin fin LED elements (LED).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim et al to include the ultra-thin fin LED elements of which an X axis is a long axis with respect to an x axis, a y axis and a z axis perpendicular to each other and in which a plurality of layers to be included therein are laminated in a z axis direction; and forming an upper electrode line on the plurality of self-aligned ultra- thin fin LED elements as taught by Jung in order to have a functioning LED since these elements are typically used in LEDs [page 6, lines 13-17]. Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that having a p-type layer, an active layer, an n-type layer, and an upper electrode would optimize the electron mobility and improve the electrical functioning of the device (see MPEP 2143.I(D)).
The combination of Kim et al and Jung does not disclose
wherein, among all the arranged ultra-thin fin LED elements, a vertical mounting percentage that is a ratio of the ultra-thin fin LED elements of which a mounting angle formed between the long axis direction of the ultra-thin fin LED element and a second direction perpendicular to the first direction of the lower electrode satisfies 50 or less is 75% or more.
Do et al, in the related art of semiconductor devices that include LED devices, discloses
wherein, among all the arranged ultra-thin fin LED elements (LED elements 221 and 222 [page 5, lines 1-43]),
a vertical mounting percentage that is a ratio of the ultra-thin fin LED elements (ultra-small LED element [page 5, lines 1-43]) which a mounting angle formed between the long axis direction of the ultra-thin fin LED element and a second direction perpendicular to the first direction of the lower electrode satisfies 50 or less (average mounting angle of +/- 10 degrees [page 5, lines 1-43]) with respect to is 75% or more (70% or more [lines 1-43]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kim et al and Jung to include wherein, among all the arranged ultra-thin fin LED elements, a vertical mounting percentage that is a ratio of the ultra-thin fin LED elements of which a mounting angle formed between the long axis direction of the ultra-thin fin LED element and a second direction perpendicular to the first direction of the lower electrode satisfies 50 or less is 75% or more as taught by Do et al in order to have the ultra-small LED emit linearly polarized light closer to a specific direction and the intensity of light emitted to the number of ultra-small LEDs can be further increased [page 5, lines 1-43] and because it has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Kim et al, Jung, and Do et al discloses the limitations of claim 7 as explained above. The combination of Kim et al, Jung, and Do et al does not directly disclose
wherein the vertical mounting percentage is 82% or more.
However, a person of ordinary skill in the art would know that the vertical mounting percentage is a result effective variable in that it would have the ultra-small LED emit linearly polarized light closer to a specific direction and the intensity of light emitted to the number of ultra-small LEDs can be further increased [page 5, lines 1-43] Do et al.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kim et al, Jung, and Do et al to include wherein the vertical mounting percentage is 82% or more as taught by Do et al in order to have the ultra-small LED emit linearly polarized light closer to a specific direction and the intensity of light emitted to the number of ultra-small LEDs can be further increased [page 5, lines 1-43] and because it has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Kim et al, Jung, and Do et al discloses the limitations of claim 7 as explained above. The combination of Kim et al, Jung, and Do et al further discloses
wherein the plurality of layers included in the ultra-thin fin LED element (micro-LED (LED) [page 6, lines 1-13] Fig 3-4 Jung et al) include a n-type conductive semiconductor layer (n-type semiconductor layer 105 [page 6, line 1-13 Fig 3-4 Jung), a photoactive layer (active layer 103 [page 6, line 1-13 Fig 3-4 Jung), and a p-type conductive semiconductor layer. (p-type semiconductor layer 101, [page 6, lines 1-13] Fig 3-4 Jung).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Kim et al, Jung, and Do et al discloses the limitations of claim 7 as explained above. The combination of Kim et al, Jung, and Do et al further discloses
wherein a length of the ultra-thin fin LED element (micro-LEDs ML [page 9, lines 14-33] Fig 8 and Fig 10 Kim et al) in the long axis direction is in a range of 1 µm to 10 µm (height between 0.01 µm to 10 µm 10 µm since the diameter is from 0.01 µm to 10 µm Kim et al), and a thickness thereof is in a range of 0.1 µm to 3 µm (thickness of the trench groove LAA is 10 nm to 10 µm [page 9, lines 1-13] Kim et al, the thickness of LAA is approximately the diameter of the micro-LED ML).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kim et al, Jung, and Do et al to include wherein a length of the ultra-thin fin LED element in the long axis direction is in a range of 1 µm to 10 µm, and a thickness thereof is in a range of 0.1 µm to 3 µm as taught by Kim et al in order to allow for the electric field to align the LED element in an optimal location and because it has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Kim et al, Jung, and Do et al discloses the limitations of claim 7 as explained above. The combination of Kim et al, Jung, and Do et al further discloses
wherein a width (shown above in annotated Fig 10 Kim et al) of the ultra-thin fin LED element (micro-LEDs ML [page 9, lines 14-33] Fig 8 and Fig 10 Kim et al), which is a length in a y axis direction, is smaller than a thickness (longitudinal length in the z direction shown in annotated Fig 10 Kim et al) thereof.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (KR 20220157584) in view of Jung (KR 102397458), and Do et al (KR 101627365), and in further view of Maegawa et al (US 2020/0287103).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Kim et al, Jung, and Do et al discloses the limitations of claim 7 as explained above. The combination of Kim et al, Jung, and Do et al further discloses
a light source comprising the ultra-thin fin LED electrode assembly.
Maegawa et al, in the related art of semiconductor devices that include display devices, discloses
a light source (light source [0009]) comprising the ultra-thin fin LED electrode assembly (micro-LED [0009]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kim et al, Jung, and Do et al to include wherein a light source comprises the ultra-thing LED electrode assembly as taught by Maegawa et al in order to provide a small source of light in a small device as the size requirements become smaller [0010]. Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that having a light source comprising the ultra-thin fin LED electrode assembly would be advantageous in optimizing the functional capabilities of the device (see MPEP 2143.I(D)).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Kim et al, Jung, Do et al, and Maegawa et al discloses the limitations of claim 12 as explained above. The combination of Kim et al, Jung, Do et al, and Maegawa et al further discloses
further comprising a color conversion material (color conversion material [0010] Maegawa et al) excited by light radiated from the ultra-thin fin LED electrode assembly (micro-LED Maegawa et al).
Related Cited Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lee et al (US 2020/0184939) which discloses a micro light emitting diode [0039], and Shin et al (US 2019/0019441) which discloses a micro-LED [0057].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID PAUL SEDOROOK whose telephone number is (571)272-4158. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am -5pm.
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, William B Partridge can be reached on (571) 270-1402. 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.
/D.P.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2812
/William B Partridge/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812