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 .
Status of the Application
Acknowledgements been made to the amendment received on 06/04/2026. Claims 1-4, 7-15 are pending in this application. Claims 5-6 are cancelled.
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 1-4, 7-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Do et al (KR20210145497A) in view of Choi et al (US20100213488A1).
Re claim 1 Do teaches a light-emitting diode (LED) device (100, fig 3) [0051] for self-alignment using a dielectrophoretic force , wherein LED devices (100, fig 3) dispersed in a mobile medium (solvent) [0129] move toward a mounting electrode (low electrode) generating an electric field (electric field), and one sides of the LED devices are aligned to come into contact with an upper surface of the mounting electrode, the LED device comprising: (the micro LED device 100 is aligned on the lower electrode line using an electric field) [0062],
a first surface (top surface, fig 3) and second surface (bottom surface, fig 3) of which a first axis (x-axis) becomes a major axis (X-X') and second axis (Y-axis) mutually perpendicular to each other and which are opposite to each other in second axis direction (Y-direction) in which a plurality of layers (30, 20, 10 fig 3) [0050] including a photoactive layer (20, fig 3) [0050] are stacked;
remaining side surfaces (left and right sides of 100, fig 3); and
a cover layer (50, fig 4) [0080];
wherein the cover layer (50, fig 4) includes: a first cover layer (SiO2) [0080] configured to passivate the side surfaces in order to protect (the protective film for protecting the exposed surface of the plurality of the stack) [0080] the side surfaces and remove a defect on the side surfaces; and
a second cover layer (TiO2) [0080] and configured to generate a rotational torque around an imaginary rotation axis passing through a center of the LED device (100) in a first axis direction (X-direction, fig 3) when an electric field and mobile medium [0129] are present,
wherein the second cover layer (TiO2) [0080] is a layer in which a real part of a K(w) value according to the following Equation 1 satisfies more than 0 and 0.72 or less within at least some frequency ranges of a frequency range of 1kHz or higher and 10 GHz or lower:
K(w)= (e*P- e*m)/ (e*P+2 e*m)
in Equation 1, K(w) is an equation between e*P indicating a complex permittivity of a spherical core-shell particle made of GaN as a core portion and the second cover layer (TiO2) [0080] as a shell portion at an angular frequency w and e*m indicating a complex permittivity of the mobile medium (acetone) [0129] and e*p is calculated according to the following Equation 2: [Equation 2]
ep* = e2* ((R2/R1)³ + 2 ((e1*-e2* )/(e1*+2e2*))/(R2/R1)³- ((e1*-e2*)/(e1*+2e2*)) ,
in Equation 2, R1 denotes a radius of a core portion, R2 denotes a radius of the core- shell particle, and el* and e2* are complex permittivities of the core portion and a shell portion, respectively. (based on materials similar to those described in the instant application, above equations can be satisfied).
Do does not teach the second layer disposed on the first cover layer.
Choi teaches the second layer (170c TiO2, fig 4a) [0054, 0057] disposed on the first cover layer (170a SiO2, fig 4a) [0054, 0057].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Choi into the structure Do to include the second layer disposed on the first cover layer as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Do based on the teaching of Choi in the above manner for the purpose of improving the light extraction efficiency [0047].
Re claim 2 Do in view of Choi teach, the LED device of claim 1, wherein the plurality of layers include an n-type conductive semiconductive layer (10, fig 3) [0072], a photoactive layer (20, fig 3), and a p-type conductive semiconductor layer (30, fig 3) [0072].
Re claim 3 Do in view of Choi teach, the LED device of claim 1,
Do does not teach a length in the first axis direction ranges from 1 micron to 10 micron, and a thickness in the second axis direction ranges from 0.1 micron to 3 microns.
Do different embodiment fig 6a teaches a length in the first axis direction (x-axis, fig 6a) ranges from 1 micron to 10 micron (4.5 micron), and a thickness in the second axis (y -axis direction) direction ranges from 0.1 micron to 3 microns (0.6 micron)
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Do to include a length in the first axis direction ranges from 1 micron to 10 micron, and a thickness in the second axis direction ranges from 0.1 micron to 3 microns as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Do in the above manner for the purpose of to achieve the desired efficiency.
Furthermore, it has been held that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exits. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Re claim 4 Do in view of Choi teach the LED device of claim 1, wherein the first cover layer has an electrical conductivity of 1x 10-6S/m or less. (SiO2 based on the same material layer) (170a fig 4) [Choi, 0046].
Re claim 7 Do in view of Choi teach, the LED device of claim 1, wherein a real part of a K(o) value according to Equation 1 ranges from more than 0 to 0.62 or less. (real part value corresponds to the characteristics of the TiO2 layer).
Re claim 8 Do in view of Choi teach the LED device of claim 1,
Do and Choi do not teach a thickness of the first cover layer ranges from 1 nm to 60 nm, and a thickness of the second cover layer ranges from 1 nm to 60 nm.
Do teaches the thickness of the protective film 50 may be 5 nm to 100 nm [0080].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Do to include a thickness of the first cover layer ranges from 1nm to 60 nm, and a thickness of the second cover layer ranges from 1 nm to 60 nm as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Do in the above manner for the purpose of to achieve the desired efficiency.
Furthermore, it has been held that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exits. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Re claim 9 Do in view of Choi teach the LED device of claim 1,
Do does not teach the cover layer further includes a third cover layer serving as a resistance layer against dry and wet etching between the first cover layer and the second cover layer.
Choi does teach the cover layer (170, fig 4a) [0052] further includes a third cover layer (170b having a refractive index greater than 170c, fig 4a) [0054] serving as a resistance layer against dry and wet etching between the first cover layer (170a, low refractive index SiO2) and the second cover layer (170c, high refractive index TiO2).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Choi into the structure of Do to include the cover layer further includes a third cover layer serving as a resistance layer against dry and wet etching between the first cover layer and the second cover layer as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Do based on the teaching of Choi in the above manner for the purpose of protection against etching.
Re claim 10 Do in view of Choi teach the LED device of claim 9,
Do does not teach the second cover layer and third cover layer have an etch ratio B/A of 2.0 more, which is a ratio between an etch rate A (nm/min) of the second cover layer and an etch rate B (nm/min) of the third cover layer under the same etching conditions.
Do teaches the cover film (50, fig 4) and the protective film preferably SiO2, A203, HF)2, ZrO2 may include any one or more of AIN and GaN with thickness of the protective film 100 nm.
Choi teaches the second cover layer (170c, fig 4a) and the third cover layer (170b, fig 4a).
(based on the same materials as in the current application).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Choi to include the second cover layer and third cover layer have an etch ratio B/A of 2.0 more, which is a ratio between an etch rate A (nm/min) of the second cover layer and an etch rate B (nm/min) of the third cover layer under the same etching conditions as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Do and Choi in the above manner for the purpose of improving light emission efficiency.
Re claims 12 and 13 Do teach the LED device of claim 1,
Do do not teach a top layer having the second surface has a greater electrical conductivity coefficient than a bottom layer having the first surface (claim 12) and the electrical conductivity coefficient of the top layer is 10 times or more that of the bottom layer (claim-13).
Choi teaches a top layer (132, shown in fig 1) having the second surface (top of 130) has a greater electrical conductivity coefficient (than a bottom layer (110, fig 1) having the first surface bottom of 110) (claim 12), the electrical conductivity coefficient of the top layer (132 is 10 times or more that of the bottom layer.(claim 13) (based on the similar materials). [0045].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Choi into the structure of Do to include a top layer having the second surface has a greater electrical conductivity coefficient than a bottom layer having the first surface. -claim 12 and the electrical conductivity coefficient of the top layer is 10 times or more that of the bottom layer as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Do in the above manner for the purpose of achieving desired efficiency.
Re claim 14. Do in view of Choi an ink composition comprising light-emitting diode (LED) devices according to claim 1 and a mobile medium (solvent). [Do, 00128]
Re claim 15. Do in view of Choi teach an LED electrode assembly (1000 fig 1, fig 2)
[0033] comprising a plurality of light-emitting diode (LED) devices (100 and 101, fig 1) [0033] each identical to the LED device according claim 1,
wherein the first surface (top surface, fig2) and the second surface (bottom surface, fig 2) of each of the plurality of LED devices (100, 101) are electrically connected to two electrodes (301 and 211/212, fig 2) spaced apart from each other in the second axis direction of the LED device. (fig 1 and 2) [Do 0122].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Do modified by Choi as applied to claim 9 and further in view of Lee et al (US 20190078208 A1).
Re claim 11 Do in view of Choi teach the LED device of claim 9, Do and Choi do not teach a thickness of the third cover layer ranges from 1 nm to 30 nm.
Lee teaches a thickness of the third cover layer (430, fig 6) ranges from 1 nm to 30 nm (10 to 40nm).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Lee into the structure of Do and Choi to include a thickness of the third cover layer ranges from 1 nm to 30 nm as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Do and Choi based on the teaching of Lee in the above manner for the purpose of protecting the device from external moisture, oxygen or the like penetrates thereinto. [0007].
Furthermore, it has been held that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,
191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 06/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant submit “that Do fails to disclose Applicant’s claimed two layer cover layer arrangement. Do’s protective film 50 is a single formed of a material selected from Markush group”. Claim 1.
The examiner respectfully disagrees “
In the context of reference Do fig 3 [para 0080] discloses a protective film 50 formed on the side of the LED device 100 to cover the exposed surfaces of layer 20 and covers all the exposed surfaces, for example bott the sides of LED 100 and it is possible to cover both the front end surface and the rear end surface. The protective film 50 is preferably silicon nitride (Si3N) , silicon oxide (SiO2) and titanium dioxide (TiO2) may include any one or more preferably made of the above component. Second reference Choi teaches stacked layer 170 may be formed on lateral surfaces of the substrate 100, layer 170 includes two or more layered thin films [0054] .170 is three layered stack 170 a, 170b and 170c. Layer 170c (Tio2) disposed on 170a. Hence, given a broadest reasonable interpretation, Do meets the claimed invention. Clarification and details are included in the above rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chen et al (US20190348570A1) disclose A semiconductor light-emitting device includes a semiconductor stack including a first semiconductor layer, a second semiconductor layer, and an active layer
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PRATIKSHA J LOHAKARE whose telephone number is (571)270-1920. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7.30 am-4.30 pm.
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, EVA MONTALVO can be reached at 571-270-3829. 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.
/PRATIKSHA JAYANT LOHAKARE/ Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/DUY T NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818 8/31/26
Prosecution Insights