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Claims 14-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/18/26.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0212267) (“Kwak”) in view of Li et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0403026) (“Li”).
Regarding Claim 1, Kwak teaches a display device comprising: pixel electrodes (Figure 2a, items 144) on a substrate (Figure 2A, item 110); light-emitting elements (Figure 2A, items 140+150) on the pixel electrodes; a planarization layer (Figure 2A, item 115) on the pixel electrodes to fill a space between the light-emitting elements; and a common electrode (Figure 2A, item CE) on the planarization layer and the light-emitting elements. Kwak does not specifically teach each of the light-emitting elements comprises a first light-emitting element stack and a second light-emitting element stack on the first light-emitting element stack. However, Li teaches individual light emitting elements where multiple colors of emission are stacked together – see Figure 1, note first light emitting stack 108 and second light emitting stack 112. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to use the stacked structure of Li in the device of Kwak, as Li teaches stacking the LED structures on a single axis allows for enhancement of light illumination efficiency within a single pixel area and improve resolution of the entire panel (¶0011).
Regarding Claim 2, Li further teaches a bonding layer (Figure 1, item 110) between the first light-emitting element stack (Figure 1, item 108) and the second light-emitting element stack (Figure 1, item 112).
Regarding Claim 3, Li further teaches the bonding layer comprises indium tin oxide (ITO) or indium zinc oxide (IZO) (see inclusion of ITO with the bonding layer described in ¶0089).
Regarding Claim 6, Kwak further teaches the light-emitting elements are randomly arranged on the pixel electrodes (see Figure 2A).
Claims 4, 5, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak in view of Li as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Lutgen et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0357952) (“Lutgen”) and Chae et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0164945) (“Chae”).
Regarding Claim 4, Kwak in view of Li teaches Claim 1 as indicated above. Li further teaches the first light-emitting element stack comprises a first semiconductor layer, an active layer, and a second semiconductor layer (¶0081), and wherein the second light-emitting element stack comprises a first semiconductor layer, an active layer, a second semiconductor layer and a third semiconductor layer (¶0088). Li does not specifically teach the LED stacks include an EBL, or superlattice, however, the specific layers required are well known layers that have specifically known functions when included in LED structures. Lutgen teaches using EBLs in LED stacked structures (see Figure 7A) in order to control electron leakage current across the device (¶0113) and superlattices are taught to be included in stacked LED structures by Chae (see ¶0434) in order to help control crystal quality of the emitting layers. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to use the teachings of Lutgen and Chae in the device of Kwak as modified, as the combination of known prior art elements according to known methods yielding predictable results is an exemplary rationale supporting a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP ¶2143 - KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding Claim 5, Li further teaches the second semiconductor layer of the first light-emitting element stack is in contact with the first semiconductor layer of the second light-emitting element stack (see Figure 1, not all layers are in electrical contact with each other).
Regarding Claim 7, Kwak further teaches a wavelength-converting portion (Figure 2, item 160) on the common electrode, wherein the wavelength-converting portion comprises: partition walls partitioning emission areas and a non-emission area (Figure 2, item PT divides the surface area of each emission and non-emission are); a wavelength conversion layer (Figure 2, item 160) between the partition walls and overlapping with the emission areas; a light-blocking member (Figure 2, item 172, ¶0095) on the partition walls; and color filters (Figure 2, ¶0171) on the wavelength conversion layer.
Regarding Claim 8, Kwak further teaches a reflective metal layer (Figure 2, item 173, ¶0098) between the common electrode and the partition walls, wherein the reflective metal layer overlaps with the non-emission area (see Figure 2).
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak in view of Li, Lutgen, and Chae.
Regarding Claim 9, Kwak teaches a display device comprising: pixel electrodes (Figure 2a, items 144) on a substrate (Figure 2A, item 110); light-emitting elements (Figure 2A, items 140+150) on the pixel electrodes; a planarization layer (Figure 2A, item 115) on the pixel electrodes to fill between the light-emitting elements; and a common electrode (Figure 2A, item CE) on the planarization layer and the light-emitting elements. Kwak does not specifically teach the light-emitting elements have a tandem structure in which a plurality of light-emitting element stacks is stacked. However, Li teaches individual light emitting elements where multiple colors of emission are stacked together – see Figure 1, note first light emitting stack 108 and second light emitting stack 112. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to use the stacked structure of Li in the device of Kwak, as Li teaches stacking the LED structures on a single axis allows for enhancement of light illumination efficiency within a single pixel area and improve resolution of the entire panel (¶0011). Li further teaches the first light-emitting element stack comprises a first semiconductor layer, an active layer, and a second semiconductor layer (¶0081), and wherein the second light-emitting element stack comprises a first semiconductor layer, an active layer, a second semiconductor layer and a third semiconductor layer (¶0088). Li does not specifically teach the LED stacks include an EBL, or superlattice, however, the specific layers required are well known layers that have specifically known functions when included in LED structures. Lutgen teaches using EBLs in LED stacked structures (see Figure 7A) in order to control electron leakage current across the device (¶0113) and superlattices are taught to be included in stacked LED structures by Chae (see ¶0434) in order to help control crystal quality of the emitting layers. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to use the teachings of Lutgen and Chae in the device of Kwak as modified, as the combination of known prior art elements according to known methods yielding predictable results is an exemplary rationale supporting a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP ¶2143 - KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding Claim 10, Li further teaches a bonding layer (Figure 1, item 110) between the first light-emitting element stack (Figure 1, item 108) and the second light-emitting element stack (Figure 1, item 112).
Regarding Claim 11, Li further teaches the bonding layer comprises indium tin oxide (ITO) or indium zinc oxide (IZO) (see inclusion of ITO with the bonding layer described in ¶0089).
Regarding Claim 12, Li further teaches the second semiconductor layer of the first light-emitting element stack is in contact with the first semiconductor layer of the second light-emitting element stack (see Figure 1, not all layers are in electrical contact with each other).
Regarding Claim 13, Li further teaches a top light-emitting element stack from among the plurality of light-emitting element stacks further comprises a third semiconductor layer (¶0088).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Takeya et al. (US Patent No. 10,606,121)
Jang et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0206849)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK W TORNOW whose telephone number is (571)270-7534. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30-4:30 EST.
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, Matthew Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
MARK W. TORNOW
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2891
/MARK W TORNOW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights