Attorney’s Docket Number: NAUP4395USA
Filing Date: 1/24/2024
Claimed Priority Date: 12/26/2023 (CN202311811122.4)
Inventors: Shi et al.
Examiner: Marcos D. Pizarro
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to the application filed on 1/24/2024.
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for a 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.
Drawings
Figures 1 and 2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 5-8 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
The claims are indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the contact plug". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the light emitting element” and “the contact plug”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the first bonding pad”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 9, 13-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yeon (US 2023/0037888).
Regarding claim 1, Yeon (see, e.g., figs. 1-3) shows all aspects of the instant invention including a semiconductor structure comprising a light emitting element (LEE) comprising:
A substrate 201 on which a display region and a bonding pad region are defined
A circuit layer 298 formed on the substrate and located in the display and pad regions
A plurality of contact plugs 198 in the display and pad regions and electrically connected with the circuit layer, wherein the plugs in the display region are arranged in an array, and
A plurality of LEEs 110/155 located in the display region and electrically connected with the plugs
Regarding claim 2, Yeon (see, e.g., fig. 3) shows the structure further comprising a plurality of first pads 150 in the display region and located between the LEEs 110/155 and the plugs 198.
Regarding claim 3, Yeon (see, e.g., fig. 3) shows the pads 150 directly connected to the plugs 198 and the LEEs 110/155.
Regarding claim 4, Yeon (see, e.g., fig. 3) shows that the LEEs 110/155 are not located in the pad region.
Regarding claim 5, Yeon (see, e.g., fig. 3) shows the structure further comprising a second pad 147 in the pad region and electrically connected to a plug 198.
Regarding claim 6, Yeon (see, e.g., par. 0058) shows that the top surface of the second pad 147 is connected to a signal source.
Regarding claim 9, Yeon (see, e.g., figs. 2 and 3) shows that in the display region, the first pads 150 are arranged in an array and each of the first pads corresponds to a plug 198.
Regarding claim 13, Yeon (see, e.g., figs. 1-3) shows a method for forming a semiconductor structure including a LEE comprising:
Providing a substrate 201 with a display region and a bonding pad region defined thereon
Forming a circuit layer 298 on the substrate and in the display and pad regions
Forming a plurality of contact plugs 198 in the display and pad regions and electrically connected with the circuit layer, wherein the plugs in the display region are arranged in an array, and
Forming a plurality of LEEs 110/155 in the display region and electrically connected with the plugs
Regarding claim 14, Yeon (see, e.g., fig. 3) shows the method further comprising forming a plurality of fist bonding pads 150 in the display region and between the LEEs 110/155 and the plugs 198.
Regarding claim 15, Yeon (see, e.g., figs. 2 and 3) shows that in the display region, the first pads 150 are arranged in an array, and each of the first pads corresponds to a plug 198.
Regarding claim 16, Yeon (see, e.g., fig. 3) shows that the first pads 150 directly contact the plugs 198 and the LEEs 110/155.
Regarding claim 17, Yeon (see, e.g., fig. 3) shows the method further comprising forming a second bonding pad (see, e.g., fig. 3)147 in the pad region and electrically connected a plug 198.
Regarding claim 19, Yeon (see, e.g., fig. 3) shows the method further comprising forming a passivation layer 120 covering the first pads 150 and the second pad 147.
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.
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 12 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeon.
Regarding claim 12, Yeon (see, e.g., fig. 1) shows that the display region occupies substantially the entirety of the display panel while the pad region PAD is limited to a relatively small peripheral area used for electrical connection and bonding pads. Thus, Yeon teaches a display region that is substantially larger than the pad region.
Yeon does not expressly disclose that a ratio of the area of the display region to the area of the pad region is greater than 20. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select relative dimensions of the display region and pad region such that the claimed ratio exceeds 20. Display devices are conventionally designed to maximize active display area while minimizing peripheral non-display areas occupied by bonding pads and associated circuitry.
Further, applicant has not demonstrated that the claimed threshold value of greater than 20 is critical. MPEP § 2144.05 states that where the claimed invention and the prior art differ only by a variable or range, the claimed range is prima facie obvious in the absence of evidence that the claimed value is critical or produces unexpected results. The specification does not appear to attribute any unexpected result to a ratio greater than 20, nor does it indicate that devices having ratios slightly below the claimed threshold operate differently. Accordingly, the claimed ratio represents no more than an obvious optimization of the relative display and pad regions.
Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of the claimed ratio, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of Yeon.
CRITICALITY
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed dimensions or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 10, Yeon (see, e.g., fig. 3) shows a plurality of first pads 150 arranged within the display region. Although Yeon does not expressly disclose that adjacent first pads are spaced apart by a distance of 0.3 µm to 0.5 µm, he teaches the arrangement and placement of the first pads for electrical interconnection.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the spacing between adjacent first pads, including a spacing within the claimed range of 0.3 µm to 0.5 µm, as a matter of routine optimization. The spacing between adjacent pads affects interconnect density, substrate area utilization, routing capability, and overall device layout. One of ordinary skill in the art would have routinely adjusted pad spacing in view of design objectives, manufacturing capabilities, and desired connection density.
Further, applicant has not demonstrated that the claimed range of 0.3 µm to 0.5 µm is critical or achieves unexpected results. MPEP § 2144.05 explains that where the claimed invention and the prior art differ only in a variable or a value thereof, the claimed value may be prima facie obvious absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results. The specification does not appear to identify any unexpected result occurring specifically within the claimed range as compared with values immediately outside the claimed range. Accordingly, the claimed spacing within the claimed range represent no more than an obvious optimization of the pad pitch.
Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see paragraph 31 above) of the claimed pad pitch, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of Yeon.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeon in view of Kang (US 2007/0132365).
Regarding claim 11, Yeon (see, e.g., fig. 3) shows most aspects of the instant invention including a structure comprising first pads 150. Yeon, however, fails to show the pads comprising a bottom layer, an intermediate layer, and a top layer, wherein the bottom and top layers comprise titanium and titanium nitride, and the intermediate layer comprises aluminum. Along these lines, Kang (see, e.g., par. 0079) teaches that a Ti/TiN/Al/TiN/Ti pad improves corrosion resistance of the pad against external environment.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) to have the Ti/TiN/Al/TiN/Ti layers of Kang for the first pads of Yeon to improve the corrosion resistance of the pads against the external environment.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 8, 18 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Papers related to this application may be submitted directly to Art Unit 2814 by facsimile transmission. Papers should be faxed to Art Unit 2814 via the Art Unit 2814 Fax Center. The faxing of such papers must conform to the notice published in the Official Gazette, 1096 OG 30 (15 November 1989). The Art Unit 2814 Fax Center number is (571) 273-8300. The Art Unit 2814 Fax Center is to be used only for papers related to Art Unit 2814 applications.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marcos D. Pizarro at (571) 272-1716 and between the hours of 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Thursday or by e-mail via Marcos.Pizarro@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Wael Fahmy, can be reached on (571) 272-1705.
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.
/Marcos D. Pizarro/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2814
MDP/mdp
June 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights