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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I, Sub-species I and Claims 1-3, 8-9, 12-17 and 20 in the reply filed on 6/8/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 4-7, 10-11 and 18-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/8/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant's Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) from PTO-1449. The IDS has been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 6, the claim recites, “the first portion of -- the the -- connection electrode”. Examiner believes that it should recite, “the first portion of -- the -- connection electrode”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 13-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 13 recites “a base substrate” in line 4 and further recites “a substrate” in line 8. According to Fig. 6, it appears that the “base substrate” in line 4 and the “substrate” in line 8, correspond to the same element “BSUB”. Therefore, it is unclear why the applicant is redefining the “substrate” in line 8. Hence, the claim is indefinite and rejected. Claims 14-17 and 20 depend from claim 13 and inherit the same indefiniteness. For examination purposes, “a substrate” in line 8 will be treated as “the base substrate”.
Claim 16 recites “a substrate” in line 3. However, “a substrate” is already defined in claim 13 from which claim 16 depends on. It is unclear if the applicant is defining a second substrate or referring to the substrate in claim 13. Hence, the claim is indefinite and rejected. It appears that the “substrate” in claim 16 refers to the substrate 110 in Fig. 15 and is different from the “substrate” in claim 13. Therefore, for examination purposes, “a substrate” in line 3 will be treated as “a second substrate”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang et al. (US 2020/0020825 A1).
Re Claim 1, Yang teaches a light emitting element array (Fig. 6G) comprising:
a base substrate (101, Fig. 6G, para [0068]);
a plurality of light emitting elements (see Fig. 6G, paras [0068] – [0069]), each of the plurality of light emitting elements including:
a light emitting element rod (see Fig. 6G) including a third semiconductor layer (102, Fig. 6G, para [0068]), a second semiconductor layer (103, Fig. 6G, para [0069]), a light emitting layer (104, Fig. 6G, para [0069]), and a first semiconductor layer (105, Fig. 6G, para [0069]) sequentially stacked on the base substrate (101); and
an insulating layer (114, Fig. 6G, para [0086]) surrounding the light emitting element rod; and
a connection electrode (116, Fig. 6G, para [0084]) disposed on the first semiconductor layer (105) of each of the plurality of light emitting elements, wherein
a diameter of the connection electrode (diameter of 116) is greater than a diameter of the light emitting element (see Fig. 6G), and
the connection electrode (116) surrounds a side surface (see Fig. 6G) of the first semiconductor layer (105) and a side surface of the light emitting layer (104).
Re Claim 13, Yang teaches a method of manufacturing a light emitting element (see Fig. 6G) comprising:
forming a light emitting element rod (Fig. 6G) including a third semiconductor layer (102, Fig. 6G, para [0068]), a second semiconductor layer (103, Fig. 6G, para [0069]), a light emitting layer (104, Fig. 6G, para [0069]), and a first semiconductor layer (105, Fig. 6G, para [0069]) sequentially stacked on a base substrate (101, Fig. 6G, para [0068]);
forming an insulating layer (114, Fig. 6G, para [0086]) surrounding the light emitting element rod; and
forming a connection electrode (116, Fig. 6G, para [0084]) having a diameter larger than a diameter of the light emitting element (diameter of 116 is larger than the light emitting element, see Fig. 6G) and surrounding a portion of a side surface of the light emitting element rod (116 surrounds a side surface of the light emitting element, see Fig. 6G) on the base substrate (101) on which the light emitting element rod is formed.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2020/0020825 A1), and further in view of Park et al. (US 2013/0240934 A1).
Re Claim 2, Yang teaches the light emitting element array of claim 1, wherein the connection electrode (116, Fig. 6G) includes:
a first portion (marked “1st portion of 116” in annotated Fig. 6G below) disposed on the first semiconductor layer (105), and
a second portion (marked “2nd portion of 116” in annotated Fig. 6G below) disposed on a side surface of the light emitting element rod (side surface of LED, see Fig. 6G), and
PNG
media_image1.png
331
876
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yang does not disclose that the first portion of the connection electrode is convex upward.
Related art, Park teaches that a light emitting element (10, Fig. 2, para [0043]), where the connection electrode can have a convex shape as shown in Fig. 2 (20, Fig. 2, paras [0045] – [0046]) or in Fig. 3A (22, Fig. 3A, para [0058]), or can also have a flat upper surface as shown in Fig. 3B (23, Fig. 3B, para [0059]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, absent unexpected results, to modify the connection electrode of Yang, such that it has convex upward shape as taught by Park. Park teaches that the connection electrode can either have a flat top surface or can have a convex upward shape. One of ordinary skill would realize that these are art-recognized alternate structure for connection electrodes, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the convex-shaped structure instead of flat-shaped structure. The use of a known structure of a connection electrode for its known purpose to yield predictable results is prima facie obvious. Also see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claims 14-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2020/0020825 A1), and further in view of Schubert et al. (US 2012/0049756 A1).
Re Claim 14, Yang teaches the method of claim 13, but does not explicitly state that the forming of the connection electrode (116, Fig. 6G) is performed by at least one of an electron beam evaporation method, a sputtering method, and a molecular beam epitaxy (MBE) method.
Yang states that the LED can be fabricated by MBE (para [0003]), but does not explicitly state that the connection electrode is formed by MBE.
Related art Schubert teaches that the contact electrode for LED can be fabricated by MBE, MOCVD or sputtering (para [0024]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, absent unexpected results, to form the connection electrode of Yang using either MBE, MOCVD or sputtering, as disclosed by Schubert. The selection of a known fabrication method for its known purpose of formation of connection electrode to yield predictable results is prima facie obvious. Also see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Re Claim 15, Yang modified by Schubert teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the connection electrode (116, Fig. 6G, Yang) surrounds a side surface of the first semiconductor layer (105, see Fig. 6G) and a side surface of a light emitting layer (104, see Fig. 6G).
Re Claim 20, Yang modified by Schubert teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the connection electrode (116, Fig. 6G, Yang) includes at least one of gold (Au), copper (Cu), tin (Sn), silver (Ag), aluminum (Al), and titanium (Ti) (connection electrode can be made of copper (Cu), aluminum (Al), silver (Ag), gold (Au), Schubert, para [0024]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2020/0020825 A1) and Schubert et al. (US 2012/0049756 A1), and further in view of Jeon et al. (US 2021/0057393 A1).
Re Claim 16, Yang modified by Schubert teaches the method of claim 14, further comprising:
aligning the light emitting element (Fig. 6G, Yang) on which the connection electrode (116, Fig. 6G, Yang) is formed on a second substrate (400, Fig. 10F, para [0113], Yang) on which a pixel electrode (402, Fig. 10F, para [0113], Yang) is formed;
bonding the connection electrode (116) to the pixel electrode (402, see Fig. 10F);
removing the base substrate (layer 101 is removed in Fig. 10F, see Fig. 8D where layer 101 is removed) and the third semiconductor layer (removal of layer 102, see Fig. 10G, compare to Figs. 6G and 10F);
Yang does not show the full manufacturing process of the display device and hence does not explicitly show the formation of common electrode on the light emitting element.
One of ordinary skill would look into related art to teach the full manufacturing process of a display device using LED. Related art, Jeon teaches a display device (Fig. 1, para [0057]), where the bottom side of the LEDs (100, Fig. 1, para [0058]) are connected to a pixel electrodes (11, Fig. 1, para [0060]), while the top side of the LEDs are connected to a common electrode (20, Fig. 1, para [0058]), which completes the electrical circuit.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, absent unexpected results, to form a common electrode on the top side of the LED in Fig. 10G of Yang, as shown by Jeon, as that is a well-known structure for competing the electrical circuits of the LEDs. The selection of a known electrical structure like a formation of a common electrode for its known purpose of completing the electrical circuits of the LEDs to yield predictable results is prima facie obvious. Also see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Rejection 2
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 8-9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thompson et al. (US 2021/0265526 A1).
Re Claim 8, Thompson teaches a display device (Fig. 12D) comprising:
a substrate (1210, Fig. 12D, para [0132]) including a pixel electrode (1280, Fig. 12D, para [0132]);
a plurality of light emitting elements (LEDs 1270, Fig. 12B, para [0132]), each of the plurality of light emitting elements including (LEDs 1270 can represent the LED embodiment 700 from Fig. 7, para [0132]):
a light emitting element rod (LED in Fig. 7, para [0089]) including a first semiconductor layer (740, Fig. 7, para [0089]), a light emitting layer (730, Fig. 7, para [0089]), and a second semiconductor layer (720, Fig. 7, para [0089]) sequentially stacked on the pixel electrode (1280, Fig. 12D) of the substrate (1210, Fig. 12D), and
an insulating layer (770, Fig. 7, para [0091]) surrounding the light emitting element rod;
a connection electrode (790, Fig. 7, para [0090]) disposed between the pixel electrode (1280, Fig. 12D) and the plurality of light emitting elements (compare Figs. 7 and 12D); and
a common electrode (n-contacts 1282, Fig. 12D, is common to all LEDs) disposed on the light emitting element (see Fig. 12D), wherein
a diameter of the connection electrode (diameter of 790, Fig. 7) is greater than a diameter of the light emitting element (790 surrounds the LED and has a diameter greater than the LED, see Fig. 7), and
the connection electrode (790, Fig. 7) surrounds a side surface of the first semiconductor layer (740, see Fig. 7) and a side surface of the light emitting layer (730, see Fig. 7).
Re Claim 9, Thompson teaches the display device of claim 8, wherein the connection electrode (790, Fig. 7) includes:
a first portion (marked “1st portion of 790” in annotated Fig. 7 below) disposed on the first semiconductor layer (740), and
a second portion (marked “2nd portion of 790” in annotated Fig. 7 below) disposed on a side surface of the light emitting element rod (side surface of LED, see Fig. 7), and
a diameter of the second portion of the connection electrode is changed according to a height of the second portion (diameter of “2nd portion of 790” changes according to height, see Fig. 7).
PNG
media_image2.png
399
806
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re Claim 12, Thompson teaches the display device of claim 8, wherein the connection electrode (790, Fig. 7) includes at least one of gold (Au), copper (Cu), tin (Sn), silver (Ag), aluminum (Al), and titanium (Ti) (790 can include Al/Ni/Au film , para [0090]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson et al. (US 2021/0265526 A1), and further in view of Song et al. (US 2022/0352437 A1).
Re Claim 1, Thompson teaches a light emitting element array (Fig. 12B) comprising:
a base substrate (1250, Fig. 12B, para [0132]);
a plurality of light emitting elements (LEDs 1270, Fig. 12B, para [0132]), each of the plurality of light emitting elements including (LEDs 1270 can represent the LED embodiment 700 from Fig. 7, para [0132]):
a light emitting element rod (LED in Fig. 7, para [0089]) including a third semiconductor layer (720, Fig. 7, para [0089]), a second layer (an electron-blocking layer, EBL, can be present between layer 720 and active layer 730, para [0090]), a light emitting layer (730, Fig. 7, para [0089]), and a first semiconductor layer (740, Fig. 7, para [0089]) sequentially stacked on the base substrate (710, Fig. 7, similar to 1250 of Fig. 12B); and
an insulating layer (770, Fig. 7, para [0091]) surrounding the light emitting element rod; and
a connection electrode (790, Fig. 7, para [0090]) disposed on the first semiconductor layer (740) of each of the plurality of light emitting elements (see Fig. 7), wherein
a diameter of the connection electrode (diameter of 790, Fig. 7) is greater than a diameter of the light emitting element (790 surrounds the LED and has a diameter greater than the LED, see Fig. 7), and
the connection electrode (790, Fig. 7) surrounds a side surface of the first semiconductor layer (740, see Fig. 7) and a side surface of the light emitting layer (730, see Fig. 7).
Regarding the second semiconductor layer, Thompson discloses that an electron-blocking layer, EBL, can be present between first semiconductor layer 720 and the active layer 730 (para [0090]), but does not explicitly disclose that the EBL is made of a semiconductor material.
Related art, Song teaches a similar LED configuration where a similar electron blocking layer (EBL, Fig. 6, para [0120]) is present between the first semiconductor layer (SEM1, Fig. 6, para [0120]) and the active layer (MQW, Fig. 6, para [0120]), where the EBL is formed from a semiconductor material that prevents excessive electrons from flowing to the active layer MQW (para [0122]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, absent unexpected results, to form the electron blocking layer (EBL) of Thompson from a semiconductor material as disclosed by Song, which will help in preventing excessive electrons from flowing to the active layer (Song, para [0122]).
Re Claim 2, Thompson modified by Song teaches the light emitting element array of claim 1, wherein the connection electrode (790, Fig. 7, Thompson) includes:
a first portion (marked “1st portion of 790” in annotated Fig. 7 above) disposed on the first semiconductor layer (740), and
a second portion (marked “2nd portion of 790” in annotated Fig. 7 above) disposed on a side surface of the light emitting element rod (side surface of LED, see Fig. 7), and
the first portion of the connection electrode is convex upward (“1st portion of 790” has a convex upward shape, see annotated Fig. 7 above).
Re Claim 3, Thompson modified by Song teaches the light emitting element array of claim 2, wherein a diameter of the second portion of the connection electrode is changed according to a height of the second portion (diameter of “2nd portion of 790” changes according to height, see Fig. 7).
Re Claim 13, Thompson teaches a method of manufacturing a light emitting element (Fig. 7) comprising:
forming a light emitting element rod (LED in Fig. 7, para [0089]) including a third semiconductor layer (720, Fig. 7, para [0089]), a second layer (an electron-blocking layer, EBL, can be present between layer 720 and active layer 730, para [0090]), a light emitting layer (730, Fig. 7, para [0089]), and a first semiconductor layer (740, Fig. 7, para [0089]) sequentially stacked on a base substrate (710, Fig. 7);
forming an insulating layer (770, Fig. 7, para [0091]) surrounding the light emitting element rod; and
forming a connection electrode (790, Fig. 7, para [0090]) having a diameter larger than a diameter of the light emitting element (790 surrounds the LED and has a diameter greater than the LED, see Fig. 7) and surrounding a portion of a side surface of the light emitting element rod (790 surrounds the light emitting element, see Fig. 7) on the base substrate (710, Fig. 7) on which the light emitting element rod is formed (see Fig. 7).
Regarding the second semiconductor layer, Thompson discloses that an electron-blocking layer, EBL, can be present between first semiconductor layer 720 and the active layer 730 (para [0090]), but does not explicitly disclose that the EBL is made of a semiconductor material.
Related art, Song teaches a similar LED configuration where a similar electron blocking layer (EBL, Fig. 6, para [0120]) is present between the first semiconductor layer (SEM1, Fig. 6, para [0120]) and the active layer (MQW, Fig. 6, para [0120]), where the EBL is formed from a semiconductor material that prevents excessive electrons from flowing to the active layer MQW (para [0122]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, absent unexpected results, to form the electron blocking layer (EBL) of Thompson from a semiconductor material as disclosed by Song, which will help in preventing excessive electrons from flowing to the active layer (Song, para [0122]).
Claims 14-15, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson et al. (US 2021/0265526 A1) and Song et al. (US 2022/0352437 A1), and further in view of Schubert et al. (US 2012/0049756 A1).
Re Claim 14, Thompson modified by Song teaches the method of claim 13, but does not explicitly state that the forming of the connection electrode (790, Fig. 7) is performed by at least one of an electron beam evaporation method, a sputtering method, and a molecular beam epitaxy (MBE) method.
Thompson states that the LED can be fabricated by MBE or MOCVD (paras [0087] – [0088]), but does not explicitly state that the connection electrode is formed by MBE.
Related art Schubert teaches that the contact electrode for LED can be fabricated by MBE, MOCVD or sputtering (para [0024]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, absent unexpected results, to form the connection electrode of Thompson using either MBE, MOCVD or sputtering, as disclosed by Schubert. The selection of a known fabrication method for its known purpose of formation of connection electrode to yield predictable results is prima facie obvious. Also see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Re Claim 15, Thompson modified by Song and Schubert teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the connection electrode (790, Fig. 7, Thompson) surrounds a side surface of the first semiconductor layer (740, see Fig. 7) and a side surface of a light emitting layer (730, see Fig. 7).
Re Claim 17, Thompson modified by Song and Schubert teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the connection electrode (790, Fig. 7, Thompson) includes:
a first portion (marked “1st portion of 790” in annotated Fig. 7 above) disposed on the first semiconductor layer (740), and
a second portion (marked “2nd portion of 790” in annotated Fig. 7 above) disposed on a side surface of the light emitting element rod (side surface of LED, see Fig. 7), and
a diameter of the second portion is changed according to a height of the second portion (diameter of “2nd portion of 790” changes according to height, see Fig. 7).
Re Claim 20, Thompson modified by Song and Schubert teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the connection electrode (790, Fig. 7, Thompson) includes at least one of gold (Au), copper (Cu), tin (Sn), silver (Ag), aluminum (Al), and titanium (Ti) (790 can include Al/Ni/Au film , para [0090], Thompson).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PINAKI DAS whose telephone number is (703)756-5641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, JULIO MALDONADO can be reached at (571)272-1864. 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.
/P.D./Examiner, Art Unit 2898 /JULIO J MALDONADO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights