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 .
Specification
The amended title is descriptive of the claimed invention. The previous objection to the title is withdrawn.
Response to Amendments and Argument
Applicant’s arguments concerning Yoshitani’s transitory-layer arrangement and incomplete energy comparison have been considered and is persuasive. The previous rejection is therefore withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is established. The present ground rely on SIM’s disclose SiOx/ZnO/SiOx films surrounding the light emitting stack, with Ikeda (US-20170141230-A1) used as evidence of their constituent oxygen-bond energies under the interpretation below.
Ikeda’s comparison addresses both required inequalities because SIM’s first and third films use the same silicon-oxide material. The asserted reliability benefit does not distinguish an otherwise anticipated structure having that property. The display modification is separately supported under claim 11. Each dependent claim is considered with its inherited limitations and its additional limitations, as addressed below.
Claim Interpretation
Consistent with specification [0063-0067][0070], bond dissociation energy of an insulating film is interpreted as the dissociation energy of the constituent element-oxygen bond of its material. The specification uses this material property to explain oxygen release and retention. See MPEP 2111. The supporting material comparison is set forth under claim 1 below.
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, 2, 4, 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by SIM et. al. (US-20220158039-A1, hereinafter SIM), with Ikeda et.al. (US-2017/0141230-A1, hereinafter Ikeda) cited as evidence of the inherent material property discussed below.
Regarding Claim 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
417
251
media_image1.png
Greyscale
SIM teaches in Fig.19 and in related text A light emitting element (#LD) comprising:
a first semiconductor layer (#11);
a second semiconductor layer (#13) disposed on the first semiconductor layer;
an active layer (#12) disposed between the first semiconductor layer (#11) and the second semiconductor layer (#13);
a first insulating film (#16 protective film) at least partially surrounding the first semiconductor layer, the second semiconductor layer, and the active layer;
a second insulating film surrounding the first insulating film (#14); and
a third insulating film (#17 protective film) surrounding the second insulating film, (See SIM [0180-0188])
Protective film #16 surrounds the peripheral surface of stack #10 while exposing portions at its opposite ends, thereby satisfying the at-least-partially-surrounding limitation (SIM [0182])
SIM does not explicitly state the claimed bond dissociation energy relationship. However, SIM expressly discloses silicon oxide (SiOx) for protective film #16, ZnO for insulating film #14, and the same silicon oxide for additional protective film #17 in the selected Fig.19 embodiment. ([0182-0184]) The ZnO embodiment is relied upon without requiring the optional doped variant.
Ikeda [0042] reports a Zn-O bond dissociation energy of less than 250kJ/mol, and [0043] reports a Si-O bond dissociation energy of 799 kJ/mol. Ikeda applied this comparison to oxygen deficiency during thermal processing of oxide semiconductor films: the stronger Si-O bond suppresses oxygen deficiency. These teachings support applying the constituent oxygen-bond comparison to the oxide materials identified in SIM.
In SIM’s selected embodiment, second film #14 supplies Zn-O bonds and first and third films #16 and #17 supply Si-O bonds. Under the stated claim interpretation, the disclosed ZnO middle film necessarily has the lower bond dissociation energy relative to each silicon-oxide surrounding film. The claim 1 relationship is therefore inherent in that disclosed material arrangement. Ikeda is used as extrinsic evidence of the property, without modifying SIM’s structure or materials. See MPEP 2112 and 2131.01 subsection III.
Regarding Claim 2 and 4.
SIM teaches The light emitting element of claim 1,
SIM teaches in Fig.19 a SiOx/ZnO/SiOx-type multilayer arrangement and also teaches oxide outer protective film (#16) and that additional protective film (#17) may be formed of the same material. (the first insulating film and third insulating film are formed of the same material) ([0182-0184])
(claim 2) Ikeda’s Si-O value of 799 kJ/mol corresponds to approximately 8.28eV per bond (799 divided by 96.485 kJ/mol per eV). Under the stated interpretation, SIM’s first silicon-oxide film #16 therefore has the recited bond dissociation energy within about 7.0 eV to about 9.0 eV. (Sim [0182] Ikeda [0043])
(Claim 4) SIM’s third insulating film #17 includes the same silicon-oxide material and has the same constituent Si-O bond energy of approximately 9.28 eV, within about 7.0 eV to about 9.0 eV. (Sim [0184] Ikeda [0043])
Regarding Claim 5.
SIM teaches The light emitting element of claim 1,
SIM further teaches wherein the first insulating film (#16) and the third insulating film (#17) include a same material. (SIM [0184])
Regarding Claim 10.
SIM teaches The light emitting element of claim 1,
SIM further teaches in Fig.19 further comprising:
a fourth insulating film surrounding the third insulating film (#17). ([0173] [0178-0179], [0182-0184] The additional protective film #17 may be provided in the form of a multi-layer including at least two layers.)
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 11-12, 14-15, and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SIM et. al. (US-20220158039-A1, hereinafter SIM)
Regarding Claim 11.
SIM teaches A display device comprising:
a plurality of electrodes (#EL1 and EL2) spaced apart from each other; and
a plurality of light emitting elements (#LD) disposed between ones of the plurality of electrodes (SIM Fig.24 [0261] [0265-0266]), wherein
SIM further teach in Fig.19 each of the plurality of light emitting elements includes:
a first semiconductor layer (#11);
a second semiconductor layer (#13) disposed on the first semiconductor layer;
an active layer (#12) disposed between the first semiconductor layer and the second semiconductor layer;
a first insulating film (#16) at least partially surrounding the first semiconductor layer, the second semiconductor layer, and the active layer;
a second insulating film (#14) surrounding the first insulating film; and
a third insulating film (#17) surrounding the second insulating film,
Each Fig 19 element retains SIM’s SiOx/ZnO/SiO material selection. For the reasons state for claim 1, the constituent Zn-O bond energy of second film #14 is lower than the Si-O bond energy of each of first and third film #16 and #17. (SIM [0182-0184] [Ikeda [0043-0043])
Sim [0214] generally introduces display use of the preceding light emitting element. However [0215] and [0217]0 describe the display with reference to Fig. 1 and 2 and [0266] identifies Figs. 1, 2 or Figs. 14A and 14B. It would have been obvious to use the Fig. 19 elements in the Fig.24 display device to reduce surface and lattice defects and prevent short circuits with external conductive material. SIM [0188] attribute improves electrical stability and emission efficiency to that arrangement, and [0214] supports display use of the preceding elements. A skilled person of the art would reasonably expect success because Fig.19 retains the semiconductor stack and exposed opposite terminals. These terminals permit connection through CNE1 and CNE2 to EL1 and EL2 ([0266-0267]), while preserving emission, film protection, and electrode operation.
and
Regarding Claim 12.
SIM teaches The display device of claim 11,
SIM further teaches in Fig.19 wherein the bond dissociation energy of the first insulating film is in a range of about 7.0 eV to about 9.0 eV. (first film #16 is SIM’s disclosed silicon oxide. Under the stated interpretation, its Si-O bond energy is approximately 8.28eV, within the claimed range as explained for claim 2. SIM [0182] Ikeda[0043]))
Regarding Claim 14
SIM teaches The display device of claim 11,
SIM further teaches in Fig.19 wherein the bond dissociation energy of the third insulating film is in a range of about 7.0 eV to about 9.0 eV. (SIM’s third film #17 comprises the same silicon-oxide material as film #16. Its constituent Si-O bond energy of approximately 9.28 eV falls within that range under the stated interpretation. SIM [0183] Ikeda[0043])
Regarding Claim 15.
SIM teaches The display device of claim 11,
SIM further teaches in Fig.19 wherein the first insulating film (#16) and the third insulating film (#17) include a same material. (SIM [0184])
Regarding Claim 20.
SIM teaches The display device of claim 11,
SIM further teaches in Fig.19 further comprising:
a plurality of connection electrodes (#CNE1/#CNE2) disposed on the plurality of light emitting elements and being electrically connected to the plurality of light emitting elements (#LD).
Claims 6, 8, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SIM et. al. (US-20220158039-A1, hereinafter SIM), and further in view of CN210 (CN115911210A)
Regarding Claims 6 and 8.
SIM teaches The light emitting element of claim 1,
SIM teaches in Fig.19 the multi-layer structure but SIM does not explicitly disclose
(claim 6) wherein a thickness of the first insulating film is greater than a thickness of the second insulating film.
(claim 8) wherein a thickness of the third insulating film is greater than a thickness of the second insulating film.
CN210 teaches in Fig.1
(claim 6) wherein a thickness of the first insulating film (#140) is greater than a thickness of the second insulating film (#162). (See CN210 [0019] 200-1000 ns first film #140 and [0051] a 20-150 nm middle film #162)
(claim 8) wherein a thickness of the third insulating film (#161) is greater than a thickness of the second insulating film (#162). (See CN210 [0051] teaches a preferred embodiment in which outer film #161 is thicker than middle film #162)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify SIM’s device with the teachings of CN210, as identified above, in order to provide an alternative multilayer insulation structure protecting the semiconductor sidewalls and active layer during subsequent fabrication.
Regarding Claims 16 and 18.
SIM teaches The display device of claim 11,
SIM teaches in Fig.19 the multi-layer structure but SIM does not explicitly disclose
(claim 16) wherein a thickness of the first insulating film is greater than a thickness of the second insulating film.
(claim 18) wherein a thickness of the third insulating film is greater than a thickness of the second insulating film.
CN210 teaches in Fig.1
(claim 16) wherein a thickness of the first insulating film (#140) is greater than a thickness of the second insulating film (#162). (See CN210 [0019] 200-1000 ns first film #140 and [0051] a 20-150 nm middle film #162)
(claim 18) wherein a thickness of the third insulating film (#161) is greater than a thickness of the second insulating film (#162). (See CN210 [0051] teaches a preferred embodiment in which outer film #161 is thicker than middle film #162)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify SIM’s device with the teachings of CN210, as identified above, in order to provide an alternative multilayer insulation structure protecting the semiconductor sidewalls and active layer during subsequent fabrication.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 7, 9, 13, 17, and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 3 contains allowable subject matter, because the prior art, either singly or in combination, fails to anticipate or render obvious, the device, wherein the bond dissociation energy of the second insulating film is in a range of about 6.0 eV to about 8.5 eV. These features in combination with the other elements of the claim are neither disclosed nor suggested by the prior art of record.
Claim 7 contains allowable subject matter, because the prior art, either singly or in combination, fails to anticipate or render obvious, the device, wherein the thickness of the first insulating film is in a range of about 1 nm to about 5 nm, and the thickness of the second insulating film is in a range of about 1 nm to about 3 nm. These features in combination with the other elements of the claim are neither disclosed nor suggested by the prior art of record.
Claim 9 contains allowable subject matter, because the prior art, either singly or in combination, fails to anticipate or render obvious, the device, wherein
the thickness of the third insulating film is in a range of about 1 nm to about 5 nm, and
the thickness of the second insulating film is in a range of about 1 nm to about 3 nm. These features in combination with the other elements of the claim are neither disclosed nor suggested by the prior art of record.
Claim 13 contains allowable subject matter, because the prior art, either singly or in combination, fails to anticipate or render obvious, the device, wherein the bond dissociation energy of the second insulating film is in a range of about 6.0 eV to about 8.5 eV. These features in combination with the other elements of the claim are neither disclosed nor suggested by the prior art of record.
Claim 17 contains allowable subject matter, because the prior art, either singly or in combination, fails to anticipate or render obvious, the device, wherein the thickness of the first insulating film is in a range of about 1 nm to about 5 nm, and the thickness of the second insulating film is in a range of about 1 nm to about 3 nm. These features in combination with the other elements of the claim are neither disclosed nor suggested by the prior art of record.
Claim 19 contains allowable subject matter, because the prior art, either singly or in combination, fails to anticipate or render obvious, the device, wherein
the thickness of the third insulating film is in a range of about 1 nm to about 5 nm, and
the thickness of the second insulating film is in a range of about 1 nm to about 3 nm. These features in combination with the other elements of the claim are neither disclosed nor suggested by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOPHIA W KAO whose telephone number is (703)756-4797. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm Pacific Time.
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, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached at (571) 272-7925. 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.
/SOPHIA W KAO/Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/RATISHA MEHTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
