CTNF 18/440,508 CTNF 98474 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/13/2024 and 7/25/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Specification 06-11 AIA The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-2, 4-5, 10-12, 14-15, and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SIM et. al. (US-20220158039-A1, hereinafter SIM), and further in view of Yoshitani et. al. (US-2017/0278974-A1, hereinafter Yoshitani) . 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]) SIM does not explicitly disclose wherein a bond dissociation energy of the second insulating film is less than each of a bond dissociation energy of the first insulating film and a bond dissociation energy of the third insulating film. However, Yoshitani teaches that different insulating layers may be selected according to their oxygen bond dissociation energy characteristics. In particular, it expressly states that the bond dissociation energy between Zn and oxygen is 284 kJ/mol, while the bond dissociation energies between AI and oxygen, Ti and oxygen, Mo and oxygen and W and oxygen are substantially higher. Yoshitani further teaches multilayer insulating structures in which one insulating layer has higher binding energy to oxygen than another insulating layer, and further teaches a three-layer insulating arrangement in which a selected insulating layer has higher binding energy to oxygen than another insulating layer in order to achieve desired electrical and reliability properties. (Yoshitani [0155-0166]) 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 semiconductor device with the teachings of Yoshitani , as identified above, in order to have a predictable way to tailor reliability and chemical stability of the light emitting element while maintaining more robust outer protective films. Regarding Claim 2 and 4 . SIM modified by Yoshitani teaches The light emitting element of claim 1, SIM modified by Yoshitani does not explicitly disclose (claim 2) wherein the bond dissociation energy of the first insulating film is in a range of about 7.0 eV to about 9.0 eV. (claim 4) 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 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]) Yoshitani teaches that insulating layers may be selected according to their relative bond dissociation energy, and further teaches that certain oxide system possess higher oxygen-binding energy than other insulating-layer materials. These limitations would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the first and third outer surrounding films of SIM as a relatively higher bond-energy oxide insulating material, such that the first and third insulating films fall within the recited range of about 7.0 eV to about 9.0eV, as a matter of routine optimization of the selected outer insulating material for protective reliability and chemical stability. Regarding Claim 5 . SIM modified by Yoshitani 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 modified by Yoshitani teaches The light emitting element of claim 1, SIM further teaches further comprising: a fourth insulating film surrounding the third insulating film (#17). ([0173] The additional protective film # 17 may be provided in the form of a multi-layer including at least two layers.) 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, wherein 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, and SIM does not explicitly disclose a bond dissociation energy of the second insulating film is less than each of a bond dissociation energy of the first insulating film and a bond dissociation energy of the third insulating film. However, Yoshitani teaches that different insulating layers may be selected according to their oxygen bond dissociation energy characteristics. In particular, it expressly states that the bond dissociation energy between Zn and oxygen is 284 kJ/mol, while the bond dissociation energies between AI and oxygen, Ti and oxygen, Mo and oxygen and W and oxygen are substantially higher. Yoshitani further teaches multilayer insulating structures in which one insulating layer has higher binding energy to oxygen than another insulating layer, and further teaches a three-layer insulating arrangement in which a selected insulating layer has higher binding energy to oxygen than another insulating layer in order to achieve desired electrical and reliability properties. (Yoshitani [0155-0166]) 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 semiconductor device with the teachings of Yoshitani , as identified above, in order to have a predictable way to tailor reliability and chemical stability of the light emitting element while maintaining more robust outer protective films. Regarding Claim 12 and 14 . SIM modified by Yoshitani teaches The light emitting element of claim 11, SIM modified by Yoshitani does not explicitly disclose (claim 2) wherein the bond dissociation energy of the first insulating film is in a range of about 7.0 eV to about 9.0 eV. (claim 4) 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 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]) Yoshitani teaches that insulating layers may be selected according to their relative bond dissociation energy, and further teaches that certain oxide system possess higher oxygen-binding energy than other insulating-layer materials. These limitations would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the first and third outer surrounding films of SIM as a relatively higher bond-energy oxide insulating material, such that the first and third insulating films fall within the recited range of about 7.0 eV to about 9.0eV, as a matter of routine optimization of the selected outer insulating material for protective reliability and chemical stability. Regarding Claim 1 5 . SIM modified by Yoshitani teaches The light emitting element of claim 11, SIM further teaches wherein the first insulating film (#16) and the third insulating film (#17) include a same material. (SIM [0184]) Regarding Claim 20 . SIM modified by Yoshitani teaches The display device of claim 11, SIM further teaches 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) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 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 Yoshitani et. al. (US-2017/0278974-A1, hereinafter Yoshitani), and further in view of Jiang et. al. (US-2011/0147704-A1, hereinafter Jiang) Regarding Claims 6 and 8 . SIM modified by Yoshitani teaches The light emitting element of claim 1, SIM teaches in Fig.19 the multi-layer structure is formed of SiOx/ZnO/SiOx 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. However, Jiang teaches a semiconductor light-emitting device having multiple passivation layers of different materials and expressly teaches that those layers are formed with different thicknesses, including a first oxide-type passivation layer of 1-100 nm and a second overlying SiOx/SiNx/SiOxNy passivation layer of 30-1000 nm.(Jiang [0018] [0038]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the relative thicknesses of SIM’s surrounding films such that the outer SiOx-based protective films are thicker than the intermediate ZnO-based insulating film as a matter of routine thickness optimization according to material function. Regarding Claims 16 and 18 . SIM modified by Yoshitani teaches The display device of claim 11, SIM teaches in Fig.19 the multi-layer structure is formed of SiOx/ZnO/SiOx 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. However, Jiang teaches a semiconductor light-emitting device having multiple passivation layers of different materials and expressly teaches that those layers are formed with different thicknesses, including a first oxide-type passivation layer of 1-100 nm and a second overlying SiOx/SiNx/SiOxNy passivation layer of 30-1000 nm. (Jiang [0018] [0038]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the relative thicknesses of SIM’s surrounding films such that the outer SiOx-based protective films are thicker than the intermediate ZnO-based insulating film as a matter of routine thickness optimization according to material function . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 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. 13-03-01 AIA 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 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Young et. al. – US-2022/0173277-A1 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 /ELISEO RAMOS FELICIANO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/440,508 Page 2 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/440,508 Page 3 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/440,508 Page 4 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/440,508 Page 5 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/440,508 Page 6 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/440,508 Page 7 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/440,508 Page 8 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/440,508 Page 9 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/440,508 Page 10 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/440,508 Page 11 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/440,508 Page 12 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/440,508 Page 13 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/440,508 Page 14 Art Unit: 2817
Prosecution Insights