DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to an Application filed on 08/16/2023.
Currently, claims 1-10 are examined as below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 08/16/2023. The IDS has been considered.
Specification
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.
The following title is suggested:
(Marked-Up Version) Pixel Unit with RGB Light-Emitting Diodes Each Having Asymmetric Light Pattern
(Clean Version) Pixel Unit with RGB Light-Emitting Diodes Each Having Asymmetric Light Pattern
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 1-10 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.
Independent claim 1 is indefinite, because:
(1) The limitation “the top-view shape of the red LED chip” in lines 3-4 is not mentioned before. There is insufficient antecedent basis.
(2) The limitation “the top-view shape of the green LED chip” in lines 8-9 is not mentioned before. There is insufficient antecedent basis.
(3) The limitation “the top-view shape of the blue LED chip” in lines 13-14 is not mentioned before. There is insufficient antecedent basis.
(4) The limitation “the same side of the respective reference line” in line 22 is not mentioned before. There is insufficient antecedent basis.
(5) The limitation “the respective reference line” in line 22 is not mentioned before. There is insufficient antecedent basis. It is also unclear whether such respective reference line is the reference line of each of the red LED chip, the green LED chip, and the blue LED chip.
Claim 2 is indefinite, because the limitation “the cited chip” in line 5 is not mentioned before. There is insufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 3 is indefinite, because:
(1) The limitation “the same chip” in line 3 is not mentioned before. There is insufficient antecedent basis. It is also unclear whether it is the red, green or blue LED chip such chip is in reference to.
(2) The limitation “the same chip” in line 5 is not mentioned before. There is insufficient antecedent basis. It is also unclear whether it is the red, green or blue LED chip such chip is in reference to.
Independent claim 4 is indefinite, because:
(1) The abbreviation “LED” in line 2 has not been clearly defined in the claim. It is unclear what is necessarily required by the abbreviation “LED.”
(2) The limitation “the top-view shape of the respective chip” in lines 6-7 is not mentioned before. There is insufficient antecedent basis.
(3) The limitation “the respective chip” in line 7 is not mentioned before. There is insufficient antecedent basis. It is also unclear whether such respective chip is each of the red LED chip, the green LED chip and the blue LED chip. The limitation will be interpreted as each of the red LED chip, the green LED chip and the blue LED chip.
(4) The limitation “the same side of the respective reference line” in lines 12-13 is not mentioned before. There is insufficient antecedent basis.
(5) The limitation “the respective reference line” in lines 12-13 is not mentioned before. There is insufficient antecedent basis. It is unclear whether such respective reference line is the reference line of each of the red LED chip, green LED chip and the blue LED chip. The limitation will be interpreted as the reference line of each of the red LED chip, green LED chip and the blue LED chip.
Claim 5 is indefinite, because the limitation “the sited chip” in line 5 is not mentioned before. There is insufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 6 is indefinite, because:
(1) The limitation “the same side as the positive electrode” in lines 2-3 is not mentioned before. There is insufficient antecedent basis.
(2) The limitation “the same chip” in line 3 is not mentioned before. There is insufficient antecedent basis. It is unclear which LED chip such chip is in reference to.
(3) The limitation “the same side as the negative electrode” in line 5 is not mentioned before. There is insufficient antecedent basis.
(4) The limitation “the same chip” in line 5 is not mentioned before. There is insufficient antecedent basis. It is unclear which LED chip such chip is in reference to.
Independent claim 7 is indefinite, because:
(1) The abbreviation “LED” in line 2 has not been clearly defined in the claim. It is unclear what is necessarily required by the abbreviation “LED.”
(2) The limitation “the respective light patterns” in line 5 is not mentioned before. There is insufficient antecedent basis.
(3) The limitation “the 0-degree viewing angle in lines 6-7 is not mentioned before. There is insufficient antecedent basis.
(4) The limitation “the same side” in line 9 is not mentioned before. There is insufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 8 is indefinite, because:
(1) The limitation “the top-view shape of the chip” in line 3 is not mentioned before. There is insufficient antecedent basis.
(2) The limitation “the chip” in line 3 is not mentioned before. There is insufficient antecedent basis. It is also unclear which LED chip such chip is in reference to.
Claim 9 is indefinite, because the limitation “the sited chip” in line 5 is not mentioned before. There is insufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 10 is indefinite, because:
(1) The limitation “the same side” in line 3 is not mentioned before. There is insufficient antecedent basis.
(2) The limitation “the same chip” in lines 3-4 is not mentioned before. There is insufficient antecedent basis. It is also unclear which LED chip such same chip is in reference to.
(3) The limitation “the same side” in line 6 is not mentioned before. There is insufficient antecedent basis.
(2) The limitation “the same chip” in line 6 is not mentioned before. There is insufficient antecedent basis. It is also unclear which LED chip such same chip is in reference to.
Note the dependent claims 2-3, 5-6 and 8-10 necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
I. Prior-art rejections based on Kim
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)(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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2025/0035819 A1 to Kim et al. (“Kim”).
PNG
media_image1.png
598
486
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding independent claim 7, Kim in Figs. 1 and 11 teaches a pixel unit (Figs. 1, 11, ¶ 61 & ¶ 134, a single pixel includes red LED 210, green LED 220 and blue LED 230), comprising:
a red LED chip 210 (Fig. 1 & ¶ 61, red LED 210);
a green LED chip 220 (Fig. 1 & ¶ 61, green LED 220); and
a blue LED chip 230 (Fig. 1 & ¶ 61, blue LED 230);
wherein the respective light patterns of the red LED chip 210, the green LED chip 220, and the blue LED chip 230 are asymmetric with respect to the 0-degree viewing angle (Figs. 1, 11 & ¶ 137, the luminance patterns of respective red, green and blue LEDs (i.e., LED chips 210, 220, 230) are asymmetric with respect to the 0-degree viewing angle);
wherein the respective light patterns of the red LED chip 210, the green LED chip 220, and the blue LED chip 230 are deviated to the same side with respect to the 0-degree viewing angle (Figs. 1, 11 & ¶ 137, the luminance patterns of respective red, green and blue LEDs (i.e., LED chips 210, 220, 230) are deviated to the same right side with respect to the 0-degree viewing angle).
II. Prior-art rejections based at least in part of Credelle
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.
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 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2004/0174375 A1 to Credelle et al. (“Credelle”) in view of Kim.
PNG
media_image2.png
634
486
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
534
819
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding independent claim 7, Credelle in Figs. 6A-6B teaches a pixel unit (Fig. 6A), comprising:
a red sub-pixel (Figs. 6A-6B & ¶ 23, red sub-pixel at 50% luminance);
a green sub-pixel (Figs. 6A-6B & ¶ 23, green sub-pixel at 12.5% at 75% luminance); and
a blue sub-pixel (Figs. 6A-6B & ¶ 23, red sub-pixel at 50% luminance);
wherein the respective light patterns of the red sub-pixel (i.e., at 50% luminance), the green sub-pixel (i.e., at 12.5% and 75% luminance), and the blue sub-pixel (i.e., at 50% luminance) are asymmetric with respect to the 0-degree viewing angle (see Fig. 6B);
wherein the respective light patterns of the red sub-pixel (i.e., at 50% luminance), the green sub-pixel (i.e., at 12.5% and 75% luminance), and the blue sub-pixel (i.e., at 50% luminance) are deviated to the same side (Fig. 6B, the same right side) with respect to the 0-degree viewing angle (see Fig. 6B).
However, Credelle does not explicitly disclose the red sub-pixel is a red LED chip, the green sub-pixel is a green LED chip, and the blue sub-pixel is a blue LED chip.
Kim recognizes a need for providing sub-pixels for emitting different colors (¶ 61). Kim satisfies the need by using a red LED 210 (Fig. 1 & ¶ 61) for a red sub-pixel, a green LED 220 (Fig. 1 & ¶ 61) for a green sub-pixel, and a blue LED 230 (Fig. 1 & ¶ 61) for a blue sub-pixel.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sub-pixels taught by Credelle with the red, green, and blue LEDs taught by Kim, so as to provide sub-pixels for emitting different colors (Kim: ¶ 61).
PNG
media_image4.png
566
502
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Credelle (Annotated Fig. 6A) and Kim further teaches each of the red LED chip 210 (Credelle: at 50% luminance; Kim), the green LED chip 220 (Credelle: at 12.5% and 75% luminance; Kim), and the blue LED chip 230 (Credelle: at 50% luminance; Kim) has a reference line RL (Credelle: Annotated Fig. 6A) passing through a geometric center of the top-view shape of the chip 210, 220, 230 (Credelle; Kim), and the reference lines RL of the red LED chip 210 (Credelle: Annotated Fig. 6A, at 50% luminance; Kim), the green LED chip 220 (Credelle: Annotated Fig. 6A, at 12.5% and 75% luminance; Kim) and the blue LED chip 230 (Credelle: Annotated Fig. 6A, at 50% luminance; Kim) are parallel to each other (Credelle, Annotated Fig. 6A).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 1-6 are rejected, but would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
PNG
media_image5.png
804
640
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding independent claim 1, Japanese Patent Publication No. 2020013043 A (“JP043”) in Figs. 2-4 and Annotated Fig. 4 teaches a pixel unit 100A (Figs. 2-4 & ¶ 21, light emitting device 100A constitutes one pixel), comprising:
a red light-emitting diode (LED) chip 110R (¶ 22, red LED 110R), having reference line RL (Annotated Fig. 4) passing through a geometric center of the top-view shape of the red LED chip 110R;
a green LED chip 110G (¶ 22, green LED 110G), reference line RL (Annotated Fig. 4) passing through a geometric center of the top-view shape of the green LED chip 110G;
a blue LED chip 110B (¶ 22, blue LED 110B), and a reference line RL (Annotated Fig. 4) passing through a geometric center of the top-view shape of the blue LED chip 110B;
wherein the reference line RL of the red LED chip 110R, the reference line RL of the green LED chip 110G, and the reference line RL of the blue LED chip 110B are parallel to each other (Annotated Fig. 4).
However, the prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed elements in claim 1, the red light-emitting diode (LED) chip, having an optical density concentration zone, wherein the optical density concentration zone of the red LED chip is deviated to one side of the reference line of the red LED chip; the green LED chip, having an optical density concentration zone, wherein the optical density concentration zone of the green LED chip is deviated to one side of the reference line of the green LED chip; the blue LED chip, having an optical density concentration zone, wherein the optical density concentration zone of the blue LED chip is deviated to one side of the reference line of the blue LED chip; and the optical density concentration zone of the red LED chip, the optical density concentration zone of the green LED chip, and the optical density concentration zone of the blue LED chip are all deviated to the same side of the respective reference line.
Therefore, independent claim 1 would be allowable.
Claims 2-3 would be allowable, because they depend from the allowable claim 1.
Regarding independent claim 4, JP043 in Figs. 2-4 and Annotated Fig. 4 teaches a pixel unit 100A (Figs. 2-4 & ¶ 21, light emitting device 100A constitutes one pixel), comprising:
a red LED chip 110R (¶ 22, red LED 110R);
a green LED chip 110G (¶ 22, green LED 110G); and
a blue LED chip 110B (¶ 22, blue LED 110B);
wherein each of the red LED chip 110R, the green LED chip 110G, and the blue LED chip 110B has a reference line RL (Annotated Fig. 4) passing through a geometric center of the top-view shape of the respective chip 110R, 110G, 110B, and the reference lines RL of the red LED chip 110R, the green LED chip 110G and the blue LED chip 110B are parallel to each other (Annotated Fig. 4).
However, the prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed elements in claim 4, wherein each of the red LED chip, the green LED chip, and the blue LED chip has different average brightness on both sides of the reference line, and the side with higher average brightness of the red LED chip, the green LED chip and the blue LED chip are the same side of the respective reference line.
Therefore, independent claim 4 would be allowable.
Claims 5-6 would be allowable, because they depend from the allowable claim 4.
Claims 9-10 are rejected, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 9 would be allowable, because the prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed elements in claim 9, wherein each of the red LED chip, the green LED chip, and the blue LED chip comprises a positive electrode and a negative electrode, and the positive electrode and the negative electrode of each of the red LED chip, the green LED chip and the blue LED chip are respectively located on opposite sides of the reference line of the sited chip.
Claim 10 would be allowable, because claim 10 depends from the allowable claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2024/0153932 A1 to Yu
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIKKA LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-2568. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5AM EST M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/ELISEO RAMOS FELICIANO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817