S 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 .
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 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.
Claims 1-3 & 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JANG et al. (US 20210091256 A1).
Regarding claim 1, JANG teaches,
PNG
media_image1.png
504
758
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A light emitting device (FIG. 1D), comprising:
an n-type electrode (CP, para [0070]);
a first n-type layer (102, para [0047]) disposed on the n-type electrode;
a first active layer (104, para [0047]) disposed on the first n-type layer;
a first p-type layer (106, para [0047]) disposed on the first active layer;
a p-type electrode (including 108 & 308, para [ 0047]) disposed on the first p-type layer;
a second p-type layer (306, para [0047]) disposed on a partial area of the p-type electrode (disposed on portion 308 of the P-type electrode as defined);
a second active layer (304, para [0047]) disposed on the second p-type layer;
and a second n-type layer (302, para [0048]) disposed on the second active layer.
Regarding claim 2, JANG teaches the light emitting device of claim 1 and further teaches, wherein an area of at least one of the n-type electrode (CP) , the first n-type layer (102), the first active layer (104), the first p-type layer (106), and the p- type electrode (including 108 & 308) is larger than an area of each of at least one of the second p-type layer (306), the second active layer (304), and the second n-type layer (302).
Regarding claim 3, JANG teaches the light emitting device of claim 1 and further teaches, wherein the p-type electrode is a transparent electrode (308 & 108 are transparent electrode, para [0047]).
Regarding claim 6, JANG teaches the light emitting device of claim 1 and further teaches, further comprising: a passivation layer (PAL, para [0072]) disposed to surround the first n-type layer (102), the first active layer (104), the first p-type layer (106), the p-type electrode (108 & 308), the second p-type layer (306), the second active layer (304), and the second n-type layer (302), wherein the passivation layer exposes a part of the p-type electrode (part of 108 not covered by PAL) and a part of the second n-type layer (top surface of 302 not covered by PAL before forming 304 on its top).
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 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 teaches d 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 4 & 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JANG et al. (US 20210091256 A1)
Regarding claim 4, JANG teaches the light emitting device of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach, wherein the first active layer and the second active layer emit light of a same color.
But JANG additionally teach,
204 and 304 may emit a desired peak wavelength by adjusting composition ratio of MQW (para [0048]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust composition ratio of MQW (multi quantum well), with routine experiment and optimization, such that the first active layer and the second active layer emit light of a same color, since composition ratio of MQW is important, in order to have a desired peak wavelength of an emitted light, as taught by JANG above . In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Regarding claim 5, JANG teaches the light emitting device of claim 4 but does not explicitly teach, wherein a dominant wavelength of light emitted from the first active layer is different from a dominant wavelength of light emitted from the second active layer.
But JANG additionally teach,
204 and 304 may emit a desired peak wavelength by adjusting composition ratio of MQW (para [0048]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust composition ratio of MQW (multi quantum well), with routine experiment and optimization, such that a dominant wavelength of light emitted from the first active layer is different from a dominant wavelength of light emitted from the second active layer, since composition ratio of MQW is important, in order to have a desired peak wavelength of an emitted light, as taught by JANG above. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Claims 18-19 & 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JANG et al. (US 20210091256 A1) in view of No et al. (US 10386977 B2).
Regarding claim 18, JANG teaches,
PNG
media_image1.png
504
758
media_image1.png
Greyscale
…… each sub-pixel including:
a first emission unit including a p-type electrode (208, para [0047]),
a first p-type layer (206, para [0047]),
a first active layer (204, para [0047]),
a first n-type layer (202, para [0047]) and an n-type electrode (218, para [0113]) disposed on a substrate;
a second emission unit stacked on the first emission unit, and including a second n- type layer (302, para 0047]), a second active layer (304, para [0047]), a second p-type layer (306, para [0047]), and the p-type electrode(308, para [0047]) …..,
wherein an emission area of the second emission unit is smaller than an emission area of the first emission unit (as seen).
But JANG does not explicitly teach,
A display apparatus comprising: a plurality of the sub-pixels,
and a first transistor configured to drive at least one of the first emission unit and the second emission unit.
Meanwhile, No teaches,
PNG
media_image2.png
516
694
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a display apparatus (Fig. 4) comprising plurality of sub-pixels PX wherein a transistor (TRp , Fig. 4) may drive an emission unit (LD, FIG. 4) of each sub-pixel PX.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of No into each of the sub-pixels of JANG such that a display apparatus comprising plurality of the sub-pixels wherein a first transistor (TRp) is configured to drive the first emission unit and a second transistor (TRp) is configured to drive the second emission unit , according to teaching of No. , in order to control light emission of the first and second emission unit or their on/off state respectively, as taught by No. (Col. 6, l. 65-67, Col. 7, ll. 1-3).
Regarding claim 19, JANG teaches the light emitting device of claim 18 and further teaches, wherein each sub-pixel further includes a second transistor (second transistor TRp as per claim 18 rejection above) configured to drive the second emission unit, so that the first transistor is only used to drive the first emission unit (as per claim 1 rejection above).
However, the above claim limitation ”…so that the first transistor is only used to drive the first emission unit” does not distinguish the present invention over the prior art of JANG in view of No who teaches the structure (display apparatus comprising sub-pixels comprising first and second emission unit and a first and second transistor driving the first and second emission units) which is capable of performing the intended use as claimed. Moreover, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 21, JANG teaches the light emitting device of claim 18 but does not explicitly teach, wherein in a first mode, both the first and second emission units are driven to emit light simultaneously, while in a second mode different from the first mode, only one emission unit among the first and second emission units is driven to emit light.
However, the above claim limitation “in a first mode, both the first and second emission units are driven to emit light simultaneously, while in a second mode different from the first mode, only one emission unit among the first and second emission units is driven to emit light” does not distinguish the present invention over the prior art of JANG in view of No who teaches the structure (light emitting device comprising a sub-pixel comprising first and second emission units and first and second transistor configured to drive the first and second emission units) which is capable of performing the intended use as claimed. Moreover, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 22, JANG teaches the light emitting device of claim 18 and further teaches ,wherein the first and second emission units are integrally formed as one light emitting device provided in each sub-pixel (see Jang, Fig. 1D above, both the first and second emission units are integrally formed on same substrate) but does not explicitly teach,
and wherein the first emission functions as a main emission device of the display apparatus, while the second emission unit functions a redundancy emission device of the display apparatus.
However, the above claim limitation does not distinguish the present invention over the prior art of JANG in view of No. who teaches the structure (light emitting device comprising a sub-pixel comprising first and second emission units and first and second transistor configured to drive the first and second emission units) which is capable of performing the intended use as claimed. Moreover, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (1987).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-17 & 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With respect to claims 7, the prior art of record does not appear to teach, suggest, or provide motivation for combination to following limitation:
a first connection electrode connecting the common electrode to the p-type electrode of the light emitting device; and a second connection electrode connecting the second individual electrode to the second n- type layer of the light emitting device (claim 7).
Regarding claim 7, JANG teaches,
the light emitting device according to claim 1…. ( as asserted in claim 1 rejection above)
But Jang does not explicitly teach,
A display apparatus , comprising: a substrate in which a plurality of pixels including a plurality of sub pixels are defined; a first transistor disposed in each of the plurality of sub pixels on the substrate; a planarization layer disposed on the first transistor; a first individual electrode disposed on the planarization layer and connected to the first transistor; the light emitting device according to claim 1 disposed on the first individual electrode; a second individual electrode and a common electrode disposed on the planarization layer; a first connection electrode connecting the common electrode to the p-type electrode PE of the light emitting device; and a second connection electrode connecting the second individual electrode to the second n- type layer of the light emitting device.
Although it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to incorporate the teaching of No (who teaches, a display apparatus (Fig. 4) , comprising: a substrate (110) in which a plurality of pixels including a plurality of sub pixels (PX) are defined; a first transistor (TRp) disposed in each of the plurality of sub pixels on the substrate; a planarization layer (180) disposed on the first transistor; a first individual electrode (195 as marked in No Fig. 4 above) disposed on the planarization layer and connected to the first transistor ; a second individual electrode (195 as marked in No Fig. 4 above) and a common electrode (270) disposed on the planarization layer) into the light emitting device according to claim 1, for the purpose of forming a display apparatus, it would not have been obvious to further modify Jang & No. to further teach the limitation “a first connection electrode connecting the common electrode to the p-type electrode of the light emitting device; and a second connection electrode connecting the second individual electrode to the second n- type layer of the light emitting device”.
With respect to claims 20, the prior art of record does not appear to teach, suggest, or provide motivation for combination to following limitation:
wherein: the first transistor is electrically connected to the n-type electrode through a first individual electrode , the second transistor is electrically connected to the second n-type layer through a second individual electrode and a second connection electrode, the p-type electrode is electrically connected to a high potential power line through a first connection electrode and a common electrode, and the first individual electrode, the second individual electrode and the common electrode are disposed on a same layer (claim 20).
Claims 8-17 are objected to being dependent on claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHATIB A RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0494. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI 8:00 am- 5:00 pm (Arizona).
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 Steven Gauthier, can be reached on (571)270-0373. 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.
/K.A.R/Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813