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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Page 7 that Applicant’s disclosed invention of dual structure of inorganic layer IOL and organic layer OL can prevent a lifting risk during the manufacturing process (Paragraphs 71 and 88), whereas Sizov et al. uses a single structure of well material 134. However, Applicant’s claims as currently presented do not sufficiently distinguish between the disclosed dual structure and the prior art single structure.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., dual structure) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues, Page 7 of Applicant’s Remarks, that the applied prior art does not teach the claimed limitation of claim 12 because in Sizov et al. (US PGPub 2020/0343230 A1) “the well material 134 is in contact with the reflective layers 140, which are conductive layers, and is not in contact with an inorganic layer that is an insulating layer and covers the LEDs 175.” Applicant also points out on Pages 8 and 9 that Bibl et al. (US PGPub 2014/0367705 A1) discloses the passivation layer 210 of Bibl et al. “is in contact with the reflective bank structure 142, which is a conductive layer and is not in contact with an inorganic layer.”
However, the polymer layer 134 of Sizov et al. contacts the inorganic layer 130 and the second electrode 190. As modified in view of Bibl et al., the well material 134 of Sizov et al. is made to be an organic material. Therefore, in the modified device, the modified organic layer 134 of Sizov et al. (as modified in view of Bibl et al. to be organic) contacts the inorganic layer 130 and the second electrode 190, as claimed. The inorganic layer 130 covers the light emitting elements 175 from the bottom in similar fashion to how Applicant’s own inorganic layer IOL covers the light emitting elements LE.
It is not clear to the Examiner why Applicant referenced the well material 134 contacts the reflective layer 140 of Sizov et al. and the passivation layer 210 is in contact with the reflective bank structure 142 of Bibl et al. In the rejection, the reflective layer is interpreted to be part of the electrode layer 140, 180 of Sizov et al.
The Examiner guesses that it may be the case that the Applicant was arguing that the organic layer contacts an element besides the recited inorganic layer and second electrode. The Examiner does note that, at least in the depicted Figures, that in the area of overlap with the first electrode CM, the organic layer OL only contacts the inorganic layer IOL and the second electrode CE. However, the claim does not limit the organic layer from contacting other elements, as the claim is a comprising type claim and the organic layer is not recited to contact only the inorganic layer and the second electrode within the area of overlap with the first electrode.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The prior art rejection of claim 14 of the previous office action 2/20/2026 properly used element 134 as the claimed insulating layer. However, due to Applicant’s amendment to parent claim 12, the element 134 is now being interpreted to be the claimed organic layer.
Therefore a new grounds of Rejection of claim 14, necessitated by amendment, is included herein that interprets insulating fill layer 170 to be the claimed insulating layer of claim 14.
Applicant’s remarks submit that the dependent claims are patentable based on the arguments with respect to independent parent claim 12. The arguments are unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above with respect to parent claim 12.
Specification
The amendments filed 5/20/2026 are sufficient to overcome the objections to the specification stated in the previous office action. Therefore, said objections are withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sizov et al. (US PGPub 2020/0343230 A1) in view of Bibl et al. (US PGPub 2014/0367705 A1).
As to claim 12, Sizov et al. discloses (Figs. 3B and 7) a display device comprising: a pixel circuit layer 400 comprising a base layer 402 and a pixel circuit (Paragraph 63, display substrate 400 includes circuitry to address the LEDs bonded to the electrode pads 410); a first electrode 410 on the pixel circuit layer; a light emitting element 175 on the first electrode 410 comprising a first semiconductor layer 104 including a first type semiconductor (Paragraph 45, semiconductor layer stack, Paragraph 64, n-doped layer); an inorganic layer 130 (Paragraph 57, aluminum oxide or other suitable dielectric material) on the first electrode 410 and covering the light emitting elements 175 (130 covers 175 from beneath, similar to Applicant’s inorganic layer IOL); and a second electrode 190 (Paragraph 64) on the light emitting elements 175, a polymer layer 130 (Paragraph 58) adjacent to the light emitting element 175 and contacting the inorganic layer 130 and the second electrode 190, wherein the first semiconductor layer 104 and the inorganic layer 130 contact the second electrode 190.
PNG
media_image1.png
448
536
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sizov et al.
PNG
media_image2.png
304
584
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Sizov et al.
Sizov et al. depicts only one light emitting element per first electrode, but is silent as to a plurality of light emitting elements per first electrode.
Bibl et al. teaches (Fig. 9) including a pair of light emitting elements 400 for the purposes of redundancy, i.e. in order to ensure that at least one functional light emitting device is placed in each pixel (Paragraphs 65-69). Furthermore, Bibl et al. teaches (Fig. 9) the polymer layer 200 being an organic layer (Paragraph 72 PMMA, for example. The examiner takes official notice that PMMA is well-known to be organic) between the light emitting elements 400 and contacting the inorganic layer (Fig. 2C, #407, Paragraph 59, polyimide for example) and the second electrode 318.
PNG
media_image3.png
316
618
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Bibl et al.
PNG
media_image4.png
194
454
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Bibl et al.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include two light emitting devices per first electrode in order to provide redundancy, as taught by Sizov et al. Furthermore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in the absence of an explicit teaching of particular materials for the polymer layer 134 of Sizov et al., to look to the prior art for suitable materials and therefore find it obvious to use organic materials such as PMMA since it is taught as suitable for the polymer layer and the selection from among known materials for their known purposes is generally within the abilities of one having ordinary skill in the art.
As to claim 13, Sizov et al. in view of Bibl et al. teaches that each of the light emitting elements (Sizov et al. Fig. 7, #175) further comprises: a second semiconductor layer 108 including a second type semiconductor (Sizov et al. Paragraph 45, semiconductor layer stack, Paragraphs 55, p-doped layer) different from the first type semiconductor (Sizov et al. Paragraph 55); an active layer 106 (Sizov et al. Paragraph 55) between the first semiconductor layer 104 and the second semiconductor layer 108; and an electrode layer 140 and/or 180 (Sizov et al. Paragraphs 60 and 61, reflective layer formed as continuous layer into openings 132, 136 and made of metal such as silver and would therefore function as electrode. Alternatively, reflective layer 140 also recited as optional, and in embodiments without the reflective layer is not deposited, bottom contact 180 would still serve as electrode) on the second semiconductor layer 108 (on the bottom, similarly positioned to Applicant’s electrode layer EL), wherein the second semiconductor layer 108, the active layer 106, and the electrode layer 180 are between the first electrode 410 and the first semiconductor layer 104.
As to claim 14, Sizov et al. in view of Bibl et al. teaches that each of the light emitting elements (Sizov et al. #175) further comprises an insulating layer 170 (Sizov et al. Paragraph 61, Figs. 7, 10A and 10B) surrounding at least a portion of each of the first semiconductor layer 104, the second semiconductor layer 108, the active layer 106, and the electrode layer 140, 180 (Sizov et al. Paragraphs 60 and 61, as depicted in Fig. 7, insulating layer 170 surrounds contact 180 and reflective layer 140. Alternatively, in embodiments where reflective layer is not present, bottom contact 180 would fill this location).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sizov et al. in view of Bibl et al. as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Huang et al. (US PGPub 2012/0064642 A1).
As to claim 15, Sizov et al. discloses the inorganic passivation layer to be aluminum oxide (Sizov et al. Paragraph 57), but Sizov et al. in view of Bibl et al. is silent as to the inorganic layer comprises at least one of silicon oxide or silicon nitride.
Huang et al. teaches the inorganic passivation layer to be silicon oxide (Paragraph 31).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the inorganic layer to be silicon oxide since it is taught as a suitable material and the selection from among known suitable alternatives for their known purposes is generally within the abilities of one having ordinary skill in the art.
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Templier et al. (US PGPub 2019/0131343 A1) discloses (Figs. 1A-1I) forming the light emitting elements 172 on the substrate 111 and subsequently forming an inorganic layer 174 (Paragraph 41).
Schuele et al. (US PGPub 2022/0149254 A1) discloses (Fig. 5A) forming inorganic layer 526 (Paragraph 37) before transfer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 1, the claim is directed to a manufacturing method of a display device in which light emitting elements are transferred to a onto a first electrode. Applicant’s inorganic layer is then patterned covering the light emitting elements on the first electrode. This inorganic layer serves to increase the stability of the light emitting elements, thereby preventing the light emitting elements from being lifted during manufacturing (Applicant’s Specification Paragraph 71).
Within the prior art the transfer light emitting diodes onto an electrode, there is an inorganic layer that is frequently patterned before the transfer of the light-emitting elements. For example as seen in Sizov et al. fig. 3A, discloses a passivation layer 130 made of inorganic Al2O3 (Paragraph 57). While this layer is an inorganic layer, it is applied before the transfer of the light emitting elements. Furthermore, the purpose of this layer in Sizov et al. is for passivation, not for stabilizing an already transferred light emitting element. In this regard, the inorganic layer of Sizov et al. is more analogous to Applicant’s disclosed (but not recited in the claims) insulating layer IL (Paragraph 70).
Templier et al. transfers layers of semiconductors (Fig. 1C) and then makes the layers into light emitting elements 172 and makes an inorganic layer 174, but the semiconductor structure is transferred before making the semiconductor layers into light emitting elements and therefore does not satisfy the claimed step of “transferring light emitting elements.”
Huang et al. teaches patterning photosensitive layer to expose a portion of the inorganic layer 51 (Paragraph 33). However, this step is before transferring (Fig. .9, Paragraph 35).
Therefore, while the prior art teaches the elements of claim 1 separately, but not in combination in the specific steps and specific orders required by claim 1.
Claims 2-11 are dependent on claim 1 and allowed based on their dependency.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN Y HORIKOSHI whose telephone number is (571)270-7811. The examiner can normally be reached Monday and Tuesday 2-10PM EDT.
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, ABDULMAJEED AZIZ can be reached at 571-270-5046. 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.
/S.Y.H/ Examiner, Art Unit 2875
/ABDULMAJEED AZIZ/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights