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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application No. 18/490,907 filed on 10/20/2023.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO-1449. These IDS has been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pub # 2018/0062047 to Biwa et al. (Biwa).
Regarding independent claim 1, Biwa discloses a light emitting element (Fig. 2) comprising:
a first semiconductor layer (13);
a light emitting layer (12) disposed on the first semiconductor layer;
a second semiconductor layer (11) disposed on the light emitting layer;
an electrode layer (14) disposed on the second semiconductor layer (11);
an insulating film (the combinations of layer 16 and 18 presently considered to be an insulating film) covering side surfaces of the first semiconductor layer (13), the light emitting layer (12), the second semiconductor layer (11), and the electrode layer (14); and
a shielding layer (17) disposed inside the insulating film (16 and 18).
Regarding claim 2, Biwa discloses wherein the shielding layer (17) is spaced apart from the first semiconductor layer (13), the light emitting layer (12), the second semiconductor layer (11), and the electrode layer (14).
Regarding claim 3, Biwa discloses wherein the shielding layer (17) surrounds the side surface of the light emitting layer (12).
Regarding independent claim 9, Biwa discloses a display device (Figs. 1B and 2) comprising:
a light emitting element (Fig. 1B: 10) disposed on a substrate (100) and including a first end portion (see Examiner’s mark-up 1 below) and a second end portion (see Examiner’s mark-up 1 below) arranged in a direction parallel to an upper surface of the substrate (100);
PNG
media_image1.png
339
587
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a first electrode (see Examiner’s mark-up 2 below) electrically connected to the first end portion (see Examiner’s mark-up 2 below; it is noted that Fig. 2 does not show the substrate but the substrate is implicit) of the light emitting element (10); and
a second electrode (see Examiner’s mark-up 2 below) electrically connected to the second end portion (see Examiner’s mark-up 2 below; it is noted that Fig. 2 does not show the substrate but the substrate is implicit) of the light emitting element (10),
PNG
media_image2.png
456
851
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the light emitting element (Fig. 2: 10) comprises:
a first semiconductor layer (13), a light emitting layer (12), a second semiconductor layer (11), and an electrode layer (14) sequentially disposed along a longitudinal direction from the second end portion to the first end portion; (it is noted that Fig. 2 does not show the substrate but the substrate is implicit);
an insulating film (the combinations of layer 16 and 18 presently considered to be an insulating film) covering side surfaces of the first semiconductor layer (13), the light emitting layer (12), the second semiconductor layer (11), and the electrode layer (14), the insulating film (16 and 18) extending in parallel to the longitudinal direction.
a shielding layer (Fig. 2: 17) disposed inside the insulating film (16 and 18).
Regarding independent claim 17, Biwa discloses a display device (Figs. 1B and2) comprising:
a light emitting element (Fig. 3: 10) disposed on a first insulating layer (Fig. 3: 100) and including a first end portion and a second end portion (see Examiner’s mark-up below);
PNG
media_image1.png
339
587
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a second insulating layer (Fig. 3: 18) disposed on the light emitting element (10) and exposing the first end portion and the second end portion of the light emitting element (see Examiner’s mark-up below);
a first electrode (Fig. 3: 102) disposed on the first end portion (see Examiner’s mark-up below) of the light emitting element (10);
a second electrode (102) disposed on the second end portion (see Examiner’s mark-up below) of the light emitting element; and
a shielding layer (Fig. 3: 17) disposed between the second insulating layer (18) and the light emitting element (10) and electrically separated from the first electrode (19) and the second electrode (19).
PNG
media_image3.png
429
702
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub # 2018/0062047 to Biwa et al. (Biwa).
Regarding claim 4, Biwa teaches light emitted from the light emitting layer (12) transmits through the shielding layer (17; see Fig. 2 and ¶0128).
Biwa fails to explicitly teach wherein a light transmittance of the shielding layer is equal to or greater than about 70 %, and light emitted from the light emitting layer transmits through the shielding layer.
Biwa teaches a shielding layer through which light emitted from the light-emitting layer is transmitted (¶0128). The degree of optical transmittance is a result-effective variable, as changes in transmittance predictably affect light output (see MPEP §2144.05).
The claimed value of “equal to or greater than about 70%” represents an optimization of a known variable, and the specification does not indicate that this value is critical or produces an unexpected results arising therefrom and it has been held that where patentability is said to be based upon a particular chosen dimension or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimension is critical. Therefore, selecting a transmittance of at least about 70% would have been an obvious matter of routine optimization. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Regarding claim 5, Biwa discloses wherein the shielding layer includes a metal, and a thickness of the shielding layer is equal to or smaller than about 0.1 µm to 1 µm (¶0131).
Biwa fails to explicitly disclose:
a thickness of the shielding layer is equal to or smaller than about 5 nm.
However, the thickness of the shielding layer 17 affect the thickness of the light emitting element. It is known in the art to use thickness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to vary, through routine experimentation, the result effect variable of the thickness of the shielding layer in order to optimize the functionality of the device (see MPEP §2144.05). Further, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed thickness or any unexpected results arising therefrom and it has been held that where patentability is said to be based upon a particular chosen dimension or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimension is critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Regarding claim 6, Biwa discloses wherein the shielding layer (17) entirely surrounds the side surfaces of the light emitting layer (12) and the second semiconductor layer (11), and partially surrounds the side surface of the first semiconductor layer (13), and light emitted from the light emitting layer (12) is reflected by the shielding layer (17 and ¶0129) and transmits outside the light emitting element through the first semiconductor layer (13) and the electrode layer (14).
Biwa fails to explicitly teach a light reflectance of the shielding layer is equal to or greater than about 90 %.
Biwa teaches a shielding layer through which light emitted from the light-emitting layer is transmitted (¶0128) and the light emitted from the light emitting layer (12) is reflected by the shielding layer (17 and ¶0129). The degree of optical transmittance is a result-effective variable, as changes in transmittance predictably affect light output (see MPEP §2144.05).
The claimed value of “equal to or greater than about 90%” represents an optimization of a known variable, and the specification does not indicate that this value is critical or produces an unexpected results arising therefrom and it has been held that where patentability is said to be based upon a particular chosen dimension or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimension is critical. Therefore, selecting a transmittance of at least about 70% would have been an obvious matter of routine optimization. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Regarding claim 7, Biwa discloses wherein the shielding layer (17) comprises:
a first shielding layer (see Examiner’s Mark-up) surrounding the side surfaces of the second semiconductor layer (11) and the light emitting layer (12); and
a second shielding layer (see Examiner’s Mark-up) partially surrounding the side surface of the first semiconductor layer (13) and spaced apart (see Examiner’s Mark-up) from the first shielding layer (17).
PNG
media_image4.png
430
821
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Biwa discloses wherein the second shielding layer (17) extends to an end portion of the insulating film (16, 18) adjacent to a lower surface of the first semiconductor layer (13) and is exposed outside the light emitting element (10), and the first shielding layer (17) extends to another end portion of the insulating film (16, 18) adjacent to an upper surface of the electrode layer (14) and is exposed outside the light emitting element (10) (see Examiner’s mark-up below).
PNG
media_image5.png
456
851
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claims 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub # 2024/0379729 to Park et al. (Park) in view of US Pub # 2018/0062047 to Biwa et al. (Biwa).
Regarding independent claim 9, Park discloses a display device (Fig. 7) comprising:
a light emitting element (ED1) disposed on a substrate and including a first end portion (see Examiner’s mark-up below) and a second end portion (see Examiner’s mark-up below) arranged in a direction parallel to an upper surface of the substrate (SUB);
a first electrode (CTE1) electrically connected to the first end portion (see Examiner’s mark-up below) of the light emitting element (ED1); and
a second electrode (CTE2) electrically connected to the second end portion (see Examiner’s mark-up below) of the light emitting element (ED1), wherein the light emitting element (Fig. 8: ED1) comprises:
a first semiconductor layer (31), a light emitting layer (36), a second semiconductor layer (32), and an electrode layer (37) sequentially disposed along a longitudinal direction from the second end portion to the first end portion (¶0151);
an insulating film (Fig. 8: 38) covering side surfaces of the first semiconductor layer, the light emitting layer, the second semiconductor layer, and the electrode layer, the insulating film extending in parallel to the longitudinal direction.
Park explicitly fails to disclose a shielding layer disposed inside the insulating film.
Biwa teaches a shielding layer (Fig. 2: 17) disposed inside the insulating film (16 and 18; the combinations of layer 16 and 18 presently considered to be an insulating film).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modify the insulating layer of Park to have a shielding layer disposed inside the insulating layer in order to block or reflect the light emitted from the active layer (¶0129).
PNG
media_image6.png
680
961
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Park discloses all of the limitations of claim 9 from which this claim depends. Park discloses the first electrode (CTE1) and the second electrode (CTE2).
Park fails to explicitly disclose wherein the shielding layer is spaced apart from the first semiconductor layer, the light emitting layer, the second semiconductor layer, the electrode layer, the first electrode, and the second electrode.
Biwa disclose wherein the shielding layer (17) is spaced apart (see Examiner’s mark-up below) from the first semiconductor layer (13), the light emitting layer (12), the second semiconductor layer (11), the electrode layer (14).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the light emitting element of Park with the shielding layer as taught by Biwa in order to block or reflect the light emitted from the active layer (¶0129).
PNG
media_image7.png
456
851
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Park discloses all of the limitations of claim 9 from which this claim depends.
Park fails to explicitly discloses wherein the shielding layer surrounds the side surface of the light emitting layer, and the shielding layer overlaps the first electrode in a plan view.
Biwa teaches wherein the shielding layer (Fig. 2: 17) surrounds the side surface of the light emitting layer (12), and the shielding layer (17) overlaps the first electrode (14) in a plan view (Figs. 16c and 17c).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the light emitting element of Park with the shielding layer as taught by Biwa in order to block or reflect the light emitted from the active layer (¶0129).
Regarding claim 12, Park discloses all of the limitations of claim 11 from which this claim depends.
Park fails to explicitly teach wherein a light transmittance of the shielding layer is equal to or greater than about 70 %, and light emitted from the light emitting layer transmits through the shielding layer.
Biwa teaches a shielding layer through which light emitted from the light-emitting layer is transmitted (¶0128) and light emitted from the light emitting layer transmits through the shielding layer. The degree of optical transmittance is a result-effective variable, as changes in transmittance predictably affect light output (see MPEP §2144.05).
The claimed value of “equal to or greater than about 70%” represents an optimization of a known variable, and the specification does not indicate that this value is critical or produces an unexpected results arising therefrom and it has been held that where patentability is said to be based upon a particular chosen dimension or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimension is critical. Therefore, selecting a transmittance of at least about 70% would have been an obvious matter of routine optimization. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Regarding claim 13, Park discloses all of the limitations of claim 12 from which this claim depends.
Park fails to explicitly teach wherein the shielding layer includes a metal, and a thickness of the shielding layer is equal to or smaller than about 0.1 µm to 1 µm.
Biwa discloses wherein the shielding layer includes a metal, and a thickness of the shielding layer is equal to or smaller than about 0.1 µm to 1 µm (¶0131).
However, the thickness of the shielding layer 17 affect the thickness of the light emitting element. It is known in the art to use thickness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to vary, through routine experimentation, the result effect variable of the thickness of the shielding layer in order to optimize the functionality of the device (see MPEP §2144.05). Further, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed thickness or any unexpected results arising therefrom and it has been held that where patentability is said to be based upon a particular chosen dimension or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimension is critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Regarding claim 14, Park discloses all of the limitations of claim 11 from which this claim depends.
Park fails to explicitly teach wherein the shielding layer entirely surrounds the side surfaces of the light emitting layer and the second semiconductor layer, and partially surrounds the side surface of the first semiconductor layer, a light reflectance of the shielding layer is equal to or greater than about 90 %, and light emitted from the light emitting layer is reflected by the shielding layer and transmits outside the light emitting element through the first semiconductor layer and the electrode layer,
Biwa discloses wherein the shielding layer (17) entirely surrounds the side surfaces of the light emitting layer (12) and the second semiconductor layer (11), and partially surrounds the side surface of the first semiconductor layer (13), and light emitted from the light emitting layer (12) is reflected by the shielding layer (17 and ¶0129) and transmits outside the light emitting element through the first semiconductor layer (13) and the electrode layer (14).
Biwa fails to explicitly teach a light reflectance of the shielding layer is equal to or greater than about 90 %.
Biwa teaches a shielding layer through which light emitted from the light-emitting layer is transmitted (¶0128) and the light emitted from the light emitting layer (12) is reflected by the shielding layer (17 and ¶0129). The degree of optical transmittance is a result-effective variable, as changes in transmittance predictably affect light output (see MPEP §2144.05).
The claimed value of “equal to or greater than about 90%” represents an optimization of a known variable, and the specification does not indicate that this value is critical or produces an unexpected results arising therefrom and it has been held that where patentability is said to be based upon a particular chosen dimension or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimension is critical. Therefore, selecting a transmittance of at least about 70% would have been an obvious matter of routine optimization. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Regarding claim 15, Park discloses all of the limitations of claim 14 from which this claim depends.
Park fails to explicitly teach wherein the shielding layer comprises: a first shielding layer surrounding the side surfaces of the second semiconductor layer and the light emitting layer; and a second shielding layer partially surrounding a side surface of the first semiconductor layer and spaced apart from the first shielding layer.
Biwa discloses wherein the shielding layer (17) comprises:
a first shielding layer (see Examiner’s Mark-up) surrounding the side surfaces of the second semiconductor layer (11) and the light emitting layer (12); and
a second shielding layer (see Examiner’s Mark-up) partially surrounding the side surface of the first semiconductor layer (13) and spaced apart (see Examiner’s Mark-up) from the first shielding layer (17).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the light emitting element of Park with the first and second shielding layer as taught by Biwa in order to block or reflect the light emitted from the active layer (¶0129).
PNG
media_image4.png
430
821
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Park discloses all of the limitations of claim 15 from which this claim depends.
Park fails to explicitly teach wherein the first shielding layer extends to the first end portion and is electrically connected to the first electrode, and the second shielding layer extends to the second end portion and is electrically connected to the second electrode.
Biwa teaches wherein the first shielding layer (17) extends to the first end portion of the insulating film (16, 18) and is electrically connected to the first electrode (14), and the second shielding layer (17) extends to the second end portion of the insulating film (16, 18) and is electrically connected to the second electrode (19) (see Examiner’s mark-up below).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the light emitting element of Park with the first and second shielding layer as taught by Biwa in order to block or reflect the light emitted from the active layer (¶0129).
PNG
media_image5.png
456
851
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding independent claim 17, Park discloses a display device (Fig. 7) comprising:
a light emitting element (Fig. 7: ED1) disposed on a first insulating layer (Fig. 7: PAS 1) and including a first end portion and a second end portion (see Examiner’s mark-up below);
a second insulating layer (Fig. 7: PAS 2) disposed on the light emitting element (ED1) and exposing the first end portion and the second end portion of the light emitting element (see Examiner’s mark-up below);
a first electrode (Fig. 8: CTE 1) disposed on the first end portion (see Examiner’s mark-up below) of the light emitting element (10);
a second electrode (Fig. 8: CTE 2) disposed on the second end portion (see Examiner’s mark-up below) of the light emitting element.
Park fails to explicitly disclose a shielding layer disposed between the second insulating layer and the light emitting element and electrically separated from the first electrode and the second electrode.
Biwa disclose a shielding layer (Fig. 2: 17) disposed between the second insulating layer (100) and the light emitting element (10) and electrically separated from the first electrode (15) and the second electrode (14).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the light emitting element of Park with the shielding layer as taught by Biwa in order to block or reflect the light emitted from the active layer (¶0129).
PNG
media_image6.png
680
961
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, Park discloses all of the limitations of claim 17 from which this claim depends.
Park fails to explicitly teach wherein the shielding layer is in a floating state.
Biwa teaches wherein the shielding layer (Fig. 4A: 117) is in a floating state (¶0140).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the light emitting element of Park with the shielding layer as taught by Biwa in order to block or reflect the light emitted from the active layer (¶0129).
Regarding claim 19, Park discloses all of the limitations of claim 11 from which this claim depends.
Park fails to explicitly teach wherein a light transmittance of the shielding layer is equal to or greater than about 70 %, and light emitted from the light emitting layer transmits through the shielding layer.
Biwa teaches a shielding layer through which light emitted from the light-emitting layer is transmitted (¶0128) and light emitted from the light emitting layer transmits through the shielding layer. The degree of optical transmittance is a result-effective variable, as changes in transmittance predictably affect light output (see MPEP §2144.05).
The claimed value of “equal to or greater than about 70%” represents an optimization of a known variable, and the specification does not indicate that this value is critical or produces an unexpected results arising therefrom and it has been held that where patentability is said to be based upon a particular chosen dimension or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimension is critical. Therefore, selecting a transmittance of at least about 70% would have been an obvious matter of routine optimization. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Regarding claim 20, Park discloses all of the limitations of claim 17 from which this claim depends.
Park fails to explicitly teach a third insulating layer disposed between the shielding layer and the second insulating layer and covering the shielding layer.
Biwa teaches a third insulating layer (Fig. 2: 18) disposed between the shielding layer (17) and the second insulating layer (100) and covering the shielding layer (17).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the light emitting element of Park with the shielding layer as taught by Biwa in order to block or reflect the light emitted from the active layer (¶0129).
Examiner’s Note:
It is suggested to submit a common ownership statement for the following references:
US Pub # 2024/0379729 (Application # 18/651,103)
US Pub # 2024/0222583 (Application # 18/394,900)
US Pub # 2024/0120347 (Application # 18/470,162)
US Pub # 2024/0072229 (Application # 18/453,181)
US Pub # 2024/0063356 (Application # 18/342,567)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pub # 2023/0324795; US Pub # 2023/0253413; US Pub # 2023/0154937; US Pub # 2023/0155069 and US Pub # 2023/0032600.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHSEN AHMADI whose telephone number is (571)272-5062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, William F Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
/MOHSEN AHMADI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896