Attorney’s Docket Number: SD-230626-SKC
Filing Date: 11/08/2023
Claimed Priority Date: 03/17/2023 (KR10-2023-0035150)
Applicants: Choi et. al
Examiner: Aneesa Baig
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 .
Acknowledgement
Applicant's amendment filed on 06/18/2026 has been entered in response to Non-final OA dated 03/25/2026. The present Office action is made with all the suggested amendments being fully considered. Applicant cancelled claims 4, 14, 19 and amended claims 1, 9, 11, 16. Accordingly, pending in this application are claims 1-3, 5-13,15-18,20.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the claim rejections under U.S.C. 112, in the previous Office action of 03/25/2026. Additional rejections are below.
Applicants’ amendments have overcome the previous rejections under U.S.C. 102 and U.S.C. 103, accordingly, new grounds for rejection are presented below, as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
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 1,3,5-11,13,15,16,18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Sim et al (US 20230066350 A1, Hereinafter Sim-6350).
Regarding Claim 1, Sim-6350 shows (e.g., Figures 1-7, [0001]-[0130]) shows all aspects of the instant invention, including, A light emitting element, comprising:
a light emitting stack pattern (light emitting element core 30) including:
a first semiconductor layer (31);
an active layer (33); and
a second semiconductor layer (32); and
an insulating film surrounding an outer circumferential surface of the light emitting stack pattern, wherein the insulating film (39_1 and 38_1) includes:
a first layer (protective film 391);
a second layer surrounding the first layer (392); and
a third layer surrounding the second layer (391, Fig 6-7), and
a fourth layer surrounding the third layer (Fig 6-7 38_1)
the first layer and the third layer include a same material (391 may be AlN [0122]).
the first layer and the third layer include a same material (both are 391),
a material of the fourth layer is different than the same material of the first layer and the third layer (381 is e.g., Sillicon oxide [0112]-[0115])
the first layer has a thickness less than 5 nm (first layer 391 may be in the range of 5 nm or less [0123]), and
the third layer has a thickness of about 10 nm or less (first layer 391 may be in the range of 5 nm or less [0123]).
While Sim-6350 shows the first layer less than 5 nm and third layer thickness less than 10nm, it is noted that the instant application fails to provide specific data regarding the criticality of this limitation and has failed to prove unexpected results over this range. “To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range”. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). MPEP 716.02. Further, the instant application in Par [0007] mentions the third layer may actually be thinner than the first layer.
Accordingly, the specific range of thickness of the first layer and the third layer, absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” range of the thickness of the insulation structure disclosed by Sim that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine using routine experimentation based, among other things, on the desired fixed charges, etch selectivity, manufacturing costs, etc. (see Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and since neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e., results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long as desired thickness of insulation material are used as design to result in certain fixed charges, as already suggested by Sim.
Regarding Claim 3, Sim-6350 shows the first and third layer may be AlN ([0122]).
Regarding Claim 5, See comments from claim 1 above, as they would be considered repeated here.
Regarding Claim 6, Sim-6350 shows the first layer is dis- posed directly on an outer circumferential surface of each of the first semiconductor layer, the active layer, and the second semiconductor layer (Fig 5).
Regarding Claim 7, Sim-6350 shows the first semiconductor layer (31) may be dope with opposite type conductivity.([0082]-[0083])
Regarding Claim 8, Sim-6350 shows an electrode layer (37) on the second semiconductor layer with insulating films surrounding it.
Regarding Claim 9, Sim 6350 shows the layer 381 are thicker than 391 and 392, and are made of an inorganic insulating material ( e.g., Sillicon oxide [0112]-[0115] and Fig 7)
Regarding Claim 10, Sim-6350 shows a fifth insulating layer (382, [0113]-[0115]) which is also an inorganic material. However, Sim-6350 is silent in regard to the specific thickness range of the fifth insulating layer. Further, the images of Fig 7 appear to show the thickness or 381 to be the same as 382.
However, ranges of thickness will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges are critical.
It is noted that the instant application fails to provide specific data regarding the criticality of this limitation and has failed to prove unexpected results over this range. “To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range”. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). MPEP 716.02. Additionally, the instant application in Par [00111] mentions “In some embodiments, the fifth layer FFL may have a thickness dS substantially similar or equal to the thickness of the fourth layer FUL.
Accordingly, the specific range of thickness of the fourth layer and the fifth layer, absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” range of the thickness of the insulation structure disclosed by Sim-6350 that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine using routine experimentation based, among other things, on the desired fixed charges, etch selectivity, manufacturing costs, etc. (see Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and since neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e., results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long as desired thickness of insulation material are used as design to result in adequate insulating properties to protect the fourth layer (381), as already shown by Sim-6350 ([0114]).
Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of the claimed thickness range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the structure of Sim-6350.
CRITICALITY
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed dimensions or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claim 11, See rejections from claim 1 and claim 9 in paragraphs 5-7, 13, as they would be considered repeated here.
Regarding Claim 13, See rejections from claim 3 in paragraph 8 as they would be considered repeated here
Regarding Claim 15, See rejections from claim 9 and 10 in paragraph 8 , as they would be considered repeated here
Regarding Claim 16, Sim-6350 shows (e.g., Figures 1-7, Fig 18, 19, 20, 23 [0001]-[0130]) all aspects of the instant invention, including, A display device, comprising:
a substrate (SUB);
a first electrode and a second electrode that are disposed on the substrate and spaced apart from each other (first contact electrode 710, second contact electrode 720) ; and
a light emitting element located on the substrate, the light emitting element including:
a first end portion electrically connected to the first electrode (Fig 23); and
a second end portion electrically connected to the second electrode (Fig 23), the light emitting element including:
a light emitting stack pattern ((light emitting element core 30) including:
a first semiconductor layer located at the second end portion (31);
an active layer disposed on the first semiconductor layer (33);
a second semiconductor layer disposed on the active layer (32); and
an electrode layer which is disposed of on the second semiconductor layer and is located at the first end portion (37); and
an insulating film surrounding an outer circumferential surface of the light emitting stack pattern (38,391,392 Fig 23 and 6-7), wherein the insulating film includes:
a first layer disposed directly on the outer circumferential surface of the light emitting stack pattern (391);
a second layer surrounding the first layer (392); and
a third layer surrounding the second layer (391), and
a fourth layer surrounding the third layer 381, and
the first layer and the third layer include a same material (391), and
the second layer includes a material different from a material of the first and third layers (392),
a material of the fourth layer is different than the same material of the first layer and the third layer (381 is e.g., Sillicon oxide [0112]-[0115])
the first layer has a thickness less than 5 nm (first layer 391 may be in the range of 5 nm or less [0123]), and
the third layer has a thickness of about 10 nm or less (first layer 391 may be in the range of 5 nm or less [0123]).
Regarding Claim 18, See rejections from claim 3 in paragraph 8, as they would be considered repeated here
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sim-6350 in view of Youn et al (US 20190189969 A1, Hereinafter Youn) further in view of Kim et al (US 20220254830 A1, Hereinafter Kim)
Regarding Claim 20, Sim-6350 ((e.g., Figures 1-7, Fig 18, 19, 20, 23 [0001]-[0130] [0180]-[0200]) further shows
an emission area in which light is emitted from the light emitting element (EMA);
a non-emission area surrounding the emission area ([0182]-[0184]);
a first alignment electrode disposed between the substrate and the first electrode; the first alignment electrode being electrically connected to the first electrode (210 [0235]);
a second alignment electrode disposed between the substrate and the second electrode; the second alignment electrode being electrically connected to the second electrode (220 [0236]);
a first bank (600) located in the non-emission area, the first bank including an opening corresponding to the emission area ([0226])
While Sim-6350 shows the LD element may emit certain colored light, it is silent about including a color conversion layer and a color filter layer above the light emitting element.
Youn (Fig 6 [0107]-[0130]), on the other hand and in a related field of light emitting devices, teaches a color conversion layer (810,820) and filter (910,920) above the color conversion layer.
Youn includes both color conversion materials to enhance the luminous efficiency of red (R) light in the pixel corresponding to the first light emitting area E1 and luminous efficiency of green (G) light may be enhanced in the pixel corresponding to the second light emitting area E2 by the color conversion materials 810 and 820, and also, color purity of red (R) light, green (G) light, and blue (B) light may be enhanced by the color filters 910, 920, and 930.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have both color conversion layers and filters on top of the light emission areas in the device of Sim-6350 as taught by Youn, to enhance the luminous efficiency of each LE device.
While Sim-6350 shows pixel defining areas and has a bank of the sides of the emission areas, it does not show a second bank on top of a first bank.
Kim (Fig 8, [0117][0148]-[0150]), on the other hand and in a related field of LED devices, teaches bank patterns (BNK, Fig 8) placed on top of first bank patterns (BNP1, BNP2). Kim teaches these banks to further define the light emitting area based on the required design of the device.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to include additional bank patterns in the structure of Sim-6350, as taught by Kim to further shape the light emitting pattern of this device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims filed on 06/18/2026 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2,12,17 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.
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 ANEESA RIAZ BAIG whose telephone number is (571)272-0249. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm EST.
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, Wael Fahmy can be reached at 5712721705. 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.
/ANEESA RIAZ BAIG/Examiner, Art Unit 2814
/WAEL M FAHMY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2814
Prosecution Insights