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 § 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.
Claims 1, 4-6, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu et al. (US 20200161576 A1) in view of Choi et al. (US 20230049315 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hsu et al. teaches a full-color light-emitting diode (LED) structure, comprising:
a first substrate (100);
first-color light-emitting units (E1) and second-color light-emitting units (E5), wherein the first-color light-emitting units and second-color light-emitting units are disposed on a side of the first substrate, and the first-color light-emitting units and second-color light-emitting units are disposed in the same layer and simultaneously prepared [Fig. 4, ¶0115, layer 104 is on one side of the substrate where the E1 and E5 are in; also the terminology simultaneously prepared does not further limit the structure claim];
third-color light-emitting units (E2) disposed on a side of the first-color light-emitting units and the second-color light-emitting units facing away from the first substrate, wherein a vertical projection of a third-color light-emitting unit among the third-color light-emitting units on the first substrate does not overlap a vertical projection of a first-color light-emitting unit among the first-color light-emitting units on the first substrate or a vertical projection of a second-color light-emitting unit among the second-color light-emitting units on the first substrate [Fig. 4, ¶0115, E2 is seen to be on the other side of 100 and faces away from E1 and E5 as seen in Fig. 4]; and
a mask layer (104) disposed between the first-color light-emitting units (E1) and the second-color light-emitting units (E5),
wherein the mask layer comprises a plurality of first mask holes (V1) and a plurality of second mask holes (V5), each of the first-color light-emitting units is correspondingly disposed in a respective first mask hole among the plurality of first mask holes, and each of the second-color light-emitting units is correspondingly disposed in a respective second mask hole among the plurality of second mask holes
Hsu et al. doesn’t teach the different dimensions of the mask holes.
Choi et al. teaches a dimension of the plurality of first mask holes is larger than a dimension of the plurality of second mask holes [¶0008, the first light emitting layer length is greater in a direction than the second light emitting layer length and the first light emitting layer is in the first mask hole which is seen to be larger than the second mask holes as seen in Fig. 22; [0258]-[0273]; Choi’s differently sized openings necessarily produce differently sized LEDs].
It would have been obvious to modify Hsu’s mask layer so that the first mask holes are larger than the second mask holes in view of Choi. Hsu provides the multicolor LED architecture, including first- and second-color light-emitting units disposed in the same layer and formed through corresponding mask openings. Choi teaches selecting different dimensions for different-color light-emitting structures to control the growth area, resulting device geometry, current density, and light-emission efficiency. A skilled artisan would have recognized that the dimensions of the corresponding mask openings are a predictable process parameter for controlling the dimensions and shapes of the selectively formed light-emitting units. The artisan would therefore have selected a larger first mask hole and a smaller second mask hole where the first-color unit was intended to have a larger growth or emission area than the second-color unit. This modification would have preserved Hsu’s simultaneous preparation of the first- and second-color units because the differently dimensioned mask holes could be formed before the simultaneous preparation step. The modification would have used Choi’s known technique for its known purpose, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 4, Hsu et al. in view of Choi et al. teaches the full-color LED structure according to claim 1, further comprising: a first passivation layer (INS2, Choi et al.) disposed on a side of the mask layer facing away from the first substrate, wherein the first passivation layer is disposed on an upper surface of the mask layer [Fig. 22, ¶0179, the insulating layer (which has the same function as the passivation layer) is seen to cover a portion of the upper surface of INS1, Choi et al.].
Regarding claim 5, Hsu et al. in view of Choi et al. teaches the full-color LED structure according to claim 1, wherein each of the first-color light-emitting units is a blue LED unit (Hsu, E1), each of the second-color light-emitting units is a green LED unit, and each of the third-color light-emitting units is a red LED unit [¶0114, the colors can be rearranged based on the desired structure and what would be optimal as stated in ¶0121].
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to change the arrangement of the light emitting units because there are many different formations that can be created with the light emitting units and to a desired effect, the arrangement can be changed to best suit the needs of the structure [Hsu, ¶0121].
Regarding claim 6, Hsu et al. in view of Choi et al. teaches the full-color LED structure according to claim 5.
Hsu et al. doesn’t teach wherein a first-color light-emitting unit of the first-color light-emitting units comprises a first semiconductor layer, a first light-emitting layer, and a second semiconductor layer which are sequentially stacked [¶¶0169, 0265-0266, Choi et al.], and a surface of the first light-emitting layer facing away from the first substrate is an inclined surface [¶¶0129, 0226, Fig. 22 Choi et al.]; and
a second-color light-emitting unit of the second-color light-emitting units comprises a first semiconductor layer, a second light-emitting layer, and a second semiconductor layer which are sequentially stacked [¶¶0265-0266, Choi et al.], and a surface of the second light-emitting layer facing away from the first substrate is parallel to the first substrate [Fig. 22, ¶0226, connected in parallel and on top of the first substrate, Choi et al.].
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the LED structure of Hsu et al. and the structure of the light emitting layers of Choi et al. because the structure of the light emitting layers as taught by Choi et al. increases the stability of the structure and the efficiency of the light emitting element is improved.
Regarding claim 8, Hsu et al. in view of Choi et al. teaches the full-color LED structure according to claim 1, further comprising: a transparent conductive layer (A6) [Hsu ¶¶0105-0108], wherein the transparent conductive layer is disposed on a side of the third-color light-emitting units facing the first-color light-emitting units and the second-color light-emitting units [Fig. 4, ¶¶0106-0108, faces the first and second color light emitting units].
Regarding claim 9, Hsu et al. in view of Choi et al. teaches the full-color LED structure according to claim 8, further comprising: a drive unit layer (T6), and a plurality of first electrodes (plurality of electrodes that are denoted with C followed by a number) [¶¶0108-0109 and 0134],
wherein the drive unit layer is disposed on a side of the third-color light-emitting units facing away from the first substrate, and the drive unit layer comprises a plurality of drive units [Fig. 4, ¶0109]; and
each of the plurality of first electrodes is electrically connected to the transparent conductive layer and each light-emitting unit among the first-color light-emitting units, the second-color light-emitting units, and the third-color light-emitting units, and each of the plurality of drive units provides an electrical signal through the transparent conductive layer and a respective first electrode among the plurality of first electrodes for each light-emitting unit among the first-color light-emitting units, the second-color light-emitting units, and the third-color light-emitting units [Fig. 4, ¶0108, describes the electrical connection between the electrode and the transparent conductive layer, ¶0083, the layers are stacked and electrically connected].
Regarding claim 10, Hsu et al. in view of Choi et al. teaches the full-color LED structure according to claim 1, comprising: a plurality of light-emitting unit groups arranged in an array [Fig. 3, ¶0090, Choi et al.],
wherein each of the plurality of light-emitting unit groups comprises one of the first-color light-emitting units, one of the third-color light-emitting units, and one of the second-color light-emitting units [Fig. 3, ¶0090, Choi et al.]; or
each of the plurality of light-emitting unit groups comprises one of the first-color light-emitting units, two of the third-color light-emitting units, and one of the second-color light-emitting units [¶0090, comprises one of each color light emitting unit, Choi et al.].
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu et al. in view of Choi et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hu et al. (US 20230067011 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Hsu et al. in view of Choi et al. teaches the full-color LED structure according to claim 1.
Hsu et al. in view of Choi et al. doesn’t teach the aperture.
Hu et al. teaches each of the plurality of first mask holes has an aperture less than 20 μm [Fig. 8, ¶0045, has opening size of approximately 10-20 μm].
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the aperture taught by Hu et al. with the LED structure taught by Hsu et al. in view of Choi et al. because the aperture size used would be optimal dependent on the structure and desired function of the structure.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu et al. in view of Choi et al. as applied to claims 1, 5 and 6 above and further in view of Lee et al. (US 20210384178 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Hsu et al. in view of Choi et al. teaches the full-color LED structure according to claim 6.
Hsu et al. in view of Choi et al. doesn’t teach an inclined conductive layer.
Lee et al. teaches an inclined conductive layer (510), wherein the inclined conductive layer is disposed on a side of the first semiconductor layer (310) of the first-color light-emitting unit facing away from the first light-emitting layer (360) [Fig. 6, ¶0067, the pixel has a diamond shape and the figures show the incline of the layers].
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the inclined conductive layer taught by Lee et al. with the LED structure of Hsu et al. in view of Choi et al. because it would allow for a secure conductive path and help with the way the light is emitted from the light emitting units [¶0112, Lee et al.].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu et al. in view of Choi et al. as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Beak et al. (US 20200194509 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Hsu et al. in view of Choi et al. teaches the full-color LED structure according to claim 1.
Hsu et al. doesn’t teach the second passivation layer.
Beak et al. teaches a second passivation layer is disposed between adjacent third-color light-emitting units among the third-color light-emitting units [Fig. 4, ¶0133, said to protect electric circuit element]; or
a third-color material layer is disposed between adjacent third-color light-emitting units among the third-color light-emitting units, and the third-color material layer and the third-color light-emitting units are partitioned by partition slots, wherein a material of the third-color material layer is the same as a material of the third-color light-emitting units.
It would have been obvious to provide an insulating or passivation layer between adjacent third-color light-emitting units to electrically isolate the units, protect their side surfaces, and prevent undesired interaction between neighboring units. Beak demonstrates that insulating and passivation structures are known for isolating adjacent emission and circuit regions in display devices. Applying that known isolation structure to the adjacent third-color units of Hsu would have been a predictable use of the structure for its known protective and insulating function, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 28, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Hsu discloses a full-color light-emitting structure including a first substrate, first-color and second-color light-emitting units disposed in the same layer, and third-color light-emitting units positioned on the side of the first- and second-color units facing away from the first substrate. Hsu further discloses corresponding openings for forming or accommodating the respective light-emitting units. See Hsu, Figure 4 and ¶0115.
With respect to the phrase “simultaneously prepared,” the phrase is recited in an apparatus claim. Applicant has not identified any structural characteristic that distinguishes an apparatus formed by simultaneous preparation from an otherwise identical apparatus formed sequentially. Accordingly, the phrase is not accorded separate patentable weight to the extent that it merely describes a process by which the claimed apparatus may be made.
Regarding the dimensioned openings, Hsu does not expressly disclose that the first mask holes have dimensions greater than the second mask holes. Choi, however, teaches using differently dimensioned openings or through-holes for different-color light-emitting elements and selecting different light-emitting-unit dimensions according to color-specific current-density and emission requirements. See Choi, paragraphs [0008], [0127]–[0131], [0201]–[0202], and [0258]–[0273].
The Examiner does not rely on Choi’s completed LED dimensions as an inherent disclosure that the holes must necessarily have particular dimensions. Rather, Choi provides a reason for selecting different opening dimensions when implementing Hsu’s corresponding formation openings.
Hsu and Choi are directed to related multicolor semiconductor light-emitting devices. Hsu provides the claimed multicolor arrangement, while Choi recognizes that different-color light-emitting units may have different dimensions, current-density requirements, and emission efficiencies. A person of ordinary skill would have understood that the dimensions of the formation openings are process parameters that affect the growth area, resulting unit geometry, and emission area of the light-emitting units. The artisan therefore would have selected a larger first mask hole and a smaller second mask hole where the first-color unit was intended to have a larger growth or emission area than the second-color unit. The modification would have been made before the formation of the light-emitting units and would not require changing Hsu’s arrangement of the color units.
Applicant argues that Choi forms LE1 in HO1 before forming LE2 and LE4 in HO2 and therefore does not disclose simultaneous preparation in respective holes. The argument is not persuasive because the rejection does not require bodily incorporation of Choi’s entire manufacturing sequence. Choi is relied upon for the teaching that openings for different-color light-emitting units may have different dimensions.
Applicant further argues that LE2 and LE4 in Choi are formed in a shared HO2 and therefore are not disposed in respective mask holes having different dimensions.
The argument addresses a particular Choi embodiment but does not negate Choi’s broader teaching that different through-holes may be used for different light-emitting elements. Moreover, the proposed combination does not require using the shared-hole arrangement of Choi. The relevant modification is to use separately dimensioned openings for the first- and second-color units of Hsu, while retaining Hsu’s color-unit arrangement.
The obviousness inquiry is based on the combined teachings and suggestions of the references, not on whether one reference contains every limitation in the exact arrangement of the claim.
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 SUE A PURVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-1236. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0830 to 1630.
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.
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.
/SUE A PURVIS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
