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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12-17 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/18/2026.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 8, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hsu et al. (US 20200161576 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];
and 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].
Regarding claim 8, Hsu et al. teaches the full-color LED structure according to claim 1, further comprising: a transparent conductive layer (A6) [¶0105], 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. 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) [¶¶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].
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 6, and 10 is/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 2, Hsu et al. teaches the full-color LED structure according to claim 1, further comprising: 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].
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the dimension sizes taught by Choi et al. with the LED structure taught by Hsu et al. because having the different openings for the mask layer would allow for a different amount of light to be emitted from the light emitting units and it is known that having different size openings depending on the light emitting unit may be beneficial depending on the desired display.
Regarding claim 4, Hsu et al. in view of Choi et al. teaches the full-color LED structure according to claim 2, 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 6, Hsu 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, Choi et al.], and a surface of the first light-emitting layer facing away from the first substrate is an inclined surface [¶0129, 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 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(s) 3 is/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) and 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 2.
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(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu et al. (US 20200161576 A1)
Regarding claim 5, Hsu 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 (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 [¶0121].
Claim(s) 7 is/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) and 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(s) 11 is/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) and Beak et al. (US 20200194509 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Hsu 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 for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the LED teachings of Hsu et al. with the second passivation layer teaching of Beak et al. because Beak teaches the passivation layer being used to protect electric circuit elements and it would be obvious to have a second passivation layer between the third light emitting units to ensure protection of the units from each other.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOOR MOHAMMAD ISMAIL TAHIR whose telephone number is (571)272-6166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday, 8 a.m. 5 p.m. ET..
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, Sue Purvis can be reached at (571) 272-1236. 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.
/NOOR MOHAMMAD ISMAIL TAHIR/ Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/SUE A PURVIS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights