DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claims 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by LEE; Hyun Sup et al. (US 20220093678 A1, hereinafter Lee‘678).
Regarding independent claim 1, Lee‘678 teaches, “A display device (fig. 1-27; ¶ [0056] - ¶ [0258]) comprising:
a substrate (SUB1, fig. 20);
a light-emitting element (LD) on the substrate (SUB1);
a first insulating layer (BFL) on the light-emitting element (LD); and
a driving element (Tdr) on the first insulating layer (BFL),
the driving element (Tdr) passing through the first insulating layer (BFL) and is electrically connected (by pixel electrode PE) to the light-emitting element (LD)”.
Regarding independent claim 12, Lee‘678 teaches, “A display device (fig. 1-27; ¶ [0056] - ¶ [0258]) comprising:
a substrate (SUB1);
a light-emitting element (LD) on the substrate (SUB1);
a first insulating layer (BFL) on the light-emitting element (LD);
a driving element (Tdr) on the first insulating layer (BFL);
a second insulating layer (INS1) on the driving element (Tdr); and
a light conversion layer (‘a color conversion layer’, ¶ [0255]) on the second insulating layer (INS1), the light conversion layer (part of display element layer DPL, ¶ [0255]) overlapping the light-emitting element”.
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.
Claims 2-6 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee‘678 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of YOO; Kyung Ho et al. (US 20140217357 A1, hereinafter Yoo‘357).
Regarding claim 2 and 13, Lee‘678 teaches all the limitations described in claim 1/12.
But Lee‘678 is silent upon the provision of wherein the display device of claim 1/12, wherein the light-emitting element includes: a first electrode layer on the substrate; a seed semiconductor layer on the first electrode layer; a pattern insulating film on the seed semiconductor layer, the pattern insulating film including a plurality of through holes; a plurality of first conductive semiconductor rods in the plurality of through holes, respectively; an activation layer on the plurality of first conductive semiconductor rods; a second conductive semiconductor layer on the activation layer; and a second electrode layer on the second conductive semiconductor layer.
However, Yoo‘357 teaches a similar light-emitting element (fig. 6) includes:
a first electrode layer (170) on the substrate;
a seed semiconductor layer (130) on the first electrode layer (170);
a pattern insulating film (140) on the seed semiconductor layer (130), the pattern insulating film (140) including a plurality of through holes;
a plurality of first conductive semiconductor rods (151) in the plurality of through holes, respectively;
an activation layer (152) on the plurality of first conductive semiconductor rods (151);
a second conductive semiconductor layer (153) on the activation layer (152); and
a second electrode layer (160) on the second conductive semiconductor layer (153).
Lee‘678 and Yoo‘357 are analogous art because they both are directed to semiconductor devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Lee‘678 with the features of Yoo‘357 because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to combine the teachings of Lee‘678 and Yoo‘357 to include the light-emitting element in the claimed device according to the teachings of Yoo‘357 as this ‘semiconductor light emitting device capable of preventing a delamination phenomenon such as a leakage current in a semiconductor light emitting device’. See Yoo‘357, ¶ [0109].
Regarding claim 3 and 14, Lee‘678 modified with Yoo‘357 further teaches, “The display device of claim 2 [12], wherein the driving element (Tdr, fig. 5, 20, Lee‘678) includes:
an active layer (SCL) on the first insulating layer (BFL); and
a first line electrode (ET1) and a second line electrode (ET2, PE) that are connected to the active layer (SCL),
the second line electrode (ET2, PE) passing through the first insulating layer (BFL) and is electrically connected to the second electrode layer (15) of the light-emitting element (LD)”.
Regarding claim 4, Lee‘678 modified with Yoo‘357 further teaches, “The display device of claim 3, wherein the active layer (SCL, fig. 5, 20, Lee‘678) is higher than the activation layer (LD)”.
Regarding claim 5, Lee‘678 modified with Yoo‘357 further teaches, “The display device of claim 3, further comprising: a light-blocking layer (BML, ¶ [0199] – [0201]], Lee‘678) between the first insulating layer (BFL) and the active layer (SCL)”.
Regarding claim 6, Lee‘678 modified with Yoo‘357 further teaches, “The display device of claim 3, further comprising: a light-blocking layer (BML, ¶ [0199] – [0201]], Lee‘678) below the active layer and on a same layer as the first electrode layer”.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee‘678 modified with Yoo‘357 as applied to claim 5 as above, and further in view of PAK; Sang Hoon et al. (US 20220173160 A1, hereinafter Pak‘160).
Regarding claim 7, Lee‘678 modified with Yoo‘357 teaches all the limitations described in claim 5.
But Lee‘678 modified with Yoo‘357 is silent upon the provision of wherein the second line electrode is electrically connected to the light-blocking layer.
However, Pak‘160 teaches a similar display device (fig. 1), wherein the second line electrode (108) is electrically connected to the light-blocking layer (120).
Lee‘678 modified with Yoo‘357 and Pak‘160 are analogous art because they both are directed to semiconductor devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Lee‘678 modified with Yoo‘357 with the features of Pak‘160 because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to combine the teachings of Lee‘678 modified with Yoo‘357 and Pak‘160 to connect the second line electrode to the light-blocking layer according to the teachings of Pak‘160 ‘to prevent the occurrence of body effect such as a change in the threshold voltage’. See Pak‘160, ¶ [0067].
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee‘678 as applied to claim 1 as above, and further in view of Pak‘160.
Regarding claim 8, Lee‘678 teaches all the limitations described in claim 1.
But Lee‘678 is silent upon the provision of wherein the display device of claim 1, further comprising: a second insulating layer on the driving element; and a light conversion layer on the second insulating layer, the light conversion layer above the light-emitting element and overlapping the light-emitting element.
However, Pak‘160 teaches a similar display device (fig. 15) comprising:
a second insulating layer (196) on the driving element (100); and
a light conversion layer (CQ) on the second insulating layer (196),
the light conversion layer (CQ) above the light-emitting element and overlapping the light-emitting element (100).
Lee‘678 and Pak‘160 are analogous art because they both are directed to semiconductor devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Lee‘678 modified with Yoo‘357 with the features of Pak‘160 because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to combine the teachings of Lee‘678 and Pak‘160 to include light conversion layers according to the teachings of Pak‘160 as this is an essential component of similar display device.
Regarding claim 9, Lee‘678 modified with Pak‘160 further teaches, “The display device of claim 8, wherein the light-emitting element (LD, fig. 20, Lee‘678) is at a position that is lower than the driving element (Tdr), and the light conversion layer (CQ, fig. 16, Pak‘160) is at a position that is higher than the driving element (100)”.
Regarding claim 10, Lee‘678 modified with Pak‘160 further teaches, “The display device of claim 2, further comprising: a connection channel that passes through the first insulating layer and electrically connects the first electrode layer (CE) to a low-potential line (VSS, fig. 4; ¶ [0127])”.
Regarding claim 11, Lee‘678 modified with Pak‘160 further teaches, “The display device of claim 8, further comprising:
a color filter (CL, fig. 15, Pak‘160) on the light conversion layer (CQ),
a third insulting layer (198) on the color filter (CL), and
a black matrix (BM) on the third insulting layer (198),
wherein a remaining area except for an opening area from which a light is emitted by the light-emitting element is covered by the black matrix (BM)”.
Examiner’s Note
Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. See MPEP 2111, 2123, 2125, 2141.02 VI, and 2182.
Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD M HOQUE whose telephone number is (571)272-6266 and email address is mohammad.hoque@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-7PM 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, Kretelia Graham can be reached on (571) 272-5055. 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.
/MOHAMMAD M HOQUE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817