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
Status of Claims
Applicant's submittal of claims 1-20 in the “Claims” filed on 11/30/2023 is acknowledged and entered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
1. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 11, the instant claim recites limitations in view of the parent device claim 1, wherein the metes and bounds of the claimed method are vague and ill-defined as a result of uncertainty in the different boundaries and new limitations “wherein a refractive index of the prism layer 235 ranges between 1.4 and 2.5” (Claim 11; emphasis added). The claim is indefinite because of the following:
i) The claim is indefinite because “wherein a refractive index of the prism layer 235 ranges between 1.4 and 2.5” (Claim 11) is ambiguous and unclear. It is not clear what is meant by “the prism layer 235” because it is not clear whether “235” is part of the refractive index range or part of the prism layer. Therefore, the limitation of “wherein a refractive index of the prism layer 235 ranges between 1.4 and 2.5” (Claim 11) is indefinite and unclear.
The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention, whereby the claims are rendered indefinite. Therefore, the resulting claim is indefinite and is failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. Appropriate clarification and/or correction are/is required within metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
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.
Notes: when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as (100; Fig 3A; [0063]) = (element 100; Figure No. 3A; Paragraph No. [0063]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. These conventions are used throughout this document.
2. Claims 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lunev et al. (US 20220328729 A1; hereinafter Lunev).
Regarding claim 1, Lunev teaches a micro light-emitting diode display panel (see the entire document, specifically Fig. 6; [0012+], and as cited below), comprising:
a substrate (10”; Fig. 6; [0048]); and
a light-emitting layer (50; Fig. 6; [0048]) disposed on a side of the substrate (10”; Fig. 6; [0048]) and comprising a light-emitting chip (50; Fig. 6; [0048]) and a prism layer (100’; Fig. 6; [0047-0048]; see [0087] of the “Specification” of the instant invention where the prism is shown as a lens; therefore lens layer 100 is being construed as a prism layer) disposed on a side of the light-emitting chip (50; Fig. 6; [0048]) away from the substrate (10”; Fig. 6; [0048]);
wherein the prism layer (100’; Fig. 6; [0047-0048]) is provided with a void (1003’; Fig. 6; [0047-0048]; a recess) surrounding the light-emitting chip (50; Fig. 6; [0048]), and the void (1003’; Fig. 6; [0047-0048]) is arranged axially symmetrically with respect to a center line of the light-emitting chip (50; Fig. 6; [0048]).
Applicant should also note that the recitation of “a micro light-emitting diode display panel” has not been given patentable weight because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951).
Regarding claim 12, Lunev teaches a micro light-emitting diode display device (see the entire document, specifically Fig. 6; [0012+], and as cited below), comprising a micro light-emitting diode display panel, the micro light-emitting diode display panel comprising:
a substrate (10”; Fig. 6; [0048]); and
a light-emitting layer (50; Fig. 6; [0048]) disposed on a side of the substrate (10”; Fig. 6; [0048]) and comprising a light-emitting chip (50; Fig. 6; [0048]) and a prism layer (100’; Fig. 6; [0047-0048]; see [0087] of the “Specification” of the instant invention where the prism is shown as a lens; therefore lens layer 100 is being construed as a prism layer) disposed on a side of the light-emitting chip (50; Fig. 6; [0048]) away from the substrate (10”; Fig. 6; [0048]);
wherein the prism layer (100’; Fig. 6; [0047-0048]) is provided with a void (1003’; Fig. 6; [0047-0048]; a recess) surrounding the light-emitting chip (50; Fig. 6; [0048]), and the void (1003’; Fig. 6; [0047-0048]) is arranged axially symmetrically with respect to a center line of the light-emitting chip (50; Fig. 6; [0048]).
Applicant should also note that the recitation of “a micro light-emitting diode display device, comprising a micro light-emitting diode display panel” has not been given patentable weight because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951).
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 of this title, 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.
Notes: when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as (30A; Fig 2B; [0128]) = (element 30A; Figure No. 2B; Paragraph No. [0128]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. These conventions are used throughout this document.
3. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Lunev et al. (US 20220328729 A1; hereinafter Lunev).
Regarding claim 11, Lunev teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Lunev further teaches wherein a refractive index of the prism layer (100’; Fig. 6; [0047-0048]) 235 (see section 2, above; 112(b) rejection) ranges between 1.4 and 2.5 (see [0028, 0047-0048]; see MPEP 2144.05, I, where “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists) (see section 2, above; 112(b) rejection).
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claim 2 (and claims dependent upon claim 2, namely claims 3-10) is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form, and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: A search of the prior art failed to disclose or reasonably suggest the limitations “wherein the light-emitting layer further comprises a common electrode layer, and the common electrode layer is disposed between the light-emitting chip and the prism layer; the prism layer comprises a plurality of protrusion portions and a plurality of connecting portions, each of the connecting portions is located between the adjacent protrusion portions, and a distance between the connecting portions and the substrate is less than a distance between the protrusion portions and the substrate; and the common electrode layer comprises a first horizontal portion corresponding to the protrusion portion, a second horizontal portion corresponding to the connecting portion, and a third horizontal portion located between the first horizontal portion and the second horizontal portion; in a direction from the substrate to the light-emitting layer, a distance between the first horizontal portion and a bottom surface of the light-emitting chip is greater than a distance between the third horizontal portion and the bottom surface of the light-emitting chip, a distance between the second horizontal portion and the bottom surface of the light-emitting chip is greater than the distance between the third horizontal portion and the bottom surface of the light-emitting chip, and the second horizontal portion is disposed on a side of the third horizontal portion away from the substrate” of claim 2 (the individual limitations may be found just not in combination).
5. Claim 13 (and claims dependent upon claim 13, namely claims 14-20) is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form, and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: A search of the prior art failed to disclose or reasonably suggest the limitations “wherein the light-emitting layer further comprises a common electrode layer, and the common electrode layer is disposed between the light-emitting chip and the prism layer; the prism layer comprises a plurality of protrusion portions and a plurality of connecting portions, each of the connecting portions is located between the adjacent protrusion portions, and a distance between the connecting portions and the substrate is less than a distance between the protrusion portions and the substrate; and the common electrode layer comprises a first horizontal portion corresponding to the protrusion portion, a second horizontal portion corresponding to the connecting portion, and a third horizontal portion located between the first horizontal portion and the second horizontal portion; in a direction from the substrate to the light-emitting layer, a distance between the first horizontal portion and a bottom surface of the light-emitting chip is greater than a distance between the third horizontal portion and the bottom surface of the light-emitting chip, a distance between the second horizontal portion and the bottom surface of the light-emitting chip is greater than the distance between the third horizontal portion and the bottom surface of the light-emitting chip, and the second horizontal portion is disposed on a side of the third horizontal portion away from the substrate” of claim 13 (the individual limitations may be found just not in combination).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Omar Mojaddedi whose telephone number is 313-446-6582. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m..
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, Julio J. Maldonado, can be reached on 571-272-1864. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OMAR F MOJADDEDI/Examiner, Art Unit 2898