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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, Specie II, claims 1,3,10-13,19,20, in the reply filed on January 8, 2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim(s) 1,3,10,19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sizov et al (WO 2019/147589).
Regarding claim 1, Sizov teaches a display system comprising: an array of light-emitting diodes configured to emit light in a first direction (figs. 3 to 8); and a driver die with driver circuitry (COMOS driver 400, fig. 3B, paragraph [0088]) that controls the array of light- emitting diodes (paragraph [0088]), wherein the array of light-emitting diodes are mounted on the driver die, wherein each light-emitting diode comprises an n-type semiconductor layer (104, paragraph [0055], fig. 7) and a p-type semiconductor layer (108), wherein each light-emitting diode comprises a respective contact pad (180, fig. 7, paragraph [0065]) for a selected one of the n-type semiconductor layer and a p-type semiconductor layer, wherein the array of light-emitting diodes share a common contact pad (190, paragraph [0064]) for a remaining one of the n-type semiconductor layer and a p-type semiconductor layer, and wherein the common contact pad overlaps the respective contact pads in the first direction.
Regarding claim 3, Sizov teaches the display system defined in claim 1, wherein each respective contact pad is electrically connected to the p-type semiconductor layer for that light-emitting diode and wherein the array of light-emitting diodes shares a common contact pad for the n-type semiconductor layer (fig. 7).
Regarding claim 10, Sizov teaches the display system defined in claim 1, wherein the respective contact pads are interposed between the driver die and the common contact pad (fig. 7).
Regarding claim 19, Sizov teaches a display system comprising: an array of light-emitting diodes configured to emit illumination light; and a substrate with driver circuitry that controls the array of light-emitting diodes (COMOS driver 400, fig. 3B, paragraph [0088]), wherein the array of light-emitting diodes are mounted on the substrate, wherein each light-emitting diode comprises an n-type semiconductor layer (104, fig. 7, paragraph [0055]) and a p-type semiconductor layer (108), wherein each light-emitting diode comprises an respective p contact pad (180) that electrically connects the p-type semiconductor layer for that light-emitting diode to the driver circuitry, wherein the array of light-emitting diodes share a common n contact pad (190) that electrically connects the n-type semiconductor layer for each light-emitting diode to the driver circuitry, and wherein the p contact pads are interposed between the substrate and the n contact pad.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sizov et al (WO 2019/147589) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Choi (PG Pub 2021/0183301 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Sizov remains as applied in claim 10.
Sizov does not teach a current spreading layer that is electrically connected to the common contact pad.
In the same field of endeavor, Choi teaches a current spreading layer (260, fig. 4) that is electrically connected to the common contact pad (246), wherein the current spreading layer is formed from indium tin oxide (paragraph [0095]), for the benefit of increasing emission efficiency (paragraph [0095]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a current spreading layer that was electrically connected to the common contact pad, for the benefit of increasing emission efficiency.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sizov et al (WO 2019/147589) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Maki (PG Pub 2016/0027973 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Sizov remains as applied in claim 10.
Sizov teaches the common contact pad is formed over the array of light-emitting diodes (fig. 7).
Sizov does not teach the common contact pad is formed as a mesh.
In the same field of endeavor, Maki teaches forming a contact pad as a mesh allows light to transmit through (paragraph [0085]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form the common contact pad as a mesh, for the benefit of allowing light to transmit through.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sizov et al (WO 2019/147589) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang et al (PG Pub 2017/0179192 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Sizov remains as applied in claim 1.
Sizov does not teach the array of light-emitting diodes has at least a first subset of light-emitting diodes that emits light at a first wavelength and a second subset of light-emitting diodes that emits light at a second wavelength that is different than the first wavelength.
In the same field of endeavor, Zhang teaches wherein the array of light-emitting diodes has at least a first subset of light-emitting diodes that emits light at a first wavelength and a second subset of light-emitting diodes that emits light at a second wavelength that is different than the first wavelength (different color LEDs, paragraph [0045]), for the benefit of providing a color display without phosphor layers (paragraph [0045]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the array of light-emitting diodes to have at least a first subset of light-emitting diodes that emitted light at a first wavelength and a second subset of light-emitting diodes that emitted light at a second wavelength that was different than the first wavelength, for the benefit of providing a color display without phosphor layers.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sizov et al (WO 2019/147589) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Cho et al (PG Pub 2007/0257269 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Sizov remains as applied in claim 19.
Sizov teaches wherein each light-emitting diode additionally includes an active layer (106, fig. 7) that is interposed between the n-type semiconductor layer and the p-type semiconductor layer for that light-emitting diode.
Sizov does not teach the active layer to be a multi-quantum wells layer.
In the same field of endeavor, Cho teaches an active layer to be a multi-quantum wells layer (paragraph [0337]), for the benefit of increasing brightness (paragraph [0337]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the active layer a multi-quantum wells layer for the benefit of increasing brightness.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FEIFEI YEUNG LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1882. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8am to 4pm 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, Dale Page can be reached at 571 270 7877. 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.
/FEIFEI YEUNG LOPEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899