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 .
Specification
The specification submitted 12/20/2023 has been accepted by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 12/20/2023 have been accepted by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/20/2023 has been considered 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 18, the term “reduced element area” in claim 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “reduced element area” is not defined by the claim, 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.
For the sake of compact prosecution, the examiner presumes the element area from the applicant’s specification (see near bottom of page 42): wherein a size of the semiconductor device in a direction parallel to an element forming surface of the substrate is 20 pm or less.
Claim 19 is rejected because it depends on claim 18.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7, 9, 11-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Iguchi (US # 20210151422).
Regarding Claim 1, Iguchi (US # 20210151422) teaches a semiconductor device (see Fig. 15-18 and corresponding text) including:
a light emitter (105) provided on an upper surface of a substrate (50b);
a microstructure (70, including protruding portions 71R, 71G, and 71B in Fig. 16) made of metal ([0153] teaches Al or Ag) disposed on a side (top) opposite to the substrate with the light emitter interposed between the microstructure and the substrate (shown), the microstructure being spaced apart from the light emitter by a predetermined distance (shown at a distance that would be determined by designers: this is taught as approximately 2 microns because the height of each reflective wall 34 is 4 μm, and the height of the main body 16 of each light-emitting element 105 is at most 2 μm);
and a reflector (34) provided on the substrate, the reflector partitioning the semiconductor device and an adjacent semiconductor device (shown in Fig. 16).
Regarding Claim 2, Iguchi teaches the semiconductor device according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined distance is 1/4 or more of a wavelength of light re-emitted from the microstructure (if the RGB light is roughly in a range of 400-750 nm, then it is true that 2 microns is greater than 25% of that range: 100-187nm).
Regarding Claim 3, Iguchi teaches the semiconductor device according to claim 1, wherein at least a surface of the reflector contains metal ([0076] teaches a thin film of aluminum or silver having a high reflectivity).
Regarding Claim 4, Iguchi teaches the semiconductor device according to claim 1, wherein the reflector has a tapered shape whose cross-sectional area decreases as being away from the substrate or a reverse tapered shape whose cross-sectional area increases as being away from the substrate (shown with the former configuration).
Regarding Claim 7, Iguchi teaches the semiconductor device according to claim 1, further including:
a first insulating film (32; [0147]) provided on the upper surface of the substrate, the first insulating film covering the light emitter, wherein the microstructure is located on an upper surface of the first insulating film (shown in Fig. 16).
Regarding Claim 9, Iguchi teaches the semiconductor device according to claim 1, wherein the light emitter includes:
a lower electrode (bottom electrode 5) provided on the upper surface of the substrate;
a photoelectric converter (14) provided on the lower electrode;
and an upper electrode (transparent electrode 30) provided on a side opposite (top electrode) to the lower electrode with the photoelectric converter interposed between the lower electrode and the upper electrode (shown).
Regarding Claim 11, Iguchi teaches the semiconductor device according to claim 9, wherein the reflector is electrically connected to the lower electrode (these conductive materials are shown in contact).
Regarding Claim 12-17, Iguchi teaches the particular geometries, relative sizes, and spacings ([0070, 152 -155]).
Regarding Claim 20, Iguchi teaches the display device including: a pixel array unit in which the semiconductor device according to claim 1 is arranged in a matrix (see e.g. Fig. 2); and a drive circuit (part of feature 50) that drives the semiconductor device ([0108-111] describes driving circuit substrate 50 driving the light emitters).
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 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.
Claims 5-6, 8, 10, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iguchi (US # 20210151422).
Regarding Claim 5, while Iguchi may not explicitly describe the extent of relative dimensions claimed (“the semiconductor device according to claim 1, wherein a lower end of the reflector at least reaches the upper surface of the substrate”) it would have been obvious to extend the reflector to the upper surface of the substrate so as to maximize reflection and minimize cross-talk between pixels.
Regarding Claim 6, while Iguchi may not explicitly describe the exact dimensions claimed (“the semiconductor device according to claim 1, wherein a distance from an upper end of the reflector to a lower end of the microstructure in a direction perpendicular to the upper surface of the substrate is equal to or more than a wavelength of light re-emitted from the microstructure”) it would have been obvious to space at least a wavelength in order to avoid interference.
Regarding Claim 8, while Iguchi may not explicitly describe the exact dimensions claimed (“the semiconductor device according to claim 1, further including: a first insulating film provided on the upper surface of the substrate, the first insulating film covering the light emitter, wherein the microstructure is located in the first insulating film”) embedding a metal structure in an insulating layer is commonplace in semiconductor designs for many reasons, including minimizing environmental degradation and structural support.
Regarding Claim 10, while Iguchi may not explicitly describe the exact dimensions claimed (“the semiconductor device according to claim 9, wherein the photoelectric converter is an organic film”) it is known and quite obvious that organic active layers and inorganic active layers in light emitters are obvious paths for designers of optoelectronics. These are known options, and a person having ordinary skill could choose between these finite options and design for those paths. In either case, light extraction efficiency is a chief goal.
Regarding Claim 18-19, while Iguchi may not explicitly describe the exact dimensions claimed (a semiconductor device according to claim 1, wherein the semiconductor device is a pixel having a reduced element area, wherein a size of the semiconductor device in a direction parallel to an element forming surface of the substrate is 20 microns or less) nonetheless the examiner considers this to be routine scaling. See MPEP 2144.04 also citing to In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., (725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)), where the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Conclusion
Certification of Pertinent prior art:
US 20150221893 A1
US 9236529 B2
US 20100081221 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER A JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9475. The examiner can normally be reached normally working Monday to Friday between 9 am and 6 pm Eastern Time.
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, Brent Fairbanks can be reached on (408) 918-7532. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER A JOHNSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899