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 .
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.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[29] When a display is implemented using a plurality of semiconductor light emitting devices having the same diameter, the luminance of each pixel can be the same, so that the image quality can be improved by eliminating the luminance difference between pixels. In addition, when a display is implemented using a plurality of semiconductor light emitting devices having the same length, as shown in FIG. 30, all of the plurality of semiconductor light emitting devices 150A can be electrically connected to the wiring electrodes 330 and 340, thereby preventing lighting defects.
[71] As shown in FIG. 4, the plurality of transistors can comprise a driving transistor DT that supplies current to the light emitting devices LD and a scan transistor ST that supplies a data voltage to the gate electrode of the driving transistor DT. The driving transistor DT can comprise a gate electrode connected to a source electrode of the scan transistor ST, a source electrode connected to a high potential voltage line to which a high potential voltage is applied, and a drain electrode connected to the first electrodes of the light emitting devices LD.
[227] Since light is generated in the active layer 152, when the diameter (or size) of the active layer 152 of each of the plurality of semiconductor light emitting devices 150 manufactured on the wafer is different, the amount of light in the active layer 152 of each of the plurality of semiconductor light emitting devices 150 is different. That is, the amount of light from the semiconductor light emitting device 150 with a large diameter of the active layer 152 is greater than the amount of light from the semiconductor light emitting device 150 with a small diameter of the active layer 152the amount of light can be directly related to luminance. In other words, the greater the amount of light, the greater the luminance.
[230] Additionally, according to an embodiment, the depth of the plurality of growth holes provided on the wafer can be the same, so that the lengths of the plurality of semiconductor light emitting devices 150 manufactured from the plurality of growth holes can be the same. In this way, since both ends of the plurality of semiconductor light emitting devices 150 of the same length are stably in contact with the wiring electrode, lighting defects of the semiconductor light emitting devices 150 can be prevented.
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 4 and 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 4, the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are vague and ill-defined as a result of uncertainty in the different boundaries “wherein the first region comprises a part of the second conductivity type semiconductor layer”.
The claim is indefinite because the first region and the second region are not distinguished from each other in that the second conductivity type semiconductor layer can be a part of both the first and second region as it is a part of the whole light emitting structure.
For examination purposes, the examiner will interpret the second conductivity type semiconductor layer as a part of both the first and second region as it is a part of the whole light emitting structure.
Regarding claim 19, the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are vague and ill-defined as a result of uncertainty in the different boundaries “wherein the light emitting part has a cylindrical shape.”
The claim is indefinite because there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation, light emitting part, in the claim.
For examination purposes, the examiner will interpret the light emitting part as the light emitting structure.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6 and 8-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian et al. CN 111863797.
PNG
media_image1.png
371
540
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Tian et al. CN 111863797
Regarding claim 1, Tian et al. in Fig. 1 and [0040]-0086] discloses a semiconductor light emitting device, comprising:
a light emitting structure 02 [0039] having a first region and a second region along the major axis direction;
an insulating layer 03 [0044] surrounding a side surface of the first region; and
a first electrode 203 [0040] surrounding a side surface of the second region,
wherein the light emitting structure 02 [0041] comprises:
a first conductivity type semiconductor layer 2021;
an active layer 2022 on the first conductivity type semiconductor layer 2021; and
a second conductivity type semiconductor layer 2023 on the active layer 2022,
wherein the insulating layer 03 [0053] comprises:
a first insulating layer 302 surrounding a side surface of the first conductivity type semiconductor layer 2021; and
a second insulating layer 301 surrounding a side surface of the active layer 2022.
Tian et al. does not expressly disclose wherein the thickness of the insulating layer 03 is the same as the thickness of the electrode 203.
Applicant has not disclosed that having the thickness of the insulating layer the same as the thickness of the electrode, solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose.
However, Tian et al. teaches in [0088] that the thickness of the second electrode can be 2-3 µm, so the electrode and the second semiconductor layer 2023 of the side wall contact area is small in order to reduce the contact resistance of the electrode 203. This demonstrates that to achieve reduced contact resistance in the light emitting device, the thickness would be considered a result effective variable.
Accordingly, the claim is obvious without showing that the claimed range(s) achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize that it would be obvious to adjust the thickness of the electrode and the semiconductor layer in order “reduce the contact resistance in the light emitting device and improve the device performance” thereof and optimize “the thickness of the insulating layer to be the same as the thickness of the electrode” as “result effective variable”, and arrives at the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 3, Tian et al. in Fig. 1 and [0040]-0086] discloses the semiconductor light emitting device of claim 1, wherein
the first region comprises the first conductivity type semiconductor layer 2021 and the active layer 2022, and
the second region comprises the second conductivity type semiconductor layer 2023.
Regarding claim 4, Tian et al. in Fig. 1 and [0040]-0086] discloses the semiconductor light emitting device of claim 3, wherein the first region comprises a part of the second conductivity type semiconductor layer 2023.
Regarding claim 5, Tian et al. in Fig. 1 and [0040]-0086] discloses the semiconductor light emitting device of claim 3. Tian et al. does not expressly disclose wherein the diameter of the first region is the same as the diameter of the second region. However, Fig. 1 shows the width of the first region is the same as the width of the second region.
Notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the relative dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, Jn re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(1V)(B).
Regarding claim 6, Tian et al. in Fig. 1 and [0040]-0086] discloses the semiconductor light emitting device of claim 3, wherein the side surface of the first region 2021, 2022 and the side surface of the second region 2023 coincide along the major axis direction.
Regarding claim 8, Tian et al. in Fig. 1 and [0040]-0086] discloses the semiconductor light emitting device of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the thickness of the first insulating layer is greater than the thickness of the second insulating layer.
Notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the relative dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, Jn re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(1V)(B).
Regarding claim 9, Tian et al. in Fig. 1 and [0040]-0086] discloses the semiconductor light emitting device of claim 1, wherein the outer surface of the first insulating layer 03 has a concave round shape.
Regarding claim 10, Tian et al. in Fig. 1 and [0040]-0086] discloses the semiconductor light emitting device of claim 1, wherein the thickness of the first insulating layer 03 is the thickest in a lower side of the first region 2021, 2022.
Regarding claim 11, Tian et al. in Fig. 1 and [0040]-0086] discloses the semiconductor light emitting device of claim 1, wherein the first electrode 203 is not in contact with the active layer 2022.
Regarding claim 12, Tian et al. in Fig. 1 and [0040]-0086] discloses the semiconductor light emitting device of claim 1, wherein the first electrode 203 and the insulating layer 03 overlap each other along the major axis direction.
Regarding claim 13, Tian et al. in Fig. 1 and [0040]-0086] discloses the semiconductor light emitting device of claim 1, wherein the first electrode and the insulating layer are in contact along the perimeter of the light emitting structure.
Regarding claim 14, Tian et al. in Fig. 1 and [0040]-0086] discloses the semiconductor light emitting device of claim 1, comprising:
a second electrode 04 [0057] disposed on an upper surface of the second region.
Regarding claim 15, Tian et al. in Fig. 1 and [0040]-0086] discloses the semiconductor light emitting device of claim 14, wherein the first electrode 203 and the second electrode 04 are formed integrally.
Regarding claim 16, Tian et al. in Fig. 1 and [0040]-0086] discloses the semiconductor light emitting device of claim 14, wherein the thickness of the first electrode 203 and the thickness of the second electrode 04 are different.
Regarding claim 17, Tian et al. in Fig. 1 and [0040]-0086] discloses the semiconductor light emitting device of claim 1, wherein the thickness of the first electrode 203 is greater than the thickness of the second electrode 04.
Regarding claim 18, Tian et al. in Fig. 1 and [0040]-0086] discloses the semiconductor light emitting device of claim 1, comprising:
a third electrode 201 [0040] on a lower surface of the first region 2021, 2022.
Regarding claim 19, Tian et al. in Fig. 1 and [0040]-0086] discloses the semiconductor light emitting device of claim 1, wherein the light emitting part 202 has a cylindrical shape.
Regarding claim 20, Tian et al. in Figs. 1, 3 and 4 and [0040]-0086] discloses a display device, comprising:
a substrate 01;
first and second assembling wirings 06, 07 [0059] on the substrate 01;
a plurality of semiconductor light emitting devices 02 [0039] disposed on the first and second assembling wirings 06, 07 to generate different color lights R, G, B;
a first wiring electrode (Gate, Fig. 4) on one side of each of the plurality of semiconductor light emitting devices; and
a second wiring electrode (Data, Fig. 4) on the other side of each of the plurality of semiconductor light emitting devices,
wherein the plurality of semiconductor light emitting devices each comprises:
a light emitting structure 02 [0039] having a first region and a second region along the major axis direction;
an insulating layer 03 [0044] surrounding a side surface of the first region; and
a first electrode 203 [0040] surrounding a side surface of the second region,
wherein the light emitting structure 02 [0041] comprises:
a first conductivity type semiconductor layer 2021;
an active layer 2022 on the first conductivity type semiconductor layer 2021; and
a second conductivity type semiconductor layer 2023 on the active layer 2022,
wherein the insulating layer 03 [0053] comprises:
a first insulating layer 302 surrounding a side surface of the first conductivity type semiconductor layer 2021; and
a second insulating layer 301 surrounding a side surface of the active layer 2022.
Tian et al. does not expressly disclose wherein the thickness of the insulating layer 03 is the same as the thickness of the electrode 203.
Applicant has not disclosed that having the thickness of the insulating layer the same as the thickness of the electrode, solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose.
However, Tian et al. teaches in [0088] that the thickness of the second electrode can be 2-3 µm, so the electrode and the second semiconductor layer 2023 of the side wall contact area is small in order to reduce the contact resistance of the electrode 203. This demonstrates that to achieve reduced contact resistance in the light emitting device, the thickness would be considered a result effective variable.
Accordingly, the claim is obvious without showing that the claimed range(s) achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize that it would be obvious to adjust the thickness of the electrode and the semiconductor layer in order “reduce the contact resistance in the light emitting device and improve the device performance” thereof and optimize “the thickness of the insulating layer to be the same as the thickness of the electrode” as “result effective variable”, and arrives at the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 21, Tian et al. in Fig. 1 and [0040]-0086] discloses the semiconductor light emitting device of claim 20, but does not expressly disclose wherein the thickness of the first insulating layer is greater than the thickness of the second insulating layer.
Notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the relative dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, Jn re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(1V)(B).
Regarding claim 22, Tian et al. in Fig. 1 and [0040]-0086] discloses the semiconductor light emitting device of claim 20, wherein the thickness of the first insulating layer 03 is the thickest in a lower side of the first region 2021, 2022.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SONYA D MCCALL-SHEPARD whose telephone number is (571)272-9801. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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 at (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 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.
/Sonya McCall-Shepard/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898