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 .
Attorney Docket Number: 10406-2400021
Filling Date: 01/09/2024
Priority Date: 03/16/2023
Inventor: Wang et al
Examiner: Bilkis Jahan
DETAILED ACTION
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-12, 14, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 2015/0144926 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a light-emitting device (Figures 11 and 12), comprising: a first electrode 110; a second electrode 165; N light-emitting units (unit 1 and unit 2) stacked between the first electrode 110 and the second electrode 165; and a connection layer 135 (Para. 76) disposed between any two adjacent light-emitting units 110, 165; wherein a peak of an intrinsic spectrum of at least part of light-emitting units is in a range from 400 nm to 480 nm (element Bp, blue light has WL 400-480 nm); a sum of peaks of intrinsic spectra of the N light-emitting units Bp is in a range from N x 400 nm to N x 480 nm; N is greater than or equal to 2 (Bp has two blue EML vertically), and N is a positive integer (two).
Lee does not explicitly disclose a difference between a color coordinate y value of the light-emitting device under a blue image at a preset viewing angle that is in a range from 600 to 750 and a color coordinate y value of the light-emitting device under the blue image at a viewing angle of 00 is in a range from 0 to 0.07.
However, Lee discloses all structural limitations in claim 1. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to obtain a difference between a color coordinate y value of the light-emitting device under a blue image at a preset viewing angle that is in a range from 600 to 750 and a color coordinate y value of the light-emitting device under the blue image at a viewing angle of 00 is in a range from 0 to 0.07 for intended purposes.
the applicants have not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of the color coordinate.
CRITICALITY
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed color coordinate or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 2, Lee does not explicitly disclose the light-emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the color coordinate y value of the light-emitting device under the blue screen at the preset viewing angle is less than 0.07.
However, Lee discloses blue color LED Bp, 125, 456 (Fig. 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to obtain the color coordinate y value of the light-emitting device under the blue screen at the preset viewing angle is less than 0.07 for intended purposes.
the applicants have not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of the color coordinate.
CRITICALITY
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed color coordinate or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 3, Lee further discloses the light-emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the peak of the intrinsic spectrum of the at least part of light-emitting units (element Bp) is in a range from 450 nm to 470 nm 490 (blue EML); and the sum of the peaks of the intrinsic spectra of the N light- emitting units is in a range from N x 450 nm to N x 470 nm (element Bp).
Regarding claim 4, Lee further discloses the light-emitting device according to claim 3, wherein in the at least part of light-emitting units 125, 456, a peak of an intrinsic spectrum of each light-emitting unit is the same, and the peak of the intrinsic spectrum of each light-emitting unit is in a range from 450 nm to 470 nm (both are blue).
Regarding claim 5, Lee further discloses the light-emitting device according to claim 3, wherein a full width at half maximum of the intrinsic spectrum of the at least part of light-emitting units is in a range from 10 nm to 30 nm (EML 1 and EML 2 have total thickness 26 nm); and a sum of full widths at half maxima of the intrinsic spectra of the N light-emitting units is in a range from N x 10 nm to N x 30 nm (26 nm).
Regarding claim 6, Lee further discloses the light-emitting device according to claim 5, wherein in the at least part of light-emitting units, a full width at half maximum of an intrinsic spectrum of each light-emitting unit is the same (EML 1 and EML 2, same color, same spectrum), and the full width at half maximum of the intrinsic spectrum of each light-emitting unit is in a range from 10 nm to 30 nm (EML 1 and EML 2 have total thickness 26 nm).
Regarding claim 7, Lee further discloses the light-emitting device according to claim 1, wherein a luminous intensity of the intrinsic spectrum of the at least part of light-emitting units (Gp, green EML) at 490 nm is in a range from 0 to 0.4, and a sum of luminous intensities of the intrinsic spectra of the N light-emitting units 454 at 490 nm is in a range from 0 to N x 0.4 (inherent).
Regarding claim 8, Lee further discloses the light-emitting device according to claim 1, wherein a number of the N light-emitting units is two (unit 1, unit 2), and the two light- emitting units are respectively a first light-emitting unit and a second light-emitting unit (Fig. 11), and the first light-emitting unit and the second light-emitting unit are sequentially away from the first electrode 110;
wherein a peak of an intrinsic spectrum of the first light-emitting unit is ʎ1, a peak of an intrinsic spectrum of the second light-emitting unit is ʎ2, and ʎ1 and ʎ2 satisfy: 450 nm < ʎ1< 470 nm, 900 nm<( ʎ1+ ʎ2)<940 nm, and ʎ1≠ ʎ2 (Gp is green and Bp is blue. They have different wavelength);
a full width at half maximum of the intrinsic spectrum of the first light-emitting unit is different from a full width at half maximum of the intrinsic spectrum of the second light- emitting unit; the full width at half maximum of the first light-emitting unit is in a range from 10 nm to 30 nm (blue); and a sum of the full width at half maximum of the first light-emitting unit and the full width at half maximum of the second light-emitting unit is in a range from 20 nm to 60 nm (Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 9, Lee further discloses the light-emitting device according to claim 8, wherein a luminous intensity of the intrinsic spectrum of the first light-emitting unit at 490 nm is A1 (unit 1, blue), a luminous intensity of the intrinsic spectrum of the second light-emitting unit (unit 2, blue) at 490 nm is A2, and Al and A2 satisfy: 0 < Al< 0.4, 0< (Al + A2) < 0.8, and A1=A2 (inherent).
Regarding claim 10, Lee further discloses the light-emitting device according to claim 8, wherein a luminous intensity of the intrinsic spectrum of the first light-emitting unit at 490 nm is A1 (unit 1, blue), a luminous intensity of the intrinsic spectrum of the second light-emitting unit (unit 2, green) at 490 nm is A2, and A1 and A2 satisfy: 0 < Al< 0.4, 0< (Al + A2) < 0.8, and A1≠A2 (inherent).
Regarding claim 11, Lee further discloses the light-emitting device according to claim 1, wherein a number of the N light-emitting units is two (unit 1, unit 2), and the two light- emitting units are respectively a first light-emitting unit and a second light-emitting unit (Fig. 11), and the first light-emitting unit and the second light-emitting unit are sequentially away from the first electrode 110;
wherein a peak of an intrinsic spectrum of the first light-emitting unit is ʎ1, a peak of an intrinsic spectrum of the second light-emitting unit is ʎ2, and ʎ1 and ʎ2 satisfy: 450 nm < ʎ1< 470 nm, 900 nm<( ʎ1+ ʎ2)<940 nm, and ʎ1≠ ʎ2 (Gp is green and Bp is blue. They have different wavelength); a full width at half maximum of the intrinsic spectrum of the first light-emitting unit (unit 1, blue) is different from a full width at half maximum of the intrinsic spectrum of the second light- emitting unit (unit 2, green); the full width at half maximum of the intrinsic spectrum of the second light-emitting unit is in a range from 10 nm to 30 nm (Fig. 12); and a sum of the full width at half maximum of the first light-emitting unit and the full width at half maximum of the second light-emitting unit is in a range from 20 nm to 60 nm (Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 12, Lee further discloses the light-emitting device according to claim 11, wherein a luminous intensity of the intrinsic spectrum of the first light-emitting unit at 490 nm is A1 (unit 1, blue), a luminous intensity of the intrinsic spectrum of the second light-emitting unit at 490 nm is A2 (unit 2, green), and A1 and A2 satisfy: 0 < A2 < 0.4, 0< (Al + A2) < 0.8, and A1≠A2 (inherent).
Regarding claim 14, Lee discloses the light-emitting device according to claim 1, wherein a peak of an intrinsic spectrum of a light-emitting unit (unit 1) close to the first electrode 110 is in a range from 450 nm to 470 nm (blue light); and the sum of the peaks of the intrinsic spectra of the N light-emitting units is in a range from N x 450 nm to N x 470 nm; a full width at half maximum of the intrinsic spectrum of the light-emitting unit (unit 1) close to the first electrode 110 is in a range from 10 nm to 30 nm (Fig. 12); and full widths at half maxima of the intrinsic spectra of the N light-emitting units in a range from N x 10 nm to N x 30 nm (Fig. 12); a luminous intensity at 490 nm of the intrinsic spectrum of the light-emitting unit close to the first electrode 110 is in a range from 0 to 0.4, and a sum of luminous intensities of the intrinsic spectra of the N light-emitting units at 490 nm is in a range from 0 to N x 0.4r (inherent).
Regarding claim 19, Lee further discloses the light-emitting device according to claim 2. wherein the peak of the intrinsic spectrum of the at least part of light-emitting units (Unit 1) is in a range from 450 am to 470 am (blue); and the sum of the peaks of the intrinsic spectra of the N light-emitting units is in a range from N x 450 nm to N X 470 nm (blue).
Regarding claim 20, Lee further discloses the light-emitting device according to claim 3, wherein a full width at half maximum of the intrinsic spectrum of the at least part of light-emitting units (unit 1) is in a range from 10 nm to 30 nm (Fig. 12); and a sum of full widths at half maxima of the intrinsic spectra of the N light-emitting units is in a range from N X 10 nm to N x 30 nm (Fig. 12).
Claim(s) 13, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 2015/0144926 A1) in view of Han et al (US 2021/0202598 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Lee discloses the light-emitting device according to claim 1, wherein a full width at half maximum of the intrinsic spectrum of the first light-emitting unit (unit 1) is in a range from 10 nm to 30 nm (fig. 12); a sum of the full width at half maximum of the intrinsic spectrum of the first light-emitting unit, a full width at half maximum of the intrinsic spectrum of the second light-emitting unit (unit 2) and a full width at half maximum of the intrinsic spectrum of the third light-emitting unit is in a range from 30 nm to 90 nm; a luminous intensity of the intrinsic spectrum of the first light-emitting unit at 490 nm is A1, a luminous intensity of the intrinsic spectrum of the second light-emitting unit at 490 nm is A2, a luminous intensity of the intrinsic spectrum of the third light-emitting unit at 490 nm is A3, and A1, A2 and A3 satisfy: 0 < A1< 0.4 and 0 < (A1 + A2 + A3) < 1.2 (Figs. 11-12, inherent).
Lee does not explicitly disclose the light-emitting device according to claim 1, wherein a number of the N light-emitting units is three, and the three light- emitting units are respectively a first light-emitting unit, a second light-emitting unit and a third light-emitting unit; the first light-emitting unit, the second light-emitting unit and the third light- emitting unit are sequentially away from the first electrode; wherein a peak of an intrinsic spectrum of the first light-emitting unit is ʎ1,
a peak of an intrinsic spectrum of the second light-emitting unit is ʎ2, a peak of an intrinsic spectrum of the third light-emitting unit is ʎ3, and ʎ1, ʎ2 and ʎ3 satisfy: 450 nm< ʎ1<470 nm, 1350 nm < (ʎ1+ ʎ2+ ʎ3)< 1410 nm.
However, Han discloses a number of the N light-emitting units is three S1, S2, S3 (Fig. 2, Para. 48), and the three light- emitting units S1, S2, S3 are respectively a first light-emitting unit S1, a second light-emitting unit S2 and a third light-emitting unit S3; the first light-emitting unit S1, the second light-emitting unit S2 and the third light- emitting unit S3 are sequentially away from the first electrode 110a (Para. 43); wherein a peak of an intrinsic spectrum of the first light-emitting unit is ʎ1 130a (blue, Paras. 118-120, 52),
a peak of an intrinsic spectrum of the second light-emitting unit is ʎ2 130b (Para. 52), a peak of an intrinsic spectrum of the third light-emitting unit is ʎ3 140 (Para. 50), and ʎ1, ʎ2 and ʎ3 satisfy: 450 nm< ʎ1<470 nm, 1350 nm < (ʎ1+ ʎ2+ ʎ3)< 1410 nm (inherent).
Han teaches the above modification is used to reduce color defect of the device (Para. 8). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute Lee light- emitting units with Han light- emitting units as suggested above to reduce color defect of the device (Para. 8).
Regarding claim 17, Lee does not explicitly disclose a display panel , comprising: a substrate; and a plurality of sub-pixels disposed on the substrate; wherein at least one sub-pixel includes the light-emitting device according to claim 1.
However, Han discloses a substrate 100 (Fig. 3, Para. 77); and a plurality of sub-pixels R_SP, G_SP, B_SP (Para. 77) disposed on the substrate 100; wherein at least one sub-pixel includes the light-emitting device 109R (Para. 77)according to claim 1.
Han teaches the above modification is used to reduce color defect of the device (Para. 8). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Lee light- emitting units with Han substrate with light- emitting units as suggested above to reduce color defect of the device (Para. 8).
Regarding claim 18, Han further discloses a display apparatus, comprising the display panel according to claim 17 (Fig. 3, Para. 77).
Claim(s) 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 2015/0144926 A1) in view of Kishima (US 2002/0110323 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Lee does not explicitly disclose the light-emitting device according to claim 1, further comprising an optical coupling layer located on a side of the second electrode away from the first electrode.
However, Kishima discloses an optical coupling layer located on a side of the second electrode 21a (Para. 111, LED has 1st and 2nd electrode) away from the first electrode (Fig. 1, Para. 265, bottom electrode is first).
Kishima teaches the above modification is used to obtain array density of the device (Para. 266). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Lee structure with Kishima optical coupling layer structure as suggested above to obtain array density of the device (Para. 266).
Regarding claim 16, Lee further discloses the light-emitting device according to claim 15, wherein a thickness of the second electrode is greater than 12 nm 110 (Para. 132).
Lee does not explicitly disclose a thickness of the optical coupling layer is h1, a refractive index of the optical coupling layer is n, and h1 and n satisfy: h1xn> 150.
However, Kishima discloses a particular thickness and refractive index of the optical coupling layer (Fig. 1, Para. 265). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to obtain a thickness of the optical coupling layer is h1, a refractive index of the optical coupling layer is n, and h1 and n satisfy: h1xn> 150 for intended purposes.
the applicants have not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of the thickness and refractive index.
CRITICALITY
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed thickness and refractive index or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BILKIS JAHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5022. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 am-5 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, Marlon T Fletcher can be reached at (571)272-2063. 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.
BILKIS . JAHAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2817
/BILKIS JAHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817