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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-15, in the reply filed on 5/27/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/27/2026.
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 2-5 and 8-13 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.
The term “approximately” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” 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. The limitations “approximately same” and “approximately coincides” of the claim have been rendered indefinite by the use of the term “approximately”.
The term “approximately” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” 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. The limitations “approximately same” and “approximately coincides” of the claim have been rendered indefinite by the use of the term “approximately”.
The term “approximately” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” 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. The limitation “approximately equal to” of the claim has been rendered indefinite by the use of the term “approximately”.
The term “approximately” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” 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. The limitations “approximately same” and “approximately coincides” of the claim have been rendered indefinite by the use of the term “approximately”.
The term “approximately” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” 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. The limitations “approximately equal to” and “approximately coincides” of the claim have been rendered indefinite by the use of the term “approximately”.
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 (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 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 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cha (US 2023/0352621).
Regarding claim 1, Cha discloses, in FIGS. 1-2 and in related text, a light-emitting device, comprising:
a substrate (370);
a first semiconductor layer (320, p-type), located at a side of the substrate;
a light-emitting layer (330), located at a side of the first semiconductor layer facing away from the substrate; and
a second semiconductor layer (310, n-type), located at a side of the light-emitting layer facing away from the first semiconductor layer;
wherein the first semiconductor layer is one of an N-type semiconductor layer and a P- type semiconductor layer, the second semiconductor layer is another one of the N-type semiconductor layer and the P-type semiconductor layer (see Cha, [0063], [0065], [0070], [0075], [0083]);
an area (with diameter W3) of an orthographic projection of the second semiconductor layer (310) on the substrate (370) is smaller than an area (with diameter W4) of an orthographic projection of the light-emitting layer (330) on the substrate, and the orthographic projection of the second semiconductor layer on the substrate is located within the orthographic projection of the light-emitting layer on the substrate (see Cha, [0081]).
Regarding claim 15, Cha discloses the device of claim 1.
Cha discloses wherein the light-emitting device is a red light-emitting device (see Cha, [0084],
the first semiconductor layer (320, p-type) is the P-type semiconductor layer, and the second semiconductor layer (310, n-type) is the N-type semiconductor layer (see discussion on claim 1 above).
Claims 1, and claims 11-12 as so far as understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang (US 2019/0393382).
Regarding claim 1, Huang discloses, in FIS. 1A-1B and in related text, a light-emitting device, comprising:
a substrate;
a first semiconductor layer (100, n-type), located at a side of the substrate;
a light-emitting layer (200), located at a side of the first semiconductor layer facing away from the substrate; and
a second semiconductor layer (300, p-type), located at a side of the light-emitting layer facing away from the first semiconductor layer;
wherein the first semiconductor layer is one of an N-type semiconductor layer and a P- type semiconductor layer, the second semiconductor layer is another one of the N-type semiconductor layer and the P-type semiconductor layer (see Huang, [0018]-[0019], [0043]);
an area of an orthographic projection of the second semiconductor layer (300) on the substrate is smaller than an area of an orthographic projection of the light-emitting layer (200) on the substrate, and the orthographic projection of the second semiconductor layer on the substrate is located within the orthographic projection of the light-emitting layer on the substrate (see Huang, FIG. 1A).
Regarding claim 11, Huang discloses the device of claim 1.
Huang discloses wherein the first semiconductor layer (100) comprises:
a first sub-portion (R1); and
a second sub-portion (R2) disposed outside the first sub-portion;
wherein an area of an orthographic projection of the first sub-portion (R1) on the substrate is approximately equal to the area of the orthographic projection of the light-emitting layer (200) on the substrate, and the orthographic projection of the first sub-portion on the substrate approximately coincides with the orthographic projection of the light-emitting layer on the substrate (see Huang, FIG. 1A);
wherein the light-emitting device further comprises:
a first insulation layer (I) located at a side of the second semiconductor layer (300) facing away from the light-emitting layer; and
a first connection electrode (110) and a second connection electrode (310) which are located at a side of the first insulation layer facing away from the second semiconductor layer;
wherein the first connection electrode (110) is electrically connected with the second sub-portion (R2) through a first through hole penetrating through the first insulation layer, and the second connection electrode (310) is electrically connected with the second semiconductor layer (300) through a second through hole penetrating through the first insulation layer (see Huang, FIG. 1B, [0018], [0023], [0026]).
Regarding claim 12, Huang discloses the device of claim 11.
Huang discloses wherein the second connection electrode (310) is in direct contact with and electrically connected with the second semiconductor layer (300) (see Huang, FIG. 1B, [0023]).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha in view of Xia (US 2020/0035748).
Regarding claim 14, Huang discloses the device of claim 1.
Huang discloses wherein the first semiconductor layer (100, n-type) is the N-type semiconductor layer, and the second semiconductor layer (300, p-type) is the P-type semiconductor layer (see discussion on claim 1 above).
Huang does not explicitly disclose wherein the light-emitting device is a blue light-emitting device or a green light-emitting device.
Xia teaches wherein the light-emitting device is a blue light-emitting device or a green light-emitting device (see Xia, [0091]).
Huang and Xia are analogous art because they both are directed to light emitting devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Huang with the features of Xia because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Huang to include wherein the light-emitting device is a blue light-emitting device or a green light-emitting device, as taught by Xia, to excite quantum dot film to produce light of other colors (see Xia, [0091]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 2-5, 8-10 and 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action 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:
The prior art of record, Huang, discloses a conductor layer located at a side of the second semiconductor layer facing away from the light-emitting layer, and a resistance of the conductor layer is smaller than a resistance of the second semiconductor layer. The prior art of records, individually or in combination, do not disclose nor teach “an area of an orthographic projection of the conductor layer on the substrate is approximately same as the area of the orthographic projection of the second semiconductor layer on the substrate, and the orthographic projection of the conductor layer on the substrate approximately coincides with the orthographic projection of the second semiconductor layer on the substrate” in combination with other limitations as recited in claim 2.
The prior art of records, individually or in combination, do not disclose nor teach “a third semiconductor layer located between the second semiconductor layer and the light-emitting layer, and a material of the third semiconductor layer is same as a material of the light-emitting layer; and an area of an orthographic projection of the third semiconductor layer on the substrate is approximately same as the area of the orthographic projection of the light-emitting layer on the substrate, and the orthographic projection of the third semiconductor layer on the substrate approximately coincides with the orthographic projection of the light-emitting layer on the substrate” in combination with other limitations as recited in claim 3.
The prior art of record, Cha, discloses wherein the light-emitting layer comprises nitride semiconductor material. The prior art of records, individually or in combination, do not disclose nor teach “wherein the light-emitting layer comprises a plurality of dielectric layers stacked in sequence; and a maximum thickness of a dielectric layer farthest from the first semiconductor layer is greater than maximum thicknesses of remaining dielectric layers” in combination with other limitations as recited in claim 6.
The prior art of record, Moon (US 2020/0035748), teaches an etching barrier layer located above the second semiconductor layer and the light-emitting layer. See Moon, FIG. 4 and paragraphs [0056]-[0057]. The prior art of records, individually or in combination, do not disclose nor teach “an etching barrier layer located between the second semiconductor layer and the light-emitting layer, and an area of an orthographic projection of the etching barrier layer on the substrate is approximately same as the area of the orthographic projection of the light-emitting layer on the substrate, and the orthographic projection of the etching barrier layer on the substrate approximately coincides with the orthographic projection of the light- emitting layer on the substrate” in combination with other limitations as recited in claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIH TSUN A CHOU whose telephone number is (408)918-7583. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-16:00 Arizona 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, Lynne Gurley can be reached at (571) 272-1670. 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.
/SHIH TSUN A CHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811
Prosecution Insights