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 claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 05/20/2026 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) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bibl et al (US Patent No. 8791474).
With respect to claim 1, Bibl et al discloses: a substrate (where T1 and T2 are formed on,Fig.6C); a pixel electrode disposed on the substrate (142), the pixel electrode having one or more grooves defined therein (Fig.6C); and light emitting elements respectively disposed in the one or more grooves (400).
With respect to claim 2, Bibl et al discloses: a planarization layer (148) disposed between the light emitting elements; and a common electrode (118) disposed on the planarization layer and the light emitting elements (Fig.6C).
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) 3-6,9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bibl et al (US Patent No. 8791474).
With respect to claim 3, Bibl et al does not explicitly disclose wherein a depth of the one or more grooves is in a range of about 10% to about 90% of a thickness of the pixel electrode. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Bibl et al such that a depth of the one or more grooves is in a range of about 10% to about 90% of a thickness of the pixel electrode, in order to have stable enough pixel electrode for holding LEDS.
With respect to claim 4, Bibl et al discloses each of the light emitting elements disposed in the one or more grooves (Fig.6C) includes an active layer (416); and the depth of each of the one or more grooves is greater than a height of the active layer (Fig.6C).
With respect to claim 5, Bibl et al discloses wherein each of the light emitting elements disposed in the one or more grooves includes an active layer (416) disposed within the one or more grooves (Fig.6C).
With respect to claim 6, Bibl et al discloses wherein: each of the one or more grooves has a bottom surface (the horizontal line) and an inclined surface extending from the bottom surface (the side lines intersection the horizontal lines); and an inclined angle formed between the inclined surface of the one or more grooves and the bottom surface of the one or more grooves is in a range of about 90 degrees to about 160 degrees (the angles seem to be more than 90 degrees). However, Bibl et al does not explicitly disclose the bottom surface of the one or more grooves is in a range of about 90 degrees to about 160 degrees. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to claim 9, Bibl et al discloses that the area of the bottom surface of the groove is a lot bigger than the area of the light emitting device, however, it does not explicitly disclose wherein an area of the bottom surface of each of the one or more grooves is in a range of about 110% to about 200% of an area of the light emitting elements disposed within each of the one or more grooves. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the limitations like in the claim 9, in order to cut the cost of the device, and save space.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bibl et al (US Patent No. 8791474), in view of Bok et al (US Pub No. 20210193769).
With respect to claim 7, Bibl et al does not explicitly disclose wherein a reflective layer is disposed on the inclined surface of the one or more grooves and the bottom surface of the one or more grooves, the reflective layer has a higher reflectivity than a reflectivity of the pixel electrode. On the other hand, Bok et al discloses wherein a reflective layer (1211b) completely covers the top surface of the pixel electrode (1211a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Bibl et al according to the teachings of Bok et al such that a reflective layer is disposed on the inclined surface of the one or more grooves and the bottom surface of the one or more grooves, the reflective layer has a higher reflectivity than a reflectivity of the pixel electrode, in order to have oxidation resistant such as ITO to be used as pixel electrode and using aluminum as light reflecting material, thereby cutting cost and increasing the lifetime of the device.
With respect to claim 8, Bok et al discloses wherein the reflective layer has a reflectivity greater than or equal to about 80% (Para 179, Al).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bibl et al (US Patent No. 8791474), in view of LEE et al (US Pub No. 20220024208).
With respect to claim 10, the arts cited above do not explicitly disclose a wavelength conversion part disposed on the common electrode, wherein the wavelength conversion part includes partition walls separating light emitting areas from non-emitting areas; a wavelength conversion layer disposed between the partition walls and overlapping the light emitting areas; a light blocking member disposed on the partition walls; and color filters disposed on the wavelength conversion layer. However, Lee et al discloses a wavelength conversion part (20,Fig.2) disposed on the common electrode (CME), wherein the wavelength conversion part includes partition walls (PTL) separating light emitting areas (TA) from non-emitting areas (BA) ; a wavelength conversion layer (WCL) disposed between the partition walls and overlapping the light emitting areas (Fig.2, this accordance with applicants specification); a light blocking member disposed on the partition walls (BML) ; and color filters disposed on the wavelength conversion layer (CFL). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the arts cited above such that color filter regions are formed on wavelength conversion layers in order to produce a white light from different colors.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chang et al (US Pub No. 20180158847).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALI N NARAGHI whose telephone number is (571)270-5720. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6pm.
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 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.
/ALI NARAGHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights