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 .
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.
(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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu et al., U.S. Patent No. 11,387,387.
Re claim 20, Wu et al. disclose a display device, comprising: a driving substrate 100 (e.g., fig. 2); a plurality of micro light-emitting elements 120 dispersedly disposed on the driving substrate 100 (e.g., fig. 2), wherein each of the plurality of micro light-emitting elements 120 comprises an epitaxial structure layer ESL (e.g., fig. 2) and a first electrode 122 and a second electrode 121 disposed on opposite sides of the epitaxial structure layer ESL (e.g., fig. 2); and a common electrode 130 located between the plurality of first electrodes 122 of the plurality of micro light-emitting elements 120 (e.g., fig. 2) and configured to be electrically connected to the plurality of first electrodes 122 (e.g., fig. 2), wherein an isolating trench 140 is provided between the plurality of micro light-emitting elements 120 (e.g., fig. 2), and the isolating trench 140 (e.g., fig. 2) extends toward the driving substrate 100 and forms a groove (e.g., between the LEDs 120) on the driving substrate 100 (e.g., fig. 2), see figs. 1-9 and cols. 1-16 for more details. Further in this regard, the process limitation of how the groove is formed has no patentable weight in claim drawn to structure. Note that a product by process claim is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made, In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (footnote 3). See also In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685; In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523; In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324; In re Avery, 186 USPQ 161; In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90 (209 USPQ 554 does not deal with this issue); and In re Marosi et al, 218 USPQ 289, all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final product per se which must be determined in a product by process claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that an old or obvious product by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in product by process claims or not. Note that applicant has the burden of proof in such cases, as the above caselaw makes clear. Therefore, the process limitation of the instant claim is thus non-limiting.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-19 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record neither teach nor make obvious the claimed limitation of the instant application as a whole as recited in claim 1. In particular, the prior art does not teach or suggest a display device having a common electrode located between the plurality of first electrodes of the plurality of micro light-emitting elements and configured to be electrically connected to the plurality of first electrodes, wherein a groove is provided on the driving substrate between the plurality of micro light-emitting elements, an insulating layer covers sidewalls of the plurality of micro light-emitting elements, and the insulating layer extends into the groove.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1689. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8am to 4pm.
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, Yara J. Green can be reached at (571)270-3035. 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.
/JACK S CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights