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 of Species 8 (encompassing claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9-11, and 13-20) in the reply filed on 8/3/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 5/13/24. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive as it is generic. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Change “micro light emitting device” to - - micro light emitting devices - -.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3, 5, 7, 9-11, and 13-20 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.
Claim 1 makes reference to “a first convex portion.” This feature corresponds to item 31 in the Drawings. “Convex” has a plain or ordinary meaning of “curved or rounded outward like the exterior of a sphere or circle” (Webster’s Online Dictionary). Considering this definition of “convex”, it is unclear how item 31 can be considered “convex” since none of its surfaces or edges appear curved or rounded outward. Rather, item 31 looks like a rectangular prism. Examiner notes that while Applicant can act as his/her own lexicographer, Applicant has not clearly set forth a special definition of the term “convex” in the specification that differs from the plain and ordinary meaning. Therefore, it is unclear to the examiner what is actually encompassed by the term “convex” within the claim language of “a first convex portion”. Claims 2-3, 5, 7, 9-11, 13-19 inherit the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, rejections based on their dependencies on claim 1.
Claim 3 makes reference to a “first convex portion.” This feature corresponds to item 31 in the Drawings. “Convex” has a plain or ordinary meaning of “curved or rounded outward like the exterior of a sphere or circle” (Webster’s Online Dictionary). Considering this definition of “convex”, it is unclear how item 31 can be considered “convex” since none of its surfaces or edges appear curved or rounded outward. Rather, item 31 looks like a rectangular prism. Examiner notes that while Applicant can act as his/her own lexicographer, Applicant has not clearly set forth a special definition of the term “convex” in the specification that differs from the plain and ordinary meaning. Therefore, it is unclear to the examiner what is actually encompassed by the term “convex” within the claim language of a “first convex portion”.
Claim 7 makes reference to a “first convex portions.” These features corresponds to item 31 in the Drawings. “Convex” has a plain or ordinary meaning of “curved or rounded outward like the exterior of a sphere or circle” (Webster’s Online Dictionary). Considering this definition of “convex”, it is unclear how item 31 can be considered “convex” since none of its surfaces or edges appear curved or rounded outward. Rather, item 31 looks like a rectangular prism. Examiner notes that while Applicant can act as his/her own lexicographer, Applicant has not clearly set forth a special definition of the term “convex” in the specification that differs from the plain and ordinary meaning. Therefore, it is unclear to the examiner what is actually encompassed by the term “convex” within the claim language of “first convex portions”.
Claim 9 makes reference to the “first convex portion.” This feature corresponds to item 31 in the Drawings. “Convex” has a plain or ordinary meaning of “curved or rounded outward like the exterior of a sphere or circle” (Webster’s Online Dictionary). Considering this definition of “convex”, it is unclear how item 31 can be considered “convex” since none of its surfaces or edges appear curved or rounded outward. Rather, item 31 looks like a rectangular prism. Examiner notes that while Applicant can act as his/her own lexicographer, Applicant has not clearly set forth a special definition of the term “convex” in the specification that differs from the plain and ordinary meaning. Therefore, it is unclear to the examiner what is actually encompassed by the term “convex” within the claim language of the “first convex portion”. Claims 10 inherits the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, rejection based on their dependencies on claim 9.
Claim 11 makes reference to the “first convex portion.” This feature corresponds to item 31 in the Drawings. “Convex” has a plain or ordinary meaning of “curved or rounded outward like the exterior of a sphere or circle” (Webster’s Online Dictionary). Considering this definition of “convex”, it is unclear how item 31 can be considered “convex” since none of its surfaces or edges appear curved or rounded outward. Rather, item 31 looks like a rectangular prism. Examiner notes that while Applicant can act as his/her own lexicographer, Applicant has not clearly set forth a special definition of the term “convex” in the specification that differs from the plain and ordinary meaning. Therefore, it is unclear to the examiner what is actually encompassed by the term “convex” within the claim language of the “first convex portion”.
Claim 13 makes reference to the “first convex portion.” This feature corresponds to item 31 in the Drawings. “Convex” has a plain or ordinary meaning of “curved or rounded outward like the exterior of a sphere or circle” (Webster’s Online Dictionary). Considering this definition of “convex”, it is unclear how item 31 can be considered “convex” since none of its surfaces or edges appear curved or rounded outward. Rather, item 31 looks like a rectangular prism. Examiner notes that while Applicant can act as his/her own lexicographer, Applicant has not clearly set forth a special definition of the term “convex” in the specification that differs from the plain and ordinary meaning. Therefore, it is unclear to the examiner what is actually encompassed by the term “convex” within the claim language of the “first convex portion”.
Claim 14 makes reference to a “second convex portion.” This feature corresponds to item 32 in the Drawings. “Convex” has a plain or ordinary meaning of “curved or rounded outward like the exterior of a sphere or circle” (Webster’s Online Dictionary). Considering this definition of “convex”, it is unclear how item 32 can be considered “convex” since none of its surfaces or edges appear curved or rounded outward. Rather, item 32 looks rectangular (see e.g., 32, Fig. 13). Examiner notes that while Applicant can act as his/her own lexicographer, Applicant has not clearly set forth a special definition of the term “convex” in the specification that differs from the plain and ordinary meaning. Therefore, it is unclear to the examiner what is actually encompassed by the term “convex” within the claim language of the “second convex portion”. Claims 15-19 inherit the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, rejections based on their dependencies on claim 14.
Claim 15 makes reference to the “second convex portion.” This feature corresponds to item 32 in the Drawings. “Convex” has a plain or ordinary meaning of “curved or rounded outward like the exterior of a sphere or circle” (Webster’s Online Dictionary). Considering this definition of “convex”, it is unclear how item 32 can be considered “convex” since none of its surfaces or edges appear curved or rounded outward. Rather, item 32 looks rectangular (see e.g., 32, Fig. 13). Examiner notes that while Applicant can act as his/her own lexicographer, Applicant has not clearly set forth a special definition of the term “convex” in the specification that differs from the plain and ordinary meaning. Therefore, it is unclear to the examiner what is actually encompassed by the term “convex” within the claim language of the “second convex portion”. Claims 16-18 inherit the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, rejections based on their dependencies on claim 15.
Claim 16 makes reference to the “second convex portions.” These features correspond to item 32 in the Drawings. “Convex” has a plain or ordinary meaning of “curved or rounded outward like the exterior of a sphere or circle” (Webster’s Online Dictionary). Considering this definition of “convex”, it is unclear how item 32 can be considered “convex” since none of its surfaces or edges appear curved or rounded outward. Rather, item 32 looks rectangular (see e.g., 32, Fig. 13). Examiner notes that while Applicant can act as his/her own lexicographer, Applicant has not clearly set forth a special definition of the term “convex” in the specification that differs from the plain and ordinary meaning. Therefore, it is unclear to the examiner what is actually encompassed by the term “convex” within the claim language of “second convex portions”. Claim 17 inherits the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, rejections based on their dependencies on claim 16.
Claim 17 makes reference to the “second convex portion.” This feature corresponds to item 32 in the Drawings. “Convex” has a plain or ordinary meaning of “curved or rounded outward like the exterior of a sphere or circle” (Webster’s Online Dictionary). Considering this definition of “convex”, it is unclear how item 32 can be considered “convex” since none of its surfaces or edges appear curved or rounded outward. Rather, item 32 looks rectangular (see e.g., 32, Fig. 13). Examiner notes that while Applicant can act as his/her own lexicographer, Applicant has not clearly set forth a special definition of the term “convex” in the specification that differs from the plain and ordinary meaning. Therefore, it is unclear to the examiner what is actually encompassed by the term “convex” within the claim language of the “second convex portion”.
Claim 18 makes reference to the “second convex portion.” This feature corresponds to item 32 in the Drawings. “Convex” has a plain or ordinary meaning of “curved or rounded outward like the exterior of a sphere or circle” (Webster’s Online Dictionary). Considering this definition of “convex”, it is unclear how item 32 can be considered “convex” since none of its surfaces or edges appear curved or rounded outward. Rather, item 32 looks rectangular (see e.g., 32, Fig. 13). Examiner notes that while Applicant can act as his/her own lexicographer, Applicant has not clearly set forth a special definition of the term “convex” in the specification that differs from the plain and ordinary meaning. Therefore, it is unclear to the examiner what is actually encompassed by the term “convex” within the claim language of the “second convex portion”.
Claim 19 makes reference to the “first convex portion.” This feature corresponds to item 31 in the Drawings. “Convex” has a plain or ordinary meaning of “curved or rounded outward like the exterior of a sphere or circle” (Webster’s Online Dictionary). Considering this definition of “convex”, it is unclear how item 31 can be considered “convex” since none of its surfaces or edges appear curved or rounded outward. Rather, item 31 looks like a rectangular prism. Examiner notes that while Applicant can act as his/her own lexicographer, Applicant has not clearly set forth a special definition of the term “convex” in the specification that differs from the plain and ordinary meaning. Therefore, it is unclear to the examiner what is actually encompassed by the term “convex” within the claim language of the “first convex portion”.
Claim 19 makes reference to the “second convex portion.” This feature corresponds to item 32 in the Drawings. “Convex” has a plain or ordinary meaning of “curved or rounded outward like the exterior of a sphere or circle” (Webster’s Online Dictionary). Considering this definition of “convex”, it is unclear how item 32 can be considered “convex” since none of its surfaces or edges appear curved or rounded outward. Rather, item 32 looks rectangular (see e.g., 32, Fig. 13). Examiner notes that while Applicant can act as his/her own lexicographer, Applicant has not clearly set forth a special definition of the term “convex” in the specification that differs from the plain and ordinary meaning. Therefore, it is unclear to the examiner what is actually encompassed by the term “convex” within the claim language of the “second convex portion”.
Claim 20 makes reference to “a first convex portion.” This feature corresponds to item 31 in the Drawings. “Convex” has a plain or ordinary meaning of “curved or rounded outward like the exterior of a sphere or circle” (Webster’s Online Dictionary). Considering this definition of “convex”, it is unclear how item 31 can be considered “convex” since none of its surfaces or edges appear curved or rounded outward. Rather, item 31 looks like a rectangular prism. Examiner notes that while Applicant can act as his/her own lexicographer, Applicant has not clearly set forth a special definition of the term “convex” in the specification that differs from the plain and ordinary meaning. Therefore, it is unclear to the examiner what is actually encompassed by the term “convex” within the claim language of “a first convex portion”.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kang et al. (U.S. 2022/0208747 A1; “Kang”).
Regarding claim 1, Kang discloses a display panel, comprising:
A substrate (20, Fig. 3) having a display area (100, Fig. 3) ([0090]);
Wherein the display area comprises micro light emitting devices (51, 52, 53, Fig. 3) ([0090]), a first convex portion (top surfaces of 40, Fig. 3 are convex or curved) ([0094]) and a black film layer (60, Fig. 3) located on a same side of the substrate (20, Fig. 3) ([0100]), and
Wherein at least part of an orthographic projection of the black film layer (60, Fig. 3) on a plane of the substrate is located between orthographic projections of two adjacent micro light emitting devices of the micro light emitting devices (51, 52, 53, Fig. 3) on the plane of the substrate (20, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 2, Kang discloses pixel unit groups arranged along a first direction (X, Fig. 4) and a second direction (Z, Fig. 3), wherein a pixel unit group of the pixel unit groups comprises two pixel row groups arranged along the second direction, a pixel row group of the two pixel row groups comprises two pixel units arranged along the first direction, a pixel unit of the two pixel units comprises at least two micro light emitting devices of different colors arranged along the first direction ([0081]-[0087]); and the first direction (X, Fig. 4) and the second direction (Z, Fig. 4) intersect with each other (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 20, Kang discloses a display device ([0068]), comprising a display panel, wherein the display panel comprises:
A substrate (20, Fig. 3) having a display area (100, Fig. 3) ([0090]);
Wherein the display area comprises micro light emitting devices (51, 52, 53, Fig. 3) ([0090]), a first convex portion (top surfaces of 40, Fig. 3 are convex or curved) ([0094]) and a black film layer (60, Fig. 3) located on a same side of the substrate (20, Fig. 3) ([0100]), and
Wherein at least part of an orthographic projection of the black film layer (60, Fig. 3) on a plane of the substrate is located between orthographic projections of two adjacent micro light emitting devices of the micro light emitting devices (51, 52, 53, Fig. 3) on the plane of the substrate (20, Fig. 3).
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) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (U.S. 2022/0208747 A1; “Kang”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xue (U.S. 2020/0168661 A1; “Xue”).
Regarding claim 13, Kang discloses the micro light emitting devices (51, 52, 53, Fig. 3) are on the substrate (20, Fig. 3) ([0090]) but does not disclose an intervening planarization layer. However, Xue discloses a planarization layer (5, Fig. 2) located between a micro light emitting device (9, Fig. 2) and substrate (1, Fig. 2) ([0063]). This has the advantage of ensuring the micro light emitting device is on a flat surface. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Kang with a planarization layer located between the micro light emitting devices and the substrate, as taught by Xue, so as to ensure the micro light emitting devices are on a flat surface.
Regarding the limitation that when a distance between a surface of the micro light emitting devices away from the planarization layer and the planarization layer is H1, and a distance between a surface of the first convex portion away from the planarization layer and the planarization layer is H2, then (H1)/3≤H2≤(H1)/2, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select distances between the micro light emitting devices away from the planarization layer (H1) and the first convex portion away from the planarization layer (H2) such that (H1)/3≤H2≤(H1)/2, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REEMA PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1436. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm EST.
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, Christine Kim can be reached at (571)272-8458. 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.
/REEMA PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights