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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on 02/20/2024, 05/02/2025 and 09/09/2025 has been considered and made of record.
Claim objections
Claim 2-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 should read: The display device of claim 1, comprising; a plurality of gate lines disposed along a first direction on the substrate; and a plurality of data lines disposed along a second direction on the substrate, wherein a plurality of sub-pixels are defined at crossings of the plurality of gate lines and the plurality of data lines, and wherein each of the plurality of semiconductor light emitting devices is disposed in a corresponding sub-pixel of the plurality of sub-pixels.
Claim 3 should read: The display device of claim 2, wherein each sub-pixel of the plurality of sub-pixels has a driving region where a transistor is disposed and a light emitting region where the semiconductor light emitting device is disposed.
Claim 4 should read: The display device of claim 3, wherein the uneven layer comprises a plurality of uneven patterns, and wherein each of the plurality of the uneven patterns is disposed on a corresponding sub-pixel of the plurality of sub-pixels.
Claim 5 should read: The display device of claim 4, wherein a size of one of the uneven patterns of the plurality the uneven pattern is greater than the size of the semiconductor light emitting device.
Claim 6 should read: The display device of claim 4, wherein each of the uneven patterns of the plurality of the uneven patterns is disposed in the light emitting region of a corresponding sub-pixel of the plurality of sub-pixels.
Claim 7 should read: The display device of claim 4, wherein each of the uneven patterns of the plurality of the uneven patterns is disposed in the driving region and the light emitting region of a corresponding sub-pixel of the plurality of sub-pixels.
Claim 8 should read: The display device of claim 4, wherein the plurality of uneven patterns are disposed to be spaced apart from each other between the plurality of sub-pixels.
Claim 9 should read: The display device of claim 4, wherein the insulating layer comprises a plurality of insulating patterns, and wherein each of the insulating patterns of the plurality of insulating patterns is disposed on a corresponding uneven pattern of the plurality of uneven patterns.
Claim 10 should read: The display device of claim 9, wherein the plurality of insulating patterns are disposed to be spaced apart from each other between the plurality of sub-pixels.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation: ” the semiconductor light emitting device comprises one of a lateral-type semiconductor light emitting device and a flip-chip type semiconductor light emitting device”. In paragraphs [0038], [0122], [0132], [0151] and [0174] the written description teaches: the semiconductor light emitting device comprises, or can be, a lateral-type semiconductor light emitting device or a flip-chip type semiconductor light emitting. No parts of the specification appear to include a written description of a display having light emitting devices that comprises both types. Therefore, a person skilled in the art, at the time the application was filed, would not have recognized that the inventor was in possession of the invention as claimed, in view of the disclosure of the application as filed. For the purpose of examination, this limitation of claim 1 will be interpreted as: the semiconductor light emitting device comprises one of a lateral-type semiconductor light emitting device or a flip-chip type semiconductor light emitting device.
Claims 2-20 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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, 2, 4 and 11 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 recites the limitation “the light emitting device”. It is not clear to which one of the light emitting devices of the plurality of semiconductor light emitting devices is the claim referring to, therefore the claim is indefinite. For the purpose of examination, claim 1 will be interpreted as: “A display device, comprising: a substrate; an uneven layer on the substrate; an insulating layer on the uneven layer; and a plurality of semiconductor light emitting devices on the insulating layer, wherein each of the plurality of semiconductor light emitting devices comprises one of a lateral-type semiconductor light emitting device or a flip-chip type semiconductor light emitting device, wherein an upper surface of the uneven layer has roughness, and wherein a size of the uneven layer is greater than a size of a semiconductor light emitting device of the plurality of semiconductor light emitting devices.
Claims 2-20 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the sub-pixel”. It is not clear to which one of the sub-pixels of the plurality of sub-pixels is the claim referring to, therefore the claim is indefinite. For the purpose of examination, claim 2 will be interpreted as: The display device of claim 1, comprising; a plurality of gate lines disposed along a first direction on the substrate; and a plurality of data lines disposed along a second direction on the substrate, wherein a plurality of sub-pixels are defined at crossings of the plurality of gate lines and the plurality of data lines, and wherein each of the plurality of semiconductor light emitting devices is disposed in a corresponding sub-pixel of the plurality of sub-pixels.
Claims 3-17 are rejected as being dependent on claim 2.
Considering the above changes, claim 3 will be interpreted as: The display device of claim 2, wherein each of the plurality of sub-pixels has a driving region where a transistor is disposed and a light emitting region where a semiconductor light emitting device of the plurality of semiconductor light emitting devices is disposed.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the uneven pattern”. It is not clear to which one of the uneven patterns of the plurality of uneven patterns is the claim referring to, therefore the claim is indefinite. For the purpose of examination, claim 4 will be interpreted as: The display device of claim 3, wherein the uneven layer comprises a plurality of uneven patterns, and wherein each uneven pattern of the plurality of the uneven patterns is disposed on a corresponding of the plurality of sub-pixels.
Claims 5-10 are rejected as being dependent on claim 4.
Considering the above changes, claims 5, 6 and 7 will be interpreted as follows:
Claim 5 will be interpreted as: The display device of claim 4, wherein a size of each one of the uneven patterns of the plurality of the uneven patterns is greater than the size of the semiconductor light emitting device of the plurality of semiconductor light emitting devices.
Claim 6 will be interpreted as: The display device of claim 4, wherein each of the uneven patterns of the plurality of the uneven patterns is disposed in the light emitting region of a corresponding sub-pixel of the plurality of sub-pixels.
Claim 7 will be interpreted as: The display device of claim 4, wherein each of the uneven patterns of the plurality of the uneven patterns is disposed in the driving region and the light emitting region of a corresponding sub-pixel of the plurality of sub-pixels.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the other side”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. For the purpose of examination, this limitation of claim 11 will be interpreted as “another side”.
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.
Claims 1-3, 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by disclosed prior art of Su et al., (Korean Patent Publication Number, KR 20180102422A ) hereinafter referenced as Su.
Regarding claim 1, Su teaches a display device, comprising: a substrate (Fig.12, element #1010); an uneven layer on the substrate (Fig.12, element #1062); an insulating layer on the uneven layer (Fig.12, element #1063, elements #1062 and #1063 may be made of the same material and the material is an insulator, otherwise will short the electrodes of the LEDs); and a plurality of semiconductor light emitting devices on the insulating layer (Fig.15, elements #4050) wherein each of the plurality of semiconductor light emitting devices comprises one of a lateral-type semiconductor light emitting device or a flip-chip type semiconductor light emitting device (Fig.5 shows flip-chip type LED, paragraph [0028]), wherein an upper surface of the uneven layer has roughness (any surface has roughness), and wherein a size of the uneven layer is greater than a size of a semiconductor light emitting device of the plurality of semiconductor light emitting devices (Fig.12, largest width of element #1062 in the horizontal direction is larger than the width of the LEDs in the horizontal direction).
Regarding claim 2, Su teaches the display device of claim 1 as set forth in the anticipation rejection. Su further teaches the display device of claim 1, comprising; a plurality of gate lines disposed along a first direction on the substrate (Fig. 11, elements #GL, paragraph [0118], rows 1-2); and a plurality of data lines disposed along a second direction on the substrate (Fig.11, elements #DL, paragraph [0118], rows 1-2), wherein a plurality of sub-pixels are defined at crossings of the plurality of gate lines and the plurality of data lines (Fig.11, shows the sub-pixel) and wherein each of the plurality of semiconductor light emitting devices is disposed in a corresponding sub-pixel of the plurality of sub-pixels. (Fig.11, each sub-pixel shows an LED disposed in it).
Regarding claim 3, Su teaches the display device of claims 1 and 2 as set forth in the anticipation rejection. Su further teaches the display device of claim 2, wherein each of the plurality of sub-pixels has a driving region where a transistor is disposed (Fig.12, region where transistor T2 is disposed) and a light emitting region where a semiconductor light emitting device of the plurality of semiconductor light emitting devices is disposed (Fig.12, region between CH1 and CH2).
Regarding claim 11, Su teaches the display device of claims 1, 2 and 3 as set forth in the anticipation rejection. Su further teaches the display device of claim 3, comprising: a first electrode wiring electrically connected to the transistor and one side of the semiconductor light emitting device (Fig.12, element #AE, connected to the left top side of the LED); and a second electrode wiring electrically connected to another side of the semiconductor light emitting device (Fig.12, element #CE, connected to the right top side of the LED), wherein the first electrode wiring is disposed in a contact hole that penetrates the insulating layer and the uneven layer (Fig.12, element #CH1).
Regarding claim 19, Su teaches the display device of claims 1 as set forth in the anticipation rejection. Su further teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the insulating layer is a planarization layer having a flat upper surface (Fig.12, the upper surface of the left or right side of element #1063 is flat).
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Usami et al., (United States Patent Application Publication Number US 2011/0180823 A1) hereinafter referenced as Usami in view of disclosed prior art of Su et al., (Korean Patent Publication Number, KR 20180102422A) hereinafter referenced as Su.
Regarding claim 1, Usami teaches a display device, comprising: a substrate (Fig.2, element #22); an uneven layer on the substrate (Fig.2, element #17); an insulating layer on the uneven layer (Fig.2, element #16, similar to element #6 of Fig.1, paragraph [0089], rows 7-10); and a plurality of semiconductor light emitting devices on the insulating layer (Fig.2, element 14). Usami does not teach wherein each of the plurality of semiconductor light emitting devices comprises one of a lateral-type semiconductor light emitting device or a flip-chip type semiconductor light emitting device. Su teaches wherein each of the plurality of semiconductor light emitting devices comprises one of a lateral-type semiconductor light emitting device or a flip-chip type semiconductor light emitting device (Fig.15 shows a plurality of semiconductor light emitting devices on an insulating layer, each of the light emitting device is a lateral-type semiconductor device). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Su and disclose wherein each semiconductor light emitting device of the plurality of semiconductor light emitting devices comprises one of a lateral-type semiconductor light emitting device or a flip-chip type semiconductor light emitting device. Flip chip LEDs provide high light output and compact design.
Usami further teaches wherein an upper surface of the uneven layer has roughness (Fig.2, upper surface of element #17 has roughness), and wherein a size of the uneven layer is greater than a size of any of semiconductor light emitting device, of the plurality of semiconductor light emitting devices (Fig.2, element #17 is wider than any element #!4 in the horizontal direction).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Usami and Su teaches the display device of claim 1 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Su further teaches the display device of claim 1, comprising; a plurality of gate lines disposed along a first direction on the substrate (Fig. 11, elements #GL, paragraph [0118], rows 1-2); and a plurality of data lines disposed along a second direction on the substrate (Fig.11, elements #DL, paragraph [0118], rows 1-2), wherein a plurality of sub-pixels are defined at crossings of the plurality of gate lines and the plurality of data lines (Fig.11, shows the sub-pixel) and wherein each of the plurality of semiconductor light emitting devices is disposed in a corresponding sub-pixel of the plurality of sub-pixels. (Fig.11, the sub-pixel shows an LED). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Su and disclose a plurality of gate lines disposed along a first direction on the substrate; and a plurality of data lines disposed along a second direction on the substrate, wherein a plurality of sub-pixels are defined at crossings of the plurality of gate lines and the plurality of data lines and wherein each of the plurality of semiconductor light emitting devices is disposed in a corresponding sub-pixel of the plurality of sub-pixels. As disclosed by Su this design of the display device can improve light extraction efficiency while facilitating wiring (paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Usami and Su teaches the display device of claims 1 and 2 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Su further teaches the display device of claim 2, wherein each of the plurality of sub-pixels has a driving region where a transistor is disposed (Fig.12, region where transistor T2 is disposed) and a light emitting region where a semiconductor light emitting device of the plurality of semiconductor light emitting devices is disposed (Fig.12, region between CH1 and CH2). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Su and disclose wherein each sub-pixel of the plurality of sub-pixels has a driving region where a transistor is disposed and a light emitting region where a semiconductor light emitting device of the plurality of semiconductor light emitting devices is disposed. The subpixel is the unit light emitting area of a display device and therefore, it requires an LED to emit light and a driving transistor to provide power to the LED, and each needs a region to occupy.
Claims 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Usami in view of Su and in view of Kobayashi et al., (Japanese Patent Publication Number JP 2005062400 A) hereinafter referenced as Kobayashi.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Usami and Su teaches the display device of claims 1, 2 and 3 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. The combination of Usami and Su does not teach the display device of claim 3, wherein the uneven layer comprises a plurality of uneven patterns, and wherein each uneven pattern of the plurality of the uneven patterns is disposed on a corresponding of the plurality of sub-pixels. Kobayashi teaches wherein the uneven layer comprises a plurality of uneven patterns Fig.6, element #RFcomprises recesses #15), and wherein each uneven pattern of the plurality of the uneven patterns is disposed on a corresponding of the plurality of sub-pixels (Fig.6, under each LED of a corresponding sub-pixel, element #RF has a pattern). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Kobayashi and disclose wherein the uneven layer comprises a plurality of uneven patterns, and wherein each uneven pattern of the plurality of the uneven patterns is disposed on a corresponding sub-pixel of the plurality of sub-pixels. As disclosed by Kobayashi, the patterns are used to reflect the light emitted by the light emitting devices, which increases light emission efficiency of the device (paragraph [0012]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Usami and Su teaches the display device of claims 1, 2 and 3 as set forth in the obviousness rejection and the combination of Usami, Su and Kobayashi teaches the display device of claim 4 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Kobayashi further teaches the display device of claim 4, wherein a size of each uneven pattern of the plurality of the uneven patterns is greater than the size of the semiconductor light emitting device of the plurality of semiconductor light emitting devices (Fig.6, the horizontal width of element #RF is larger than the horizontal width of the light emitting element). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Kobayashi and disclose a size of the
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Usami and Su teaches the display device of claims 1, 2 and 3 as set forth in the obviousness rejection and the combination of Usami, Su and Kobayashi teaches the display device of claim 4 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Usami further teaches the display device of claim 4, wherein each uneven pattern of the plurality of the uneven patterns is disposed in the light emitting region of a corresponding sub-pixel of the plurality of sub-pixels. (Fig.2).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Usami and Su teaches the display device of claims 1, 2 and 3 as set forth in the obviousness rejection and the combination of Usami, Su and Kobayashi teaches the display device of claim 4 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Usami further teaches the display device of claim 4, wherein each uneven pattern of the plurality of the uneven patterns is disposed in the driving region and the light emitting region of a corresponding sub-pixel of the plurality of sub-pixels (Fig.2, the uneven pattern covers the entire area).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Usami and Su teaches the display device of claims 1, 2 and 3 as set forth in the obviousness rejection and the combination of Usami, Su and Kobayashi teaches the display device of claim 4 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Kobayashi further teaches the display device of claim 4, wherein the plurality of uneven patterns are disposed to be spaced apart from each other between the plurality of sub-pixels (Fig.2, elements #15 are disposed spaced apart from each other between the sub-pixels). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Kobayashi and disclose wherein the plurality of uneven patterns are disposed to be spaced apart from each other between the plurality of sub-pixels. As disclosed by Kobayashi, this provides the necessary space for the contact vias for the transistors of the sub-pixels to the electrodes of LEDs (Fig.6) or other metal lines required by the design of the display.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Usami and Su teaches the display device of claims 1, 2 and 3 as set forth in the obviousness rejection and the combination of Usami, Su and Kobayashi teaches the display device of claim 4 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Kobayashi further teaches the display device of claim 4, wherein the insulating layer comprises a plurality of insulating patterns, and wherein each insulating pattern of the plurality of the insulating patterns is disposed on a corresponding uneven pattern of the plurality of uneven patterns (Fig.6, element #26 has periodic patterns, diffraction gratings, disposed on layer #RF). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Kobayashi and disclose wherein the insulating layer comprises a plurality of insulating patterns, and wherein the insulating patterns are disposed on the uneven patterns. As disclosed by Kobayashi the insulating patterns form diffraction gratings that help extract light more efficiently (paragraph [0039])
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Usami and Su teaches the display device of claims 1, 2 and 3 as set forth in the obviousness rejection and the combination of Usami, Su and Kobayashi teaches the display device of claims 4 and 9 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Kobayashi further teaches the display device of claim 9, wherein the plurality of insulating patterns are disposed to be spaced apart from each other between the plurality of sub-pixels (Fig.6, the insulating patterns as mapped in claim 9, are spaced apart from each other). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Kobayashi and disclose wherein the insulating patterns are disposed to be spaced apart from each other between the plurality of sub-pixels. The spacing of the insulating patterns follows the spacing of the sub-pixels to maximize the effect of the patterns on increasing the light extraction efficiency.
Claims 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Usami in view of Su, Kobayashi and in view of Cok et al., (United States Patent Application Publication Number, US 2020/0020676 A1) hereinafter referenced as Cok.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Usami and Su teaches the display device of claims 1 and 2 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. The combination of Usami and Su does not teach the display device of claim 2, wherein the uneven layer comprises a first uneven pattern, a second uneven pattern, and a third uneven pattern, wherein the first uneven pattern is disposed in a first sub-pixel and a first dummy sub-pixel defined along a first stripe column, wherein the second uneven pattern is disposed in a second sub-pixel and a second dummy sub-pixel defined along a second stripe column, and wherein the third uneven pattern is disposed on a third sub-pixel and a third dummy sub-pixel defined along a third stripe column. Kobayashi teaches wherein the uneven layer (Fig.6, elements #RF, which has recesses #15) comprises a first uneven pattern, a second uneven pattern, and a third uneven pattern (Fig.2, elements #15 has three patterns), wherein the first uneven pattern is disposed in a first sub-pixel defined along a first stripe column, wherein the second uneven pattern is disposed in a second sub-pixel defined along a second stripe column, and wherein the third uneven pattern is disposed on a third sub-pixel defined along a third stripe (Fig.6 #RF layers are disposed in the sub-pixels. Note the Fig.1 shows the display comprised of multiple rows and column, and the patterns are present in all the sub-pixels). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Kobayashi and disclose wherein the uneven layer comprises a first uneven pattern, a second uneven pattern, and a third uneven pattern, wherein the first uneven pattern is disposed in a first sub-pixel defined along a first stripe column, wherein the second uneven pattern is disposed in a second sub-pixel defined along a second stripe column, and wherein the third uneven pattern is disposed on a third sub-pixel defined along a third stripe column. As disclosed by Kobayashi, the patterns are used to reflect the light emitted by the light emitting devices which increases light emission efficiency of the device (paragraph [0012]).
The combination of Usami, Su and Kobayashi does not teach dummy sub-pixels and the uneven patterns disposed in the sun-pixels and dummy sub-pixels defined along stripe columns. Cok teaches a display device where dummy sub-pixels alternate with sub-pixels along columns (Fig.1, dummy sub-pixels are in locations elements #24, and alternate with sub-pixels elements #22 along columns, paragraph [0083], row 16-20). Furthermore, Cok teaches the dummy sub-pixels are substantially identical with the sub-pixels (paragraph [0083], row 26-28). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Cok and disclose dummy sub-pixels alternate with sub-pixels along columns. As disclosed by Cok, the sub-pixels can provide light output in place of a failed identical sub-pixel (paragraph [0083]), located in the same column, in order to maintain the output quality of the display. Since the dummy sub-pixels are identical with the sub-pixels in the same column, the uneven pattern extends under the dummy subpixels in order to maintain the same light output. As a result, the combination of Usami, Su, Kobayashi and Cok teaches uneven patterns disposed in a sub-pixels and a dummy sub-pixels defined along stripe columns.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Usami and Su teaches the display device of claims 1 and 2 as set forth in the obviousness rejection, and the combination of Usami, Su, Kobayashi and Cok teaches the display device of claim 12 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Kobayashi further teaches the display device of claim 12, wherein the first uneven pattern is formed integrally with a first sub-pixel and a first dummy sub-pixel defined along the first stripe column, wherein the second uneven pattern is formed integrally with a second sub-pixel and a second dummy sub-pixel defined along the second stripe column, and wherein the third uneven pattern is formed integrally with a third sub-pixel and a third dummy sub-pixel defined along the third stripe column (the patterns of layer #RF are formed integrally with the sub-pixels in which they are located, paragraph [0032]). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Kobayashi and disclose wherein the first uneven pattern is formed integrally with a first sub-pixel and a first dummy sub-pixel defined along the first stripe column, wherein the second uneven pattern is formed integrally with a second sub-pixel and a second dummy sub-pixel defined along the second stripe column, and wherein the third uneven pattern is formed integrally with a third sub-pixel and a third dummy sub-pixel defined along the third stripe column. Making the uneven patterns integrally with the sub-pixels, along the stripe columns, is part of the manufacturing process as described by Kobayashi, which allows the alignment of the patterns with the corresponding sub-pixels for optimizing the light extraction efficiency.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Usami and Su teaches the display device of claims 1 and 2 as set forth in the obviousness rejection, and the combination of Usami, Su, Kobayashi and Cok teaches the display device of claim 12 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Kobayashi further teaches he display device of claim 12, wherein the first to third uneven patterns are disposed to be spaced apart from each other between the first to third stripe columns (Fig.2, uneven patterns, elements #15 are disposed spaced apart from each other between the columns). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Kobayashi and disclose wherein the plurality of uneven patterns are disposed to be spaced apart from each other between the plurality of sub-pixels. As disclosed by Kobayashi, this provides the necessary space for the contact vias of the transistors of the sub-pixels to connect the electrodes of LEDs (Fig.6) or other metal lines required by the design of the display.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Usami and Su teaches the display device of claims 1 and 2 as set forth in the obviousness rejection, and the combination of Usami, Su, Kobayashi and Cok teaches the display device of claim 12 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Kobayashi further teaches the display device of claim 12, wherein the insulating layer comprises a first insulating pattern, a second insulating pattern, and a third insulating pattern, wherein the first insulating pattern is disposed on the first uneven pattern, wherein the second insulating pattern is disposed on the second uneven pattern, and wherein the third insulating pattern is disposed on the third uneven pattern (Fig.6, element #26 has a periodic patterns, diffraction gratings, disposed on each uneven pattern of layer #RF). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Kobayashi and disclose wherein the insulating layer comprises a first insulating pattern, a second insulating pattern, and a third insulating pattern, wherein the first insulating pattern is disposed on the first uneven pattern, wherein the second insulating pattern is disposed on the second uneven pattern, and wherein the third insulating pattern is disposed on the third uneven pattern. As disclosed by Kobayashi the insulating patterns form diffraction gratings that help extract light more efficiently (paragraph [0039]).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Usami and Su teaches the display device of claims 1 and 2 as set forth in the obviousness rejection, and the combination of Usami, Su, Kobayashi and Cok teaches the display device of claims 12 and 15 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Kobayashi further teaches the display device of claim 15, wherein the first to third insulating patterns are disposed to be spaced apart from each other between the first to third stripe columns (Fig.6. the insulating patterns as in claim 15 are spaced apart from each other between the columns). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Kobayashi and disclose wherein the first to third insulating patterns are disposed to be spaced apart from each other between the first to third stripe columns. The spacing of the insulating patterns follows the spacing of the sub-pixels to maximize the effect of the patterns on increasing the light extraction efficiency.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Usami and Su teaches the display device of claims 1 and 2 as set forth in the obviousness rejection, and the combination of Usami, Su, Kobayashi and Cok teaches the display device of claim 12 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Su teaches the display device of claim 12, wherein the plurality of semiconductor light emitting devices comprises a plurality of red semiconductor light emitting devices, a plurality of green semiconductor light emitting devices, and a plurality of blue semiconductor light emitting devices (paragraph [0058]), wherein the plurality of red semiconductor light emitting devices are disposed in a plurality of sub-pixels defined along the first stripe column, wherein the plurality of green semiconductor light emitting devices are disposed in a plurality of sub-pixels defined along the second stripe column, and wherein the plurality of blue semiconductor light emitting devices are disposed in a plurality of sub-pixels defined along the third stripe column (Fig.1 and 2 show the pixels of same color disposed in columns, order of color is red, green and blue). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Su and disclose wherein the plurality of semiconductor light emitting devices comprises a plurality of red semiconductor light emitting devices, a plurality of green semiconductor light emitting devices, and a plurality of blue semiconductor light emitting devices, wherein the plurality of red semiconductor light emitting devices are disposed in a plurality of sub-pixels defined along the first stripe column, wherein the plurality of green semiconductor light emitting devices are disposed in a plurality of sub-pixels defined along the second stripe column, and wherein the plurality of blue semiconductor light emitting devices are disposed in a plurality of sub-pixels defined along the third stripe column. Making color displays with columns of red, green and blue pixels is well known in the art and therefore a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.03).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Usami in view of Su, Kobayashi and in view of Herner, (United States Patent Application Publication Number, US 2019/0355874 A1) hereinafter referenced as Herner.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Usami and Su teaches the display device of claim 1 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. The combination of Usami and Su does not teach the display device of claim 1, wherein the insulating layer is a distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) layer. Herner teaches the insulating layer is a distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) layer. (Fig.2I, element #28 is an insulating DBR, paragraph [0034], rows 23-30, located on a substrate, below the LED, element #20). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Herner and disclose wherein the insulating layer is a distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) layer. A DBR has high reflectivity, which can increase the light output of the LED.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CRISTIAN A TIVARUS whose telephone number is (703)756-4688. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:00 AM -5:00 PM 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, Dale Page can be reached at (571)270-7877. 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.
/CRISTIAN A TIVARUS/Examiner, Art Unit 2899 /DALE E PAGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights