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 .
Detailed Action
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 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.
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-AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Claims 1, 2 and 9-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bibl (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2021/0313305).
Regarding Claim 1
FIG. 11 of Bibl discloses a Light-Emitting Device-Thin Film Transistor (LED-TFT) integration structure, comprising: a substrate (102) comprising a light emitting area and a driving area; a metal reflective film (142) formed on the substrate [0053]; a buffer layer (126) formed on the metal reflective film; LED (400) disposed in the light emitting area; a protective layer (500) formed on the LED; a thin film transistor (T2) disposed in the driving area and configured to drive the LED [0044]; and an ohmic contact metal (140) for electrically connecting a cathode of the LED with the metal reflective film [0058], wherein the LED and the thin film transistor are integrally formed on the substrate.
Regarding Claim 2
FIG. 11 of Bibl discloses an active layer of the thin film transistor is disposed lower than a light emitting layer of the LED (400).
Regarding Claim 9
Bibl discloses the metal reflective film comprises at least one of Ag and Al, and reflects light generated from the LED to increase light extraction efficiency of the LED [0053].
Regarding Claim 10
The limitation “a semiconductor thin film of the LED is grown at low temperature by supplying additional energy to a physical vapor deposition method and a chemical vapor deposition method, and the substrate is at least one of a glass substrate, a stainless steel substrate, and a polymer substrate” is considered to be a process or functional limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), MPEP 2113. Since Bibl discloses an identical or substantially identical device, Claim 10 is unpatentable even though the Bibl product was made by a different process.
Regarding Claim 11
The limitation “the physical vapor deposition method uses at least one of a sputtering method, an e-beam deposition method and a thermal evaporation method” is considered to be a process or functional limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), MPEP 2113. Since Bibl discloses an identical or substantially identical device, Claim 11 is unpatentable even though the Bibl product was made by a different process.
Regarding Claim 12
The limitation “the additional energy comprises at least one of ion beam, electron beam, plasma, ultraviolet ray, laser and LED light” is considered to be a process or functional limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), MPEP 2113. Since Bibl discloses an identical or substantially identical device, Claim 12 is unpatentable even though the Bibl product was made by a different process.
Regarding Claim 13
FIG. 11 of Bibl discloses an LED-TFT integration structure, comprising: a substrate (102) comprising a light emitting area and a driving area; a protective layer (126) formed on the substrate; a thin film transistor (T1) disposed in the driving area and configured to drive the LED; a metal reflective film (142) formed on the thin film transistor [0080]; an LED (400) disposed in the light emitting area; and TCO (318) formed on the LED, wherein the thin film transistor and the LED are integrally formed on the substrate
Regarding Claim 14
FIG. 11 of Bibl discloses in the TFT-LED integration substrate, the substrate, the protective layer, a thin film transistor layer (T1), the metal reflective film (142), an LED layer (400), and the TCO (318) are sequentially laminated. The limitation “the LED and the thin film transistor are fabricated in batches using a TFT-LED integration substrate” is considered to be a process or functional limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), MPEP 2113.
Regarding Claim 15
The limitation “the LED-TFT integration structure is fabricated by a process comprising: fabricating the TFT-LED integration substrate; etching the LED layer to expose the thin film transistor layer; etching the metal reflective film; forming an insulating protective film on the TCO and the LED; exposing an upper part of the TCO; etching GI; depositing a metal thin film; and forming a gate, source thin film, and drain thin film of the thin film transistor” is considered to be a process or functional limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), MPEP 2113.
Claim 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beak (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2020/0135971).
Regarding Claim 13
FIG. 2 of Beak discloses an LED-TFT integration structure, comprising: a substrate (111) comprising a light emitting area and a driving area; a protective layer (113) formed on the substrate; a thin film transistor (120) disposed in the driving area and configured to drive the LED; a metal reflective film (143) formed on the thin film transistor [0041]; an LED (130) disposed in the light emitting area; and TCO (134) formed on the LED [0046], wherein the thin film transistor and the LED are integrally formed on the substrate.
Claim 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2020/0357826).
Regarding Claim 13
FIG. 5 of Chen discloses an LED-TFT integration structure, comprising: a substrate (102) comprising a light emitting area and a driving area; a protective layer (108) formed on the substrate; a thin film transistor (TFT) disposed in the driving area and configured to drive the LED; a metal reflective film (172) formed on the thin film transistor [0066]; an LED (152) disposed in the light emitting area; and TCO (148) formed on the LED [0052], wherein the thin film transistor and the LED are integrally formed on the substrate.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 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.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beak (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2020/0135971), in view of Chae (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0165037).
Regarding Claim 1
FIG. 2 of Beak discloses a Light-Emitting Device-Thin Film Transistor (LED-TFT) integration structure, comprising: a substrate (111) comprising a light emitting area and a driving area; a metal reflective film (143) formed on the substrate [0042]; a buffer layer (115) formed on the metal reflective film; LED (130) disposed in the light emitting area; a protective layer (500) formed on the LED; a thin film transistor (120) disposed in the driving area and configured to drive the LED [0036], wherein the LED and the thin film transistor are integrally formed on the substrate.
Beak is silent with respect to “an ohmic contact metal for electrically connecting a cathode of the LED with the metal reflective film”.
FIG. 35 of Chae discloses a similar device, comprising an ohmic contact metal (228a) for electrically connecting a cathode of the LED with the metal reflective film (228b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Beak, as taught by Chae. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Beak in the above manner for purpose of increasing a light emitting area of each sub-pixel without increasing the pixel area ([0009] of Chae).
Regarding Claim 2
FIG. 2 of Beak discloses an active layer (122) of the thin film transistor (120) is disposed lower than a light emitting layer of the LED (130).
Regarding Claim 3
FIG. 2 of Beak discloses a source thin film (123) of the thin film transistor blocks light emitted from the LED from flowing into the active layer of the thin film transistor.
Regarding Claim 5
The limitation “the LED-TFT integration structure is fabricated by a process comprising: forming a metal reflective film on a substrate; forming a buffer layer on the metal reflective film; forming an LED in a light emitting area on the substrate; forming a protective layer on the LED; forming a thin film transistor in a driving area on the substrate; and electrically connecting a cathode of the LED with the metal reflective film using an ohmic contact metal” is considered to be a process or functional limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), MPEP 2113. Since Beak discloses an identical or substantially identical device, Claim 5 is unpatentable even though the Beak product was made by a different process.
Claim 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beak and Chae, in view of Takechi (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0273125).
Regarding Claim 4
Beak as modified by Chae discloses Claim 2.
Beak as modified by Chae is silent with respect to “the active layer of the thin film transistor is an oxide semiconductor comprising at least one of amorphous silicon, nanocrystalline silicon, microcrystalline silicon, polycrystalline silicon, and InGaZnO-based materials”.
FIG. 5 of Takechi discloses a similar device, wherein the active layer (522) of the thin film transistor is an oxide semiconductor comprising at least one of amorphous silicon, nanocrystalline silicon, microcrystalline silicon, polycrystalline silicon, and InGaZnO-based materials [0063].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Beak, as taught by Takechi. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Beak in the above manner due to its high carrier mobility, low off-sate current, and excellent stability.
Claim 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beak and Chae, in view of Nobuhisa (CN 10370478, machine-translation provided).
Regarding Claim 6
Beak as modified by Chae discloses Claim 1, wherein, in the LED-TFT integration substrate, the substrate, the metal reflective film, the buffer layer, an LED layer, the protective layer.
Beak as modified by Chae is silent with respect to in the LED-TFT integration substrate, the substrate, an LED layer “and a thin film transistor layer are sequentially laminated”.
FIG. 12 of Nobuhisa discloses a similar device, wherein in the LED-TFT integration substrate, the substrate (11), a buffer layer (12), an LED layer (21-23), and a thin film transistor layer (60) are sequentially laminated.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Beak, as taught by Nobuhisa. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Beak in the above manner for purpose of providing a semiconductor light emitting device and its driving device are arranged on the same one semiconductor substrate and prevent an erroneous operation generated by the semiconductor light-emitting device in the driving device ([0005] of Nobuhisa).
The limitation “the LED and the thin film transistor are fabricated in batches using an LED-TFT integration substrate” is considered to be a process or functional limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), MPEP 2113.
Claims 6-8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bibl, in view of Han (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2021/0118944).
Regarding Claim 6
Bibl discloses Claim 1, wherein, in the LED-TFT integration substrate, the substrate, the metal reflective film, the buffer layer, an LED layer, the protective layer.
Beak as modified by Chae is silent with respect to in the LED-TFT integration substrate, the substrate, an LED layer “and a thin film transistor layer are sequentially laminated”.
FIG. 4 of Han discloses a similar device, wherein in the LED-TFT integration substrate, the substrate (210), a metal reflective film (241), an LED layer (240), a protective layer (237), and a thin film transistor layer (230) are sequentially laminated.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Beak, as taught by Han. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Beak in the above manner for purpose of robustness and high efficiency ([0007] of Han).
The limitation “the LED and the thin film transistor are fabricated in batches using an LED-TFT integration substrate” is considered to be a process or functional limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), MPEP 2113.
Regarding Claim 7
Bibl discloses Claim 6, comprising a gate of the thin film transistor; a TCO (318) on the LED layer (400); an insulating protective film (122) between the TCO and the thin film transistor (T1); a source thin film and drain thin film of the thin film transistor; and a cathode of the LED electrically connecting with the metal reflective film (142) using an ohmic contact metal. The limitation “the LED-TFT integration structure is fabricated by a process comprising: fabricating an LED-TFT integration substrate; etching the thin film transistor layer to expose the LED layer; forming a light-blocking film” is considered to be a process or functional limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), MPEP 2113.
Regarding Claim 8
Bibl as modified by Han discloses in the LED-TFT integration substrate, the substrate, the metal reflective film, the buffer layer, an LED layer, TCO, the protective layer, and a thin film transistor layer are sequentially laminated. The limitation “the LED and the thin film transistor are fabricated in batches using an LED-TFT integration substrate” is considered to be a process or functional limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), MPEP 2113.
Pertinent Art
Sakariya (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2014/0159064), Oshima (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2016/0104759).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHENG-BAI ZHU whose telephone number is (571)270-3904. The examiner can normally be reached on 11am – 7pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chad Dicke can be reached on (571)270-7996. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHENG-BAI ZHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights