DETAILED ACTION
This application, 18/733710, attorney docket 239635/411598-07308, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This application is assigned to LG Display Co, Ltd.., and cl claims foreign priority to 10-2023-0113441, filed 08/29/2023. Claims 1-20 are pending and are considered below. Note that examiner will use numbers in parentheses to indicate numbered elements in prior art figures, and brackets to point to paragraph numbers where quoted material or specific teachings can be found.
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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites, “a plurality of patterns on the light emitting diode and in a ring shape…” It is not clear whether the patterns are each in a ring shape or the plurality forms a ring shape.
Dependent claims include the defect of the parent, except where noted.
Claim 7 recites, “top surfaces of the plurality of patterns are recessed toward the substrate.” It is not clear how a top surface can be recesses. Figure 6 shows a center portion of the top surface is recessed below the outer portions of the top surface.
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.
(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 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang et al (U.S. 2022/0328736).
As for claim 1,
Wang teaches in figure 1, a display device, comprising:
a substrate (140);
light emitting diode (110) on the substrate;
a plurality of patterns (130) on the light emitting diode and in a ring shape (annular protrusions R1-R5 [0031]) ; and
a cover layer (180) on the plurality of patterns, wherein the light emitting diode is a micro light emitting diode ([0017]).
As for claim 7,
Want teaches the display device according to claim 1, wherein top surfaces of the plurality of patterns are recessed toward the substrate. (The surfaces of the rings each recess toward the substrate.)
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Kuo et al. (U.S. 2017/0133357).
As for claim 14.
Wang teaches the display device according to claim 1 but does not teach a scattering layer on the plurality of patterns, the scattering layer including scattering particles.
However, Kuo teaches in figure 9A a scattering layer (108) on the plurality of patterns, the scattering layer including scattering particles (183 [0052]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of this application to add the scattering layer of Kuo to the device of Wang to “improve the optical performance” Kuo [0052]. One skilled in the art would have combined these elements with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Itou (U.S. 2022/0158049).
As for claim 15,
Wang teaches in figure 1 a display device, comprising:
a substrate (140);
a plurality of light emitting diodes (112/114/116) connected to the plurality of transistors and disposed on the plurality of transistors;
a protection layer (120) on the plurality of light emitting diodes; and
a plurality of patterns (132/134/136) on the protection layer, the plurality of patterns corresponding to the plurality of light emitting diodes, wherein the plurality of light emitting diodes are micro light emitting diodes ([0017]).
Wang does not teach a plurality of transistors on the substrate;
However, Itou teaches in figure 1 a plurality of transistors (gates at 110) on an LED substrate.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of this application add the transistors of Itou to the device of Wang, so that the LEDs can be individually activated. One skilled in the art would have combined these elements with a reasonable expectation of success.
As for claim 16,
Wang in view of Itou makes obvious the display device according to claim 15,and in the combination, Wang teaches that top surfaces of the plurality of patterns are curved surfaces recessed toward the substrate. (shown in figure 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6, 8-13 and 17-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and the §112b rejection of claim 1 is overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As for claim 2,
The prior art does not teach or make obvious the display device according to claim 1, wherein spacing between the plurality of patterns is same.
Claims 3-6 depend from claim 2 and include the same novel feature.
As for claim 8, 17 and 18
The prior art does not teach the display device according to claim 1, wherein a spaced distance between the plurality of patterns on one side from a center of the light emitting diode is different from a spaced distance between the plurality of patterns on a another side from the center of the light emitting diode.
Claims 9-11 depend from claim 8 and include the same novel feature
As for claims 12, and 19,
The prior art does not teach a refractive index of the plurality of patterns is lower than a refractive index of the cover layer.
As for claim 13,
The prior art does not teach the display device according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of patterns comprise a photoresist material and the cover layer comprises parylene.
As for claim 20,
The prior art does not teach a reflection plate disposed below a light emitting diode from the plurality of light emitting diode, wherein a length of the reflector plate extending to one side from the center of the light emitting diode is smaller than a length of the reflector plate extending to the other side from the center of the light emitting diode.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN A BODNAR whose telephone number is (571)272-4660. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th and every other Friday 7:30-5:30 Central time.
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 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.
/JOHN A BODNAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights