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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "201" and "301" have both been used to designate the substrate of Fig 9. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
-Figs 8 and 9: reference characters 312, 314, and 315
-Fig 10: reference characters 413T and 416B
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “interval between the wavelength-selection reflection layer and the partition wall” of claims 6, 9, 12, 14, and 15 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the “interval between the wavelength-selection reflection layer and the partition wall” as described in the specification, [0084]-[0086]. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iguchi et. al. (US 20190273179 A1), hereinafter Iguchi, in view of Kajiyama et. al. (JP 2019028380 A).
Regarding claim 1, Iguchi teaches an LED display device (Fig 21 image display device 200j, [0143]) comprising: an LED array (Fig 21 array of micro LED elements 100j comprising N-side layer 11, light emission layer 12, and p-side layer 13, [0050]) formed by arranging a plurality of light emitting diodes (Fig 21 micro LED elements 100j, [0142]) that emit excitation light having a light emission peak wavelength of less than 420 nm (410nm, [0142]), on a substrate (Fig 21 drive circuit substrate 50, [0046]); a color conversion layer (Fig 21 layer comprising conversion potions 21j, 22 and 23); a wavelength-selective reflection layer (Fig 21 transmission layer 25j, [0142]) disposed on a side of (Fig 21) the color conversion layer (Fig 21 layer comprising conversion potions 21j, 22 and 23) opposite to the LED array (Fig 21 array of micro LED elements 100j); and an RGB reflection layer (Fig 21 reflection layer 10j, [0142]) disposed on an LED array (Fig 21 array of micro LED elements 100j) side with respect to the color conversion layer (Fig 21 layer comprising conversion potions 21j, 22 and 23), wherein the color conversion layer (Fig 21 layer comprising conversion potions 21j, 22 and 23) is disposed at each of positions (Fig 21) corresponding to the light emitting diodes of the LED array (Fig 21 array of micro LED elements 100j), and includes a red color conversion region (Fig 21 conversion portion 22, [0049]) that is excited by the excitation light and emits red light ([0049]), a green color conversion region (Fig 21 conversion portion 23, [0049]) that is excited by the excitation light and emits green light ([0049]), a blue color conversion region (Fig 21 conversion portion 21j, [0142]) that is excited by the excitation light and emits blue light ([0142]), and a partition wall (Fig 21 unlabeled gaps between conversion portions, [0079]) that divides the red color conversion region (Fig 21 conversion portion 22, [0049]), the green color conversion region (Fig 21 conversion portion 23, [0049]), and the blue color conversion region (Fig 21 conversion portion 21j, [0142]), a height h of the partition wall is 20 μm or less (8 µm, [0087]; Examiner notes that is the height of the conversion portions but the planarization portion is the same height so it is also 8 µm), the wavelength-selective reflection layer (Fig 21 transmission layer 25j, [0142]) selectively reflects light having a wavelength of the excitation light ([0142]) and is integrally formed at positions corresponding to the red color conversion region (Fig 21 conversion portion 22, [0049]), the green color conversion region (Fig 21 conversion portion 23, [0049]), and the blue color conversion region (Fig 21 conversion portion 21j, [0142]), and the RGB reflection layer (Fig 21 reflection layer 10j, [0142]) reflects at least light having a wavelength of 450 nm to 650 nm (reflects blue in addition to red and green, [0142]).
Iguchi fails to teach and a ratio w/h of a width w between partition walls to the height h is 2 or more.
However, Kajiyama teaches a ratio w/h of a width w between partition walls (Fig 5 partition wall 7, [0037] of translation corresponds to Iguchi: Fig 21 unlabeled gaps between conversion portions, [0079]) to the height h is 2 or more (2, [0030] of translation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Iguchi to incorporate the teachings of Kajiyama by having a w/h ratio of 2 or more. The w/h ratio is to prevent color mixing while having stable partition walls ([0007] of translation).
Regarding claim 2, Iguchi as modified in claim 1 teaches the RGB reflection layer (Fig 21 reflection layer 10j, [0142]) is disposed between (Fig 21) the color conversion layer (Fig 21 layer comprising conversion potions 21j, 22 and 23) and the LED array (Fig 21 array of micro LED elements 100j), and the RGB reflection layer (Fig 21 reflection layer 10j, [0142]) transmits the excitation light (transmits excitation light and reflects longer wavelengths, [0056]).
Regarding claim 4, Iguchi as modified in claim 1 teaches a thickness of the wavelength-selective reflection layer (Fig 21 transmission layer 25j, [0142]) is 5 μm or less (780 nm, [0082]).
Regarding claim 5, Iguchi as modified in claim 1 teaches a thickness of the RGB reflection layer (Fig 21 reflection layer 10j, [0142])is 40 μm or less (5.2 µm, [0067]).
Regarding claim 6, Iguchi as modified in claim 1 teaches an interval between the wavelength-selective reflection layer (Fig 21 transmission layer 25j, [0142]) and the partition wall (Figs 21 unlabeled gaps between conversion portions, [0079]) in a thickness direction is 5 μm or less.
Examiner notes that the transmission layer 25 is formed directly on the planarization layer 24 ([0081]-[0082]). One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that this implies the interval is 5 μm or less, since the one layer is deposited on the other. MPEP 2144.01
Regarding claim 7, Iguchi as modified in claim 2 teaches a thickness of the wavelength-selective reflection layer (Fig 21 transmission layer 25j, [0142]) is 5 μm or less (780 nm, [0082]).
Regarding claim 8, Iguchi as modified in claim 2 teaches a thickness of the RGB reflection layer (Fig 21 reflection layer 10j, [0142])is 40 μm or less (5.2 µm, [0067]).
Regarding claim 9, Iguchi as modified in claim 2 teaches an interval between the wavelength-selective reflection layer (Fig 21 transmission layer 25j, [0142]) and the partition wall (Figs 21 unlabeled gaps between conversion portions, [0079]) in a thickness direction is 5 μm or less.
Examiner notes that the transmission layer 25 is formed directly on the planarization layer 24 ([0081]-[0082]). One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that this implies the interval is 5 μm or less, since the one layer is deposited on the other. MPEP 2144.01
Regarding claim 13, Iguchi as modified in claim 4 teaches a thickness of the RGB reflection layer (Fig 21 reflection layer 10j, [0142]) is 40 μm or less (5.2 µm, [0067]).
Regarding claim 14, Iguchi as modified in claim 4 teaches an interval between the wavelength-selective reflection layer (Fig 21 transmission layer 25j, [0142]) and the partition wall (Figs 21 unlabeled gaps between conversion portions, [0079]) in a thickness direction is 5 μm or less.
Examiner notes that the transmission layer 25 is formed directly on the planarization layer 24 ([0081]-[0082]). One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that this implies the interval is 5 μm or less, since the one layer is deposited on the other. MPEP 2144.01
Regarding claim 15, Iguchi as modified in claim 5 teaches an interval between the wavelength-selective reflection layer (Fig 21 transmission layer 25j, [0142]) and the partition wall (Figs 21 unlabeled gaps between conversion portions, [0079]) in a thickness direction is 5 μm or less.
Examiner notes that the transmission layer 25 is formed directly on the planarization layer 24 ([0081]-[0082]). One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that this implies the interval is 5 μm or less, since the one layer is deposited on the other. MPEP 2144.01
Claims 3 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iguchi et. al. (US 20190273179 A1), hereinafter Iguchi, in view of Kajiyama et. al. (JP 2019028380 A), in further view of Iguchi (US 20200343410 A1), hereinafter Iguchi2.
Regarding claim 3, Iguchi as modified in claim 1 fails to teach the RGB reflection layer is disposed on at least a part of a position other than a region, in which the light emitting diode is disposed, on a surface of the substrate on which the light emitting diode is disposed, and the RGB reflection layer reflects at least light having a wavelength of 380 nm to 650 nm.
However, Iguchi2 teaches an LED display device having an LED array with micro LEDs surrounded by sloped banks (Fig 1). The sloped banks of Iguchi2 having a reflection material 20 that is disposed on at least a part of a position other than a region, in which a light emitting diode is disposed, on a surface of the substrate on which the light emitting diode is disposed (Fig 1) Further, Iguchi2 teaches the reflecting material 20 can be single layer or multilayer and has a metal layer ([0094]). In addition, the nitride semiconductor of Iguchi2 (Iguchi2: Fig 3A) is made in a similar manner to that of Iguchi (Iguchi: Fig 3A) and Iguchi2 teaches that a micro LED array may be made to emit ultraviolet light, the light then being converted to red, green, and blue ([0002]). One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have combined the LED array of Iguchi2 with the color conversion, wavelength reflection layer, and usage of ultraviolet light emitting elements of Iguchi, as each element performs the same function as it does separately and the results of the combination would have been predictable. One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do so in order to increase the amount of light being extracted from the light emitting elements ([0007]). That is “one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions.” MPEP 2143 (I)(A)
In modifying Iguchi and Kajiyama with Iguchi2 there would be a RGB reflection layer (Fig 1 reflection material 20, [0065]) is disposed on at least a part of a position other than a region, in which the light emitting diode (Fig 1 micro light emitting elements 100R/G/B, [0065]) is disposed, on a surface of the substrate (Fig 1 driving circuit substrate 50, [0064]) on which the light emitting diode (Fig 1 micro light emitting elements 100R/G/B, [0065]) is disposed, and the RGB reflection layer (Fig 1 reflection material 20, [0065]) reflects at least light having a wavelength of 380 nm to 650 nm (metal, such as silver or aluminum, [0094]; Examiner notes that since the material and structure is the same then the properties of reflecting light in the wavelength range is also met; MPEP 2112.01(I)).
Regarding claim 10, Iguchi as modified in claim 3 teaches a thickness of the wavelength-selective reflection layer (Iguchi: Fig 21 transmission layer 25j, [0142]) is 5 μm or less (Iguchi: 780 nm, [0082]).
Regarding claim 11, Iguchi as modified in claim 3 fails to teach a thickness of the RGB reflection layer is 40 μm or less.
However, Iguchi2 teaches the reflection material needs to be able to shield light and is preferably tens of nm or more ([0094]). Iguchi teaches the reflection layer has a thickness of 5.2 µm ([0067]). Further, Iguchi teaches that this thickness is to provide a desired amount of reflectance of particular wavelengths ([0067]). the thickness of the RGB reflection layer is therefore a result-effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the thickness of the RGB reflection layer as Iguchi and Iguchi2 has identified the thickness as a result-effective variable. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at a thickness of the RGB reflection layer being 40 μm or less, in order to achieve the desired balance between the amount of reflectance and the manufacturing time for the layer, as taught by Iguchi and Iguchi2. MPEP 2144.05.
Furthermore, the applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed thickness is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e., that the invention would not work without the specific claimed dimensions).
Regarding claim 12, Iguchi as modified in claim 3 teaches an interval between the wavelength-selective reflection layer (Iguchi: Fig 21 transmission layer 25j, [0142]) and the partition wall (Iguchi: Figs 21 unlabeled gaps between conversion portions, [0079]) in a thickness direction is 5 μm or less.
Examiner notes that the transmission layer 25 is formed directly on the planarization layer 24 ([0081]-[0082]). One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that this implies the interval is 5 μm or less, since the one layer is deposited on the other. MPEP 2144.01
Conclusion
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVIN L LEE whose telephone number is (703)756-1921. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5 pm (ET).
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, STEVEN GAUTHIER can be reached at (571)270-0373. 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.
/ALVIN L LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights