DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to application No. 18/760,808 filed on July 01, 2024.
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 .
Acknowledgment
This Office action is responsive to application 18/760,808 filed on 07/01/2024. Accordingly, pending in this Office action are claims 1-17.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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)(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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Park (US 2023/0246127).
Regarding Claim 1, Park (see, e.g., Figs. 6-16), teaches a method of manufacturing a light-emitting element, the method comprising:
preparing a wafer USEM/111 comprising a substrate 210, and a semiconductor structure 111 disposed on the substrate USEM (see, e.g., Fig. 6, par. 0168); and
forming a plurality of light-emitting element regions ED by dividing the semiconductor structure 111, wherein the forming of the plurality of light-emitting element regions ED comprises (see, e.g., Fig. 14, par. 0176):
forming a plurality of first masks M_1 on the semiconductor structure 111 such that each of the plurality of first masks M_1 covers a respective first region where one of the plurality of light-emitting element regions ED is to be formed, and each of the plurality of first masks M_1 has an area greater than an area of the respective first region in a plan view (see, e.g., Fig. 13, par. 0176), and
exposing the substrate USEM through the semiconductor structure 111 by removing a portion of the semiconductor structure 111 that is not covered by the plurality of first masks M_1 (see, e.g., Fig. 14, par. 0176).
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 2023/0246127).
Regarding Claim 11, Park teaches all aspects of claim 1. Park is silent with respect to the claim limitation that a thickness of each of the plurality of first masks is 10 µm or more and 20 µm or less.
However, this claim limitation is merely considered a change in the thickness of each of the plurality of first masks in Park’s device. The specific claimed thickness, absent any criticality, is only considered to be an obvious modification of the thickness of the plurality of first masks in Park’s device, as the courts have held that changes in thickness without any criticality, are within the level of skill in the art. According to the courts, a particular thickness is nothing more than one among numerous thicknesses that a person having ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide using routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of the claimed thickness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the claimed thickness in Park’s device.
CRITICALITY
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed thickness or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon a particular chosen thickness or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen thickness is critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claim 14, Park teaches all aspects of claim 1. Park is silent with respect to the claim limitation that in the plan view, a distance between two adjacent ones of the light-emitting element regions 300 is 5 μm or more and 30 μm or less.
However, this claim limitation is merely considered a change in the distance between two adjacent light-emitting element regions 300 in Park’s device.
See also the comments stated above in claim 11 regarding criticality which are considered repeated here.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-10, 12, 13, and 15-17 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nelson Garces whose telephone number is (571)272-8249. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Wael Fahmy can be reached on (571)272-1705. 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.
/Nelson Garces/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2814
Prosecution Insights