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 .
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 1-5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al (US Publication 20230282682).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a display device, comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 3, SUB);
a plurality of subpixels on the substrate (Fig. 3, PXL, para 68);
a plurality of light-emitting elements in each of the plurality of subpixels (Fig. 3, SPXL1-3, para 68);
a plurality of bonding layers between the plurality of light-emitting elements and the substrate (Fig. 5&6, plurality of 120 layer within INS1 between LD and SUB, para 161), the plurality of bonding layers overlapping the plurality of light-emitting elements (Fig. 5&6, 120 overlapping LD); and
a scattering layer on a same plane as the plurality of bonding layers, the scattering layer surrounding the plurality of bonding layers (Fig. 5 and 6, INP on same plane and surrounding 120, para 128-130, forms reflective wall so “light emitted from the light emitting element LD is recycled, so that the light output efficiency of the display device DD (or the pixel PXL) may be improved” and same material as instant application scattering layer, therefore, INP broadly reads on a scattering layer).
Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches the limitations of claim 1 upon which claim 2 depends.
Kim teaches wherein the plurality of bonding layers completely overlaps the plurality of light-emitting elements (Fig. 5&6, plural layer 120 within INS1 completely overlaps LD).
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches the limitations of claim 1 upon which claim 3 depends.
Kim teaches wherein a size of a top surface of each of the plurality of bonding layers is equal to a size of a bottom surface of each of the plurality of light-emitting elements (Fig. 5&6, a part of the top surface of INS1 in contact with bottom surface of LD and equal in size at contact area), the plurality of light-emitting elements overlapping the plurality of bonding layers (Fig. 5&6, LD overlapping INS1).
Regarding claim 4, Kim teaches the limitations of claim 1 upon which claim 4 depends.
Kim teaches wherein the scattering layer is non-overlapping with the plurality of light-emitting elements (Fig. 5&6, INP does not overlap LD on vertical plane).
Regarding claim 5, Kim teaches the limitations of claim 1 upon which claim 5 depends.
Kim teaches wherein a size of a top surface of each of the plurality of bonding layers is larger than a size of a bottom surface of each of the plurality of light-emitting elements (Fig. 5&6, length of planar top surface of INS1 in contact with LD and CNE2 is larger than the bottom surface of LD), the plurality of light-emitting elements overlapping the plurality of bonding layers (Fig. 5&6, LD overlapping INS1).
Regarding claim 9, Kim teaches the limitations of claim 1 upon which claim 9 depends.
Kim teaches the display device of claim 1, further comprising:
a driving transistor on the substrate (Fig. 5, TR, para 112);
a first planarization layer on the driving transistor (Fig. 5, PSV on TR);
a reflective electrode on the first planarization layer (Fig. 5, ELT1&2 on PSV);
the plurality of bonding layers or the scattering layer on the reflective electrode (Fig. 5, INP on PSV);
a second planarization layer at least partially on the plurality of bonding layers or the scattering layer (Fig. 13, BNK on plurality of 120 within INS1), the second planarization layer adjoining at least a part of a side surface of a light-emitting element of the plurality of light-emitting elements (Fig. 13, BNK adjoining side surface of LD);
a third planarization layer on the second planarization layer, the third planarization layer covering the light-emitting element (Fig. 13, CPL1 covering LD); and
a fourth planarization layer on the third planarization layer (Fig. 13, OPL on CPL1).
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 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US Publication 20230282682) in view of Kitazawa et al (US Publication 20240069399).
Regarding claim 6, Kim teaches the limitations of claim 1 upon which claim 6 depends.
Kim does not specifically teach wherein the scattering layer comprises a plurality of scattering particles. It is noted that this is well known within the art.
Kitazawa teaches wherein the scattering layer comprises a plurality of scattering particles (Fig. 1, scattering layer Zl with particles Zp, para 25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application for Kim to include the scattering layer comprising a plurality of scattering particles as taught by Kitazawa in order to improve the light recycling and efficiency of light produced by the device.
Regarding claim 7, Kim as modified teaches the limitations of claim 6 upon which claim 7 depends.
Kim does not specifically teach wherein the scattering layer further comprises a bonding material in which the plurality of scattering particles are dispersed. It is noted that this is well known within the art.
Kitazawa teaches wherein the scattering layer further comprises a bonding material in which the plurality of scattering particles are dispersed (Zl, para 25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application for Kim to include the scattering layer comprises a bonding material in which the plurality of scattering particles are dispersed as taught by Kitazawa in order to improve the manufacture and operability of the device.
Regarding claim 8, Kim as modified teaches the limitations of claim 7 upon which claim 8 depends.
Kim teaches wherein the bonding material includes a same material as the plurality of bonding layers (INS1, para 161-163, INP, para 129).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Bible et al (US Publication 20170125392) – Method for integrating a light emitting device.
Kim et al (US Publication 20120104430) – Organic light emitting diode display.
Yee et al (US Publication 20230253441) – Common anode micro-led system architecture
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS HUTSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1750. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm.
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, Jeff Natalini can be reached at 571 272 2266. 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.
/NICHOLAS LELAND HUTSON/ Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/JEFF W NATALINI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights