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 .
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.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. US 2022/0352239.
PNG
media_image1.png
550
535
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kim et al. US 2022/0352239
Regarding claim 1, Kim et al. in Figs. 1-6 and [0052]-[0128] disclose a display device comprising:
a substrate SUB [0056] including a display area DA [0056] and a non-display area NDA [0056] outside the display area DA [0056]; and
a plurality of light-emitting diodes LD [0052] arranged in the display area, wherein each of the plurality of light-emitting diodes has a double porous layer structure PA [0080] including a first porous layer CA [0090] and a second porous layer SA [0090] disposed below the first porous layer.
Kim et al. do not expressly disclose the first porous layer CA defines a first pore therein extending in a direction perpendicular to a major surface of the substrate, and the second porous layer SA defines a second pore therein extending in a randomly variable direction.
However, Kim et al. in Fig. 6 [0128] teach that the nanoscale pores P are formed in the porous layer by electrochemical etching of the semiconductor layer. This process creates pores of various sizes, shapes and distribution based on the etchant, voltage and/or doping concentration. Thus the orientation of the pores can be adjusted differently depending on the SA and CA embedded in light emitting elements.
This demonstrates that the direction of the first pore and the second pore is dependent on the electrochemical etching and would be considered a result effective variable. Accordingly, the claim is obvious without showing that the claimed range(s) achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize that it would be obvious to adjust the directions of the first and second pores using an electrochemical process thereof and optimize “the first porous layer defines a first pore therein extending in a direction perpendicular to a major surface of the substrate, and the second porous layer defines a second pore therein extending in a randomly variable direction ” as “result effective variables”, and arrives at the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 6, Kim et al. in Figs. 1-6 and [0052]-[0128] teach the display device of claim 1 but do not expressly teach wherein the first pore and the second pore are extended and connected to each other. However, Kim et al. in Fig. 6 [0128] teach that the nanoscale pores P are formed in the porous layer by electrochemical etching of the semiconductor layer. This process creates pores of various sizes, shapes and distribution based on the etchant, voltage and/or doping concentration. Thus the shapes, sizes and distributions of the pores can be adjusted differently depending on the SA and CA embedded in light emitting elements.
Regarding claim 7, Kim et al. in Figs. 1-6 and [0052]-[0128] teach the display device of claim 1 but do not expressly teach wherein the first pore has a cylindrical shape. However, Kim et al. in Fig. 6 [0128] teach that the nanoscale pores P are formed in the porous layer by electrochemical etching of the semiconductor layer. This process creates pores of various sizes, shapes and distribution based on the etchant, voltage and/or doping concentration. Thus the shapes, sizes and distributions of the pores can be adjusted differently depending on the SA and CA embedded in light emitting elements.
Regarding claim 8, Kim et al. in Figs. 1-6 and [0052]-[0128] teach the display device of claim 1 but do not expressly teach wherein the second pore has a spiral cylindrical shape. However, Kim et al. in Fig. 6 [0128] teach that the nanoscale pores P are formed in the porous layer by electrochemical etching of the semiconductor layer. This process creates pores of various sizes, shapes and distribution based on the etchant, voltage and/or doping concentration. Thus the shapes, sizes and distributions of the pores can be adjusted differently depending on the SA and CA embedded in light emitting elements.
Regarding claim 9, Kim et al. in Figs. 1-6 and [0052]-[0128] teach the display device of claim 1 but do not expressly teach wherein a planar diameter of each of the first pore and the second pore is about 100 nanometers (nm) to about 200 nm.
However, Kim et al. in Fig. 6 [0128] teach that the nanoscale pores P are formed in the porous layer by electrochemical etching of the semiconductor layer. This process creates pores of various sizes, shapes and distribution based on the etchant, voltage and/or doping concentration. Thus the orientation of the pores can be adjusted differently depending on the SA and CA embedded in light emitting elements.
This demonstrates that the size, shape and distribution of the first pore and the second pore is dependent on the electrochemical etching and would be considered a result effective variable. Accordingly, the claim is obvious without showing that the claimed range(s) achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize that it would be obvious to adjust the size, shape and distribution of the first and second pores using an electrochemical process thereof and optimize “a planar diameter of each of the first pore and the second pore is about 100 nanometers (nm) to about 200 nm” as “result effective variables”, and arrives at the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 10, Kim et al. in Figs. 1-6 and [0052]-[0128] teach the display device of claim 1 but do not expressly teach wherein, in the direction perpendicular to the major surface of the substrate, a thickness of the first porous layer and a thickness of the second porous layer are equal to each other.
However, Kim et al. in Fig. 6 [0128] teach that the nanoscale pores P are formed in the porous layer by electrochemical etching of the semiconductor layer. This process creates pores of various sizes, shapes and distribution based on the etchant, voltage and/or doping concentration. Thus the orientation and thickness of the pores can be adjusted differently depending on the SA and CA embedded in light emitting elements.
This demonstrates that the thickness of the first pore and the second pore is dependent on the electrochemical etching and would be considered a result effective variable. Accordingly, the claim is obvious without showing that the claimed range(s) achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize that it would be obvious to adjust the thickness of the first and second pores using an electrochemical process thereof and optimize “wherein, in the direction perpendicular to the major surface of the substrate, a thickness of the first porous layer and a thickness of the second porous layer are equal to each other ” as “result effective variables”, and arrives at the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 11, Kim et al. in Figs. 1-6 and [0052]-[0128] teach the display device of claim 1 but do not expressly teach wherein, in the direction perpendicular to the major surface of the substrate, a thickness of the first porous layer is greater than a thickness of the second porous layer.
However, Kim et al. in Fig. 6 [0128] teach that the nanoscale pores P are formed in the porous layer by electrochemical etching of the semiconductor layer. This process creates pores of various sizes, shapes and distribution based on the etchant, voltage and/or doping concentration. Thus the orientation and thickness of the pores can be adjusted differently depending on the SA and CA embedded in light emitting elements.
This demonstrates that the thickness of the first pore and the second pore is dependent on the electrochemical etching and would be considered a result effective variable. Accordingly, the claim is obvious without showing that the claimed range(s) achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize that it would be obvious to adjust the thickness of the first and second pores using an electrochemical process thereof and optimize “wherein, in the direction perpendicular to the major surface of the substrate, a thickness of the first porous layer is greater than a thickness of the second porous layer” as “result effective variables”, and arrives at the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 12, Kim et al. in Figs. 1-6 and [0052]-[0128] teach the display device of claim 1 but do not expressly teach wherein, in the direction perpendicular to the major surface of the substrate, a thickness of the second porous layer is greater than a thickness of the first porous layer.
However, Kim et al. in Fig. 6 [0128] teach that the nanoscale pores P are formed in the porous layer by electrochemical etching of the semiconductor layer. This process creates pores of various sizes, shapes and distribution based on the etchant, voltage and/or doping concentration. Thus the orientation and thickness of the pores can be adjusted differently depending on the SA and CA embedded in light emitting elements.
This demonstrates that the thickness of the first pore and the second pore is dependent on the electrochemical etching and would be considered a result effective variable. Accordingly, the claim is obvious without showing that the claimed range(s) achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize that it would be obvious to adjust the thickness of the first and second pores using an electrochemical process thereof and optimize “wherein, in the direction perpendicular to the major surface of the substrate, a thickness of the second porous layer is greater than a thickness of the first porous layer” as “result effective variables”, and arrives at the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 13, Kim et al. in Figs. 1-6 and [0052]-[0128] teach the display device of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of light-emitting diodes further includes:
a first semiconductor layer doped with a p-type dopant L1 [0081]- [0088];
a second semiconductor layer doped with an n-type dopant L3 [0081]- [0088]; and
an intermediate layer L2 [0081]- [0088] disposed between the first semiconductor layer and the second semiconductor layer, wherein the first porous layer and the second porous layer are included in the second semiconductor layer (annotated above).
Regarding claim 14, Kim et al. in Figs. 1-6 and [0052]-[0128] teach the display device of claim 13, wherein the first porous layer has a structure in which the first pore is defined in a material constituting the second semiconductor layer, and the second porous layer has a structure in which the second pore is defined in a material constituting the second semiconductor layer (annotated above).
Regarding claim 15, Kim et al. in Figs. 1-6 and [0052]-[0128] teach the display device of claim 14, wherein the material constituting the second semiconductor layer L3 [0087] includes a semiconductor material having a composition formula InxAlyGa1-x-yN, where 0≤x≤1, 0≤y≤1, and 0≤x+y≤1.
Regarding claim 16, Kim et al. in Figs. 1-6 and [0052]-[0128] teach the display device of claim 13, wherein the second semiconductor layer further includes a base layer (annotated above) disposed between the intermediate layer L2 and the second porous layer SA, wherein the base layer has a non-porous structure.
Regarding claim 17, Kim et al. in Figs. 1-6 and [0052]-[0128] teach the display device of claim 16, but do not expressly teach wherein each of the first porous layer and the second porous layer has a thickness of about 2 micrometers (μm) to about 7 μm.
However, Kim et al. in Fig. 6 [0128] teach that the nanoscale pores P are formed in the porous layer by electrochemical etching of the semiconductor layer. This process creates pores of various sizes, shapes and distribution based on the etchant, voltage and/or doping concentration. Thus the orientation and thickness of the pores can be adjusted differently depending on the SA and CA embedded in light emitting elements.
This demonstrates that the thickness of the first pore and the second pore is dependent on the electrochemical etching and would be considered a result effective variable. Accordingly, the claim is obvious without showing that the claimed range(s) achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize that it would be obvious to adjust the thickness of the first and second pores using an electrochemical process thereof and optimize “wherein each of the first porous layer and the second porous layer has a thickness of about 2 micrometers (μm) to about 7 μm” as “result effective variables”, and arrives at the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 18, Kim et al. in Figs. 1-6 and [0052]-[0128] teach the display device of claim 16, but do not expressly teach wherein the base layer has a thickness of about 0.3 μm to about 0.5 μm.
Notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the relative dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, Jn re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(1V)(B).
Regarding claim 19, Kim et al. in Figs. 1-6 and [0052]-[0128] teach the display device of claim 13, wherein each of the plurality of light-emitting diodes further includes Fig. 2:
a sub-pixel electrode ET1 [0065] electrically connected to the first semiconductor layer L1; and
an opposite electrode ET2 [0065] electrically connected to the second semiconductor layer L3, wherein the sub-pixel electrode is connected to a pixel circuit PXC arranged in the display area, and the opposite electrode ET2 is electrically connected to a voltage line VSS for receiving a low-potential voltage [0064]-[0096].
Claim(s) 20-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. US 2019/0214440.
Regarding claim 20, Kim et al. in Figs. 1-6 and [0052]-[0128] teach the display device of claim 1 but do not expressly teach the display device further comprising: a light-blocking layer disposed above each of the plurality of light-emitting diodes and defining a light-blocking layer opening therein overlapping the light-emitting diode; and an overcoat layer disposed on the light-blocking layer.
However Lee et al. in Fig. 3 and [0046]-[0072] teach a display device with improved visibility and clarity of the displayed image [0066] comprising: a light-blocking layer 510 [0065] disposed above each of a plurality of light-emitting diodes P1, P2, P3 and defining a light-blocking layer opening 510OP [0070] therein overlapping the light-emitting diode; and an overcoat layer 580 [0067] disposed on the light-blocking layer 510.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Lee et al. in the display device of Kim et al. for the purpose of improving the visibility and clarity of a displayed image.
Regarding claim 21, Kim et al. in view of Lee et al. teach the display device of claim 20. Lee et al. teach wherein the overcoat layer 580 fills (e.g. covers) [0067] the light-blocking layer opening 510OP [0070].
Regarding claim 22, Kim et al. in view of Lee et al. teach the display device of claim 20. Lee et al. teach wherein the display device further comprising a color filter layer 500 [0065], which fills the light-blocking layer opening 510OP [0070], wherein the overcoat layer 580 [0067] covers the light-blocking layer 510 and the color filter layer 500.
Regarding claim 23, Kim et al. in view of Lee et al. teach the display device of claim 20. Lee et al. teach wherein the display device further comprising an encapsulation layer 300 [0061]-[0063] disposed between the light-blocking layer 510 and each of the plurality of light-emitting diodes P1, P2, P3.
Claim(s) 24 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi et al. US 2018/0046221.
Regarding claim 24, Kim et al. in Figs. 1-6 and [0052]-[0128] teach the display device of claim 1, but do not expressly teach the display device further comprising: island portions arranged in the display area and spaced apart from each other along rows and columns; and bridge portions connecting adjacent island portions among the island portions to each other, wherein each of the island portions includes at least one light-emitting diode of the plurality of light-emitting diodes.
Choi et al. in Figs. 1-4 and [0022]-[0064] teach a stretchable display device 10 including a display unit 200 [0022] comprising: island portions 101 [0023] arranged in the display area and spaced apart from each other along rows and columns; and
bridge portions 103 connecting adjacent island portions 101 among the island portions 101 to each other, wherein each of the island portions 101 includes at least one light-emitting diode of the plurality of light-emitting diodes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Choi et al. in the display device of Kim et al. for the purpose of having a stretchable display device.
Regarding claim 25, Kim et al. in view of Choi et al. teach the display device of claim 24. Choi et al. Figs. 10 and 11 teach wherein the bridge portions 103 each have a serpentine shape.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art neither anticipates nor renders obvious, in the context of the claims:
2. The display device of claim 1, wherein quantum dots are arranged within the first pore and the second pore.
Claims 3-5 directly or indirectly depend on claim 2.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SONYA D MCCALL-SHEPARD whose telephone number is (571)272-9801. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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, Julio J. Maldonado can be reached at (571)272-1864. 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.
/Sonya McCall-Shepard/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights