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 .
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.
Claims 1 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bok et al. [US PGPUB 20170269749] (hereinafter Bok).
Regarding claim 1 Bok teaches a micro light emitting diode (LED) display device, comprising:
a substrate (311, Para 76) including a display region (302, Fig. 3/4, –i.e., in view of LED 325 being in the region, Para 76) and pad region (303, Fig. 3/4, –i.e., in view of electrode 326);
a plurality of thin film transistors (313/318/320/321, Para 79, Fig. 4, –wherein each of sub-pixels of the display device 300 may include at least one thin film transistor (“TFT”) and at least one micro-LED, Para 75) on the substrate (Fig. 4);
a first insulating layer (322, Para 86) on the thin film transistors (Fig. 4) including a source electrode (320, Para 79) and a drain electrode (321, Para 79);
a plurality of micro light emitting diodes (LEDs) (325, 75/76, –wherein each of sub-pixels of the display device 300 may include at least one thin film transistor (“TFT”) and at least one micro-LED) on the first insulating layer (Fig. 1), each of the plurality of micro LEDs including a p type electrode (328, Para 94) and a n type electrode (Para 94);
a second insulating layer (323, Para 87) surrounding at least a portion of the micro LEDs (Fig. 4);
a pad (326, Para 89) disposed in the pad region of the substrate (Fig. 4); and
a buffer layer (335, Para 103) on the micro LEDs and at least a portion of the pad (Fig. 4);
wherein the p type electrode is electrically connected to the drain electrode of the thin film transistors (Para 88/94, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 12, Bok teaches a micro LED display device wherein the substrate is flexible (Para 77).
Regarding claim 13, Bok teaches a micro LED display device wherein the substrate is transparent (Para 77).
Regarding claim 14, Bok teaches a micro LED display device wherein the thin film transistor has a structure of a top gate thin film transistor (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 15, Bok teaches a micro LED display device wherein the thin film transistor includes a semiconductor layer (313, Para 81) and the semiconductor layer composed of an amorphous semiconductor (Para 81).
Regarding claim 16, Bok teaches a micro LED display device wherein the micro LED has a structure of a vertical structure micro LED (Fig. 3).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bok in view or Bibl et al. [US PGPUB 20140367633] (hereinafter Bibl).
Regarding claim 3, Bok teaches the limitation of claim 1 upon which it depends.
Bok does not specifically disclose a micro LED display device further comprising a protective film covering at least the portion of the micro LEDs.
Referring to the invention of Bibl, Bibl teaches optionally forming a protective film (407, Para 60) covering portions of the micro LEDs 400 (Para 60).
In view of such teaching by Bibl, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the invention of Bok comprise the teachings of Bibl to protect the micro LEDs.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 4-11 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:
Claim 2 is objected to because the prior arts of record and related prior arts fail to anticipate or render obvious the limitation of claim 2. Although individual elements of claim 2 may be found in one of more of the prior arts, none of the prior arts, alone or in combination, teaches or suggests the particularly claimed combination of individual elements or the relationship of the claimed individual elements. Wherein any combination of the prior arts to arrive at the claimed combination would be nothing short of impermissible hindsight.
Claim 4 is objected to because the prior arts of record and related prior arts fail to anticipate or render obvious the limitation of claim 4. Although individual elements of claim 4 may be found in one of more of the prior arts, none of the prior arts, alone or in combination, teaches or suggests the particularly claimed combination of individual elements or the relationship of the claimed individual elements. Wherein any combination of the prior arts to arrive at the claimed combination would be nothing short of impermissible hindsight.
Claims 5-7 are allowable based on their dependency on claim 4.
Claim 8 is objected to because the prior arts of record and related prior arts fail to anticipate or render obvious the limitation of claim 8. Although individual elements of claim 8 may be found in one of more of the prior arts, none of the prior arts, alone or in combination, teaches or suggests the particularly claimed combination of individual elements or the relationship of the claimed individual elements. Wherein any combination of the prior arts to arrive at the claimed combination would be nothing short of impermissible hindsight.
Claims 9-11 are allowable based on their dependency on claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAIL A MUSE whose telephone number is (571)272-1470. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 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, William Partridge can be reached at (571)270-1402. 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.
/ISMAIL A MUSE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
