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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species II, corresponding to originally filed Claims 1, 3, and 18-21, in the reply filed on 03 March 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that neither “Applicant nor the Patent and Trademark Office should be put through the trouble and expense entailed in multiple filing and prosecution,” “the making of an election-of-species requirement is not mandatory in all instances,” and “it would not be an undue burden on the Examiner to examine all of the pending claims” (see Remarks at Page 2). This is not found persuasive.
None of the applicant’s objections to the Requirement for Restriction / Election mailed 24 February 2026 distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement. As such, the applicant’s grounds for traversal are merely conclusory statements. The applicant has objected to the Requirement for Restriction / Election on the basis that “the interests of prosecution and economy of time, for Applicant, the Office, and the public-at-large” would benefit from the “withdrawal of the election-of-species requirement” (again, see Remarks at Page 2). This does not constitute a proper traversal of the Requirement for Restriction / Election as no specific errors in the election of species requirement have been cited. With respect to the applicant’s assertion that “it would not be an undue burden on the Examiner to examine all of the pending claims,” the examiner maintains that each of cited Species I through XI is explicitly directed to a distinct structural embodiment of the claimed “plurality of pixels” in the claimed “light emitting apparatus” of originally filed generic Claim 1 that neither recites nor requires the specific structural features of the other cited species. Thus, a search for the specific structural features of any one of the cited species is irrelevant to the specific structural features of the other cited species.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 2 and 4-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 03 March 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Augusto et al. (hereinafter “Augusto” US 2005 / 0255649).
As pertaining to Claim 1, Augusto discloses (see Fig. 7A, Fig. 7D, and Fig. 7H) a light emitting apparatus comprising a plurality of pixels (see Page 1, Para. [0012] and Page 3, Para. [0046]) arranged in a substrate (120, 121), wherein
each of the plurality of pixels includes a first isolation portion (102) configured in a trench-type to isolate two adjacent regions (i.e., see regions of (103, 104) separated by (102); and/or see regions of (104, 113) separated by (102)) having different conductivity types (i.e., N-type and P-type) from each other, and a second isolation portion (119) configured in a trench-type to isolate two adjacent regions (i.e., see left and right central regions (104) on each side of (119)) having the same conductivity type (i.e., N-type) as each other, and
a depth of the second isolation portion (119) is larger than a depth of the first isolation portion (102; see Fig. 7A shows 119 is larger than a depth of 102 and see Page 4 through Page 5, Para. [0085]-[0086] and [0092]-[0111]).
As pertaining to Claim 3, Augusto discloses (see Fig. 7A, Fig. 7D, and Fig. 7H) that in a direction parallel to a surface of the substrate (120, 121), an opening width of the first isolation portion (102) is narrower than an opening width of the second isolation portion (119; see Fig. 7A; and again, see Page 4 through Page 5, Para. [0085]-[0086] and [0092]-[0111]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Augusto in view of Akiyama et al. (hereinafter “Akiyama” US 2022 / 0172679).
As pertaining to Claim 18, Augusto discloses that the light emitting apparatus (see Fig. 7A, Fig. 7D, and Fig. 7H) is applicable to optoelectronic devices comprising pixels that can emit light (see Page 1, Para. [0012]).
However, Augusto does not explicitly disclose a wearable device comprising a display apparatus configured to display an image, wherein the display apparatus includes a light emitting apparatus defined in claim 1.
Still, in the same field of endeavor and in a manner similar to that of Augusto, Akiyama discloses (see Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and Fig. 4) an optoelectronic device comprising a light emitting apparatus (103) including pixels (102) that can emit light, wherein the pixels (102) of the light emitting apparatus (103) include isolation portions (403), namely deep trench isolation portions and/or shallow trench isolation portions, to isolate adjacent pixel regions (see Page 2, Para. [0029] and Page 3, Para. [0044]). In this regard, Akiyama explicitly suggests (see Fig. 18) that the optoelectronic device is particularly suited for a wearable device (1600) comprising a display apparatus configured to display an image, wherein the display apparatus includes the light emitting apparatus (103; see Page 12, Para. [0127]-[0128]). In fact, Akiyama suggests that a light emitting apparatus such as that disclosed by Augusto and Akiyama can enable display with more favorable image quality (see Page 13, Para. [0138]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Augusto with the teachings of Akiyama, such that for a wearable device comprising a display apparatus configured to display an image, the display apparatus includes a light emitting apparatus defined in claim 1, as suggested by Akiyama, in order to enable display with more favorable image quality in an application that is particularly suited for the light emitting apparatus defined in claim 1.
As pertaining to Claim 19, Augusto discloses that the light emitting apparatus (see Fig. 7A, Fig. 7D, and Fig. 7H) is applicable to optoelectronic devices comprising pixels that can emit light (see Page 1, Para. [0012]). Augusto further discloses an active element (i.e., a transistor) connected to the light emitting apparatus (see Page 4, Para. [0094]).
However, Augusto does not explicitly disclose a display apparatus comprising a light emitting apparatus defined in claim 1.
Still, in the same field of endeavor and in a manner similar to that of Augusto, Akiyama discloses (see Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and Fig. 4) an optoelectronic device comprising a light emitting apparatus (103) including pixels (102) that can emit light, wherein the pixels (102) of the light emitting apparatus (103) include isolation portions (403), namely deep trench isolation portions and/or shallow trench isolation portions, to isolate adjacent pixel regions (see Page 2, Para. [0029] and Page 3, Para. [0044]). In this regard, Akiyama explicitly suggests (see Fig. 1) that the optoelectronic device is particularly suited for a display apparatus comprising the light emitting apparatus (103) and an active element (see (201, 203)) connected to the light emitting apparatus (103; see Page 2, Para. [0028]). In fact, Akiyama suggests that a light emitting apparatus such as that disclosed by Augusto and Akiyama can enable display with more favorable image quality (see Page 13, Para. [0138]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Augusto with the teachings of Akiyama, such that a display apparatus comprises a light emitting apparatus defined in claim 1 and an active element connected to the light emitting element, as suggested by Akiyama, in order to enable display with more favorable image quality in an application that is particularly suited for the light emitting apparatus defined in claim 1.
As pertaining to Claim 20, Augusto discloses that the light emitting apparatus (see Fig. 7A, Fig. 7D, and Fig. 7H) is applicable to optoelectronic devices comprising pixels that can emit light (see Page 1, Para. [0012]).
However, Augusto does not explicitly disclose a photoelectric conversion apparatus comprising an optical unit including a plurality of lenses, an image sensor configured to receive light having passed through the optical unit, and a display unit configured to display an image, wherein the display unit displays an image captured by the image sensor, and includes a light emitting apparatus defined in claim 1.
Still, in the same field of endeavor and in a manner similar to that of Augusto, Akiyama discloses (see Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and Fig. 4) an optoelectronic device comprising a light emitting apparatus (103) including pixels (102) that can emit light, wherein the pixels (102) of the light emitting apparatus (103) include isolation portions (403), namely deep trench isolation portions and/or shallow trench isolation portions, to isolate adjacent pixel regions (see Page 2, Para. [0029] and Page 3, Para. [0044]). In this regard, Akiyama explicitly suggests (see Fig. 15A) that the optoelectronic device is particularly suited for a photoelectric conversion apparatus (1100) comprising an optical unit (not shown) including a plurality of lenses (now shown), an image sensor (not shown) configured to receive light having passed through the optical unit, and a display unit (1102) configured to display an image, wherein the display unit (1102) displays an image captured by the image sensor, wherein the display unit includes the light emitting apparatus (103; see Page 10 through Page 11, Para. [0109] and [0112]). In fact, Akiyama suggests that a light emitting apparatus such as that disclosed by Augusto and Akiyama can enable display with more favorable image quality (see Page 13, Para. [0138]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Augusto with the teachings of Akiyama, such that for a photoelectric conversion apparatus comprising an optical unit including a plurality of lenses, an image sensor configured to receive light having passed through the optical unit, and a display unit configured to display an image, the display unit displays an image captured by the image sensor, and includes a light emitting apparatus defined in claim 1, as suggested by Akiyama, in order to enable display with more favorable image quality in an application that is particularly suited for the light emitting apparatus defined in claim 1.
As pertaining to Claim 21, Augusto discloses that the light emitting apparatus (see Fig. 7A, Fig. 7D, and Fig. 7H) is applicable to optoelectronic devices comprising pixels that can emit light (see Page 1, Para. [0012]).
However, Augusto does not explicitly disclose electronic equipment comprising a housing provided with a display unit, and a communication unit provided in the housing and configured to perform external communication, wherein the display unit includes a light emitting apparatus defined in claim 1.
Still, in the same field of endeavor and in a manner similar to that of Augusto, Akiyama discloses (see Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and Fig. 4) an optoelectronic device comprising a light emitting apparatus (103) including pixels (102) that can emit light, wherein the pixels (102) of the light emitting apparatus (103) include isolation portions (403), namely deep trench isolation portions and/or shallow trench isolation portions, to isolate adjacent pixel regions (see Page 2, Para. [0029] and Page 3, Para. [0044]). In this regard, Akiyama explicitly suggests (see Fig. 15B) that the optoelectronic device is particularly suited for electronic equipment (1200) comprising a housing (1203) provided with a display unit (1201), and a communication unit provided in the housing (1203) and configured to perform external communication, wherein the display unit (1201) includes the light emitting apparatus (103; see Page 11, Para. [0113]). In fact, Akiyama suggests that a light emitting apparatus such as that disclosed by Augusto and Akiyama can enable display with more favorable image quality (see Page 13, Para. [0138]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Augusto with the teachings of Akiyama, such that for electronic equipment comprising a housing provided with a display unit, and a communication unit provided in the housing and configured to perform external communication, the display unit includes a light emitting apparatus defined in claim 1, as suggested by Akiyama, in order to enable display with more favorable image quality in an application that is particularly suited for the light emitting apparatus defined in claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
A number of references including at least Kim et al. (US 2024 / 0292708) and Wakashima (US 2021 / 0159258) disclose the implementation of deep trench isolation at a pixel level and shallow trench isolation at an element level with respect to imaging sensors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON M MANDEVILLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3136. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30AM-4:00PM.
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, Chanh Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-7772. 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.
/JASON M MANDEVILLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2623
Prosecution Insights