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.
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sun et al. (US 2021/0202804).
With regard to claim 13, Sun teaches, in Fig 5, a light-emitting substrate, comprising: a substrate (110); a plurality of light emitting diode (LED) chips (130), wherein a spacer region is defined between adjacent LED chips (regions filled by 140, 150); and a black photoresist layer (140, 150, 160’) disposed on the substrate.
With regard to claim 14, Sun teaches, in Fig 5, that the black photoresist layer comprises a first light-shielding portion (140, 150) and a second light-shielding portion (160’), the first light-shielding portion is filled in the spacer regions, and the second light-shielding portion is formed at a position over the LED chips (see figure).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (US 2021/0202804) in view of Li et al. (US 2021/0074761).
With regard to claim 15, Sun teaches most of the limitations of this claim, as set forth above with regard to claim 13.
Sun does not explicitly teach that at least some of the plurality of LED chips have different heights.
Li teaches, in Fig 3, that at least some of the plurality of LED chips (01, 02, 03) have different heights ([0033]), “so as to expose the different types of light emitting layers on the top of different types of LEDs, thus ensuring the light emitting area and improving emission efficiency of every LED, and improving the integration of various LEDs,” ([0117]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the effective time of filing to combine the device of Sun with the LED chip heights of Li to ensure light emitting area and improve emission efficiency of each LED.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (US 2021/0202804) in view of JP 4843858 (hereinafter this reference will be referred to as ‘858 and all citations are made to the attached machine translation).
With regard to claim 16, Sun teaches most of the limitations of this claim, as set forth above with regard to claim 13.
Sun does not explicitly teach that a material of the black photoresist layer comprises at least carbon black, a photoinitiator, and a reactive monomer.
‘858 teaches that a material of the black photoresist layer comprises at least carbon black ([0014]), a photoinitiator ([0019]), and a reactive monomer ([0020]), “so that the black resin composition has excellent stability over time,” ([0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the effective time of filing to combine the device of Sun with the black photoresist of ‘858 so that the photoresist has excellent stability over time.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious claimed limitations of performing first exposure on the black photoresist layer under the mask, to cause inorganics in the black photoresist layer in the exposure regions to diffuse into the black photoresist layer in the light-shielding regions; and performing second exposure on the black photoresist layer to cure the black photoresist layer, as set forth in independent claim 1, or of performing first exposure on the black photoresist layer to reduce inorganics in the black photoresist layer over the plurality of LED chips; and performing second exposure on the black photoresist layer to cure the black photoresist layer, as set forth in independent claim 6, each when taken in concert with all the other limitations of the respective claims. All other allowed claims depend from these independent claims.
The closest prior art of record is Lin et al. (US 2019/0196322) and Lu et al. (US 8785084), each of which discuss mask and shielding layer formation methods involving chemical alteration of the deposited photoresist, but fail to teach the limitations set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAJ R GUPTA whose telephone number is (571)270-5707. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30AM-4PM, 8PM-10PM.
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, Sue Purvis can be reached at 5712721236. 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.
/RAJ R GUPTA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights