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 .
Response to Arguments
Claims 7-14 stand rejected under Section 103. Claims 7-14 stand rejected under Section 112(b). Claims 1-6 stand withdrawn for being directed to an unelected product invention.
Applicants amended claim 7 and argue that the application is in condition for allowance.
As a preliminary note, the amendment requires the first relay line to include a first electrode and a second electrode, with an insulating film being formed on the first relay line, an opening of the insulating film formed at positions where the light emitting elements are mounted, the second electrode being exposed from the opening of the insulating film, among other requirements. The disclosure defines the first and second electrodes as being associated with the light emitting element, not the relay line. Furthermore, the relationship between the first and second electrodes as the light emitting elements is unclear from the claim language. These matters are raised in the Section 112 rejections section, below.
Section 112(b) rejections: Applicants’ amendments address the previously noted Section 112(b) rejections and are accepted and entered. No new matter has been added. The previously noted Section 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Section 103 rejections: Applicants’ amendments overcome the previously noted combination, but another reference has been identified which, when combined with previously cited references, renders obvious the claims, as noted below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the first and second electrodes of the first relay line of claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7: As discussed above, the originally filed disclosure associates the first and second electrodes with the light emitting element, not the first relay line. The first electrode of the light emitting element is physically and electrically connected to the first relay line, while the second electrode is physically and electrically connected to the second relay line. Claim 7, as written, associates the first and second electrode with the first relay line. Because this feature is not supported by the originally filed disclosure, and furthermore, because the second electrode is not electrically connected to the first relay line but the second relay line, claim 7 is rejected for failing to meet the written description requirements. For purposes of examination, the second electrode is interpreted to be associated with the second relay line.
Claims 8-14 are rejected for depending from rejected base claim 7.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: Claim 7: (1) the first electrode’s relationship to the light emitting element; (2) the second electrode’s relationship to the light emitting element; (3) the relationship of the first optical resin layer with respect to the second optical resin layer, that is, which is the upper layer and which is the lower layer.
Claims 8-14 are rejected for depending from rejected base claim 7.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 14, which depends from claim 7: Claim 7 has been amended to require that the optical resin layer include a first optical resin layer and a second optical resin layer, and a thickness of the first optical resin layer be thicker than a thickness of the first electrode and thicker than a thickness of the second electrode. Claim 14 requires that a first optical resin material and a second optical resin material be applied in the applying the optical resin material between the plurality of light emitting elements and on the plurality of light emitting elements on the first main surface of the array substrate. A question arises as to whether the first optical resin material of claim 14 becomes the first optical resin layer of claim 7, and whether the second optical resin material of claim 14 becomes the second optical resin layer of claim 7. Because claim 14 is unclear on the matter, claim 14 is rejected as indefinite.
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 7, 9, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuragi, Japanese Pat. Pub. No. JP3203462U, and further in view of Oh, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2009/0009046, Hirakata, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2005/0140291, Yoo, WIPO Pat. Pub. No. 2019/235752A1, Watanabe, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0343406 [hereinafter Watanabe ’406], Figure 6A. Watanabe, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0357847 [hereinafter Watanabe ’847], Figure 10D, and Crompvoets, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2019/0096954, Figure 5.
PNG
media_image1.png
393
649
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
457
719
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
650
854
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Yoo, Figures 1, 2:
PNG
media_image4.png
360
387
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Watanabe ’406, Figure 6A:
PNG
media_image5.png
210
257
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Watanabe ’847, Figure 10D:
PNG
media_image6.png
191
272
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Crompvoets, Figure 5:
PNG
media_image7.png
204
417
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7: Sakuragi discloses a method for manufacturing a display device comprising: preparing an array substrate (10, 30) having a first main surface on which a plurality of light emitting elements (20) spaced apart from each other is provided and a second main surface located on an opposite side of the first main surface; applying an optical resin material (41) between the plurality of light emitting elements (20) and on the plurality of light emitting elements (20) on the first main surface of the array substrate (10, 30); disposing a light transmitting layer (42) on the optical resin material (41); and curing the optical resin material (41) to form an optical resin layer (41), wherein the plurality of light emitting elements (20) are connected to a first relay line (e.g. 30a “[t]he wiring 30a corresponds to wirings H1 to H8 in the circuit diagram…. […] the wiring 30a is connected to the cathodes of the LEDs 20r, 20g, and 20b.” Sakuragi specification ¶¶ 24, 25) [and a second relay line (e.g. 30b “the wiring 30b corresponds to the wirings V1 to H10 [sic, V10] in the circuit drawing”, id.], the first relay line (30a) includes a first electrode and [the second relay line (30b) includes] a second electrode (inherently present, because wirings H1 to H8 and V1 to V10 have wirings that end at the LEDs, and the first electrodes and second electrodes are at the end of their respective wirings and connect to the terminals/cathodes and anodes, respectively, of the LEDs—see also newly added reference, Watanabe ’406 Figure 6A, discussed below), and the optical resin material (41) adheres to the first electrode to suppress peeling of the plurality of light emitting elements (20). Sakuragi specification ¶¶ 45-48, 10-33. Sakuragi is silent as to whether the optical resin layer (41) has a refractive index of 1.40 or more and 1.60 or less and translucency of 90% or more. Sakuragi is also silent as to whether the optical resin material fills spaces between bottom surfaces of the plurality of light-emitting elements and the first main surface of the array substrate. The optical resin (41) adheres to the first electrode because the optical resin is cured. Through curing, peeling of the plurality of light emitting elements (20) would be expected to be suppressed. Sakuragi does not disclose an insulating film that is formed on the first relay line, an opening of the insulating film being formed at positions where the light emitting elements are mounted, the second electrode being exposed from the opening of the insulating film. Lastly, Sakuragi does not disclose that the optical resin layer includes a first optical resin layer and a second optical resin layer, the thickness of the first optical resin layer being thicker than a thickness of the first electrode and thicker than a thickness of the second electrode.
Oh, directed to similar subject matter, discloses an optical resin layer/filling layer (300) that has a transmittance of not less than about 95%. Oh specification ¶¶ 34-62. One having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date would be motivated to modify Sakuragi to use an optical resin layer with a transmittance of not less than about 95% because the modification would promote transmission of the light from the light emitting elements. For purposes of interpretation, the term “translucency” and “transmittance” are interpreted to have the same meaning.
Hirakata, directed to similar subject matter, discloses an optical resin layer/filler of UV curing epoxy resin that has a refractive index of 1.50. Hirakata specification ¶¶ 18, 59-75. One having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date would be motivated to modify Sakuragi to use an optical resin layer with refractive index of about 1.50 because the modification would promote transmission of the light from the light emitting elements. Id. ¶ 18.
Yoo Figures 1 and 2, directed to similar subject matter, discloses a translucent underfill material/optical resin material (600) which encapsulates top, side, and bottom surfaces of the LED chips (200). Yoo specification ¶¶ 36-47. One having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date would be motivated to modify Sakuragi so that the optical resin material fills spaces between bottom surfaces of the plurality of light-emitting elements and the first main surface of the array substrate because the modification would protect and seal the LED chip (200). Id. ¶ 46. Once combined, the Yoo optical resin material (600) in this position would have the effect of adhering to the first electrode to suppress peeling of the light emitting element (200).
To the extent that the first electrode of the first relay line and the second electrode of the second relay line are not inherently present in Sakuragi, Watanabe ’406 Figure 6A, directed to similar subject matter, discloses two electrode pads (16) corresponding to the first and second electrodes on which LED (3) is placed. Watanabe ’406 specification ¶ 79. One having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date would be motivated to modify the combination to include the Watanabe ’406 electrode pads as a part of the wiring because the electrode pads would be used for making the electrical connection to the LED.
Watanabe ’847 Figure 10D, directed to similar subject matter, discloses an insulating film (35B) that is formed on the first and second electrodes (16), an opening of the insulating film (35B) being formed at positions where the light emitting element (3) is mounted, the second electrode (16) being exposed from the opening of the insulating film (35B). Watanabe ’847 specification ¶¶ 80-84, 59. One having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date would be motivated to modify the combination to include the Watanabe ’847 insulating film and opening because the insulating film protects the underlying wiring. Once combined, the combination discloses an insulating film that is formed on the first relay line, an opening of the insulating film being formed at positions where the light emitting elements are mounted, the second electrode being exposed from the opening of the insulating film.
Crompvoets Figure 5, directed to similar subject matter, discloses an optical encapsulation layer that includes a first optical encapsulation layer (11A) and a second optical encapsulation layer (11B), the thickness of the first optical encapsulation layer being thicker than the light emitting elements (10). Crompvoets specification ¶¶ 35, 36. One having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date would be motivated to modify the combination to use the Crompvoets two-layer encapsulation layer because the Crompvoets design permits the device to have a more homogeneous light output. Once combined, the combination discloses that the optical resin layer includes a first optical resin layer and a second optical resin layer, due to the use of resin in Sakuragi, the thickness of the first optical resin layer being thicker than a thickness of the first electrode and thicker than a thickness of the second electrode, because the first and second electrodes are underneath the light emitting element, which is covered by the first optical resin layer. For these reasons, claim 7 is obvious.
Regarding claim 9, which depends from claim 7: Sakuragi discloses that the light transmitting layer (42) is a first glass film, a first optical film, or a stacked layer body thereof. Sakuragi specification ¶ 47.
Regarding claim 14, which depends from claim 7: The combination discloses a first optical resin material (11A) and a second optical resin material (11B) are applied in the applying the optical resin material between the plurality of light emitting elements (10) and on the plurality of light emitting elements (10) on the first main surface of the array substrate (13). Crompvoets specification ¶¶ 31, 35, 36.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuragi, Oh, Hirakata, Yoo, Watanabe ’406, Watanabe ’847, and Crompvoets and further in view of Jiang, Chinese Pat. Pub. No. CN207250042U.
Regarding claim 8, which depends from claim 7: The combination is silent as to whether the optical resin layer has an anticorrosion property for the plurality of light emitting elements.
Jiang, directed to similar subject matter, discloses the use of an anticorrosion coating on light-emitting elements to protect the display from the effects of outdoor use. Jiang specification ¶ 49. One having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date would be motivated to modify the combination to include an anticorrosion property in the optical resin layer to protect the plurality of light emitting elements because the modification would protect the display device in outdoor use. Id.; Sakuragi specification ¶¶ 34-44 (describing outdoor use of device).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuragi, Oh, Hirakata, Yoo, Watanabe ’406, Watanabe ’847, and Crompvoets, and further in view of An, Chinese Pat. Pub. No. CN105355645B.
PNG
media_image8.png
357
588
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, which depends from claim 7: Sakuragi discloses disposing a protective layer (bottom glass layer (42)) on the second main surface of the array substrate before, not after, curing the optical resin material (41). Sakuragi specification ¶¶ 45-48.
An, directed to similar subject matter, discloses disposing a protective layer (6) on the second main surface of the array substrate after the display device (3) and encapsulation (2, 4) have been formed. An specification ¶¶ 50-57. One having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date would be motivated to modify the method so that the protective layer is disposed on the second main surface of the array substrate after curing the optical resin material because the modification is suitable for making the device.
Regarding claim 11, which depends from claim 10: The combination discloses that the protective layer (Sakuragi (42)) is a second glass film, a second optical film, or a stacked layer body thereof. Sakuragi specification ¶ 47.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuragi, Oh, Hirakata, Yoo, Watanabe ’406, Watanabe ’847, and Crompvoets, and further in view of Lee, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2011/0084287 and Choi, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2012/0092313.
PNG
media_image9.png
380
881
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, which depends from claim 7: The combination is silent as to the formation of a frame-shaped resin wall such that the resin wall surrounds the plurality of light emitting elements on the first main surface of the array substrate before applying the optical resin material.
Lee, directed to similar subject matter, discloses forming a frame-shaped resin wall such that the wall (350) surrounds the plurality of light emitting elements (70) on the first main surface of the array substrate (DC) before applying the optical resin material (300). Lee specification ¶¶ 89-96. One having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date would be motivated to modify the combination to include the Lee wall because the modification provides a way of retaining the optical resin material while the optical resin material is fluid and protects the device from moisture and oxygen intrusion afterwards. Lee does not disclose that the wall is a resin wall.
Choi, directed to similar subject matter, disclose that a wall (90) that is a resin wall. Choi specification ¶ 46. One having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date would be motivated to modify the combination to use a resin wall because the modification would have involved the substitution of an equivalent known for the same purpose.
Regarding claim 13, which depends from claim 12: The combination discloses wherein in the applying the optical resin material (Lee, 300) to a region in which the plurality of light emitting elements (Lee, 70) surrounded by the frame-shaped resin wall (Lee, 350; Choi, 90) is provided, the optical resin material (Lee, 300) is applied at a height equivalent to a height of the frame-shaped resin wall (Lee, 350; Choi, 90) or exceeding the height of the frame-shaped resin wall (Lee, 350; Choi, 90). See Lee Figure 5.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA KATHLEEN HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-7567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8 a.m.-5 p.m.
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, Fernando Toledo can be reached at 571-272-1867. 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.
/Victoria K. Hall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897