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
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant specifically argued that based on the amendment of changing to the previous claim limitation “a set” to “one pair”, the Takeya and Guo references fail to teach the claimed invention.
This argument is not because the limitation “one pair” does not exclude other pairs from existing in the pixel. It should be noted that any 2 of Takeya’s replacement contacts is a pair. It is noted that the Applicant might be intending a different structure (Fig. 86B), which has only 4 subpixels, however, such a structure is not being claimed.
The Takeya and Guo references are deemed reasonable for the rejection of the claimed invention as detailed below.
Before detailing how the references teach the currently claimed invention, the Examiner would address a typographical error in the Office Action of 09/24/2025. On page 3 of the action, the Examiner state “Regarding claim 1, Takeya does not specifically disclose a method…….” This is an error, whereas what was intended was “Regarding claim 1, Takeya disclose a method…….”
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 1-9 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeya et al. [US PGPUB 20210135047] in view of Guo et al. [US PGPUB 20190043842] (hereinafter Guo).
Regarding claim 1, Takeya teaches a method for producing a pixel array comprising:
- providing a substrate (110, Para 57) for a field-like arrangement of pixels (P, Para 57, Fig. 2) on the substrate and for electrical contacting of the pixels (Para 95), said substrate providing a set of primary contacts (122/132/142, Para 69, Fig. 2/3/4) for each pixel (Fig. 2/3), said set of primary contacts being for electrically contacting a group of LEDs (150/160/170) of said pixel (Fig. 4), said substrate also providing one pair of replacement contacts (124, Para 69, Fig. 2-4) for said pixels (Fig. 2-3),
- equipping each of the set of primary contacts of the pixel with a respective LED of the group of LEDs (Fig. 4), whereby the one pair of replacement contacts of the pixel is not equipped (Fig. 4),
- identifying a faulty LED or a faulty contact in the group of LEDs (Para 83, Fig. 6B-C), and
- equipping the one pair of replacement contacts with a replacement LED for the faulty LED or the faulty contact (Para 84, Fig. 6C-D).
Takeya does not specifically disclose that the LEDs in the pixel array are µ-LEDs.
Referring to the invention of Guo, Guo teaches implementing different types of LEDs in a display device, wherein in an instance, a µ-LED is used (Para 41).
In view of such teaching by Guo, 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 Takeya comprise the teachings of Guo in order to improve efficiency and life time of the display device.
Regarding claim 2 modified in invention of Takeya teaches a method characterized in that the identifying the faulty µ-LED in the group of µ-LEDs and the equipping the one replacement contact with the replacement µ-LED for the faulty µ-LED are repeated until a respective replacement µ-LED is present in the pixel for each µ-LED identified as defective (Takeya, Para 75-84; although repetition is not detaiµ-LED by Takeya, it should be noted that the repetition is contingent on identifying defective µ-LEDs, thus at least in view of Takeya identifying a defective µ-LED and replacing it the limitation of the claim has been met).
Regarding claim 3, the modified invention of Takeya teaches a method characterised in that a µ-LED identified as faulty is not removed (Para 87).
Regarding claim 4, the modified invention of Takeya teaches a method characterised in that a µ-LED identified as faulty and the replacement µ-LED are intended to emit light of a same color (Para 84, Fig. 6C-D).
Regarding claim 5, the modified invention of Takeya teaches a method characterised in that thegroup of µ-LEDs comprises one or more sets of RGB µ-LEDs (Para 80, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 6, the modified invention of Takeya teaches a method characterised in that no replacement contact of the pixel is equipped with a respective replacement µ-LED, if no faulty µ-LED is found in the pixel (Para 83-84; where LEDs are replaced only when defect is identified).
Regarding claim 7, the modified invention of Takeya teaches a method characterised in that the set of primary contacts and/or the one pair of replacement contacts are configured for contacting a respective µ-LED or a respective replacement µ-LED on an anode side or on a cathode side or both on the anode side and the cathode side (Figs. 3-4/6; where contacts or electrodes of LEDs are referred to as anode and cathode).
Regarding claim 8, the modified invention of Takeya teaches a method characterised in that a respective µ-LED of the group of µ-LEDs or a respective replacement µ-LED is a part of a µ-LED module or a base module (Para 5, display device).
Regarding claim 9, the modified invention of Takeya teaches a method characterised in that an electrical contact for an identified, faulty µ-LED is disconnected (Para 87).
Regarding claim 11, the modified invention of Takeya teaches a method characterised in that all of the set of primary contacts of the pixel are equipped with µ-LEDs (Fig. 4, at least all equipped until the defective LEDs are detected and removed or are all equipped because instead of replacing defective LEDs they are left mounted but disconnected).
Regarding claim 12, Takeya teaches a pixel field comprising:
a substrate (110, Para 57) for a field-like arrangement of pixels (P, Para 57, Fig. 2) on the substrate and for electrical contacting of the pixels (Para 95),
the substrate providing a set of primary contacts (122/132/142, Para 69, Fig. 3/4) for at least one pixel (Fig. 2/3), the set of primary contacts of the pixel being adapted for electrical contacting of a group of LEDs (Fig. 4), the substrate also providing one pair of replacement contacts (124, Para 69, Fig. 2/3/4) for the at least one pixel (Fig. 2/3);
wherein the primary contacts of the pixel are equipped with the group of LEDs (Fig. 4),
wherein the group of LEDs comprises a faulty, deactivated LED (Para 83), and
wherein the one pair of replacement contacts is equipped with a replacement LED as a replacement for said faulty, deactivated LED (Para 83/87, where the faulty, deactivated LED is not removed).
Takeya does not specifically disclose that the LEDs in the pixel array are µ-LEDs.
Referring to the invention of Guo, Guo teaches implementing different types of LEDs in a display device, wherein in an instance, a µ-LED is used (Para 41).
In view of such teaching by Guo, 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 Takeya comprise the teachings of Guo in order to improve efficiency and life time of the display device.
Regarding claim 13, the modified device of Takeya teaches the limitation of claim 12 upon which it depends.
The modified device of Takeya as disclosed in the rejection of claim 12 does not specifically disclose a pixel field characterised in that a number of occupied replacement contacts is different for at least two pixels.
Referring further to Guo’s invention, Guo teaches have the number of LEDs in pixels in certain area (central area) different from the number of LEDs in pixels in another area (peripheral area) (Para 56, Fig. 9).
In view of such teaching by Guo, 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 modified invention further comprise the teachings of Guo at least based on the rationale of applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143.I.D) according to different application scenarios or different requirements (Guo, Para 56).
Regarding claim 14, the modified invention of Takeya teaches a display comprising a pixel field according to claim 12 (Abstract).
Regarding claim 15, the modified invention of Takeya teaches a display comprising a pixel array produced by the method of claim 1 (Abstract).
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bibl et al. [US PGPUB 20140367633] (hereinafter Bibl).
Regarding claim 1, Bibl teaches a method for producing a pixel array comprising:
- providing a substrate (102, Para 78) for a field-like arrangement of pixels (108, Para 77 –although referred to as subpixel, each of the subpixel can be rereferred to as a certain color pixel (e.g., red, blue, green pixel), Fig. 1A) on the substrate and for electrical contacting of the pixels (Para 60), said substrate providing a set of primary contacts (Fig. 1D, i.e., contacts for connectivity to electrodes 403/404 of LED 400, Para 76) for each pixel (Fig. 1D), said set of primary contacts being for electrically contacting a group of µ-LEDs (400, Para 76) of said pixel (Fig. 1D), said substrate also providing one pair of replacement contacts (not shown but in view of replacement site 401, Para 73, Fig. 1D) for said pixels (Fig. 1D),
- equipping each of the set of primary contacts of the pixel with a respective LED of the group of LEDs (Fig. 1D), whereby the one pair of replacement contacts of the pixel is not equipped (Fig. 1D).
In the embodiment of Fig. 1D, Bibl does not specifically disclose
- identifying a faulty LED or a faulty contact in the group of LEDs, and
- equipping the one pair of replacement contacts with a replacement LED for the faulty LED or the faulty contact.
However, in the embodiment of Fig. 2B-C, Bibl teaches identifying a faulty LED (400X, Fig. 2B/C, Para 79) or a faulty contact in the group of LEDs (Fig. 2B/C), and
- equipping the one pair of replacement contacts (i.e., contacts at repair site 401, Para 79) with a replacement LED for the faulty LED or the faulty contact (Para 79).
In view of such further 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 combine the teachings of Fig. 1D/2B/C at least based on the rationale of using known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way using (MPEP 2143.I.C); i.e., to maintain desired luminance of the pixel.
Regarding claim 2 modified in invention of Bibl teaches a method characterized in that the identifying the faulty µ-LED in the group of µ-LEDs and the equipping the one replacement contact with the replacement µ-LED for the faulty µ-LED are repeated until a respective replacement µ-LED is present in the pixel for each µ-LED identified as defective (Para 79; although repetition is not detailed by Bibl, it should be noted that the repetition is contingent on identifying defective µ-LEDs, thus at least in view of Bibl identifying a defective µ-LED and replacing it the limitation of the claim has been met).
Regarding claim 3, the modified invention of Bibl teaches a method characterised in that a µ-LED identified as faulty is not removed (Fig. 2C)
Regarding claim 4, the modified invention of Bibl teaches a method characterised in that a µ-LED identified as faulty and the replacement µ-LED are intended to emit light of a same color (Fig. 2C; in view of the repair occurring with the same color pixel).
Regarding claim 6, the modified invention of Takeya teaches a method characterised in that no replacement contact of the pixel is equipped with a respective replacement µ-LED, if no faulty µ-LED is found in the pixel (Para 79; where LEDs are replaced only when defect is identified).
Regarding claim 7, the modified invention of Bibl teaches a method characterised in that the set of primary contacts and/or the one pair of replacement contacts are configured for contacting a respective µ-LED or a respective replacement µ-LED on an anode side or on a cathode side or both on the anode side and the cathode side (Figs. 1D; where contacts or electrodes of LEDs are referred to as anode and cathode).
Regarding claim 8, the modified invention of Bibl teaches a method characterised in that a respective µ-LED of the group of µ-LEDs or a respective replacement µ-LED is a part of a µ-LED module or a base module (Para 60, display panel).
Regarding claim 11, the modified invention of Bibl teaches a method characterised in that all of the set of primary contacts of the pixel are equipped with µ-LEDs (Fig. 1D).
Regarding claim 15, the modified invention of Bibl teaches a display comprising a pixel array produced by the method of claim 1 (Para 60).
Claims 9, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bibl in view of Takeya.
Regarding claim 9, the modified device of Bibl teaches the limitation of claim 1 upon which it depends.
The modified invention of Bibl teaches a method characterised in that an electrical contact for an identified, faulty µ-LED is disconnected.
(Referring to the invention of Takeya, Takeya teaches a pixel repair method wherein faulty LEDs are deactivated instead of removing them (Para 87).
In view of such teaching by Takeya, 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 Bibl comprise the teaching of Takeya at least based on the rationale of using known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way using (MPEP 2143.I.C), wherein such method prevents issue such as affecting structural integrity of the device and/or introduction of contaminants in the device.
Regarding claim 12, Bibl teaches a pixel field comprising:
a substrate (102, Para 78) for a field-like arrangement of pixels (108, Para 77 –although referred to as subpixel, each of the subpixel can be rereferred to as a certain color pixel (e.g., red, blue, green pixel), Fig. 1A) on the substrate and for electrical contacting of the pixels (Para 60),
the substrate providing a set of primary contacts (Fig. 1D, i.e., contacts for connectivity to electrodes 403/404 of LED 400, Para 76) for at least one pixel (Fig. Fig. 1D), the set of primary contacts of the pixel being adapted for electrical contacting of a group of µ-LEDs (Fig. 1D, Para 76), the substrate also providing one pair of replacement contacts (not shown but in view of replacement site 401, Para 73, Fig. 1D) for the at least one pixel (Fig. 1D);
wherein the primary contacts of the pixel are equipped with the group of µ-LEDs (Fig. 1D).
In the embodiment of Fig. 1D, Bibl does not specifically disclose wherein the group of µ-LEDs comprises a faulty, deactivated µ-LED, and
wherein the one pair of replacement contacts is equipped with a replacement µ-LED as a replacement for said faulty, deactivated µ-LED.
However, in the embodiment of Fig. 2B-C, Bibl teaches wherein the group of LEDs comprises a faulty LED (400X, Para 79), and
wherein the one pair of replacement contacts is equipped with a replacement LED as a replacement for said faulty LED.
In view of such further 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 combine the teachings of Fig. 1D/2B/C at least based on the rationale of using known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way using (MPEP 2143.I.C); i.e., to maintain desired luminance of the pixel.
Referring to the invention of Takeya, Takeya teaches a pixel repair method wherein faulty LEDs are deactivated instead of removing them (Para 87).
In view of such teaching by Takeya, 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 Bibl comprise the teaching of Takeya at least based on the rationale of using known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way using (MPEP 2143.I.C), wherein such method prevents issue such as affecting structural integrity of the device and/or introduction of contaminants in the device.
Regarding claim 14, the modified invention of Takeya teaches a display comprising a pixel field according to claim 12 (Para 60).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bibl in view of Takeya and further in view of Guo et al. [US PGPUB 20190043842] (hereinafter Guo).
Regarding claim 13, the modified device of Bibl teaches the limitation of claim 12 upon which it depends.
The modified device of Bibl as disclosed in the rejection of claim 12 does not specifically disclose a pixel field characterised in that a number of occupied replacement contacts is different for at least two pixels.
Referring further to Guo’s invention, Guo teaches have the number of LEDs in pixels in certain area (central area) different from the number of LEDs in pixels in another area (peripheral area) (Para 56, Fig. 9).
In view of such teaching by Guo, 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 modified invention further comprise the teachings of Guo at least based on the rationale of applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143.I.D) according to different application scenarios or different requirements (Guo, Para 56).
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 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
Prosecution Insights