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 Amendment
The amendment filed on Jan. 20th 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10 and 20-21 remain pending in the application.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima et al. (JP 2003203886) in view of Ebene et al. (CN 107154453).
Regarding claim 1, Nakajima teaches a donor substrate (substrate for element transfer method; para. 0001) comprising:
a base substrate (fig. 5, quartz substrate 5; para. 0028);
a resin layer (release layer 3 is formed by uniformly applying a resin; para. 0027) disposed on one surface (top surface) of the base substrate (5) and including an active region (middle region with active element) and a generic outer region (out region within 3) surrounding the active region (middle region);
a plurality of first protrusions (element 2; para. 0027) disposed on the active region (middle region) of the resin layer (3);
wherein the base substrate (5) includes:
a transfer region (the region with 3 for transfer) overlapping the resin layer (3)
a non-transfer region (edge region without 3) protruding to an outside of the resin layer (outside of 3) and not overlapping the resin layer (3),
wherein the donor substrate (5) is configured to transfer a plurality of LEDs (silicon substrate 1, element 2 as LED element; para. 0003) from a wafer (1) to a display device (alkali-free glass substrate 8, or indirectly to the LED display; para. 0003, 0034) by temporarily adhering the plurality of LEDs (1, 2) to top surfaces of the plurality of the first protrusions (top surfaces of 2).
Nakajima fails to teach the generic outer region is a dam region;
a plurality of second protrusions disposed on the dam region of the resin layer;
an alignment mark disposed on the base substrate;
wherein the alignment mark is disposed in the transfer region.
wherein the alignment mark overlaps an area between the plurality of second protrusions, and at least some of the plurality of second protrusions are disposed adjacent to the non-transfer region rather than the alignment mark.
However, Ebene teaches the generic outer region is a dam region (Ebene: fig. 1, mark formation region 18 as the outer region; para. 0113);
a plurality of second protrusions (Ebene: cutting mark 9; para. 0114) disposed on the dam region (Ebene: 18) of the resin layer (Ebene: fig. 2, device assembly fixing layer 3; para. 0114, similar to 3 of Nakajima);
an alignment mark (Ebene: arrangement marks 8; para. 0114) disposed on the base substrate (Ebene: supporting layer 2; para. 0114);
wherein the alignment mark (Ebene: 8) is disposed in the transfer region (Ebene: region with 3).
wherein the alignment mark (Ebene: fig. 1, arrangement marks 8; para. 0114) overlaps an area (Ebene: area between 9) between the plurality of second protrusions (Ebene: 9), and at least some of the plurality of second protrusions (Ebene: 9) are disposed adjacent to the non-transfer region (Ebene: region even outside 18, similar to edge region of Nakajima) rather than the alignment mark (Ebene: 8).
Ebene and Nakajima are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of transfer substrates.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add second protrusions and alignment mark in a dam region as taught by Ebene.
Doing so would realize extra alignment mark for performing alignment more accurately in the transfer (Ebene: para. 0009).
Regarding claim 2, Nakajima in view of Ebene further teaches the donor substrate of claim 1, wherein the alignment mark (Ebene: fig. 11, 8) is disposed on a surface (bottom surface) opposite to the one surface (top surface) of the base substrate (Ebene: 2).
Regarding claim 3, Nakajima in view of Ebene further teaches the donor substrate of claim 1, wherein the alignment mark (Ebene: fig. 10c, 8) is disposed on the one surface (top surface) of the base substrate (Ebene: 2).
Regarding claim 4, Nakajima in view of Ebene further teaches the donor substrate of claim 3, further comprising:
an adhesive layer (Nakajima: fig. 5, adhesive layer 4; para. 0027) disposed between the resin layer (Nakajima: 3) and the base substrate (Nakajima: 5),
wherein the alignment mark (Ebene: fig. 10c, 7) is in contact with the adhesive layer (Ebene: component assembly fixing layer 3; para. 0088, similar to 4 of Nakajima).
Regarding claim 10, Nakajima in view of Ebene further teaches the donor substrate of claim 1, wherein the base substrate (Nakajima: fig. 5, 5 is quartz) and the resin layer (Nakajima: 3 is epoxy; para. 0027) are formed of a transparent material (quartz and epoxy are transparent), and
wherein the alignment mark (Ebene: fig. 2, 8) is formed of an opaque material (Ebene: Alignment mark is opaque; para. 0018).
Claims 6-7 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima in view of Ebene as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al. (KR 101902566 and US 20190035817 as the English translation).
Regarding claim 6, Nakajima in view of Ebene teaches the donor substrate of claim 1 including the plurality of second protrusions (Ebene: fig. 2, 9).
Nakajima in view of Ebene fails to explicitly teach a height of the plurality of second protrusions is same as a height of the plurality of first protrusions.
However, Park teaches a height of the plurality of second protrusions (Park: fig .9B, structure 260 on the edge; para. 0161, similar to 9 of Ebene) is same as a height of the plurality of first protrusions (Park: micro light emitting element 250; para. 01610, similar to 1, 2 of Nakajima).
Park, Ebene and Nakajima are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of transfer substrates.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the height of the plurality of second protrusions is same as the height of the plurality of first protrusions as taught by Park.
Doing so would realize a structure with first and second protrusions manufacture at same time to lower manufacture cost and second protrusions as a reference key to more precisely adjust a position where the micro light emitting element to be disposed (Park: para. 0162).
Regarding claim 7, Nakajima in view of Ebene and Park further teaches the donor substrate of claim 6, wherein
the alignment mark (Ebene: fig. 1, 8) is disposed on a remaining portion (Ebene: remaining portion of 18) except for portions overlapping the plurality of first protrusions and the plurality of second protrusions (Ebene: portions of optical semiconductor elements 11 and 9; para. 0095, similar to 1, 2 of Nakajima), in the one surface of the base substrate (Ebene: 2).
Regarding claim 20, Nakajima in view of Ebene teaches the donor substrate of claim 1, wherein the alignment mark (Ebene: fig. 2, 8) is disposed in the dam region (Ebene: 18).
Nakajima in view of Ebene fails to explicitly teach the alignment mark is configured to overlap an alignment key of a wafer.
However, Park teaches the alignment mark (Park: fig .9B, structure 260 on the edge; para. 0161, similar to 8 of Ebene) is configured to overlap an alignment key (Park: area of two second structure 270; para. 0160) of a wafer (Park: substrate 210; para. 0160).
Park, Ebene and Nakajima are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of transfer substrates.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add an alignment key of a wafer as taught by Park.
Doing so would realize a reference key to more precisely adjust a position where the micro light emitting element to be disposed (Park: para. 0162).
Regarding claim 21, Nakajima in view of Ebene and Park further teaches the donor substrate of claim 20, wherein the alignment key (Park: fig .9B, area of two 270) is formed larger than the alignment mark (Park: 260), and
wherein the alignment key (Park: 270) is disposed to protrude to an outside (Park: 270 protrude and around outside) of the alignment mark (Park: 260) in a plan view (Park: fig. 7).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima in view of Ebene as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Young et al. (KR 20130020243).
Regarding claim 8, Nakajima in view of Ebene teaches the donor substrate of claim 1,
wherein the donor substrate (fig. 5, 5) including the non-transfer region (edge region without 3).
Nakajima in view of Ebene fails to explicitly teach an identification pattern disposed on the non-transfer region; and
a direction pattern disposed in the non-transfer region.
However, Young teaches an identification pattern (Young: fig. 3, alignment mark 40a can be identify; para. 0032) disposed on the non-transfer region (Young: edge region without flexible substrate 30; para. 0032); and
a direction pattern (Young: alignment key 10a show cross direction; para. 0032) disposed in the non-transfer region (Young: edge region).
Young, Ebene and Nakajima are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of transfer substrates.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add an identification pattern and a direction pattern as taught by Young.
Doing so would realize clearer align mark to improve the alignment precision (Young: para. 0031).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4, 6-8, 10 and 20-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 ZHIJUN XU whose telephone number is (571)270-3447. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am-5pm ET.
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, Eva Montalvo can be reached at (571) 270-3829. 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.
/ZHIJUN XU/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/BRIAN TURNER/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights