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 .
Remarks
The 01/07/2026 amendment of claims 1 and 6 have been noted and entered.
The 01/07/2026 addition of new claims 8-9 are noted and entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 5-9, filed 01/07/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 3-7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the newly added amendments. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Okumura, US 20210167247 A1 (Okumura).
Additionally, the examiner would like to clarify, in response to the remarks presented by the Applicant’s representative (see Remarks page 6) regarding the fact that Okumura does not show the placement of the data line (224) and scan line (228) in figure (5) of Okumura for convenience, that this omission is irrelevant to examining the limitations of the instant application. The reason for this assessment is that the positions of both the data line (224) and scan line (228) are pointed out clearly with respect to the position of the frame structure (50) in figure (6) of Okumura where the frame structure (50) is contained between elements (52), (54) and (60) as will be shown in the rejections below. The fact that the circular figures of (52), (54) and (60) surround the perimeter of the frame structure (50) entirely and are depicted in figure (6) as not overlapping the data line (224) and the scan line (228) allows for the interpretation that there is no overlap between the lines and the frame structure.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8-9 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 8; Claim 8 states the following limitations: “…, and the light emitting units expose the portion of the dielectric layer.” (emphasis added). However, by examining the specification of the instant application it appears that such a description is not included therein. Additionally, examining Figure (1B) of the instant application reveals that the pixel unit (PX) exposes a portion of the dielectric layer (111) through the exposed region (EX1). However, there is no sign that the light emitting unit (120) exposes a portion of the dielectric layer (111). Thus, the language used in describing the limitation in the claim causes the claim to be in violation in the written description requirement.
PNG
media_image1.png
725
885
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9; Claim 9 states the following limitations: “…, and the light emitting units expose the portion of the dielectric layer.” (emphasis added). However, by examining the specification of the instant application it appears that such a description is not included therein. Additionally, examining Figure (1B) of the instant application reveals that the pixel unit (PX) exposes a portion of the dielectric layer (111) through the exposed region (EX1). However, there is no sign that the light emitting unit (120) exposes a portion of the dielectric layer (111). Thus, the language used in describing the limitation in the claim causes the claim to be in violation in the written description requirement.
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 1 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okumura, US 20210167247 A1 (Okumura).
Regarding claim 1; Okumura teaches a display device (100) comprising: a substrate (10); a dielectric layer (46) disposed on the substrate; a plurality of light emitting units (40) disposed on the dielectric layer (46) and generating heat; a first structure ((41)+(30)+(50)+(48)) disposed on the dielectric layer (46); and a second structure (20) disposed on an outside surface of the substrate (10), wherein the heat is transferred from the light emitting units (40) to the second (20) structure through the first structure ((41)+(30)+(50)+(48)), wherein the first structure ((41)+(30)+(50)+(48)) exposes a portion of the dielectric layer (46) and at least one of the plurality of light emitting units (40), wherein the first structure ((41)+(30)+(50)+(48)) comprises a plurality of frames (50), at least one of the light emitting units (40) is surrounded by one of the frames (50).
PNG
media_image2.png
588
873
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Okumura does not teach in the embodiment disclosed in Fig (1) of Okumura a scan line and a data line disposed on the substrate, and the frames do not overlap with the scan line and the data line in a top view of the display device. However, Okumura discloses in a different embodiment shown in Figs (5)-(6) (annotated and shared in the OA for convenience) a scan line (228) and a data line (224) disposed on the substrate (210), and the frames (50) do not overlap with the scan line (228) and the data line (224) in a top view of the display device. The two different embodiments of Okumura are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the first embodiment of Okumura by using the scan and data lines which do not overlap the frame in a normal direction to the substrate as disclosed in the second embodiment of Okumura to improve the isolation of the conductive lines leading to a better performing device.
PNG
media_image3.png
750
1360
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
863
1263
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Please see a zoomed-in section of the above annotated Figure (6) of Okumura for more details.
PNG
media_image5.png
460
835
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3; Okumura teaches wherein the first structure ((41)+(30)+(50)+(48)) further comprises a bridge (48) connecting two adjacent ones of the frames (50).
Regarding claim 4; Okumura teaches wherein the first structure ((41)+(30)+(50)+(48)) is configured to transmit a common signal.
Regarding claim 5; Okumura teaches further comprising: a medium (10), wherein the second structure (20) is connected to the first structure ((41)+(30)+(50)+(48)) through the medium (10).
Regarding claim 6; Okumura teaches a display device (100) comprising: a substrate (10); a dielectric layer (46) disposed on the substrate (10) a plurality of light emitting units (40) disposed on the dielectric layer (46) and generating heat; and a first structure ((41)+(30)+(50)+(48)) disposed on the dielectric layer (46) and transferring the heat, wherein in a top view of the display device (100), an area of a portion of the first structure ((41)+(30)+(50)+(48)) is greater than an area of a portion of the light emitting units (40) in a predetermined square region (see annotated Fig (2) of Okumura reproduced below) of the substrate (10), wherein the first structure ((41)+(30)+(50)+(48)) exposes a portion of the dielectric layer (46) and at least one of the plurality of light emitting units (40) , wherein the first structure ((41)+(30)+(50)+(48)) comprises a plurality of frames (50), at least one of the light emitting units (40) is surrounded by one of the frames (50).
PNG
media_image6.png
898
832
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Okumura does not disclose in the embodiment disclosed in Fig (1) of Okumura a scan line and a data line disposed on the substrate, and the frames do not overlap with the scan line and the data line in a top view of the display device. However, Okumura discloses in a different embodiment shown in Figs (5)-(6) (annotated and shared in the OA for convenience) a scan line (228) and a data line (224) disposed on the substrate (210), and the frames (50) do not overlap with the scan line (228) and the data line (224) in a top view of the display device. Given that the two different embodiments of Okumura are considered analogous art, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the first embodiment of Okumura by using the scan and data lines which do not overlap the frame in a normal direction to the substrate as disclosed in the second embodiment of Okumura to improve the isolation of the conductive lines leading to a better performing device.
Regarding claim 7; Okumura teaches wherein the area of the portion of the first structure ((41)+(30)+(50)+(48)) is greater than a half of an area of the predetermined square region (see annotated Fig (2) of Okumura reproduced above).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okumura, US 20210167247 A1 (Okumura) in view of Kim, US 20080029797 A1 (Kim).
Regarding claim 8; Okumura teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Further, Okumura teaches wherein the dielectric layer (46) is disposed between the light emitting units (40) and the substrate (10), the dielectric layer (46) is disposed between the first structure ((41)+(30)+(50)+(48)) and the substrate (10), the light emitting units (40) overlap the dielectric layer (46).
Okumura does not teach the light emitting units expose the portion of the dielectric layer.
However, Kim teaches the light emitting units (Pixel Region – see Figs (3), (4) and (5) of Kim shared in this OA) expose the portion of the dielectric layer (110) (see paragraph [0006] of the specification of Kim: “[0006]… Exposing the interlayer dielectric layer in the pixel region and the top conductive layer by selectively etching the etch stop layer in the pixel region and the etch stop layer in the top conductive layer region. Sequentially forming a color filter, an over coating layer, a micro lens on and/or over the interlayer dielectric layer exposed in the pixel region.". Okumura and Kim are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Okumura by exposing a portion of the dielectric layer as disclosed in Kim to improve heat extraction from the pixel at the top surface of the device leading to a more reliable display device.
Regarding claim 9; Okumura teaches all the limitations of claim 6.
Further, Okumura teaches wherein the dielectric layer (46) is disposed between the light emitting units (40) and the substrate (10), the dielectric layer (46) is disposed between the first structure ((41)+(30)+(50)+(48)) and the substrate (10), the light emitting units (40) overlap the dielectric layer (46).
Okumura does not teach the light emitting units expose the portion of the dielectric layer.
However, Kim teaches the light emitting units (Pixel Region – see Figs (3), (4) and (5) of Kim shared in this OA) expose the portion of the dielectric layer (110) (see paragraph [0006] of the specification of Kim: “[0006]… Exposing the interlayer dielectric layer in the pixel region and the top conductive layer by selectively etching the etch stop layer in the pixel region and the etch stop layer in the top conductive layer region. Sequentially forming a color filter, an over coating layer, a micro lens on and/or over the interlayer dielectric layer exposed in the pixel region.". Okumura and Kim are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Okumura by exposing a portion of the dielectric layer as disclosed in Kim to improve heat extraction from the pixel at the top surface of the device leading to a more reliable display device.
PNG
media_image7.png
858
712
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
702
653
media_image8.png
Greyscale
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 Moataz Khalifa whose telephone number is (703)756-1770. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (8:30 am - 5:00).
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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at 571-270-1435. 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.
/M.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2815
/MONICA D HARRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815