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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 23rd, 2025 has been received. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/06/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
Acknowledgment is made of the amendment filed October 23rd, 2025 (“ANE.I”), in which: claim 1 is amended; no claims are cancelled; no new claims are added; and the rejection of the claims are traversed. Claims 1 – 13 are currently pending an Office action on the merits as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 – 13 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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.
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 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.
Claims 1, 8, and 10 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bower et al. (US 20200295120 A1), and further in view of Bower et al. (US 20210043618 A1) and Kamo et al. (US 20200400862 A1).
Regarding independent Claim 1, Bower teaches a display panel (Bower teaches a tile display structure 99, and features thereof, in Figs. 1, 17 – 19, 21A, and 22; wherein a tile 40 is considered by the examiner to be a display panel) comprising:
a thin film transistor substrate (Figs. 17, 19; display tile substrate 42 includes active components (e.g., transistors. See [0027]), such that the examiner asserts tile substrate 42 includes a thin film transistor substrate. See [0066], [0068], and [0073]. Further, Bower teaches in [0027] that a tile substrate disclosed may include transistors; such that the examiner is interpreting display tile substrate 42 to be a thin film transistor substrate) comprising a mounting surface (Fig. 19; surface of display tile substrate, i.e., thin film transistor substrate, 42 which faces the light emitter 52 is interpreted by the examiner to be a mounting surface) on which a plurality of electrode pads (Fig. 19; emitter-side electrodes 60) are formed;
a plurality of inorganic light emitting device groups (Fig. 22; see plurality of pixels on a display tile. Additionally, see [0053], further in view of [0058]) each forming a pixel (Fig. 22; see a pixel. Also, see a pixel 50 as disclosed in [0053]) and each comprising a plurality of inorganic light emitting devices (Bower teaches in [0053] that pixels 50 can comprise a plurality of light emitters 52. See Figs. 1,17, and 19) respectively mounted on the mounting surface (Figs. 19 and 22); and
…
However, Bower remains silent on a display panel including:
a mesh plate comprising:
a plurality of openings in which the plurality of inorganic light emitting device groups are respectively positioned, and
a partition wall covering at least one portion of a non-mounted area between the plurality of inorganic light emitting device groups,
wherein the mesh plate comprises an attaching surface facing the mounting surface, and a reflective surface which is opposite the attaching surface,
wherein a moth eye pattern comprising a plurality of micro protrusions is formed on the reflective surface,
wherein the mesh plate further comprises [[an]]a first extension portion extending from a side surface of the thin film transistor substrate over a gap between the display panel and a neighboring display panel and toward a second extension portion of a mesh plate of the neighboring display panel that extends over the gap, and
wherein the first extension portion is spaced apart from the second extension portion.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Bower (US 20210043618 A1) discloses a similar tile display device (Figs. 12A and 14A. See [00146]) which include module electrodes 18; wherein the examiner asserts that Bower’s module electrodes 18 are similar to the instant mesh plates. Further, Bower’s (US 20210043618 A1) module electrodes 18 are similar to both Bower’s (US 20200295120 A1) wrap around connection and opaque film (Fig. 22); wherein Bower’s (US 20200295120 A1) opaque film (Fig. 22) was previously cited as reading on the instant mesh plate. However, Bower’s (US 20210043618 A1) module electrodes 18 departs from the Bower’s (US 20200295120 A1) opaque film wherein the module electrodes 18 includes a first extension portion (see excerpt of Fig.14 A below) extending from a side surface of the thin film transistor substrate (see excerpt of Fig.14 A below) over a gap between the display panel(see excerpt of Fig.14 A below). Further, Bower’s tile display devices includes a neighboring display panel (Fig. 14A) and toward a second extension portion of a mesh plate of the neighboring display panel that extends over the gap (see excerpt of Fig.14 A below).
PNG
media_image1.png
242
570
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Further, Bower discloses the module electrode to be opaque and/or reflective (at least [0113], [0114], and [0115]). Due to the similar functionality of Bower’s (US 20210043618 A1) module electrodes 18 to both Bower’s (US 20200295120 A1) wrap around connection and opaque film (Fig. 22), examiner asserts that Bower’s display device may be modified further in view of Bower to yield the display device including:
a mesh plate (Fig. 14A; pattern formed of module electrodes 18) comprising:
a plurality of openings (Fig. 14A; opening in module electrode 18 wherein the light emitters 20 are disposed) in which the plurality of inorganic light emitting device groups are respectively positioned (Fig. 14A), and
a partition wall (Figs. 12A and 14A; sidewall portion of module electrode 18 facing the light emitters 20 that divides the light emitters, similar to the instant partition wall 82) covering at least one portion of a non-mounted area between the plurality of inorganic light emitting device groups (Figs. 12A and 14A),
wherein the mesh plate comprises an attaching surface (Figs. 12A and 14A; bottom surface of module electrode 18) facing the mounting surface, and a reflective surface which is opposite the attaching surface (Figs. 12A and 14A; top surface of module electrode 18), …
wherein the mesh plate further comprises [[an]]a first extension portion (See excerpt of Fig. 14A above) extending from a side surface of the thin film transistor substrate over a gap between the display panel (See excerpt of Fig. 14A above) and a neighboring display panel and toward a second extension portion (See excerpt of Fig. 14A above) of a mesh plate of the neighboring display panel that extends over the gap (See excerpt of Fig. 14A above), and
wherein the first extension portion is spaced apart from the second extension portion (See excerpt of Fig. 14A above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Bower’s display device to include Bower’s mesh plate, i.e., module electrode 18, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Bower’s module electrode 18 is comparable to both Bower’s (US 20200295120 A1) wrap around connection and opaque film because Bower’s module electrode 18 is formed to be opaque to and/or reflect light, similar to Bower’s opaque film, and to connect device components, similar to Bower’s wrap around connection. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bower’s display device to include Bower’s mesh plate, i.e., module electrode 18, with the predictable result of improving the contrast ratio of the display device, at least through the module electrodes opaque and/or reflective qualities.
Further, in the same field of endeavor, Kamo teaches a display device including black layer 2 of a black structure 1, shown in Figs. 1 and 5A, which further includes a light transmitting portion 7, i.e., an opening; and the black structure 1 further includes a fine uneven structure 3. The fine uneven structures 3 are configured to reflect light. Examiner’s opinion is that the black surface 2 of Kamo is analogous to Bower’s reflective surface (i.e., top surface of module electrode 18). As such, Bower’s mesh plate, i.e., module electrode 18, may be modified to include Kamo’s fine uneven structures 3; which are disclosed by Kamo as a moth-eye structures (Kamo: at least [0051]). This modification to Bower’s mesh plate, further in view of Kamo’s fine uneven structures 3, yields a display panel wherein:
the mesh plate further includes … a reflective surface (Kamo: surface of black structure 1 that is on the viewing side, as indicated by an eye, of the structure shown in Fig. 1) which is opposite the attaching surface (Kamo shows in Fig. 1 an attaching surface, analogous to Bower’s attaching surface, of the black structure 1 physically in contact with optional base material 4/transparent resin layer 9, e.g., at least [0032]/[0085] of Kamo),
the display panel includes a device structure… wherein a moth eye pattern (Kamo: Figs. 1 and 5A; fine uneven structure 3, i.e., moth-eye structure. See at least [0051]) comprising a plurality of micro protrusions is formed on the reflective surface, and …
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the mesh plate, i.e., module electrode 18, of Bower, further in view of Bower, to include Kamo’s moth-eye structure, because such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. More specifically, Bower’s mesh plate as modified by Kamo’s moth-eye structure can yield a predictable result of improving the display’s contrast ratio since reflection of light can be adjusted to reduce light being reflected back to the viewer (Kamo: [0032]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the instant invention to improve upon Bower’s mesh plate to provide further structures configured to reduce visible seams (Bower (US 20200295120 A1): [0071]). Since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable before the effective filing date of the instant invention.
Regarding dependent Claim 8, Bower, further in view of Bower and Kamo, teach the display panel of claim 1; However, Bower remains silent wherein
a surface of the mesh plate comprises a black color.
However, when forming an opaque structure over non-display/non-light transmitting regions, one of ordinary skill in the art would have known the color black to be an obvious color choice for the opaque structure (Bower (US 20200295120 A1): at least [0009], [0012] – [0013], and [0015]).
Further, in the same field of endeavor, Kamo teaches the black layer 2 of the black structure 1 is formed to have a black composition, which may be achieved through a black pigment ([0036] – [0039]). It would be obvious to add Kamo’s black pigment to Bower’s opaque film.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the mesh plate of Bower, further in view of Bower and Kamo, to include a black color, such as disclosed by Kamo’s black layer, because such a modification is the result of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. More specifically, Kamo’s black layer permits absorbs light beams from a viewing side (e.g., [0032] of Kamo). This known benefit in Kamo’s black layer is applicable to Bower’s mesh plate as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to blocking ambient light and hiding the spaces between display panels. Therefore, it would have been recognized that modifying Bower’s mesh plate to include the color of Kamo’s black layer, i.e., black, would have yielded predictable results because (i) the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate the color of Kamo’s black layer in modular display devices and (ii) the benefits of such a combination would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding dependent Claim 10, Bower, further in view of Bower and Kamo, teach the display panel of claim 1, wherein
a length and a height of each of the plurality of micro protrusions are from tens of nanometers to hundreds of nanometers (Kamo: [0014]).
Therefore, a display panel wherein a length and a height of each of the plurality of micro protrusions are from tens of nanometers to hundreds of nanometers would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, from at least [0014] of Kamo, because absent evidence or disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results; it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d454, 105 USQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1995).
Regarding dependent Claim 11, Bower, further in view of Bower and Kamo, teach the display panel of claim 1, wherein
each of the plurality of inorganic light emitting devices is in a shape of a flip chip (Fig. 19 and [0068] – [0069] and [0073]) comprising a body emitting light (Fig. 19; light emitters 52) and a pair of device electrodes (Fig. 19; light-emitter connection posts 58) protruding from the body toward the mounting surface (Fig. 19).
Claims 2 – 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bower et al. (US 20200295120 A1), and further in view of Bower et al. (US 20210043618 A1), Kamo et al. (US 20200400862 A1), and Lee (US 20220415977 A1).
Regarding dependent Claim 2, Bower, further in view of Bower and Kamo, teach the display panel of claim 1; however, Bower remains silent on the display panel further comprising
an anisotropic conductive layer provided on the mounting surface and electrically connecting the plurality of inorganic light emitting devices to the thin film transistor substrate.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches a similar display device including a display panel wherein:
an anisotropic conductive layer (Lee: Figs. 2 – 3b; conductive adhesive layer 130; wherein the conductive adhesive layer is taught to be an anisotropic conductive film, i.e., an anisotropic conductive layer (ACF), in at least [0069]) provided on the mounting surface (Lee: E.g., Fig. 2; substrate 110) and electrically connecting the plurality of inorganic light emitting devices to the thin film transistor substrate (Lee: [0069] discloses the function of the ACF 130 to allow electrical interconnection).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the display panel of Bower, further in view of Bower and Kamo, to include Lee’s anisotropic conductive layer (ACF), because such a modification is the result of simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result. More specifically, Bower’s adhesive layer (Fig. 22 and [0071]) and Lee’s anisotropic conductive layer (ACF) perform the same general and predictable function, the predictable function being an adhesive that joins display panel elements, which may be formed over electrodes to which LEDs may be connected to (Lee: Fig. 3a, [0066], and [0076] – [0077]). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution of Bower’s adhesive layer by replacing it with Lee’s anisotropic conductive layer (ACF). Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious before the effective filing date of the instant invention.
Regarding dependent Claim 3, Bower, further in view of Bower, Kamo, and Lee, teach the display panel of claim 2, wherein
the mesh plate is configured to be attached to the anisotropic conductive layer (Lee: Fig. 3b shows black matrix 191 attached to the display device 100 by the ACF 130) such that the attaching surface is in contact with the anisotropic conductive layer (Lee: Fig. 3b).
Regarding dependent Claim 4, Bower, further in view of Bower, Kamo, and Lee, teach the display panel of claim 2, wherein
the anisotropic conductive layer comprises an adhesive resin, and a conductive ball dispersed in the adhesive resin and surrounded by an insulating film.
Lee teaches the conductive adhesive layer in [0122], wherein the anisotropic conductive film may include a conductive particle contained solution and the like. Further, in [0173], Lee teaches, “the conductive adhesive layer may be a resin layer including a conductive ball, and this resin layer may be a resin layer cured by application of heat or light.”
Regarding dependent Claim 5, Bower, further in view of Bower, Kamo, and Lee, teach the display panel of claim 2, wherein
the anisotropic conductive layer is provided on an entire area of the mounting surface (Lee discloses in [0067] that the conductive adhesive layer 130 may be formed directly on the substrate 110 such that the conductive adhesive layer may be provided on an entire area of the substrate. Examiner asserts that such a structure would resemble that of the conductive adhesive layer 230 shown in Fig. 7).
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bower et al. (US 20200295120 A1), and further in view of Bower et al. (US 20210043618 A1), Kamo et al. (US 20200400862 A1), Lee (US 20220415977 A1), and Bower et al. (US 20160351539 A1).
Regarding dependent Claim 7, Bower, further in view of Bower, Kamo and Lee, teach the display panel of claim 2; However, Bower remains silent wherein
a thickness of the mesh plate is less than a height by which the plurality of inorganic light emitting devices protrude from the anisotropic conductive layer.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Bower (US 20160351539 A1), discloses a display structure which includes light-absorbing material 42; wherein the examiner asserts light-absorbing material 42 is analogous to Bower’s mesh plate, i.e., module electrode 18. As shown in Bower’s (US 20160351539 A1) Fig. 23, the light-absorbing material 42 and the pixel elements 20 are formed on an adhesive layer 15. It can be seen in Fig. 23 that the distance the pixel elements protrude from the adhesive layer 15 is larger than the thickness of the light-absorbing material 42. Wherein Bower (US 20160351539 A1) discusses in [0283] that the pixel elements 20 may be inorganic light emitters 30.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the mesh plate of Bower, further in view of Bower and Kamo, to include Bower’s (US 20160351539 A1) relative thickness of their light-absorbing material with respect to the display device’s LEDs; such that a thickness of the mesh plate is less than a height by which the plurality of inorganic light emitting devices protrude from the anisotropic conductive layer, because such a modification is taught, suggested, or motivated by the art. More specifically, the motivation to modify the mesh plate of Bower, further in view of Bower and Kamo, to include Bower’s (US 20160351539 A1) relative thickness of their light-absorbing material with respect to the display device’s LEDs is expressly provided by Bower (US 20160351539 A1), stating, and showing, that the light-absorbing material can extend only partially towards the top of the light-emitters 30 (Fig. 23; see relationship between the light emitters 30, the transparent adhesive layer 15, and the light-absorbing material 42. Also, see [0276] and [0324]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the mesh plate of Bower, further in view of Bower and Kamo, to include Bower’s (US 20160351539 A1) relative thickness of their light-absorbing material with respect to the display device’s LEDs with the motivation of configuring the light-absorbing material to absorb transmitted ambient light transmitted through the display substrate without interfering with emitted light ([0276]). The person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of a thickness of the mesh plate is less than a height by which the plurality of inorganic light emitting devices protrude from the anisotropic conductive layer in order for the mesh plate to not interfere with emitted light from the LEDs.
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bower et al. (US 20200295120 A1), and further in view of Bower et al. (US 20210043618 A1), Kamo et al. (US 20200400862 A1), and Jung et al. (US 20200051964 A1).
Regarding dependent Claim 13, Bower, further in view of Bower and Kamo, teach the display panel of claim 1, wherein the thin film transistor substrate comprises:
… glass material (Bower: [0057]); and …
However, Bower remains silent wherein the thin film transistor substrate comprises:
a substrate comprising …
a thin film transistor wiring layer formed on the substrate.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Jung teaches a similar display device 1300 (Fig. 13A); wherein LEDs 1360 are attached to a thin film transistor substrate (Fig. 13A; wherein examiner is interpreting the first transistor 150, the individual substrate 111, the buffer layer 112, the gate insulating layer 113, the inter-layer insulating layer 114, and the planarization layer 115 to be a thin film transistor substrate). Such that Jung the thin film transistor substrate that comprises:
a substrate (Fig. 13A; individual substrate 111) comprising …
a thin film transistor wiring layer (Fig. 13A; first transistor 150) formed on the substrate (Fig. 13A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply Jung’s thin film transistor substrate structure to Bower’s thin film transistor substrate in order to supplement the deficiencies of Bower. When using Jung’s thin film transistor substrate, it would be obvious, from at least [0057] of Bower, to use glass material for Jung’s individual substrate 111.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the disclosure of Bower’s thin film transistor substrate to include more details regarding device circuitry, such as disclosed by Jung’s thin film transistor substrate, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Jung’s thin film transistor substrate is comparable to Bower’s thin film transistor substrate because they both include active elements, e.g., transistors, and include a mounting surfacer, wherein LEDs are coupled thereon. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bower’s thin film transistor substrate to include more details regarding device circuitry, such as disclosed by Jung’s thin film transistor substrate, with the predictable result of providing more specificity regarding the circuity of a modular display device.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bower et al. (US 20200295120 A1), and further in view of Bower et al. (US 20210043618 A1), Kamo et al. (US 20200400862 A1), and Jang (US 20230069883 A1).
Regarding dependent Claim 6, Bower, further in view of Bower, Kamo, teach the display panel of claim 1; however, Bower remains silent wherein
the mesh plate comprises an Invar material.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Jang teaches in [0173] a mask MS that includes a hole MH that is sized to match with the semiconductor light emitting device chip AA, wherein the mask MS may be made with Invar metals.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the mesh plate of Bower, further in view of Bower and Kamo, to include Jang’s Invar material, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Jang’s disclosed material is comparable to the nickel and iron material disclosed by Kamo for their black layer. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify mesh plate of Bower, further in view of Bower and Kamo, to include Jang’s Invar material with the predictable result providing a dull/dark optically dense material for forming the mesh plate.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bower et al. (US 20200295120 A1), and further in view of Bower et al. (US 20210043618 A1), Kamo et al. (US 20200400862 A1), and Corn et al. (US 20150126393 A1).
Regarding dependent Claim 9, Bower, further in view of Bower and Kamo, teach the display panel of claim 1; however, Bower remains silent wherein
each of the plurality of micro protrusions is in a shape of a cone or a polypyramid protruding from the reflective surface.
However, in a related field of endeavor, Corn discloses an array of nanostructures analogous to Kamo’s fine uneven structure 3. Wherein Corn teaches that the array of nanostructures have optical properties such as anti-reflectivity ([0005]). Further, Corn teaches [0041] that the nanostructures may be nanocones, i.e., in a shape of a cone, and nanopyramids, i.e., in a shape of a polypyramid.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Kamo’s fine uneven structure 3 such that each of the plurality of micro protrusions is in a shape of a cone or a polypyramid protruding from the reflective surface.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Kamo’s fine uneven structures 3 to include a shape of a cone or a polypyramid, as disclosed by Corn, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Corn’s nanostructures are comparable to Kamo’s fine uneven structures because they both reflect ambient light in such a way to improve the devices contrast ratio, as a technique to include anti-reflectivity for the display panel. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kamo’s fine uneven structures 3 to include Corn’s nanostructures shapes with the predictable result of reducing the ambient light reflect back to the user of the display panel.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bower et al. (US 20200295120 A1), and further in view of Bower et al. (US 20210043618 A1), Kamo et al. (US 20200400862 A1), and Wang et al. (US 20180219123 A1).
Regarding dependent Claim 12, Bower, further in view of Bower and Kamo, teach the display panel of claim 11, wherein
the pair of device electrodes of the plurality of inorganic light emitting devices are electrically connected to electrode pads of the thin film transistor substrate (Bower: Fig. 19; emitter-side electrodes 60) …
wherein the display panel further comprises an optical transparent adhesive (Bower: Fig. 22; adhesive and [0056]) provided between the thin film transistor substrate and the mesh plate (Bower: Fig. 22) and configured to attach the mesh plate to the thin film transistor substrate (Bower’s discussion in [0071] would easily facilitate the attaching of the mesh plate, i.e., Bower’s module electrode 18, to Bower’s TFT substrate).
However, Bower remains silent wherein:
the pair of device electrodes of the plurality of inorganic light emitting devices are electrically connected to electrode pads of the thin film transistor substrate … through a solder bump, and …
However, in the same field of endeavor, Wang teaches a flip-chip mounting of LEDs at a solder point 203 (Fig. 3b); wherein Wang teaches in [0063] that the solder point, which attaches the LED, is connected the thin film transistors of the device. This teaching may be applied to the display panel of Bower, further in view of Kamo, such that solder points are formed to receive the pair of device electrodes at the electrode pads of the thin film transistor, and wherein the pair of device electrodes of the plurality of inorganic light emitting devices are electrically connected to electrode pads of the thin film transistor substrate through a solder bump.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the display panel of Bower, further in view of Bower and Kamo, to include Wang’s solder points to connect the electrodes of the LEDs to the transistors of the substrate, because such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. More specifically, the display panel of Bower, further in view of Bower and Kamo, as modified by Wang’s solder points can yield a predictable result of securely connecting the LED chips to the transistor substrate since the solder points provide extra strength and security when coupling the LED chips and the transistor substrate. Since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable before the effective filing date of the instant invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20190043454 A1 teaches a display device with gaps/seams (Figs. 2A – 2B).
US 20200067009 A1 teaches a similar mesh plate (light-absorbing layer 140 with reflective layer 130, e.g., Fig. 6A or Fig. 7B) with a gap between sub-display panels 210 (Fig. 12; sub-display panels 210 and splicing gaps D1). Further, it is taught in Fig. 13 that the light-absorbing layer extends into the gaps to decrease the spacing of a gap from a distance represented by D1 to a distance represented by D2 ([0066]).
US 20140111442 A1 previously relied on.
US 20220384686 A1 teaches a similar display panel to Lee et al. (US 20220415977 A1).
US 11127889 B2 teaches relevant flip-chip components.
US 9818725 B2 discloses relevant structural features to the instant display device.
US 7402951 B2 teaches relevant display panel features to the instant application.
US 6403985 B1 teaches relevant mesh plate details (Fig. 2A).
US 20070077349 A1 teaches relevant mesh plate details.
US 20100317132 A1 teaches relevant mesh plate details.
US 20130207964 A1 teaches relevant mesh plate details.
US 20200066688 A1 teaches relevant display device features.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIO A AUTORE whose telephone number is (571)270-0059. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am - 5 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, Chad Dicke can be reached on (571) 270-7996. 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.
MARIO A. AUTORE JR.
Examiner
Art Unit 2897
/MARIO ANDRES AUTORE JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2897 /CHAD M DICKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights