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 .
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed January 23, 2026 have been entered and considered.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 23, 2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-11, in the reply filed on March 21, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on March, 21, 2025.
[37 CFR 1.142(b)] Requirement for Restriction states: “(b) Claims to the invention or inventions not elected, if not canceled, are nevertheless withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner by the election, subject however to reinstatement in the event the requirement for restriction is withdrawn or overruled.”
[MPEP § 821] Treatment of Claims Held to be Drawn to Nonelected Inventions states: “All claims that the examiner finds are not directed to the elected invention are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner in accordance with 37 CFR 1.142(b). See MPEP § 821.01 through § 821.04. The examiner should clearly set forth in the Office action the reasons why the claims withdrawn from consideration are not readable on the elected invention. Applicant may traverse the requirement pursuant to 37 CFR 1.143. If a final requirement for restriction is made by the examiner, applicant may file a petition under 37 CFR 1.144 for review of the restriction requirement if the applicant made a timely traversal. See In re Hengehold, 440F.2d 1395, 169 USPQ 473 (CCPA 1971).”
Due to 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821, Claims 21-22 are withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to non-elected species, and because of their dependency on non-elected claims 12 and 13. Applicant elected Group I, Claims 1-11, without traverse in the reply filed on March 21, 2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oraw et al. (US 20160035924 A1), in view of Chen et al. (CN 114141932 A) and Niu et al. (CN 114242702 A).
Regarding claim 1, Oraw et al. teaches:
A display backplane [10, “light sheet segment”, paragraph [0081], Fig. 1-2], comprising:
a substrate layer [14, paragraph [0082], Fig. 1-2];
a heat conductive layer [20, paragraph [0085], Fig. 1-2] disposed on a surface of the substrate layer [14, Fig. 1-2];
a light-emitting layer [26, “dielectric layer”, paragraph [0091], Fig. 1-2] disposed on a surface of the heat conductive layer [20, Fig. 1-2] away from the substrate layer [14, Fig. 1-2].
a backplane layer [16, paragraph [0082], Fig. 1-2] disposed on a side of the substrate layer [14, Fig. 1-2] away from the heat conductive layer [20, Fig. 1-2],
a plurality of first heat conductive holes [34, “conducting vias”, paragraph [0096], Fig. 1-2] each extending through the substrate layer [14, Fig. 1-2], wherein each of the first heat conductive holes [34, Fig. 1-2] is filled with a first heat dissipation column being in contact with the heat conductive layer [20, Fig. 1-2] and the backplane layer [16, Fig. 1-2].
Oraw et al. does not teach:
wherein the backplane layer has a better thermal conductivity than the substrate layer.
a heat dissipation joint part disposed at least between two adjacent ones of the first heat conductive holes, and disposed on a side of the substrate layer away from the light-emitting layer and on a surface of the backplane layer close to the substrate layer.
Chen et al. teaches:
wherein the backplane layer [11, paragraph [n0037-n0038], Fig. 3-9] has a better thermal conductivity than the substrate layer [1, paragraph [n0035], Fig. 1-9].
a heat dissipation joint part [10, paragraph [n0056-n0057], Fig. 9] disposed at least between two adjacent ones of the first heat conductive holes [4, paragraph [n0034], [n0039-n0041], Fig. 9], and disposed on a side of the substrate layer [1, paragraph [n0056], Fig. 9] away from the light-emitting layer [15, paragraph [n0043], [n0050-n0052], Fig. 9] and on a surface of the backplane layer [11, paragraph [n0056-n0057], Fig. 9] close to the substrate layer [1, Fig. 9].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Chen et al. into the teachings of Oraw et al. to include wherein the backplane layer has a better thermal conductivity than the substrate layer, a heat dissipation joint part disposed at least between two adjacent ones of the first heat conductive holes, and disposed on a side of the substrate layer away from the light-emitting layer and on a surface of the backplane layer close to the substrate layer, for the purpose of improving heat dissipation. See also, MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) Rearrangement of Parts.
Oraw et al. and Chen et al. do not teach:
a heat dissipation joint part disposed at least between two adjacent ones of the first heat conductive holes to be in contact with the two adjacent ones of the first heat conductive holes.
Niu et al. teaches:
a heat dissipation joint part [51, paragraph [n0053], Fig. 6-9] disposed at least between two adjacent ones of the first heat conductive holes [31, paragraph [n0052-n0054], Fig. 6-9] to be in contact with the two adjacent ones of the first heat conductive holes [31, Fig. 6-9].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Niu et al. into the teachings of Oraw et al. and Chen et al. to include a heat dissipation joint part disposed at least between two adjacent ones of the first heat conductive holes to be in contact with the two adjacent ones of the first heat conductive holes, for the purpose of improving heat dissipation efficiency. See also, MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) Rearrangement of Parts.
Regarding claim 8, Oraw et al., Chen et al. and Niu et al. teach the display backplane according to claim 1.
However, Oraw et al. and Chen et al. do not teach:
wherein a material of the heat dissipation joint part is same as a material of the first heat dissipation column.
Niu et al. teaches:
wherein a material of the heat dissipation joint part [51, paragraph [n0053-n0054, n0061-n0062], Fig. 6-9] is same as a material of the first heat dissipation column [413, paragraph [n0050, n0052, n0054], Fig. 6-9].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Niu et al. into the teachings of Oraw et al., Chen et al., and Niu et al. to include wherein a material of the heat dissipation joint part is same as a material of the first heat dissipation column, for the purpose of consistent heat dissipation, and cheaper and easier to manufacture.
Regarding claim 9, Oraw et al., Chen et al. and Niu et al. teach the display backplane according to claim 1.
Oraw et al. further teaches:
wherein the light- emitting layer [26, paragraph [0091], Fig. 1-2] has a plurality of lamp areas, and a plurality of light- emitting units [12, paragraph [0082], [0091], Fig. 1-2] are arranged in an array in each of the lamp areas; and
at least one of the first heat conductive holes [34, Fig. 1-2] is disposed in each of the lamp areas.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oraw et al. (US 20160035924 A1), in view of Chen et al. (CN 114141932 A) and Niu et al. (CN 114242702 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhou (CN 208271901 U).
Regarding claim 2, Oraw et al., Chen et al. and Niu et al. teach the display backplane according to claim 1.
Oraw et al. further teaches:
wherein the display backplane further comprises a plurality of second heat conductive holes [44/46, paragraph [0100-0104], Fig. 1-2].
each of the second heat conductive holes [44/46, paragraph [0100-0105], Fig. 1-3] is disposed opposite to one of the first heat conductive holes [34, paragraph [0096], Fig. 1-2], and filled with a second heat dissipation column thermally connected with the first heat dissipation column [34, paragraph [0096], [0100-0105], Fig. 1-2] in the one of the first heat conductive holes [34, Fig. 1-2].
Oraw et al., Chen et al. and Niu et al. do not teach:
heat conductive holes each extending through the backplane layer.
Zhou teaches:
heat conductive holes [150, paragraph [0016-0018], Fig. 1-3] each extending through the backplane layer [110, paragraph [0016-0018], Fig. 1-3].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Zhou into the teachings of Oraw et al., Chen et al. and Niu et al. to include heat conductive holes each extending through the backplane layer, for the purpose of improving heat dissipation.
Regarding claim 4, Oraw et al., Chen et al., Niu et al. and Zhou teach the display backplane according to claim 2.
However, Oraw et al., Niu et al. and Zhou do not teach:
wherein an outer diameter of each of the first heat conductive holes is greater than outer an diameter of each of the second heat conductive holes.
Chen et al. teaches:
wherein an outer diameter of each of the first heat conductive holes [4, paragraph [n0034], Fig.1-9] is greater than outer an diameter of each of the second heat conductive holes [8, Fig. 1-9].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Chen et al. into the teachings of Oraw et al., Niu et al. and Zhou to include wherein an outer diameter of each of the first heat conductive holes is greater than outer an diameter of each of the second heat conductive holes, for the purpose of increasing heat conduction efficiency. See also, MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) Changes in Size/Proportion.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oraw et al. (US 20160035924 A1), in view of Chen et al. (CN 114141932 A), Niu et al. (CN 114242702 A) and Zhou (CN 208271901 U) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Sono et al. (US 5444025 A).
Regarding claim 3, Oraw et al., Chen et al., Niu et al. and Zhou teach the display backplane according to claim 2.
Oraw et al. further teaches:
The first heat dissipation column [34, Fig. 1-2], and second heat dissipation column [44/46, Fig. 1-2].
Oraw et al., Chen et al., Niu et al and Zhou do not teach:
wherein a thermal conductivity of the first heat dissipation column is greater than a thermal conductivity of the second heat dissipation column.
Sono et al. does not specifically teach first and second heat dissipation columns, but Sono et al. does teach in Col. 2, Lines 33-36; Col. 3, Lines 45-47; Claim 3, Col. 6, Lines 59-62, Fig. 2, “a radiator block [3, Fig. 2] is made of a material having a satisfactory thermal conductivity compared to the resin which forms the package [7, Fig. 2]”. Applying this limitation to the first and second heat dissipation columns would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because a higher conductivity allows for improved heat dissipation efficiency and better functionality of the device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Sono et al. into the teachings of Oraw et al., Chen et al., Niu et al. and Zhou to include wherein a thermal conductivity of the first heat dissipation column is greater than a thermal conductivity of the second heat dissipation column, for the purpose of improving heat dissipation efficiency and better functionality of the device.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oraw et al. (US 20160035924 A1), in view of Chen et al. (CN 114141932 A), Niu et al. (CN 114242702 A) and Zhou (CN 208271901 U) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Hsu et al. (US 11979977 B2).
Regarding claim 5, Oraw et al., Chen et al., Niu et al. and Zhou teach the display backplane according to claim 2.
Oraw et al., Chen et al., Niu et al. and Zhou do not teach:
wherein a number of the first heat conductive holes is greater than a number of the second heat conductive holes.
Hsu et al. teaches:
wherein a number of the first heat conductive holes [41, “second thermal conductive element”, Col. 6, Lines 32-44, Fig. 6-8] is greater than a number of the second heat conductive holes [11, “First thermal conductive element”, Col. 6, Lines 13-19, Fig. 6-8].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Hsu et al. into the teachings of Oraw et al., Chen et al., Niu et al. and Zhou to include wherein a number of the first heat conductive holes is greater than a number of the second heat conductive holes, for the purpose of improving heat dissipation efficiency. See also, MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) Duplication of Parts.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oraw et al. (US 20160035924 A1), in view of Chen et al. (CN 114141932 A), and Niu et al. (CN 114242702 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsui et al. (US 6857767 B2).
Regarding claim 7, Oraw et al., Chen et al. and Niu et al. teach the display backplane according to claim 1.
Oraw et al., Chen et al., and Niu et al. do not teach:
wherein a ratio of a thickness of the heat dissipation joint part to a thickness of the substrate layer is greater than or equal to one-third.
Matsui et al. teaches:
wherein a ratio of a thickness of the heat dissipation joint part [6, Col. 4, Lines 59-65, Fig. 3] to a thickness of the substrate layer [2, Col. 3, Lines 52-54, Fig. 3] is greater than or equal to one-third.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Matsui et al. into the teachings of Oraw et al., Chen et al., and Niu et al. to include wherein a ratio of a thickness of the heat dissipation joint part to a thickness of the substrate layer is greater than or equal to one-third, for the purpose of improving heat dissipation efficiency. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that thicker layers will reduce heat transfer efficiency. See also, MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) Changes in Size/Proportion.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oraw et al. (US 20160035924 A1), in view of Chen et al. (CN 114141932 A), and Niu et al. (CN 114242702 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US 20050139846 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Oraw et al., Chen et al. and Niu et al. teach the display backplane according to claim 1.
Oraw et al., Chen et al. and Niu et al. do not teach:
wherein a distribution density of the first heat conductive holes in a central area of the display backplane is greater than a distribution density of the first heat conductive holes in a peripheral area of the display backplane.
Park et al. teaches:
wherein a distribution density of the first heat conductive holes [33b, 34b, paragraph [0039], Fig. 3] in a central area of the display backplane [31 “lower board”, Fig. 3] is greater than a distribution density of the first heat conductive holes [33b, 34b, Fig. 3] in a peripheral area of the display backplane [31, Fig. 3].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Park et al. into the teachings of Oraw et al., Chen et al., and Niu et al. to include wherein a distribution density of the first heat conductive holes in a central area of the display backplane is greater than a distribution density of the first heat conductive holes in a peripheral area of the display backplane, for the purpose of improving heat dissipation efficiency, and creating a simpler design that is easier to manufacture. See also, MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) Rearrangement of Parts.
Regarding claim 11, Oraw et al., Chen et al., Niu et al. and Park et al. teach the display backplane according to claim 10.
However, Oraw et al., Chen et al., and Niu et al. do not teach:
wherein from the central area of the display backplane to the peripheral area of the display backplane, a distribution density of the first heat conductive holes gradually decreases.
Park et al. teaches:
wherein from the central area of the display backplane [31, Fig. 3] to the peripheral area of the display backplane [31, Fig. 3], a distribution density of the first heat conductive holes [33b, 34b, Fig. 3] gradually decreases.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Park et al. into the teachings of Oraw et al., Chen et al., Niu et al. and Park et al. to include wherein from the central area of the display backplane to the peripheral area of the display backplane, a distribution density of the first heat conductive holes gradually decreases, for the purpose of improving heat dissipation efficiency, and creating a simpler design that is easier to manufacture. See also, MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) Rearrangement of Parts.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claim 1 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.
Applicant argues on pages 1-2, Section: Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §103, in remarks filed January 23, 2026 that the current prior art of record does not teach the amended limitations of independent claim 1. Examiner disagrees with Applicant. After a new line of search and consideration, the amended limitations of independent claim 1 can be overcome by new considerations of previously cited prior art Niu et al. (CN 114242702 A), and Chen et al. (CN 114141932 A).
Applicant argues on page 2, Section: Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §103, in remarks filed January 23, 2026 that the current prior art of record does not teach the limitations of dependent claim 4. Applicant argues that secondary source Chen et al. (CN 114141932 A) does not teach the first heat conductive holes and the second heat conductive holes because the holes of Chen et al. are in a different location than Applicant’s claimed limitations of independent claim 1. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. The claimed limitations of dependent claim 4 are related to the diameter of the first and second heat conductive holes, and not to their location. Primary source Oraw et al. (US 20160035924 A1) was relied upon to teach the location of the first and second heat conducting holes. MPEP 2145(IV) Arguing Against References Individually states: One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Where a rejection of a claim is based on two or more references, a reply that is limited to what a subset of the applied references teaches or fails to teach, or that fails to address the combined teaching of the applied references may be considered to be an argument that attacks the reference(s) individually. Where an applicant’s reply establishes that each of the applied references fails to teach a limitation and addresses the combined teachings and/or suggestions of the applied prior art, the reply as a whole does not attack the references individually as the phrase is used in Keller and reliance on Keller would not be appropriate. This is because "[T]he test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to [a PHOSITA]." In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1333, 103 USPQ2d 1219, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Applicant argues on page 2, Section: Rejoinder, in remarks filed January 23, 2026 that due to the amended limitations of claim 1, currently withdrawn claims 12-13, and 15-22 should be rejoined for examination. Examiner disagrees with Applicant for at least the reasons mentioned above.
In summary, the amended limitations of independent claim 1 can be overcome by new considerations of previously cited prior art Niu et al. (CN 114242702 A), and Chen et al. (CN 114141932 A). Applicant’s arguments regarding dependent claim 4 are not persuasive. All claims directly or indirectly dependent on independent claim 1 are also rejected for at least the reason mentioned above. Claims 12-13, and 15-22 will not be rejoined for at least the reasons mentioned above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID MICHAEL HELBERG whose telephone number is (571)270-1422. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 8am-5pm EST.
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.
/D.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2815 02/23/2026
/MONICA D HARRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815