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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 14, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fan (CN110335845), a reference submitted by Applicant, English translation is found in WO 2020258644.
Regarding claim 1, Fan teaches a repairing component comprising: micro-LED chips (see circled below, figs. 3A to 3E), each of which including an electrode (5, paragraph [0048]) and having an electrode plane on which the electrode is disposed; and first anisotropic conductive layers (ACF 3 under the middle device, paragraph [0042]), each of which being disposed to be in contact with the electrode disposed on the electrode plane of each of the micro-LED chips, where each of the first anisotropic conductive layers has an area matching with an area of a corresponding electrode plane of the micro-LED chips, at least one second anisotropic conductive layer (ACF under the third device from the left, see figure attached below) on which the micro-LED chips are not disposed; and a base (4 with layer 5) disposed to be in contact with each plane of the first anisotropic conductive layers, the each plane of the first anisotropic conductive layers being at an opposite side to each plane of the first anisotropic conductive layer where each of the micro-LED chips is disposed, wherein a plurality of laminates (middle device and device on the right of the middle device) are disposed on the base in a manner that the plurality of laminates are set apart from one another, where each laminate of the plurality of laminates includes each of the micro-LED chips (a micro-LED chip) and each of the first anisotropic conductive layers (an anisotropic conductive layer), and the at least one second anisotropic conductive layer is disposed on the base.
PNG
media_image1.png
342
745
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Fan teaches the repairing component according to the repairing component according to wherein the second anisotropic conductive layer (first layer 3 from the left, fig. 3E) is located between adjacent laminates (the middle and the third from the left) of the plurality of laminates and at an edge of the base (left edge of the base).
Claim(s) 1 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tischler (PG Pub 2013/0330853 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tischler teaches a repairing component comprising: micro-LED chips (see circled below, fig. 9), each of which including an electrode (50) and having an electrode plane on which the electrode is disposed; and first anisotropic conductive layers (210, paragraph [0066]), each of which being disposed to be in contact with the electrode disposed on the electrode plane of each of the micro-LED chips, where each of the first anisotropic conductive layers has an area matching with an area of a corresponding electrode plane of the micro-LED chips, at least one second anisotropic conductive layer (210 under the third device from the left, see figure attached below) on which the micro-LED chips are not disposed; and a base (4 with layer 5) disposed to be in contact with each plane of the first anisotropic conductive layers, the each plane of the first anisotropic conductive layers being at an opposite side to each plane of the first anisotropic conductive layer where each of the micro-LED chips is disposed, wherein a plurality of laminates (middle device and device on the right of the middle device) are disposed on the base in a manner that the plurality of laminates are set apart from one another, where each laminate of the plurality of laminates includes each of the micro-LED chips (a micro-LED chip) and each of the first anisotropic conductive layers (an anisotropic conductive layer), and the at least one second anisotropic conductive layer is disposed on the base.
PNG
media_image2.png
477
842
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Tischler teaches the repairing component according to the repairing component according to wherein the at least second anisotropic conductive layer is located between adjacent laminates of the plurality of laminates and at an edge of the base (an edge of the base).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tischler (PG Pub 2013/0330853 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Tischler remains as applied in claim 1.
Tischler does not explicitly teach substrate 410 to be polyethylene terephthalate or glass.
Tischler teaches whether to use flexible (polyethylene terephthalate, paragraph [0059]) or rigid (glass) depends on the intended use of the device (paragraph [0059]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the base polyethylene terephthalate or glass according to its usage.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan (CN110335845), a reference submitted by Applicant, English translation is found in WO 2020258644 as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Fukunaga (PG Pub 2010/0230696 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Fan remains as applied in claim 1.
Fan does not teach the base is in the form of tape.
In the same field of endeavor, Fukunaga teaches a based is in the form of tape, for the benefits of providing a substrate that is flexible and has good mechanical strength (paragraphs [0267][0307]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the base in the form of tape for the benefits of providing a substrate that was flexible and had good mechanical strength.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan (CN110335845), a reference submitted by Applicant, English translation is found in WO 2020258644, and Fukunaga (PG Pub 2010/0230696 A1) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Tischler et al (PG Pub 2014/0264407 A1) and Tischler (PG Pub 2013/0330853 A1, hereafter Tischler853).
Regarding claim 12, the previous combination remains as applied in claim 5.
The previous combination does not teach the base is polyethylene terephthalate having an average thickness of 10 um or greater and 100 pm or less, or glass having an average thickness of 0.05 mm or greater and 10 mm or less.
In the same field of endeavor, Tischler teaches the thickness of the base determines how flexible it can be (paragraph [0048]): thicker base, less flexible and vice versa (paragraph [0048]). Tischler teaches the base can be polyethylene terephthalate having an average thickness of 10 um or greater and 100 pm or less (10µm, for example, paragraph [0075]).
Furthermore, Tischler853 teaches the more fragile LEDs (thinner LEDs, for example) require more deformable substrate (i.e. more flexible substrate) to prevent breaking the LEDs (paragraph [0063]) while sturdier LEDs may be formed on a less bendable substrate (paragraph [0063]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the thickness and the material of the base according to its use, i.e. whether to support more fragile LEDs or tougher ones.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 14, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because the previously cited references teach the amended features. See rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FEIFEI YEUNG LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1882. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8am to 4pm 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, Dale Page can be reached at 571 270 7877. 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.
/FEIFEI YEUNG LOPEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights