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/Argument
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 12/26/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 5 has been withdrawn. Examiner thanks Applicant for pointing out and correcting the error in identifying the claim containing the previous antecedent basis issue.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/26/2025 with respect to the rejections of claims 1-3, 6-7, 16 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. It is true that a reference numeral may be used to identify a single component when rejecting claim limitations under 35 U.S.C. 102. However, broad terms such as “die bonding structure” that can comprise multiple reference numerals allow those reference numerals to be re-used for individual components that are part of the more-encompassing term “due bonding structure”. In this case, the encapsulant is deemed to be part of the “die bonding structure” in addition to the individual components drawn to reference numerals 12 and 51.
The rejection is still amended to only use the reference numeral 52 once, however the rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims under 102(a)(1) for being anticipated by Ozeki (US-20170154880-A1) stands.
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) 1-3, 6-7 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ozeki et al. (US-20170154880-A1 – hereinafter Ozeki).
Regarding claim 1, Ozeki teaches a light emitting substrate (Fig.1D 100; ¶0044), comprising a base substrate (Fig.1D 11; ¶0047), a die bonding structure (Fig.1D 12 and 51; ¶0047, ¶0052 and ¶0059), a light shielding structure (Fig.1D 8, 61, 62; ¶0045) and a light emitting chip (Fig.1D 2; ¶0044) disposed on the base substrate (11),
wherein the light emitting chip (2) is disposed at a side of the die bonding structure (12 and 51) away from the base substrate (11), the light shielding structure (8, 61, 62) is located at a peripheral side of the light emitting chip (2), the light emitting substrate (11) further comprises a flux functional layer (Fig.1D 7; ¶0070) covering the side of the die bonding structure (12 and 51) away from the base substrate (11), the light shielding structure (8, 61, 62) comprises a shielding material layer (8) and a partition structure (61 and 62), and the flux functional layer (7) is blocked at the partition structure (61 and 62); and
wherein the light emitting substrate (100) further comprises an encapsulation layer (Fig.1D 52) covering the light emitting chip (2), and a surface of the shielding material layer (8) away from the base substrate (11) is higher than a surface of the encapsulation layer (52) away from the base substrate (11).
Regarding claim 2, Ozeki teaches the light emitting substrate according to claim 1, wherein at least a part of the shielding material layer (8) covers the partition structure (61 and 62).
Regarding claim 3, Ozeki teaches the light emitting substrate according to claim 2, wherein the partition structure (61 and 62) comprises a first side edge (right side of 61) and a second side edge (left side of 62) disposed on the base substrate (11), a partition groove (space between 61 and 62) is formed between the first side edge (right side of 61) and the second side edge (left side of 62), and the shielding material layer (8) fills at least a part of the partition groove (space between 61 and 62).
Regarding claim 6, Ozeki teaches the light emitting substrate according to claim 1, wherein the shielding material (8) layer is disposed around a periphery of the light emitting chip (2).
Regarding claim 7, Ozeki teaches the light emitting substrate according to claim 1, wherein there is no overlapped region between an orthographic projection of the shielding material layer (8) on the base substrate (11) and an orthographic projection of the light emitting chip (2) on the base substrate (11).
Regarding claim 20, Ozeki teaches a display device (Fig.1C; ¶0043), comprising the light emitting substrate (100) according to claim 1.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozeki in view of Park et al. (US-20250275335-A1 – hereinafter Park).
Regarding claim 16, Ozeki teaches the light emitting substrate according to claim 1.
Ozeki does not explicitly teach wherein the light emitting chip comprises at least one micro light emitting diode.
Park teaches an LED (Fig.10 150; ¶0042 of Park) that can be a micro LED (¶0067 of Park).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a micro LED for the light emitting device (2 of Ozeki) of Ozeki because micro LEDs are a well-known component in the art for many display devices.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 and 9-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 4, the most relevant prior art reference US-20170154880-A1 to Ozeki et al. teaches most of the limitations of claim 4, but not the limitations of “and the first side edge and/or the second side edge and the second insulating layer are integrally formed using a same material” as recited. Therefore, claim 4 is deemed patentable over the prior art.
Regarding claim 5, it is deemed patentable over the prior art as being dependent on patentable claim 4.
Regarding claim 9, the most relevant prior art reference US-20170154880-A1 to Ozeki et al. teaches most of the limitations of claim 9, but not the limitations of “and a pad disposed at a side of the second insulating layer away from the base substrate” as recited. Therefore, claim 9 is deemed patentable over the prior art.
Regarding claims 10-13, they are deemed patentable over the prior art as being dependent on patentable claim 9.
Regarding claim 14, the most relevant prior art reference US-20170154880-A1 to Ozeki et al. teaches most of the limitations of claim 14, but not the limitations of “and a pad disposed at a side of the second insulating layer away from the base substrate” as recited. Therefore, claim 14 is deemed patentable over the prior art.
Regarding claim 15, it is deemed patentable over the prior art as being dependent on patentable claim 14.
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 THADDEUS J KOLB whose telephone number is (571)272-0276. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached at (571) 272-7925. 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.
/T.J.K./ Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/RATISHA MEHTA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817