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 filed 11/13/2025 with regard to the rejections of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant’s argument appears to be the components cited from secondary reference Hu (US-20220085259-A1) do not correspond to the components of the primary reference. While this assertion is true, it is irrelevant to the motivation to combine which is covering non light emitting components of an LED device to prevent light reflection due to incident light outside of the device. Both the redundant pad of Chen (US-20190393389-A1) and the auxiliary pad of Hu are examples of such non light emitting components. The rejection is therefore amended in accordance with Applicant’s amendments with the same references being used.
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) 1, 3 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US-20190393389-A1 – hereinafter Chen) in view of Hu et al. (US-20220085259-A1 – hereinafter Hu).
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches an electronic device (Fig.1 10; ¶0042), comprising:
a first substrate (Fig.1 102; ¶0042) comprising a plurality of sub-pixels (Fig.1 each individual square is a sub-pixel), wherein the plurality of sub-pixels comprises a first sub-pixel (bottom left) and a second sub-pixel (top left), and the first sub-pixel comprises:
a first main pad (Fig.1 202; ¶0049);
a first redundant pad (Fig.1 204; ¶0049); and
a first light-emitting element (Fig.1 P; ¶0052) disposed on the first main pad (202);
wherein the second sub-pixel comprises:
a second main pad (Fig.9 204’; ¶0070):
a second redundant pad (Fig.9 202’; ¶0070), separated from the first redundant pad (204): and
a second light-emitting element (Fig.9 206’; ¶0070), disposed on the second redundant pad (202’).
Chen does not teach a first light-blocking element overlapping the first redundant pad in a vertical direction of the first substrate.
Hu teaches a light blocking layer (Fig.11 700; ¶0074) overlapping an auxiliary pad (Fig.11 300; ¶0046) in a vertical direction of a first substrate (Fig.11 100; ¶0073).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to implement the light blocking layer of Hu (700 of Hu) over the redundant pads of Chen (204 of Chen) to arrive at the claimed invention. A practitioner would have been motivated to make this modification to prevent light reflection due to light incident from the outside, preventing a mirror effect (¶0074 of Hu).
Regarding claim 3, the aforementioned combination of Chen in view of Hu from claim 1 teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the first light-blocking element (700 of Hu) is in contact with the first redundant pad (204 of Chen).
Regarding claim 11, the aforementioned combination of Chen in view of Hu from claim 1 teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the second sub-pixel (Fig.9; ¶0070 of Chen depicts multiple sub-pixels) further comprises:
a third light-emitting element (Fig.9 206; ¶0070 of Chen) disposed on the second main pad (204’ of Chen), wherein the third light-emitting element is defective (¶0070 of Chen).
Regarding claim 12, the aforementioned combination of Chen in view of Hu from claim 11 teaches the electronic device according to claim 11.
The aforementioned combination does not explicitly teach the device further comprising a second light-blocking element, wherein the second light-blocking element and the third light-emitting element overlap in the vertical direction of the first substrate.
Hu teaches a light blocking layer (Fig.11 700; ¶0074) overlapping an auxiliary pad (Fig.11 300; ¶0046) in a vertical direction of a first substrate (Fig.11 100; ¶0073).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to implement a second instance of the light blocking layer of Hu (700 of Hu) over the third light-emitting element (206 of Chen) to arrive at the claimed invention. A practitioner would have been motivated to make this modification because the defective third light-emitting element (206 of Chen) effectively becomes the redundant pads of claim 1 (¶0070 of Chen). Accordingly, this modification is necessary to prevent light reflection due to light incident from the outside, preventing a mirror effect (¶0074 of Hu).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Hu, and further in view of Ryu et al. (US-20220415993-A1 – hereinafter Ryu).
Regarding claim 2, the aforementioned combination of Chen in view of Hu from claim 1 teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the first substrate (102 of Chen) has a first surface (top surface), the first light-emitting element (P of Chen) is disposed on the first surface (top surface) of the first substrate (102 of Chen), the first light-blocking element (700 of Hu) is disposed on the first surface (top surface) of the first substrate (102 of Chen).
The aforementioned combination does not teach wherein a surface of first light-blocking element has a curved shape.
Ryu teaches a light blocking layer (Fig.6 220; ¶0116 of Ryu) with a curved shape.
Shape differences are considered obvious design choices and are not patentable unless unobvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. Additionally, the Applicant has presented no discussion in the specification which convinces the Examiner that the particular shape of the light blocking layer is anything more than one of numerous shapes a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of preventing reflection of incident light (In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976)). It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious.
Claim(s) 4-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Hu, and further in view of Yamazaki et al. (US-20220085259-A1 – hereinafter Yamazaki).
Regarding claim 4, the aforementioned combination of Chen in view of Hu from claim 1 teaches the electronic device according to claim 1.
The aforementioned combination does not explicitly teach wherein the first light-blocking element is a black light-blocking layer.
Yamazaki teaches a light blocking layer (Fig.11 148; ¶0239) that can be black (¶0239).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the light blocking layer of Hu (700 of Hu) to be a black color to arrive at the claimed invention. This difference is obvious because the color black absorbs all wavelengths of visible light and is therefore an effective color for light blocking.
Regarding claim 5, the aforementioned combination of Chen in view of Hu from claim 1 teaches the electronic device according to claim 1.
The aforementioned combination does not explicitly teach wherein the first light-blocking element is a combination of at least two of a red filter layer, a green filter layer, and a blue filter layer.
Yamazaki teaches a light blocking layer (Fig.11 148; ¶0239) that can have a red, and green and blue filter (¶0239).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the light blocking layer of Hu (700 of Hu) to have a red, and green and blue filter to arrive at the claimed invention. This difference is obvious because one of ordinary skill could use this implementation to selectively filter the wavelengths that match the individual LEDs.
Regarding claim 6, the aforementioned combination of Chen in view of Hu from claim 1 teaches the electronic device according to claim 1.
The aforementioned combination does not teach the device further comprising a second substrate disposed opposite to the first substrate.
Yamazaki teaches a second substrate (Fig.11 152; ¶0236) opposite a first substrate (Fig.11 515; ¶0236).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the second substrate of Yamazaki (152 of Yamazaki) to the device taught by Chen in view of Hu to arrive at the claimed invention. A practitioner would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of supporting color conversion layers (¶0247 of Yamazaki) and for providing protection (this substrate is typically the display screen) for the internal components of the light emitting device.
Regarding claim 7, the aforementioned combination of Chen in view of Hu, and further in view of Yamazaki from claim 6 teaches the electronic device according to claim 6.
The aforementioned combination does not teach wherein the second substrate comprises a color filter layer.
Yamazaki teaches a light blocking layer (Fig.11 148; ¶0239) that can have a red, and green and blue filter (¶0239) that is disposed on the second substrate (152 of Yamazaki).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the light blocking layer of Hu (700 of Hu) to have a red, and green and blue filter to arrive at the claimed invention. This difference is obvious because one of ordinary skill could use this implementation to selectively filter the wavelengths that match the individual LEDs.
Regarding claim 8, the aforementioned combination of Chen in view of Hu, and further in view of Yamazaki from claim 7 teaches the electronic device according to claim 7.
The aforementioned combination does not teach the device further comprising a wavelength conversion layer, wherein the wavelength conversion layer is disposed between the color filter layer and the first light-emitting element.
Yamazaki teaches color conversion layers (Fig.11 797G and 797R; ¶0246 and ¶0247 of Yamazaki).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the color filter layers of Yamazaki (797G and 797R of Yamazaki) for the benefit of converting blue light into the desired emission colors.
Regarding claim 9, the aforementioned combination of Chen in view of Hu, and further in view of Yamazaki from claim 6 teaches the electronic device according to claim 6.
The aforementioned combination does not teach wherein the first light-blocking element is disposed on the second substrate.
Yamazaki teaches a light blocking layer (Fig.11 148; ¶0239) that is disposed on the already taught second substrate (152 of Yamazaki).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to dispose the light blocking layer (148 of Yamazaki) on the second substrate (152 of Yamazaki) to arrive at the claimed invention. A practitioner would be motivated to make this modification for the benefit of filtering out incident light that does not match the color emitted by the corresponding sub-pixel.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Hu, and further in view of Yamazaki, and further in view of Miyake et al. (US-20160027921-A1 – hereinafter Miyake).
Regarding claim 10, the aforementioned combination of Chen in view of Hu, and further in view of Yamazaki from claim 7 teaches the electronic device according to claim 7.
The aforementioned combination does not teach wherein the color filter layer is disposed between the first redundant pad and the first light-blocking element.
Miyake teaches a color filter (Fig.8 CF; ¶0072) disposed between a light-blocking layer (Fig.8 BM; ¶0072) and non-emission components (Fig.8 of Miyake area to the left of Fig.8 AP ¶0072).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to dispose the color filter (148 of Yamazaki) between the first redundant pad (204 of Chen) and the light-blocking layer (700 of Hu) as this is a matter of design choice and incident light will still be effectively blocked regardless of configuration.
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
/ELISEO RAMOS FELICIANO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817