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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/04/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment/Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 05/04/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The assertion that Chen fails to teach a first or second light blocking element disposed on a first redundant pad or third light emitting element falls short because the term “disposed on” is too broad to specify the light blocking element being in direct contact with the first redundant pad or third light emitting element. Terms such as “directly disposed on” or “directly connected” would require this specific arrangement and therefore would overcome Chen and require further search and consideration. Secondary references Hu, Ryu, Yamazaki and Miyake would also fail to disclose this specific arrangement if claimed in the above manner. Additionally, the added subject matter is taught by the broadest reasonable interpretation of Chen and is amended into the rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US-20190393389-A1 – hereinafter Chen).
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 first light-emitting element (P) comprises a first electrode (Fig.11A 508; ¶0075) electrically connected to the first main pad (202); and
a first light-blocking element (Fig.11A 406; ¶0081) disposed on the first redundant pad (204),
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);
a second light-emitting element (Fig.9 206’; ¶0070), disposed on the second redundant pad (202’),
wherein the second light-emitting element (206’) comprises a second electrode (Fig.11A 510; ¶0075) electrically connected to the second redundant pad (202’);
a third light-emitting element (Fig.9 206; ¶0070), disposed on the second main pad (204’), wherein the third light-emitting element is defective (¶0070); and
a second light-blocking element (Fig.11A 406 above LED 206) disposed on the third light-emitting element (206).
Regarding claim 3, Chen teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the first light-blocking element (406) is in contact with the first redundant pad (204).
Regarding claim 4, Chen teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the first light-blocking element (406) is a black light-blocking layer (¶0081).
Regarding claim 6, Chen teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, further comprising a second substrate (Fig.11A 402; ¶0079) disposed opposite to the first substrate (102).
Regarding claim 9, Chen teaches the electronic device according to claim 6, wherein the first light-blocking element (406) is disposed on the second substrate (402).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Ryu et al. (US-20220415993-A1 – hereinafter Ryu).
Regarding claim 2, Chen teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the first substrate (102) has a first surface (top surface), the first light-emitting element (P) is disposed on the first surface (top surface) of the first substrate (102), the first light-blocking element (406) is disposed on the first surface (top surface) of the first substrate (102).
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) 5, 7-8 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Yamazaki et al. (US-20220085259-A1 – hereinafter Yamazaki).
Regarding claim 5, Chen 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 Chen (406 of Chen) 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 7, Chen 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 Chen (406 of Chen) 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 Yamazaki from claim 7 teaches the electronic device according to claim 7, further comprising a wavelength conversion layer (Fig.11A 404R/G/B; ¶0079 of Chen), wherein the wavelength conversion layer (404R/G/B of Chen) is disposed between the color filter layer (148 of Yamazaki) and the first light-emitting element (P of Chen).
Regarding claim 21, the aforementioned combination of Chen in view of Yamazaki from claim 7 teaches the electronic device according to claim 7, further comprising an adhesive layer (Fig.11A 408; ¶0083 of Chen), wherein the first light-blocking element (406 of Chen) is disposed between the adhesive layer (408 of Chen) and the color filter layer (148 of Yamazaki).
Regarding claim 22, the aforementioned combination of Chen in view of Yamazaki from claim 7 teaches the electronic device according to claim 7, further comprising an adhesive layer (Fig.11A 408; ¶0083 of Chen) disposed between the second light-blocking element (406 of Chen over 206) and the color filter layer (148 of Yamazaki), wherein the second light-blocking element (406 of Chen over 206) is disposed between the third light-emitting element (206 of Chen) and the adhesive layer (408 of Chen).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen 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 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 (406 of Chen) as this is a matter of design choice and incident light will still be effectively blocked regardless of configuration.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights