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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/03/2025 and 10/15/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
An Amendment filed on 12/31/2025, responding to the Office Action mailed on 09/30/2025, has
been acknowledged and entered into the record. The present Final Rejection is made with all the
suggested amendments being fully considered.
Response to Arguments
On pages 6 and 7 of the remarks filed on 12/31/2025, with respect to the 102 rejection of Claim 1, Applicant argues that Iyer et al. does not teach the newly added limitations of amended Claim 1. This argument is fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the 102 rejection of Claim 1 in view of Iyer is withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of 103 rejection is made in view of previously applied prior art references of Iyer and Huitema as outlined in the rejection below.
On pages 7 -10 of the remarks filed on 12/31/2025, with respect to the amended Claim 1, Applicant argues that Iyer in view of Huitema fails to teach the limitation “a first insulating layer disposed between the redistribution layer and the flexible material layer in a configuration of surrounding the control device and directly connected to the redistribution layer and the side surface". This argument is fully considered but is not persuasive. Huitema et al. is an analogous art and teaches a micro light-emitting diode package structure comprising: a first insulating layer 104 disposed between the redistribution layer 110 and the material layer 120 in a configuration of surrounding the control device 310, 320 and directly connected to the redistribution layer 110 and the side surface (of devices 200) (see Fig. 5: 104, 110, 310, 320, 200, paragraph 0082, 0083). Huitema is only relied upon to teach the insulating surrounding various electronic components. These electronic components may not be the same control devices and micro LEDs of Iyer as these components are already taught by the primary reference of Iyer. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have applied the teachings of Huitema in order to have a similar first insulating layer disposed between the redistribution layer and the flexible material layer of Iyer et al. in a configuration of surrounding the control device and directly connected to the redistribution layer and the side surface. Doing so electrically isolate the micro light-emitting diodes from each other and from the control device. Therefore, a new ground of rejection is made for Claim 1 in view of Iyer/Huitema.
On page 10 of the remarks filed on 12/31/2025, with respect to the amended Claim 1, Applicant argues that Huitema's pixel driver chips 200 are not micro light-emitting diodes and in fact Huitema discloses that LEDs 102 are arranged over a plurality of embedded pixel driver chips 200 thus, Huitema's insulator layer 104 does not surround the LEDs 102. This argument is fully considered but is not persuasive. Examiner wishes to apologize for the oversight in the previous office action, in which the devices 200 of Huitema were incorrectly indexed as micro LEDs. However, as mentioned earlier, these devices may not be the same micro LEDs of Iyer as these components are already taught by the primary reference of Iyer. The teaching of Huitema relied upon is the first insulating layer and that it covers various electronic components. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have applied the teachings of Huitema in order to have a similar first insulating layer disposed between the redistribution layer and the flexible material layer of Iyer et al. in a configuration of surrounding the control device and directly connected to the redistribution layer and the side surface. Doing so would electrically isolate the micro light-emitting diodes from each other and from the control device. Therefore, a new ground of rejection is made for Claim 1 in view of Iyer/Huitema.
New ground of rejections are also made for all claims dependent on 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.
Claims 1-3, 8, 9, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyer et al. (US 20230238476 A1), in view of Huitema et al. (WO 2019168763 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Iyer et al. discloses a micro light-emitting diode package structure, comprising:
a redistribution layer 630 (Fig. 8: 630, paragraph 0103);
a control device 510, 512 disposed on and electrically connected to the redistribution layer 630 (Fig. 8: 510, 512, 630, paragraph 0103);
a plurality of micro light-emitting diodes 430, 440, 450, each comprising a back surface, a side surface, and at least two electrodes, wherein the at least two electrodes are arranged to face and electrically connect to the redistribution layer 630 (Fig. 8: 430, 440, 450, 630, paragraph 0103);
a flexible material layer 520 covering the control device 510, 521 and the plurality of micro light- emitting diodes 430, 440, 450 (Fig. 8: 520, paragraph 0103),
wherein the micro light-emitting diodes 430, 440, 450 are in contact with the flexible material layer 520 (Fig. 8).
Iyer et al. fails to a first insulating layer disposed between the redistribution layer and the flexible material layer in a configuration of surrounding the control device and directly connected to the redistribution layer and the side surface.
However, Huitema et al. discloses a micro light-emitting diode package structure comprising: a first insulating layer 104 disposed between the redistribution layer 110 and the material layer 120 in a configuration of surrounding the control device 310, 320 and directly connected to the redistribution layer 110 and the side surface (of devices 200) (Fig. 5: 104, 110, 310, 320, 200, paragraph 0082, 0083).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Iyer et al. and Huitema et al. in order to have the first insulating layer of Huitema et al. disposed between the redistribution layer and the flexible material layer of Iyer et al. in a configuration of surrounding the control device and directly connected to the redistribution layer and the side surface. Doing so electrically isolate the micro light-emitting diodes from each other and from the control device.
Regarding Claim 2, Iyer et al. discloses the micro light-emitting diode package structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein the control device 510, 521 comprises a micro driver integrated circuit device, a micro control integrated circuit device, a thin film transistor device or a combination thereof (paragraph 0006, 0100).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Iyer et al. and Huitema et al. discloses the micro light-emitting diode package structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first insulating layer 104 is directly connected to the flexible material layer 120 (as taught by Huitema et al. Fig. 5: electrodes).
Note that when the insulating layer 104 of Huitema et al. is disposed in the package structure of Iyer et al. according to the teachings of Huitema et al., the insulating layer will be directly connected to the flexible material layer 520 of Iyer et al.
PNG
media_image1.png
759
1430
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 8 of Iyer et al. (US 20230238476 A1)
Regarding Claim 8, Iyer et al. discloses the micro light-emitting diode package structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein the redistribution layer 630 has a first side on which the control device 510, 512 and the micro light-emitting diodes 430, 440, 450 are disposed (see annotated Fig. 8: first side).
Regarding Claim 9, Iyer et al. discloses the micro light-emitting diode package structure as claimed in claim 3, wherein the control device 510, 512 has a back surface level with the back surface of the micro light-emitting diode 430, 440, 450 (see Fig. 5C, annotated Fig. 8: contact pad).
Regarding Claim 11, unlike Iyer et al., Huitema et al. discloses the micro light-emitting diode package structure as claimed in claim 10, wherein the control device 310, 320 has a back surface, wherein the back surface of the control device 310, 320 is exposed from the first insulating layer 104.
Regarding Claim 12, Iyer et al. discloses the micro light-emitting diode package structure as claimed in claim 1, further comprising: a second insulating layer 640, and a bonding pad 650 passing through the second insulating layer 640 and electrically connected to the redistribution layer 630 (see annotated Fig. 8: 640, 650, 630, paragraph 0104).
Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art, using the combined teachings of Iyer et al. and Huitema et al., would have recognized that when the insulating layer 104 of Huitema et al. is disposed in the package structure of Iyer et al., the first insulating layer (104 of Huitema et al., Fig. 5) and the second insulating layer (640 of Iyer et al., Fig. 8) will be arranged on two different sides (first side and second in annotated Fig. 8 of Iyer et al.) of the redistribution layer 630.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyer et al. (US 20230238476 A1), in view of Huitema et al. (WO 2019168763 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of Tu et al. (US 9018655 B2).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Iyer et al. and Huitema et al. fails to disclose the micro light-emitting diode package structure as claimed in claim 3, wherein the plurality of micro light-emitting diodes comprises a micro light-emitting diode which has a back surface with a rough surface.
However, Tu et al. discloses a micro light-emitting diode package structure, wherein the plurality of micro light-emitting diodes 200 comprises a micro light-emitting diode 200 which has a back surface 102a with a rough surface (Fig. 2E: 200, Fig 2F: 102a, column 5, lines 10-12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Iyer et al. and Tu et al. in order to have the plurality of micro light-emitting diodes comprise a micro light-emitting diode which has a back surface with a rough surface. Doing so would improve the light extraction efficiency of the micro light-emitting diodes by minimizing total internal reflection at the back surface, as recognized by Tu et al. (column 5, lines 18-21).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyer et al. (US 20230238476 A1), in view of Huitema et al. (WO 2019168763 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of Bower et al. (US 20210193631 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, , the combination of Iyer et al. and Huitema et al. fails to disclose the micro light-emitting diode package structure as claimed in claim 1, further comprising: a light-shielding layer disposed between the redistribution layer and the flexible material layer, and surrounding the micro light-emitting diodes.
However, Bower et al. discloses a micro light-emitting diode package structure comprising a light-shielding layer 40 disposed between the redistribution layer 30 and the flexible material layer 10, and surrounding the micro light-emitting diodes 20 (Fig. 4: 40, 30, 10, 20, paragraph 0047, 0048).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Iyer et al. and Bower et al. in order to have a light-shielding layer disposed between the redistribution layer and the flexible material layer, and surrounding the micro light-emitting diodes. Doing so would improve the contrast of micro light-emitting diodes under ambient light by absorbing visible light, as recognized by Bower et al. (paragraph 0047).
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 HAMNA F IQBAL whose telephone number is 571-272-1587. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8.30 am - 5.30 pm 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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at 571-272-5055. 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.
/HAMNA FATHIMA IQBAL/Examiner, Art Unit 2817 04/10/2026
/Kretelia Graham/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817 April 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights