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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The Applicants arguments with respect to the previous rejection of claim 28 and 33 under 35 USC 112(b) are persuasive. Therefore, the previous rejection of claims 28, 329 and 33 under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn.
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, 2, 5, 6, 11-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Hochman et al. (US 10,325,541) hereinafter “Hochman” in view of Dong et al. (CN 103545304) hereinafter “Dong” (English Translation Attached).
Regarding claim 1, Fig. 2 of Hochman teaches a light-emitting device comprising an array of self-emitting pixels including at least one white emitter (Item 110W) with a height and width sized at least substantially equal to a combined height and width of a multi-color set of emitters (Items R, G and B) of a neighboring pixel, wherein the array comprises at least 2 horizontal and 2 vertical pixels.
Hochman does not teach where the light emitting device is a surface mount device comprising a micro array.
Fig. 5 of Dong teaches where a module (Item 4) comprises light emitting surface mount devices comprising a micro array of 4 pixels in a 2x2 configuration.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the respective modules of tiles of the light emitting device of Hochman comprising a plurality of light emitting surface mount devices, where the light emitting surface mount devices comprise a micro array because surface mount devices are known to be used in applications that require a high resolution display (Dong, second paragraph under Example 1 section; See attached English translation).
Hochman does not teach a micro array substrate with each said emitter surface mounted on the micro array substrate.
Fig. 5 of Dong teaches where emitters (Items 1) are surface mounted on a micro array substrate (Item 3) (See Examiner’s Note below).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a micro array substrate with each said emitter surface mounted on the micro array substrate because this is known to form a display device with multiple micro arrays on a common surface (Dong Second paragraph under Example 1 section; See attached English translation).
Examiner’s Note: The Examiner notes that the claim language requires that “each said emitter surface mounted on the micro-array substrate” and thus requires that each emitter is mounted on the surface of the micro array substrate. The claim language does not require that each of the emitters are surface mount devices. The term “surface mount device” requires that the device itself is a surface mount device while something that is “surface mounted” merely requires that something is mounted on a surface.
Regarding claim 2, Fig. 2 of Hochman further teaches where at least two said pixels each comprise said one white emitter (Item 110W) and at least two said pixels each comprise said multi-color emitters (Items R, G and B) forming a set of sub-pixels (Item 110C).
Regarding claim 5, Hochman further teaches wherein the white emitters comprise a white LED and the multi-color emitters comprise a combination of red, green and blue LEDs (Column 6, Lines 2-6).
Regarding claim 6, Hochman further teaches where said emitters comprise LEDs (Column 6, Lines 2-6).
Regarding claim 11, Fig. 2 of Hochman further teaches a light emitting tile comprising an array of light emitting surface mount devices according to claim 1 (when combined with Dong as stated in the rejection of claim 1 above; for purposes of brevity the rejection of claim 1 will not be repeated here).
Hochman does not teach where each said micro array substrate is individually replaceably mounted to a tile substrate of the light emitting tile.
Fig. 3 of Dong further teaches where each said micro array substrate is individually replaceably mounted to a tile substrate (Item 5) of a light emitting tile (Where each single chip module Item 4 is soldered to Item 5 such that an individual module could be removed by heating the solder without removing other modules).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have each said microarray comprises a micro array substrate with each said emitter surface mounted on the micro array substrate, and each said micro array substrate is individually replaceably mounted to a tile substrate of the light emitting tile because this is known to form a display device with multiple micro arrays on a common surface (Dong Second paragraph under Example 1 section; See attached English translation).
Regarding claim 12, Fig. 2 of Hochman further teaches a video display wall comprising an array of light emitting tiles according to claim 11 (When combined with Dong as stated above; for brevity the rejection of claim 11 will not be repeated here).
Regarding claim 13, Fig. 2 of Hochman further teaches a 2x2 pixel array (micro array when combined with Dong as stated in the rejection of claim 1 above) with one row consisting of a first pixel (Item 110C) formed of one each of a red LED (Item 112R), a green LED (Item 112G) and a blue LED (Item 112B) and a second pixel (Item 110W) formed of a single white LED, and with another row consisting of a first pixel formed of a single white LED and a second pixel formed of an ordered sequence of a blue LED, a green LED and a red LED (See Examiner’s Note).
Examiner’s Note: The Examiner notes that the claim language does not require that the ordered sequence of the respective first pixel in the first row and second pixel of the another row are sequenced in the same direction. Therefore, Hochman’s teaching satisfies the sequence in the first row in a downward direction and satisfies the sequence in the second row in the upward direction.
Regarding claim 15, Fig. 2 of Hochman further teaches wherein the total height and width (in a plan view) of each pixel varies by not more than about 1% - 20% of the total height and width of each other pixel in said array.
Claim 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Hochman et al. (US 10,325,541) hereinafter “Hochman” in view of Dong et al. (CN 103545304) hereinafter “Dong” (English Translation Attached) and in further view of Oku (US 2007/0109468) hereinafter “Oku”.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Hochman and Dong teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Hochman further teaches where each multi-color set of emitters comprises the same plural different color light emitters.
Hochman does not teach where the different color light emitters of each multi-color set are arranged in at least one of a different order, different orientation or different alignment relative to the different color light emitters at least two adjacent pixels of the array.
Fig. 2 of Oku teaches where different color light emitters (Items RGB) of two multicolor sets are arranged in a different order (Where one is RGB and the other is BGR).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the different color light emitters of each multi-color set be arranged in a different order because this helps to increase the color mixing effect (Oku Paragraph 0006).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Hochman et al. (US 10,325,541) hereinafter “Hochman” in view of Dong et al. (CN 103545304) hereinafter “Dong” (English Translation Attached) and in further view of Ward (US 2021/0033790) hereinafter “Ward”.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Hochman and Dong teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where the device is configured as one of a BFA package, a QFN package or a PLCC package.
Ward teaches a PLCC LED package utilized in a surface mount light emitting devices (Paragraph 0101).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the device be configured as a PLCC package because the PLCC package design may be useful as screens may include varying board sizes in order to respond to different market needs and higher resolution screens need the LEDs packed more densely and this modular approach to building large screens of arbitrary dimensions is giving way to different designs using chip-on-board technology and/or incorporating microLED and miniLED which provides a lot of flexibility (Ward Paragraph 0102).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hochman et al. (US 10,325,541) hereinafter “Hochman” in view of Dong et al. (CN 103545304) hereinafter “Dong” (English Translation Attached) and in further view of Chen et al. (US 2013/0341656) hereinafter “Chen”.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Hochman and Dong teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where the device is no larger than 5 mm x 5 mm.
Chen teaches a large number of SMDs are arranged in rows and columns and where an SMD defines a pixel, and where each pixel may have a size of about 2.8 mm or less by 2.8 mm or less (Paragraph 0056).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the device be no larger than 5 mm x 5 mm because this configuration allows for the SMD to be used in an LED screen (Chen Paragraph 0056).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Hochman et al. (US 10,325,541) hereinafter “Hochman” in view of Dong et al. (CN 103545304) hereinafter “Dong” (English Translation Attached) and in view of Hochman (US 2015/0116995) hereinafter “Hochman2”.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Hochman and Dong teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except a light transmissive encapsulation layer over emitters on the micro-array substrate.
Fig. 1 of Hochman2 teaches where a transparent cover (Item 124) covers any LEDS in an array (Paragraph 0016).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a light transmissive encapsulation layer over emitters on the micro-array substrate because the light transmissive encapsulation layer protects the emitters or LEDs mounted on an array substrate (Hochman2 Paragraph 0016).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 28-31 and 33 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4, the prior art does not teach, suggest or motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to have a micro- array substrate with each said multi-color emitters directly bonded thereto and a white emitter substrate with the white emitter directly bonded to the white emitter substrate, and where the white emitter substrate is directly bonded to the micro-array substrate.
Regarding claim 28, the prior art does not teach, suggest or motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to have said ordered sequences being defined in the same relative direction of the micro-array and providing reduced off-axis color skew from specific viewing angles along with the other limitations in claim 28.
Claim 29 is also indicated as having allowable subject matter as it depends from and includes all of the limitations of claim 28.
Regarding claim 30, the prior art does not teach, suggest or motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to have the microarray substrate comprise plural layers with a first microarray substrate layer comprising color emitter substrates and separate white emitter substrate along with the other limitations in claim 30.
Claims 31 and 33 are also indicated as having allowable subject matter as it depends from and includes all of the limitations of claim 30.
Claim 14 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 14, the prior art of record does not teach, suggest or motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to have the red, green and blue LEDs of each row arranged in a different ordered sequence in the same relative direction of the microarray along with the other limitations of claim 14 and claims 1 and 13, from which claim 14 depends.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s REMARKS, filed 10/20/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 14, 28 and 30 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) and 35 USC 103(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claims 14, 28-31 and 33 and has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/23/2026 with regard to the rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, the Applicant argues that the combination of Hochman and Dong fails to teach the limitation “a microarray substrate with each said emitter surface mounted on the micro array substrate” as Dong does not teach where the emitters are surface mount devices. However, the Examiner notes that the claim language does not require that each emitter is a surface mount device but instead that each emitter is surface mounted on the micro array substrate. As Dong teaches the light emitters are mounted on the surface of a micro array substrate, the emitters are surface mounted. Thus, the Examiner does not find the Applicant’s arguments persuasive and avers that the combination of the Hochman and Dong references continue to read on amended claim 1.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/23/2026 with regard to the rejection of claim 11 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, the applicant argues that Dong does not teach where the micro array substrate is individually replaceably mounted to a tile substrate of a light emitting tile. The Examiner disagrees. Dong teaches where each micro array substrate (Item 4) is soldered to the light emitting tile (Item 5). As each micro array substrate (Item 4) could be individually replaced by A) heating up the solder between a specific micro array substrate and the light emitting tile and B) removing the specific micro array substrate from the light emitting tile while the other micro array substrates would stay in place on the light emitting tile. Thus, the Examiner does not find the Applicant’s arguments persuasive and maintains the rejection based on the combination of Hochman and Dong.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/23/2026 with regard to the rejection of claim 15 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, the Applicant argues that the drawings cannot be relied upon for reading on the limitations in claim 15. The Examiner disagrees. MPE 2125 states “Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). … When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979).” The Examiner avers that the drawings in Fig. 2 of Hochman reasonably disclose and suggest to one having ordinary skill in the art that the total height and width of each pixel varies by not more than 1% -20% of the total height and width of each other pixel in said array.”. As such, the Examiner does not find the Applicant’s argument persuasive and maintains the reliance on the teaching in Hochman.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/23/2026 with regard to the rejection of claim 7 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, the Applicant argues that there is no motivation to rely on the teaching in Oku as the teaching in Figure 2 of Oku (which was relied upon by the Examiner) does not solve the specific problem recited in Oku. The Examiner disagrees. Oku specifically teaches that the benefit of having the orientation recited in the Applicant’s claim 7. The fact that the orientation does not necessarily solve additional issues pointed out by Oku does not discount the benefit recited by Oku. Therefore, the Examiner does not find the Applicant’s arguments persuasive and continues to rely on the teaching in Oku.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/23/2026 with regard to the rejection of claim 8 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, the Applicant argues that the Examiner cannot combine the teaching in the Ward reference as the Ward reference does not teach the specific claimed RGB/white micro array surface mount device is configured in the manner recited in the claim. However, the Examiner disagrees as the Ward reference is not relied upon for the specific RGB/white configuration. Instead, the Hochman reference teaches the configuration required by the claim and Ward teaches where surface mount devices are known to be configured in the manner recited in the claim. As such, the Examiner does not find the Applicant arguments persuasive and maintains the reliance upon the Ward reference.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/23/2026 with regard to the rejection of claim 9 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, the Applicant argues that the Examiner cannot combine the teaching in the Chen reference as the Chen reference does not teach the specific claimed RGB/white micro array configuration. However, the Examiner disagrees as the Chen reference is not relied upon for the specific RGB/white configuration. Instead, the Hochman reference teaches the configuration required by the claim and Chen teaches where surface mount devices which have pixels are known to have a size recited in the claim. As such, the Examiner does not find the Applicant arguments persuasive and maintains the reliance upon the Chen reference.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/23/2026 with regard to the rejection of claim 10 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, the Applicant argues that because Hochman2 teaches a protective layer protecting LED in a linear architecture that the teaching is not applicable to the device of Hochman. The Examiner disagrees as the transmissive encapsulation layer would provide protection for LEDs in any configuration, regardless of whether they are in a linear arrangement or in a microarray configured in the manner recited by the claim. Therefore, the Examiner does not find the Applicant’s arguments persuasive and maintains the reliance on Hochman2.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kikuchi et al. (US 2023/0170454) teaches where each emitter is surface mounted on to a micro array substrate (Paragraph 0084).
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 ERIC K ASHBAHIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5187. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5:30 PM.
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, Matthew Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/ERIC K ASHBAHIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights