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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/24/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the amending of claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant has argued the Hasegawa reference does not teach the newly amended claim features.
The Examiner does not agree. First fig.24/25 clearly shows the second substrate (#11) disposed above and vertically stacked on one surface side (top) of the first substrate (fig.24 #12+#15) so as to extend across the first substrate in plan view (fig.24/25). Figure 24 additionally shows posts #38a, which are part of the light shielding layer ([0150-151]) are found to extend beneath a plane of the second substrate (#11). Further, “over an entire length of the light shielding unit” is met by the length of at least one of the posts #38a measured either in the left/right direction or in the up/down direction as the measurement position relating to ‘an entire length’ is not defined in the claims and can be defined to be a subset of the shielding film structure.
Hasegawa therefore continues to read on the amended claims.
The Examiner notes in an effort to maximize compact prosecution, 2 rejections are presented below.
Is maintaining the previous rejection as outlined above.
Is presenting new art in combination with Hasegawa which more clearly demonstrates the believed intention of the current amendment to state the length is referring to the entire shield layer length in the plane.
REJECTION 1
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/2 as being anticipated by Hasegawa et al. (US 2018/0277528).
With respect to claim 1, Hasegawa discloses an electronic device (fig.24) comprising: a first substrate (fig.24 #15 +#12) including a drive circuit (fig.24 #12); a second substrate including a light-emitting unit (fig.24 #11a; [0086] LED chip formed separately, akin to chip 41 of instant application considered ‘second substrate’, spec [0023]) driven by the drive circuit (abstract), wherein the second substrate is disposed above and vertically stacked on one surface side (top) of the first substrate (as seen in fig.24/25) so as to extend across the first substrate in a plan view (fig.24/25); and a light-shielding unit (fig.24 #38+38a) provided on the first substrate in a plane beneath the second substrate (fig.24 at least #38a is in a plane beneath substrate #11) over an entire length of the light shielding unit (note measurement position of the length not defined; can be taken to mean the length of one of the posts #38a measured in the left/right direction or the up/down direction, both of which lengths are entirely below the second substrate), wherein the light shielding unit is configured to shield at least a part of the drive circuit from light emitted by the light-emitting unit ([0150], Cu seed layer + posts).
PNG
media_image1.png
498
838
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, Hasegawa discloses the drive circuit includes a bias circuit that applies a current to the light-emitting unit (wiring layers, see fig.18, and transistors, etc., [0131], are formed in the drive circuit and necessarily provide current to the emitter in order to drive it), and the light-shielding unit shields the bias circuit from the light ([0150] as the circuit is internal to the driver chip).
With respect to claim 3, Hasegawa discloses the light-shielding unit includes a light-shielding film made of a material having a light-shielding property against the light and provided on one surface of the first substrate (fig.24 #38, [0150]), and the light-shielding film covers at least a part of the drive circuit (as seen in fig.24).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa.
With respect to claim 19, Hasegawa teaches the device outlined above, including the use of copper wiring lines ([0150]), wiring lines to act as light shields ([0146]), and the use of Al as a shield material ([0159]). Hasegawa does not make explicitly clear the posts and seed layer are of Cu or Al. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to make use of Cu or Al for the posts and seed layer of Hasegawa as Hasegawa has demonstrated use of both materials and each material is widely known to be highly conductive, the Al demonstrated to also be directly taught as a shield, such that it would beneficially provide the wiring/connection types desired by Hasegawa (see MPEP 2144.07).
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa in view of Mays, Jr. (US 6600460).
With respect to claims 9 and 10, Hasegawa teaches the device outlined above, including the emitters to be LEDs ([0086]), intended emission direction to be vertical (fig.2 S1 is light emitting surface) and use in RGB displays (abstract, fig.1), but does not teach the light-emitting unit includes a vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser (VCSEL) OR the light includes infrared light. Mays, Jr. teaches VCSEL devices emitting infrared light (converted by phosphors) can be used in displays (col.6 lines 25-30, col.8 line 50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to make use of infrared emitting VCSELs for the light emitters of Hasegawa as demonstrated by Mays, Jr. in order to make use of emitters capable of generating the needed RGB light while having the advantage of higher power and narrow spread, as compared to LEDs, in order to enable miniaturization of the display (Mays, Jr., col.3 lines 15-18).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa in view of Nomura et al. (US 8059692).
With respect to claim 11, Hasegawa teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach a lens that is disposed at a position facing the first substrate across the second substrate and on which the light is incident. Nomura teaches a related light emitter include a lens (fig.3a/b, fig.4a/b) disposed directly above the emitter and the use of such emitters in display applications (col.10 lines 43-50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the system of Hasegawa to make use of a lens directly above the emitter as demonstrated by Nomura in order to control the output path of the light.
Note that when the above modification of Hasegawa is made the lens would be disposed at a position facing the first substrate across the second substrate and on which the light is incident.
REJECTION 2
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-3 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa et al. (US 2018/0277528) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2017/0069609).
With respect to claim 1, Hasegawa teaches an electronic device (fig.24) comprising: a first substrate (fig.24 #15 +#12) including a drive circuit (fig.24 #12); a second substrate including a light-emitting unit (fig.24 #11a; [0086] LED chip formed separately, akin to chip 41 of instant application considered ‘second substrate’, spec [0023]) driven by the drive circuit (abstract), wherein the second substrate is disposed above and vertically stacked on one surface side (top) of the first substrate (as seen in fig.24/25) so as to extend across the first substrate in a plan view (fig.24/25); and a light-shielding unit (fig.24 #38+38a) provided on the first substrate in a plane beneath the second substrate (fig.24 at least #38a is in a plane beneath substrate #11), wherein the light shielding unit is configured to shield at least a part of the drive circuit from light emitted by the light-emitting unit ([0150], Cu seed layer + posts).
PNG
media_image1.png
498
838
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hasegawa does not teach the entire length of the light shielding film over the left/right direction is disposed beneath the second substrate. Zhang teaches a related device (fig.7a) which includes a first substrate (fig.7a #102) with a driving device (fig.7a #104), a second substrate including a light emitting device (fig.7a #106, [0030] VCSEL chip formed separately, akin to chip 41 of instant application considered ‘second substrate’, spec [0023]), and a light shielding film (fig.7a #108; formed of Cu [0028] as in Hasegawa), formed on the first substrate in a plane beneath the second substrate over an entire length of the light shielding film (fig.7a shield #108 on #102 and entirely below #106). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Hasegawa to stack the light emitter above the driver with the Cu shielding layer in-between functioning as an electrical connection as demonstrated by Zhang, thereby reading on the entire length of the light shielding film over the left/right direction is disposed beneath the second substrate, in order to create a more compact device with smaller footprint enabling more devices to be integrated into a given space.
With respect to claim 2, Hasegawa, as modified, teaches the drive circuit includes a bias circuit that applies a current to the light-emitting unit (wiring layers, see fig.18, and transistors, etc., [0131], are formed in the drive circuit and necessarily provide current to the emitter in order to drive it), and the light-shielding unit shields the bias circuit from the light ([0150] as the circuit is internal to the driver chip).
With respect to claim 3, Hasegawa, as modified, teaches the light-shielding unit includes a light-shielding film made of a material having a light-shielding property against the light and provided on one surface of the first substrate (fig.24 #38, [0150]), and the light-shielding film covers at least a part of the drive circuit (as seen in fig.24).
With respect to claim 19, Hasegawa, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, including the use of copper wiring lines ([0150]), wiring lines to act as light shields ([0146]), and the use of Al as a shield material ([0159]). Hasegawa does not make explicitly clear the posts and seed layer are of Cu or Al. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to make use of Cu or Al for the posts and seed layer of Hasegawa as Hasegawa has demonstrated use of both materials and each material is widely known to be highly conductive, the Al demonstrated to also be directly taught as a shield, such that it would beneficially provide the wiring/connection types desired by Hasegawa (see MPEP 2144.07).
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa and Zhang in view of Mays, Jr. (US 6600460).
With respect to claims 9 and 10, Hasegawa, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, including the emitters to be LEDs ([0086]), intended emission direction to be vertical (fig.2 S1 is light emitting surface) and use in RGB displays (abstract, fig.1), but does not teach the light-emitting unit includes a vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser (VCSEL) OR the light includes infrared light. Mays, Jr. teaches VCSEL devices emitting infrared light (converted by phosphors) can be used in displays (col.6 lines 25-30, col.8 line 50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to make use of infrared emitting VCSELs for the light emitters of Hasegawa as demonstrated by Mays, Jr. in order to make use of emitters capable of generating the needed RGB light while having the advantage of higher power and narrow spread, as compared to LEDs, in order to enable miniaturization of the display (Mays, Jr., col.3 lines 15-18).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa and Zhang in view of Nomura et al. (US 8059692).
With respect to claim 11, Hasegawa, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach a lens that is disposed at a position facing the first substrate across the second substrate and on which the light is incident. Nomura teaches a related light emitter include a lens (fig.3a/b, fig.4a/b) disposed directly above the emitter and the use of such emitters in display applications (col.10 lines 43-50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the system of Hasegawa to make use of a lens directly above the emitter as demonstrated by Nomura in order to control the output path of the light.
Note that when the above modification of Hasegawa is made the lens would be disposed at a position facing the first substrate across the second substrate and on which the light is incident.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2017/0069609, 2010/0127296 and WO 2019/202874 and 9640107 are particularly noted as teaching subject matter closely related to claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOD THOMAS VAN ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-8447. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8AM-430PM.
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, MinSun Harvey can be reached at 571-272-1835. 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.
/TOD T VAN ROY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights