DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In response to an Office action mailed on 09/10/2025 (“09/10/2025 OA”), the Applicant amended independent claim 1 and added new claim 18 in a reply filed on 12/03/2025. Applicant’ amendments to independent claim 1 have substantively changed the scope of claim 1 and its dependent claims.
Claims 13-17 are withdrawn.
Currently, claims 1-12 and 18 are examined as below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the title of the invention have overcome the specification objections as set forth under line item number 1 in the 09/10/2025 OA.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 6-8 and 10 have overcome the claim objections as set forth under line item number 2 in the 09/10/2025 OA.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 5, 8 and 10 have overcome parts of the 112(b) rejections as set forth under line item number 3 in the 09/10/2025 OA.
Applicant’s amendments to independent claim 1 have overcome the prior-art rejections as set forth under line item numbers 4-6 in the 09/10/2025 OA.
New references are introduced. New grounds of rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 and 112(b) are provided as follows. There are also claim objections.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 10/08/2025. The IDS has been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 9, in line 2, “the light absorbing material” should read “the layer of light absorbing material,” such that the claim language would be consistent.
Regarding claim 12, in lines 1-2, “the reflective coating material as a thickness,” in which the word “as” appears to be a typo. It should read “the reflective coating material has a thickness.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 is indefinite, because the limitation “the plurality of unpackaged light-emitting diode (LED) dies” is not mentioned before. Only a “plurality of unpackaged light-emitting diodes” without “dies” is mentioned in the base claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 18 is indefinite, because:
(1) The limitation “an opening in the reflective coating material disposed between each of the unpackaged light-emitting diodes; and a layer of light absorbing material disposed in the opening” renders the claim indefinite. It appears to be duplicate claim limitations as recited in the base claim 1. It is unclear why the same limitations are reiterated.
(2) The limitation “an opening in the reflective coating material” in lines 1-2 renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether it is the same opening in the reflective coating material as recited in the base claim 1. The limitation will be interpreted as the same.
(3) The limitation “a layer of light absorbing material” in line 3 renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether it is the same layer of light absorbing material as recited in the base claim 1. The limitation will be interpreted as the same.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0246671 A1 to Sun et al. (“Sun”) in view of US 2014/0131753 A1 to Ishida et al. (“Ishida”).
PNG
media_image1.png
498
810
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding independent claim 1, Sun in Figs. 1-2 teaches a light-emitting device 100, 100a (Figs. 1-2, ¶ 35 & ¶ 50, micro light-emitting diode display panel 100, 100a) comprising:
a plurality of unpackaged light-emitting diodes 110, 120, 130 (Figs. 1-2, ¶ 37 & ¶ 50, first micro light-emitting diode 110, second micro light-emitting diode 120 and third micro light-emitting diode 130; Figs. 1-2, the micro light-emitting diodes 110, 120, 130 appear to be bare LED chips directly attached to the substrate 105 (i.e., unpackaged LEDs), rather than packaged LED chips having frames and encapsulation) arranged in an array (Figs. 1-2), each of the unpackaged light-emitting diodes 110, 120, 130 surrounded by a reflective coating material 140 (Figs. 1-2 & ¶ 35, reflective layer 140);
an opening 142, 142a (Figs. 1-2, ¶ 43 & ¶ 50, cavity 142, 142a) in the reflective coating material 140 disposed between each of the unpackaged light-emitting diodes 110, 120, 130; and
a layer of light absorbing material 150 (Figs. 1-2 & ¶ 35, light-absorbing layer 150) disposed in the opening 142, 142a,
where each of the unpackaged light-emitting diodes 110, 120, 130 of the array is fixed in place by the reflective coating material 140 (Figs. 1-2).
Sun further discloses the light-emitting device 100, 100a is a display panel 100, 100a (¶ 35 & ¶ 50).
However, Sun does not explicitly disclose the light-emitting diodes of the display panel are arranged in a grid.
Ishida recognizes a need for forming a display with light emitting diodes (¶ 2 & ¶ 43). Ishida satisfies the need by arranging a plurality of light emitting diodes 3 (Figs. 1A-1B & ¶ 43, light emitting elements 3 are light emitting diodes) in a grid (Figs. 1A-1B, ¶ 36-¶ 37 & abstract, light emitting diodes 3 are arranged in matrix i.e., grid).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light-emitting diodes taught by Sun for the grid/matrix arrangement taught by Ishida, so as to form a display with light emitting didoes (Ishida: ¶ 2).
Regarding claim 2, Sun in Fig. 2 further teaches the layer of light absorbing material 150 separates the plurality of unpackaged light-emitting diodes 110, 120, 130 (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Sun in Fig. 1 further teaches the layer of light absorbing material 150 partially separates the plurality of unpackaged light-emitting diodes 110, 120, 130 (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Sun and Ishida further teaches each of the plurality of unpackaged light-emitting diodes 110, 120, 130, 3 (Sun; Ishida) comprise at least one electrical contact 10 (Sun: Figs. 1-2; Ishida: Figs. 1A-1B & ¶ 38, conductive member 10), a sapphire substrate (Ishida: Figs. 1A-1B & ¶ 98, sapphire substrate), and a light converting layer 4 (Ishida: Fig. 1B & ¶ 68, phosphor layer 4).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Sun and Ishida further teaches the light converting layer 4 comprises a phosphor 4 (Ishida: ¶ 39, phosphor layer 4) and wherein the at least one electrical contact 10 comprises gold (Au) (Ishida: ¶ 57).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Sun and Ishida further teaches the phosphor 4 is selected from a phosphor in silicone (Ishida: ¶ 69).
Regarding claim 8, Sun in Figs. 1-2 teaches the reflective coating material 140.
However, Sun does not explicitly disclose the reflective coating material comprises one or more of silicone, silicon dioxide (SiO2), titanium oxide (TiO2), zirconium oxide (ZrO2), aluminum oxide (Al2O3), and other metal oxides.
Ishida recognizes a need for effectively reflecting light emitted from light emitting element (¶ 5). Ishida satisfies the need by providing a reflective material 8 (Fig. 1B & ¶ 55, reflective resin 8) comprises one or more of titanium oxide (TiO2), zirconium oxide (ZrO2), aluminum oxide (Al2O3), and other metal oxides (¶ 55, TiO2, ZrO2, Al2O3, MgO).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the reflective material taught by Ishida for the reflective coating material taught by Sun, so as to effectively reflect light emitted from light emitting element (Ishida: ¶ 5).
Regarding claim 10, Sun in Figs. 1-2 and 10 further teaches each of the plurality of unpackaged light-emitting diode (LED) dies 110, 120, 130 are separated from an adjacent plurality of unpackaged light-emitting diode (LED) dies 110, 120, 130 by a distance in a range of between 1 μm and 50 μm (¶ 66), which overlaps the claimed range of 10 µm to 500 µm.
“In the case where the claimed ranges 'overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art' a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)" (quoting MPEP 2144.05.I.).
Since the thickness of between 1 μm and 50 μm taught by Sun overlaps with the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exist. The burden shifts to the Applicant to show that the claimed range provides unexpected result that is difference in kind and not difference in degree. See In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 11, Sun in Figs. 1-2 further teaches the reflective coating material 140 has a reflectance in a range of greater than 50 % (¶ 41), which overlaps the claimed range of from 80% to 100%.
“In the case where the claimed ranges 'overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art' a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)" (quoting MPEP 2144.05.I.).
Since the thickness of greater than 50% taught by Sun overlaps with the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exist. The burden shifts to the Applicant to show that the claimed range provides unexpected result that is difference in kind and not difference in degree. See In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 12, Sun in Figs. 1-2 teaches the reflective coating material 140 has a thickness T1 (Figs. 1-2 & ¶ 42).
The combination of Sun and Ishida does not explicitly disclose the reflective coating material having a thickness in a range of from 10 µm to 500 µm.
However, it would have been obvious to form the thickness within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 18, Sun in Figs. 1-2 further teaches an opening 142 (Figs. 1-2, ¶ 42 & ¶ 50, cavity 142, 142a) in the reflective coating material 140 disposed between each of the unpackaged light-emitting diodes 110, 120, 130; and a layer of light absorbing material 150 disposed in the opening 142 (Figs. 1-2 & ¶ 44).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun and Ishida, and further in view of US 2021/0183837 A1 to Shin et al. (“Shin”).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Sun and Ishida teaches the plurality of unpackaged light-emitting diodes 110, 120, 130, 3 arranged in the grid (Sun: Figs. 1-2; Ishida: Figs. 1A-1B).
However, the combination of Sun and Ishida does not explicitly disclose a printed circuit board (PCB), wherein the plurality of unpackaged light-emitting diodes arranged in the grid is mounted on the PCB.
Shin recognizes a need for supplying power to a plurality of light emitting diodes or transmitting electrical signals to the light emitting diodes (¶ 137). Shin satisfies the need by providing a printed circuit board (PCB) 47a (Fig. 5 & ¶ 136-¶ 137, printed circuit board (PCB) 47a), wherein a plurality of light-emitting diodes 50 (Fig. 5 & ¶ 137, light emitting diodes 50) arranged is mounted on the PCB 47a.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the PCB taught by Shin with the unpackaged light-emitting diodes taught by Sun and Ishida, so as to supply power to a plurality of light emitting diodes or transmit electrical signals to the light emitting diodes (Shin: ¶ 137).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun and Ishida, and further in view of US 2020/0075813 A1 to Joo et al. (“Joo”).
Regarding claim 9, Sun in Figs. 1-2 teaches the light absorbing material 150.
However, the combination of Sun and Ishida does not explicitly disclose the light absorbing material comprises of one or more of silicone, carbon particles, or a metal material.
Joo recognizes a need for providing improved LEDs having reduced optical losses and providing desirable illumination characteristics (¶ 6). Joo satisfies the need by providing a light absorbing material 48 (Fig. 3A & ¶ 58, light-absorbing particles of a light-altering material 48) comprises of one or more of silicone or carbon particles (¶ 58, silicone binder and carbon particles).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the silicone binder and carbon particles taught by Joo for the light absorbing material taught by Sun and Ishida, so as to provide improved LEDs having reduced optical losses and providing desirable illumination characteristics (Joo: ¶ 6).
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2013/0256711 A1 to Joo et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIKKA LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-2568. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5AM EST M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/ELISEO RAMOS FELICIANO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights