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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/12/2025 has been entered.
Status of the Application
Acknowledgement is made of the amendment received on 11/12/2025. Claims 1-10 are pending in this application. Claim 8 is amended. Claims 1-7 remain withdrawn.
Claims 8-10 are presented in this Office Action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 12/10/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 8 recites that “a top and a sidewall of the first fixing element are not in contact with any solids” in lines 9-10. The term “not in contact with any solids” is not described in the specification, either explicitly or implicitly.
Specifically, the specification consistently describes embodiments in which the first fixing element directly contacts, abuts, penetrates into, or traps an adhesive layer, which is a solid material;
Paragraphs [0007], [0042], and [0044] describe that, during transfer, the first fixing element abuts the adhesive layer of the light-emitting element substrate.
Paragraphs [0054] describes the first fixing element protruding into a depression formed in the adhesive layer.
Paragraphs [0061] describes micro bumps of the first fixing element protruding into the adhesive-e layer.
Paragraphs [0065] describe adhesive material being trapped within grooves of the first fixing element.
Applicant’s reliance on FIG. 1C is unpersuasive. FIG. 1C merely depicts dimensional relationships (e.g., HLED, HPS1, HPAD) in the context of the described transfer/manufacturing flow and does not affirmatively describe or suggest a configuration in which the top and sidewall of the first fixing element are not in contact with any solids. To the contrary, the specification repeatedly characterizes the first fixing elements as abutting and mechanically engaging a solid adhesive layer during transfer (e.g., abutment, protrusion into adhesive/depression, trapping adhesive in grooves), which is inconsistent with the newly added “non-contact with any solids” limitation.
Accordingly, the specification fails to provide adequate written description support for this limitation.
Claims 9-10 are rejected for being dependent on claim 8.
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 8-10 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 8 recites the limitation “a top and a sidewall of the first fixing element are not in contact with any solids” in lines 9-10. This limitation renders the scope of the claim unclear for at least the following reasons;
The claim does not specify the condition or time at which the absence of contact is evaluated, such as during manufacture, during transfer, or in the completed display apparatus.
The term “any solids” is undefined, leaving unclear whether materials such as an adhesive layer, encapsulation materials, residual films, or other solid materials are included.
As a result, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine with reasonable certainty the scope of the claim subject matter.
For best understand and examination purpose, the claim will be best considered based on drawings, disclosure, and/or any applicable prior arts; and the claim limitation “a top and a sidewall of the first fixing element are not in contact with any solids” will be interpreted as a top and a sidewall of the first fixing element are exposed to a non-solid space, such as a cavity in the instant Office Action.
Claims 9-10 are rejected for being dependent on claim 8.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn et al. (US 2022/0223754; hereinafter ‘Ahn’) in view of Zhao (CN 111650786A) and Cok (US 2006/0290271).
Regarding claim 8, Ahn teaches a display apparatus (FIG. 2, [0050, 0081], comprising:
a carrier base (311, [0085]);
a pixel driving circuit (330a, 310, 320, 330b, 313 and 315; hereinafter referred to as ‘PDC'), disposed on the carrier base (301 disposed on the base layer);
an insulating layer (317, [0095]), disposed on the pixel driving circuit (317 on PDC) ;
a pad group (510, [0096]), disposed on the insulating layer and electrically connected to the pixel driving circuit (510 disposed on 317 and electrically connected to PDC);
a light-emitting element (ML, [0078]), electrically connected to the pad group (ML electrically connected to 510); and
a first fixing element (400, [0096]), disposed on the insulating layer and at least located on two opposite sides of the pad group (400 disposed on 317 and at least contacted on two opposite sides of 510);
wherein the light-emitting element comprises
an electrode and a solder disposed on the electrode (ML comprises 106/107 and 3a, FIG. 19, [0667, 680]),
the solder is located between the electrode and a pad of the pad group (3a over 700b is located between 106/107 and 510/520, [0692]),
the electrode of the light-emitting element and a surface of the light-emitting element facing away from the carrier base has a distance HLED in a direction perpendicular to the carrier base (HLED, see the annotated FIG. 2),
the first fixing element has a height HPS1 in the direction perpendicular to the carrier base (HPS1, see the annotated FIG. 2),
the solder has a thickness HPAD in the direction perpendicular to the carrier base (HPAD, see the annotated FIG. 2),
PNG
media_image1.png
416
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
HLED, HPS1, and HPAD satisfy: HLED ≤ HPS1 < 1.4 (HLED + HPAD); or HLED, HPS1, and HPAD satisfy: HLED + 90 μm ≤ HPS1 < 1.4·(HLED + HPAD + 90 μm) (HPS1 is greater than HLED, see the annotated FIG. 2).
Although Ahn does not explicitly teach that HPS1 is less than 1.4 (HLED + HPAD).
Ahn, however, provides sufficient structural context from which this relationship can be readily inferred. The ML is entirely positioned within the trench defined by 400, and its top surface lies below the top of 400, indicating that HPS1 is only slightly greater than HLED, Considering the thinness of HPAD, it follows that HPS1 is less than 1.4 (HLED + HPAD).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that in Ahn to include HPS1 is less than 1.4 (HLED + HPAD) as claimed, because it has been held that where the criticality of the claimed range is not shown and the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP §2144.05.
Ahn does not teach the display apparatus wherein a top and a sidewall of the first fixing element are not in contact with any solids; and wherein a compression ratio of the first fixing element falls within a range of 60% to 90%.
Zhao teaches a display apparatus [0015] wherein a compression ratio of the first fixing element falls within a range of 60% to 90% (spacer structure is composed of photoresist and the compression ratio higher than 85%, [0030]).
As taught by Zhao, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize and modify the above teaching into Ahn to obtain and achieve the display apparatus wherein a compression ratio of the first fixing element falls within a range of 60% to 90% as claimed, because it has been held that where the criticality of the claimed range is not shown and the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP §2144.05.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Zhao in combination with Ahn due to above reason.
Ahn in view of Zhao does not teach the display apparatus wherein a top and a sidewall of the first fixing element are not in contact with any solids.
Cok teaches a display apparatus (Fig. 1, [0024]) wherein a top and a sidewall of the first fixing element (22) are not in contact with any solids (22 contact only the OLED at a bottom surface, while the top and sidewall of 22 are exposed to the gap and are not in contact with any solids, Fig. 8b).
As taught by Cok, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize and modify the above teaching into Ahn in view of Zhao to obtain and achieve the display apparatus wherein a top and a sidewall of the first fixing element are not in contact with any solids as claimed, because maintaining a gap avoids contact between solid structures and device layers, thereby preventing mechanical interference and damage [0002, 0007, 0045].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Cok in combination with Ahn in view of Zhao due to above reason.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn (US 2022/0223754) in view of Zhao (CN 111650786A) and Cok (US 2006/0290271), and further in view of Bibl et al. (US 2021/0313305; hereinafter ‘Bibl’).
Regarding claim 9, Ahn in view of Zhao and Cok teaches the display apparatus according to claim 8, but does not teach the display apparatus wherein the first fixing element comprises a surface facing away from the carrier base, and the surface comprises a plurality of micro bumps.
Bibl teaches a display apparatus (FIG. 1C, [0011]) wherein the first fixing element (126, [0046]) comprises a surface facing away from the carrier base (the top surface of 126 facing away from the bottom two layers of 102, [0045]), and the surface comprises a plurality of micro bumps (the top surface of 126 comprises a plurality of 127 having a thickness of 1-2 µm, wherein 127 are patterned structures located between multiple bank openings, [0050, 0052]).
As taught by Bibl, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize and modify the above teaching into Ahn in view of Zhao and Cok to obtain and achieve the display apparatus wherein the first fixing element comprises a surface facing away from the carrier base, and the surface comprises a plurality of micro bumps as claimed, because the patterned structures on the top surface of the bank function as physical reference points during the planarization of the passivation layer, ensuring height control and proper exposure of micro-LEDs and vias (0051, 0076]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Bibl in combination with Ahn in view of Zhao and Cok due to above reason.
Regarding claim 10, Ahn in view of Zhao and Cok teaches the display apparatus according to claim 8, but does not teach the display apparatus wherein the first fixing element comprises a surface facing away from the carrier base, and the surface comprises at least one groove.
Bibl teaches a display apparatus (FIG. 1C, [0011]) wherein the first fixing element (126, [0046]) comprises a surface facing away from the carrier base (the top surface of 126 facing away from the bottom two layers of 102, [0045]), and the surface comprises at least one groove (the top surface of 126 comprises a plurality of 149, [0052]).
As taught by Bibl, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize and modify the above teaching into Ahn in view of Zhao and Cok to obtain and achieve the display apparatus wherein the first fixing element comprises a surface facing away from the carrier base, and the surface comprises at least one groove as claimed, because the groove structure formed in the top surface of the bank provides a recessed alignment feature or flow boundary during the planarization of the passivation layer, aiding in uniform material distribution and controlled exposure of micro-LEDs and vias (0051, 0076]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Bibl in combination with Ahn in view of Zhao and Cok due to above reason.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Response to arguments on newly added limitations are responded to in the above rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIYOUNG OH whose telephone number is (703)756-5687. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM-5PM 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, Eva Montalvo can be reached on (571) 270-3829. 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.
/JIYOUNG OH/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/EVA Y MONTALVO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2818