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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species 2 (claims 1-20) in the reply filed on 7/16/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Figures 1A and 1B are generic to the species. This is not found persuasive because while it is acknowledged that Figures 1A and 1B may be generic to the species, the mutually exclusive characteristics pointed out in the restriction requirement of 6/3/2026 remain applicable and valid, particularly with regard to Figure 2B versus Figures 3-7.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
No claims are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species.
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 1-20 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.
With regard to claim 1, the claim recites, in line 5, “a plurality of micro-LEDs”. The claim goes on in line 9 to recite, “with the substrate and the micro-LED”. It is unclear if the clause of line 9 is referring to each of the claimed plurality of micro-LEDs, a single instance of that plurality or some other proportion of the micro-LEDs, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of examination with regard to the prior art, the claim will be treated as if reciting
--with the substrate and at least one micro-LED of the plurality of micro-LEDs--.
Claims 2-20 depend from claim 1 and inherit its deficiencies.
Further with regard to claim 1, the claim recites, in lines 13-15, “wherein an optical density of the lower portion is greater than an optical density of the upper portion under the same thickness condition”. It is unclear if this claim limitation requires the upper portion and lower portion to be the same thickness or if the claim is directed to a hypothetical configuration where this is the case, but the claim does not require it, thus rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of examination with regard to the prior art, the claim will be treated as if reciting --wherein the material of the lower portion has a greater optical density per unit thickness than the material of the upper portion--.
Claims 2-20 depend from claim 1 and inherit its deficiencies.
With regard to claim 18, the claim recites, in lines 1-2, “each of the shielding layers is disposed on the upper portion in retraction”. It is unclear what the term “in retraction” means in this context since it is not indicated what is being retracted from, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of examination with regard to the prior art this claim will be treated as if reciting -- each of the shielding layers is disposed on the upper portion spaced apart from the micro-LEDs--.
With regard to claim 20, the claim recites, in lines 1-3, “wherein under a condition of the same thickness, the optical density of the lower portion is greater than an optical density of each of the shielding layers”. It is unclear if this claim limitation requires the shielding layers and lower portion to be the same thickness or if the claim is directed to a hypothetical configuration where this is the case, but the claim does not require it, thus rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of examination with regard to the prior art, the claim will be treated as if reciting --wherein the material of the lower portion has a greater optical density per unit thickness than the material of the shielding layers--.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, 9, and 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2019/0074206) in view of Chang et al. (US 2019/0157341) and Lin et al. (US 2021/0028327).
With regard to claim 1, Chen teaches, in Figs 6A-6E, a micro-LED display device, comprising: a substrate (10) having a first circuit layer (circuitry coupled to an instance of 14) and a second circuit layer (circuitry coupled to another instance of 14 coupled to the same device 50); a first pad (instance of 14) and a second pad (another instance of 14 coupled to the same device 50) respectively disposed on the first circuit layer and the second circuit layer; a plurality of micro-LEDs (50), and wherein each of the micro-LEDs comprises a first electrode and a second electrode (shown, but not labeled as the portions of 50 that make contact with 14) that are respectively connected to the first pad and the second pad; a first bonding support layer (22, 64) disposed between the first pad and the second pad and in direct contact with the substrate and the micro-LED.
Chen does not explicitly teach a plurality of second bonding support layers, wherein each of the second bonding support layers comprises a lower portion and an upper portion over the lower portion, wherein the lower portion and the upper portion is disposed between and in lateral contact with adjacent two of the micro-LEDs.
Chang teaches, in Fig 2, a plurality of second bonding support layers (30), wherein each of the second bonding support layers comprises a lower portion (31) and an upper portion (33) over the lower portion, wherein the lower portion and the upper portion is disposed between and in lateral contact with adjacent two of the micro-LEDs (40, and attendant electrodes such as 91) so that, “performance of the micro LED 40 is improved,” ([0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the time of filing to combine the device of Chen with the second bonding support layer structure of Chang so that performance of the micro-LED is improved.
Chen/Chang do not explicitly teach that an optical density of the lower portion is greater than an optical density of the upper portion under the same thickness condition.
Lin teaches, in Fig 8, that an optical density of the lower portion (604c) is greater than an optical density of the upper portion (either 104 taken as a whole or 104a) under the same thickness condition since Lin teaches ([0064]) that the lower portion 604c reduces possibility of light transmission generated from the light emitting elements to adjacent openings which reduces color mixing of adjacent sub pixels and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the optical density of the lower portion to be greater than the upper portion in order to effectively reduce color mixing and transmission of light between adjacent sub pixels ([0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the effective time of filing to combine the device of Chen/Chang with the upper and lower portions of Lin to effectively reduce color mixing and transmission of light between adjacent sub pixels.
With regard to claim 2, Chen teaches, in Figs 6A-6E, that the first bonding support layer fills a space between the first electrode and the second electrode (see figures).
With regard to claim 3, Chen teaches, in Figs 6A-6E, that a distance between a top surface of the first bonding support layer and a top surface of the substrate is greater than a distance between a top surface of the first pad or a top surface of the second pad and the top surface of the substrate (see figures).
With regard to claim 5, Lin teaches, in Fig 8, that a distance between a topmost surface of each of the second bonding support layers and a top surface of the substrate (308) is less than a distance between a top surface (SF7) of each of the micro-LEDs (102) and the top surface of the substrate (see figure).
With regard to claim 6, Lin teaches, in Fig 8, a plurality of shielding layers (104b) disposed on the second bonding support layers.
With regard to claim 7, Lin teaches, in Fig 8, that a distance between a top surface of each of the shielding layers and the top surface of the substrate (308) is greater than or equal to a distance between the top surface (SF7) of each of the micro-LEDs (102) and the top surface of the substrate.
With regard to claim 9, Lin teaches, in Fig 8, an optically clear adhesive (348) disposed on the micro-LED.
With regard to claim 11, Chen/Chang/Lin teach(es) most aspects of the instant invention (see above with regard to claim 1). However, Chen/Chang/Lin does not explicitly teach that a tensile stress of the first bonding support layer is greater than or equal to 18 MPa. Nonetheless, the skilled artisan would know too that the bonding support layer stress would impact the device durability.
The specific claimed tensile stress, absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” tensile stress disclosed by Chen/Chang/Lin that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine using routine experimentation (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)) based, among other things, on the desired device durability, manufacturing costs, etc. (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and since neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e. results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long as the tensile stress of the first bonding support layer is greater than or equal to 18 MPa is used, as already suggested by Chen/Chang/Lin.
Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph) of the tensile stress stated and since these tensile stresses are in common use in similar devices in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use these values in the device of Chen/Chang/Lin.
Please note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed tensile stress or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With regard to claim 12, Lin teaches, in Fig 8, that a thickness of the upper portion (here taking the upper portion as all of 104) is greater than a thickness of the lower portion (see figure).
With regard to claim 13, Lin teaches, in Fig 8, that a thickness of the lower portion is smaller than 2µm ([0034]-[0038]).
With regard to claim 14, Lin teaches, in Fig 8, that the optical density of the lower portion is greater than 3 ([0034]-[0038]).
With regard to claim 15, Lin teaches, in Fig 8, that a thickness of the upper portion is greater than 5µm ([0034]-[0038]).
With regard to claim 16, Lin teaches, in Fig 8, that the optical density of the upper portion is greater than 2 ([0034]-[0038]).
With regard to claim 17, Lin teaches, in Fig 8, that a material of each of the shielding layers is the same as a material of the upper portion ([0048]).
With regard to claim 18, Lin teaches, in Fig 8, that each of the shielding layers is disposed on the upper portion in retraction (see figure).
With regard to claim 19, Lin teaches, in Fig 8, that a thickness of each of the shielding layers is greater than a thickness of the lower portion (see figure).
With regard to claim 20, Lin teaches, in Fig 8, that a condition of the same thickness, the optical density of the lower portion is greater than an optical density of each of the shielding layers ([0034]-[0038]).
Claim(s) 4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2019/0074206) in view of Chang et al. (US 2019/0157341), Lin et al. (US 2021/0028327), and Deeman et al. (US 2017/0309223).
With regard to claim 4, Chen/Chang/Lin teaches most of the limitations of this claim, as set forth above with regard to claim 1.
Chen/Chang/Lin do not explicitly teach that a material of the first bonding support layer comprises a thermosetting resin.
Deeman teaches that a material of the first bonding support layer comprises a thermosetting resin ([0014]) so that, “the isolation grid 30 can be manufactured employing two-dimensional (2D) printing or three-dimensional (3D) printing,” ([0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the effective time of filing to combine the device of Chen/Chang/Lin with the bonding support layer material of Deeman to allow manufacturing by two-dimensional (2D) printing or three-dimensional (3D) printing.
However, Chen/Chang/Lin/Deeman does not explicitly teach that a glass transition temperature of the first bonding support layer is greater than or equal to 190 °C, and a Young's modulus of the first bonding support layer is between 1.8 and 2.2 GPa. Nonetheless, the skilled artisan would know too that the bonding support layer material properties would impact the device durability.
The specific claimed material properties, absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” material properties disclosed by Chen/Chang/Lin/Deeman that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine using routine experimentation (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)) based, among other things, on the desired device durability, manufacturing costs, etc. (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and since neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e. results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long as the a glass transition temperature of the first bonding support layer is greater than or equal to 190 °C, and a Young's modulus of the first bonding support layer is between 1.8 and 2.2 GPa is used, as already suggested by Chen/Chang/Lin/Deeman.
Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph) of the material properties stated and since these material properties are in common use in similar devices in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use these values in the device of Chen/Chang/Lin/Deeman.
Please note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed material properties or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With regard to claim 8, Chen/Chang/Lin teaches most of the limitations of this claim, as set forth above with regard to claim 1.
Chen/Chang/Lin do not explicitly teach that a material of each of the second bonding support layers comprises a thermosetting resin.
Deeman teaches that a material of a material of each of the second bonding support layers comprises a thermosetting resin. ([0014]) so that, “the isolation grid 30 can be manufactured employing two-dimensional (2D) printing or three-dimensional (3D) printing,” ([0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the effective time of filing to combine the device of Chen/Chang/Lin with the bonding support layer material of Deeman to allow manufacturing by two-dimensional (2D) printing or three-dimensional (3D) printing.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2019/0074206) in view of Chang et al. (US 2019/0157341), Lin et al. (US 2021/0028327), and Iguchi et al. (US 2021/0005583).
With regard to claim 10, Chen/Chang/Lin teaches most of the limitations of this claim, as set forth above with regard to claim 1.
Chen/Chang/Lin do not explicitly teach that a material of the first bonding support layer is the same as a material of the lower portion.
Iguchi teaches, in Fig 1, that a material of the first bonding support layer (region of 60 between 23P and 23N) is the same as a material of the lower portion (portion of 60 surrounding micro-LEDs 100), “in order to reduce light leakage to an adjacent micro light emitting element 100,” ([0045]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the effective time of filing to combine the device of Chen/Chang/Lin with the bonding support layer material of Iguchi to reduce light leakage to an adjacent micro light emitting element.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAJ R GUPTA whose telephone number is (571)270-5707. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30AM-4PM, 8PM-10PM.
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, Sue Purvis can be reached at 5712721236. 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.
/RAJ R GUPTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights