DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim(s) 16, 17 and 20 is/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.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “the alignment guide part is configured to cover at least a portion of the main surface of each first electrode of the at least one first electrode corresponding to each sub-pixel site of the plurality of sub-pixel sites and includes two or more holes each passing through a portion of the alignment guide part corresponding to each sub-pixel site of the plurality of sub-pixel sites so as to have a first shape,” is unclear because the limitation first recites “to cover at least a portion of the main surface…corresponding to each sub-pixel site,” but then recites “two or more holes…corresponding to each sub-pixel site.” The two recited features appear to be contradictory and incompatible.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “the alignment guide part…includes two or more holes each passing through a portion of the alignment guide part corresponding to each sub-pixel site of the plurality of sub-pixel sites,” is unclear as to how many holes correspond to each sub-pixel site. Specifically, the specification appears to show one hole corresponding to each sub-pixel site, however the claim appears to require two or more holes corresponding to each sub-pixel site.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “said layers” is unclear as to what previously recited elements are included.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “wherein each LED structure of the plurality of LED structures includes a first face and a second face facing each other in the first direction,” is unclear as to how two faces of the structure can face each other in a given direction.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “aligning the plurality of LED structures…by inserting a second face side end portion of each LED structure…into the hole of the alignment guide part,” is unclear as to how it is related to the previously recited requirement that the first face is the first shape of the hole. Specifically, it would appear that the first face being the same shape as the hole would allow the first face side end portion of the LED to be inserted the hole and not the second face side end portion.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “inserting a second face side end portion of each LED structure…into the hole of the alignment guide part,” is unclear as to how “the hole” is related to the previously recited “two or more holes.”
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “aligning the plurality of LED structures…by inserting a second face side end portion of each LED structure of the plurality of LED structures placed on the alignment guide part…into the hole of the alignment guide part by applying a sound wave and/or vibration,” is unclear as to which of the preceding verbs is modified by “by applying a sound wave and/or vibration.”
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “a linker for chemical bonding is disposed on at least one of the second face of each LED structure of the plurality of the LED structures…to prevent at least one LED structure of the plurality of aligned LED structures inserted in the hole of the alignment guide part from separating from the hole,” is unclear as to how it is related to the previous requirement that the first face is the first shape of the hole. Specifically, it would appear that the first face being the same shape as the hole would allow the first face side end portion of the LED to be inserted the hole and not the second face side end portion.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “an inner surface of the hole of the alignment guide part, and a bottom surface of the hole of the alignment guide part…the plurality of aligned LED structures inserted in the hole of the alignment guide part from separating from the hole,” is unclear as to how “the hole” is related to the previously recited “two or more holes.”
Regarding claim 17, the limitation “a process of radiating a sound wave one time or multiple times,” is unclear as to how it is related to “applying a sound wave and/or vibration.”
Regarding claim 20, the limitation “improving electrical contact between the second face of each LED structure of the plurality of aligned the LED structures and the at least one first electrode,” is unclear as to what elements require electrical contact in the instance of more than one first electrode. Specifically, it would appear that in the instance of more than one first electrode, only some of the LED structures would be in electrical contact each first electrode, however the limitation appears to require electrical contact between all of the LED structures and all of the first electrodes.
Regarding claim 20, the limitation “depositing an insulating material to fill a gap between each LED structure of the plurality of aligned LED structures in each hole of the alignment guide part,” is unclear as to what gap is required. Specifically, “a gap between each LED structure of the plurality of aligned LED structures in each hole” appears to require multiple LED structures in each hole, the gap being between the LED structures. The specification, however, appears to provide that a single LED structure is in each hole. It is further unclear as to how “each hole” is related to the previously recited “two or more holes.”
Regarding claim 20, the limitation “to planarize a space between the plurality of aligned LED structures,” is unclear as to the required disposition of the space. Specifically, it is unclear what element the space is between. It is further unclear as to how the “space” is related to the previously recited “gap.”
Note the dependent claims necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 16, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oraw et al. (US 9368549; herein “Oraw”) in view of Park et al. (US 20200185368; herein “Park”), Lee (US 20210175279; herein “Lee”), and Do et al. (US 20140124802; herein “Do”).
Regarding claim 16, Oraw discloses in Figs. 1-7 and related text a method of manufacturing a direct-current-drivable full- color light-emitting diode (LED) display, the method comprising:
operation (1) of preparing a lower electrode line part including at least one first electrode (14, see col. 3 line 30) and having a plurality of sub-pixel sites formed on a main surface of each first electrode of the at least one first electrode;
operation (2) of forming an alignment guide part (16, see col. 3 line 42) on the lower electrode line part, wherein the alignment guide part is configured to cover at least a portion of the main surface of each first electrode of the at least one first electrode corresponding to each sub-pixel site of the plurality of sub-pixel sites and includes two or more holes each passing through a portion of the alignment guide part corresponding to each sub-pixel site of the plurality of sub-pixel sites;
operation (3) of printing an ink composition on a region of the alignment guide part corresponding to each sub-pixel site of the plurality of sub-pixel sites, wherein the ink composition comprises a plurality of LED structures (see col. 1 lines 11-22), wherein each LED structure of the plurality of LED structures emits light of substantially the same color, and comprises:
a first conductive semiconductor layer, (ii) a photoactive layer, and (iii) a second conductive semiconductor layer (see col. 4 lines 15-22), wherein said layers are stacked in a first direction, and wherein each LED structure of the plurality of LED structures includes a first face and a second face facing each other in the first direction, and wherein a thickness that is a vertical distance between the first face and the second face is in a range of 0.3 um to 3.5 um (see col. 4 line 51);
operation (4) of aligning the plurality of LED structures on the main surface of the at least one first electrode into a plurality of aligned LED structures by inserting a second face side end portion of each LED structure of the plurality of LED structures placed on the alignment guide part into the hole (see Fig. 4-5) of the alignment guide part;
operation (5) of forming an upper electrode line part (30, see col. 5 line 25) including at least one second electrode on the plurality of aligned LED structures so as to be in contact with the first face of each LED structures of the plurality of aligned LED structures; and
operation (6) of patterning a color conversion part (36, see col. 5 line 40) on the at least one second electrode corresponding to the plurality of sub-pixel sites so that each sub-pixel site of the plurality of sub-pixel sites expresses any one of a color selected from the group comprising: a blue color, a green color, and a red color.
Oraw does not explicitly disclose
two or more holes each passing through a portion of the alignment guide part so as to have a first shape;
wherein a shape of the first face is the first shape, wherein a shape of the second face and the shape of the first face are congruent with each other, and wherein the shape of the first face and the shape of the second face have an asymmetric shape in which a symmetrical axis does not exist,
applying a sound wave and/or vibration;
wherein a linker for chemical bonding is disposed on at least one of the second face of each LED structure of the plurality of the LED structures, an inner surface of the hole of the alignment guide part, and a bottom surface of the hole of the alignment guide part to prevent at least one LED structure of the plurality of aligned LED structures inserted in the hole of the alignment guide part from separating from the hole.
In the same field of endeavor, Park teaches in Figs. 6-7, 12-13 and related text a method of making an LED device comprising two or more holes each passing through a portion of the alignment guide part so as to have a first shape (shape of holes 71 in alignment guide part, see [0086]) and an LED structure including a first face and a second face facing each other in the first direction wherein a shape of the first face is the first shape, wherein a shape of the second face and the shape of the first face are congruent with each other, and wherein the shape of the first face and the shape of the second face have an asymmetric shape in which a symmetrical axis does not exist (shapes of first and second face of LED 21, see Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Oraw by having the holes having a first shape and a shape of the first face is the first shape, wherein a shape of the second face and the shape of the first face are congruent with each other, and wherein the shape of the first face and the shape of the second face have an asymmetric shape in which a symmetrical axis does not exist, as taught by Park, in order to increase the number LEDs which can be bonded with a precision and minimize the occurrence of defective pixels (see Park [0032]-[0034] at least).
In the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches a method of making an LED device wherein the aligning of the plurality of LED structures includes a process of applying a sound wave (see [0094]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Oraw by including a process of applying a sound wave, as taught by Lee in order to keep the LEDs in the ink from aggregating (see Lee [0094]).
In the same field of endeavor, Do teaches in Figs. 1-2 and related a method of making an LED device wherein a linker for chemical bonding is disposed on at least one of the second face of each LED structure of the plurality of the LED structures, an inner surface of the hole of the alignment guide part, and a bottom surface of the hole of the alignment guide part to prevent at least one LED structure of the plurality of aligned LED structures inserted in the hole of the alignment guide part from separating from the hole (22/26, see [0096] and [0098]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Oraw by having wherein a linker for chemical bonding is disposed on at least one of the second face of each LED structure of the plurality of the LED structures, an inner surface of the hole of the alignment guide part, and a bottom surface of the hole of the alignment guide part to prevent at least one LED structure of the plurality of aligned LED structures inserted in the hole of the alignment guide part from separating from the hole, as taught by Do, in order to improve alignment of the LED and improve stability of the bond between the LED and the underlying electrode (see Do [0093] at least).
Note that the range disclosed by Oraw is close enough to the claimed range that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of Amer. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the thickness to be a result effective variable affecting the overall device size. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Oraw to have the thickness within the claimed range in order to decrease overall device size, and since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B and 2143. Furthermore, it has also been held that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936, (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
Further, it is noted that “for chemical bonding,” and “to prevent at least one LED structure of the plurality of aligned LED structures inserted in the hole of the alignment guide part from separating from the hole” are limitations which merely recite a function of the layer and/or an intended result of employing the layer. It is the position of the Office that, because the method of the combined device shows all of the limitations of the claimed method, the resulting device will therefore have the same properties as claimed (i.e. chemical bonding and prevention of separation). It is noted that a clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited. See MPEP 2111.04. Additionally, while features may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claimed elements must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114.I and 2112.01.
Regarding claim 17, the combined device shows a method of making an LED device wherein the aligning of the plurality of LED structures includes a process of radiating a sound wave one time or multiple times (Lee: see [0094]).
Regarding claim 20, Oraw further discloses
between operation (4) and operation (5), heat-treating for improving electrical contact between the second face of each LED structure of the plurality of aligned the LED structures and the at least one first electrode (see col. 4 line 8-11); and
and depositing an insulating material to fill a gap between each LED structure of the plurality of aligned LED structures in each hole of the alignment guide part to planarize a space between the plurality of aligned LED structures (26, see col. 5 lines 12-15).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (page 25-26) that the prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed invention because Oraw discloses positioning the LED at a specific location.
In response, the examiner disagrees. Specifically, in response to applicant's arguments against Oraw individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues (page 26) that the prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed invention because one would not combine the teachings of Park’s LED element with a unique shape that is difficult to manufacture with the precise bonding of LEDs to a given pixel location of Oraw.
In response, the examiner disagrees. Specifically, both Park and Oraw achieve a precise bonding of an LED to a given pixel location. While Park achieves it with a different method, i.e. the claimed method including the unique matching shape of the LEDs and the holes, it is obvious to modify Oraw’s method by employing the method of Park in order to increase the number LEDs which can be bonded with a precision and minimize the occurrence of defective pixels (see Park [0032]-[0034] at least). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that all manufacturing and design decisions come with trade-offs, and therefore a decision to increase manufacturing costs in order to achieve an increase in reliability of the device may be made by any ordinary artisan and the potential trade-off does not constitute a teaching away and does not compromise the combination of the references. Additionally, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant argues (page 27-28) that the prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed invention because the linker taught by Do does not have the function of prevention an LED that has already been inserted into a hole from separating from the hole.
In response, the examiner disagrees. It is first noted that any degree of linking or chemical bonding reads on the claimed limitation. The fact that the linker of Do might also help to in the mounting process does not compromise that the linker creates a chemical bond help to prevent separation. Further, it is noted that “for chemical bonding,” and “to prevent at least one LED structure of the plurality of aligned LED structures inserted in the hole of the alignment guide part from separating from the hole” are limitations which merely recite a function of the layer and/or an intended result of employing the layer. It is the position of the Office that, because the method of the combined device shows all of the limitations of the claimed method, the resulting device will therefore have the same properties as claimed (i.e. chemical bonding and prevention of separation). It is noted that a clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited. See MPEP 2111.04. Additionally, while features may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claimed elements must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114.I and 2112.01.
Applicant’s remaining arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented above.
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 Lauren R Bell whose telephone number is (571)272-7199. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, William Kraig can be reached at (571) 272-8660. 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.
/LAUREN R BELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896 3/4/2026