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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/26/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Application
Acknowledgement is made of the amendment received 5/26/2026. Claims 12-14, 17, and 19 are pending in the application.
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.
Claims 12-14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20200185368 A1) in view of Armelle et al. (CN 109075223 B) and Do et al. (US 20140124802 A1, IDS) and Lee et al. (US 20210193614 A1) and Durniak (US 20180261570 A1).
Re Claim 12 Park teaches a method of manufacturing a direct-current-drivable light- emitting diode (LED) electrode assembly (FIG. 8) [0042], the method comprising:
(1) preparing an ink composition (FIG. 11A, [0045,] process can be repeated for multiple structures, multiple LED structures can count as an ink composition) for a printing apparatus comprising a liquid dispersion medium and a plurality of LED structures (FIG. 11A, repeat process for multiple LED structures), wherein each of the plurality of LED structures (21) [0065] has a structure in which layers including a first conductive semiconductor layer (11) [0055], a photoactive layer (12), and a second conductive semiconductor layer (13) are stacked in a first direction (vertically, FIG. 1), and a first face that is an upper surface and a second face that is a lower surface have shapes that are congruent with each other (FIG. 11A, the top and bottom surfaces are congruent), and the shapes of the first face and the second face are an asymmetric shapes (FIG. 11A) in which no axis of symmetry exists,
wherein each of the plurality of LED structures (21) is a rod-type structure (21 in FIG. 11 shows a basic rod/rectangular prism shape) elongated in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction such that the first face and the second face each have an aspect ratio of a major axis to a minor axis of (roughly) 2:1 or more (FIG. 11A);
(2) forming an alignment guide member (51, FIG. 12) having a plurality of holes (71) a lower electrode [0026] that includes a first lower electrode (41) and a second lower electrode (42) that are spaced apart from each other by a predetermined interval in a main surface direction (FIG. 8), wherein the holes (71) pass through the alignment guide member (51) in a same shape as the first face of the LED structure [0086] and are formed such that a portion of the second face (bottom of 21) at one end side of the LED structure (21) in the second direction is in contact with a main surface of the first lower electrode (top of 41 from FIG. 8) and a portion of the second face at the other end side of the LED structure in the second direction is in contact with a main surface of the adjacent second lower electrode (42 from FIG. 8, also consider FIG. 13, bottom face of 21 is in electrical contact with 41 and 42 via electrode 16 and 17 [0026]);
(3) discharging the ink composition (301) [0050] for the printing apparatus onto the alignment guide member (51) through the printing apparatus (FIG. 13);
(4) aligning the plurality of LED structures (301) by inserting an end portion of each of the plurality of LED structures (301) at the second face (bottom) side in the first direction (vertical) into the hole (71) of the alignment guide member (51, FIG. 13),
(5) forming at least one upper electrode (16) [0055] on the plurality of aligned LED structures (21/301) so as to be in (mechanical) contact with the first face (top) of the LED structure (21/301, FIG. 11A).
Park does not teach a thickness that is a vertical distance between the first face and the second face is 0.3 µm to 3.5 µm.
Armelle teaches a thickness that is a vertical distance between the first face (top of 104, page 2 par 1, FIG. 1) and the second face (bottom of 102) is roughly .15 µm to 75 µm. Page 8 last par states, “The two layers 102 and 104 each have a thickness, for example, between about 20nm and about 10, um…” The distance between the top of 104 and the bottom of 102 is roughly 7.5 larger than the thickness of individual layer 102 and 104. Therefore, using 20 nm to 10 µm for 102 thickness leads one to conclude the thickness of 100 in FIG. 1 from the top of 104 to the bottom 102 is roughly .15 µm to 75 µm.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching as taught by Armelle into the structure of Park since Armelle teaches an LED structure semiconductor device.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Armelle in combination with Park in the above manner for the motivation of finding optimal distance between the first and second faces. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In the instant case, process optimization will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to reach ideal LED thickness.
Park in view of Armelle does not teach a chemical bonding linker is provided on at least one of the second face of the LED structure, and a bottom surface of the hole, so that the plurality of LED structures inserted and aligned in the hole are not separated from the hole.
Do teaches a chemical bonding linker (22, [0096] “At this time, the first coupling linker may employ any material capable of being coupled to the pixel site 13 without limitation…”) is provided on at least one of the second face (bottom) of the LED structure 30 [0098], an inner surface of the hole (bottom surface is in a sense on the inside walls, therefore 22 is also on the inner surface since the 22 is directly on the bottom surface of the hole), and a bottom surface of the hole (13) [0096], so that the plurality of LED structures (30) inserted and aligned in the hole (13) are not separated from the hole (FIG. 2b and 2c).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching as taught by Do into the structure of Park in view of Armelle since Do teaches a method of forming an LED structure with multiple LEDs in an alignment guide.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Do in combination with Park in view of Armelle in the above manner for the motivation of finding optimal distance between the first and second face and also integrating a chemical bonding layer to ensure the LED structures stay placed in their respective grooves to form a highly efficient LED device. [0004] states, “Therefore, it will be easily understood that directly manufacturing a full-color display by using high-efficiency LED is the most suitable method in aspect of light emission efficiency, in comparison to manufacturing a display by using high-efficiency LED as the LCD backlight.”
Park in view of Armelle and Do does not teach aligning the plurality of LED structures by applying power to the first lower electrode and the second lower electrode to form an electric field.
Lee teaches aligning the plurality of LED structures (LD) [0059] by applying power to the first lower electrode (ELT1) [0131] and the second lower electrode (ELT2) [0131] to form an electric field. [0018] states, “…supplying a plurality of light-emitting elements on each pixel area, and applying power to the first alignment line and the second alignment line to align the light-emitting elements…”
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching as taught by Lee into the structure of Park in view of Armelle and Do since Lee teaches a method of forming an LED structure with multiple LEDs in an aligned.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Lee in combination with Park in view of Armelle and Do in the above manner for the motivation of applying an electric field to a plurality of LED’s to allow then to self-align. [0004] states, “At this time, when a predetermined voltage is supplied to first and second alignment lines of the pixel, an electric field is formed between the first and second alignment lines, and the light-emitting elements are self-aligned between the first and second alignment lines.”
Park in view of Armelle and Do and Lee does not teaches applying any one or more of sound waves and vibrations to induce a direction change of an LED structure that has not been inserted into the hole by the electric field so as to be inserted into the hole.
Durniak teaches applying any one or more of sound waves and vibrations ([0026] teaches “As seen in FIG. 5, in some embodiments a plurality of ferromagnetic components 300, which can include some or all of ferromagnetic LED components 400, may be deposited, using for instance a hopper 312 or similar device. The hopper 312 can include its own vibration source…”) to induce a direction change of an LED structure (400) that has not been inserted into the hole by the electric field so as to be inserted into the hole (200, [0023], FIG. 5 and 6).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching as taught by Durniak into the structure of Park in view of Armelle and Do and Lee since Durniak teaches a method of forming an LED structure with multiple LEDs in an alignment guide.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Durniak in combination with Park in view of Armelle and Do and Lee in the above manner for the motivation of using vibrations to align LED structures to optimize the process. [0005] states, “…the vibratory force distributing the plurality of the ferromagnetic components substantially evenly across a surface of the magnetic stage, and wherein the vibratory force aligns at least one of the plurality of ferromagnetic components…”
Re Claim 13 Park in view of Armelle and Do and Lee and Durniak teaches the method of claim 12, but does not explicitly teach in (2), an area of each of the plurality of holes provided in the alignment guide member is formed to be 1.01 to 1.50 times larger than an area of a second face of each of the LED structures.
Park teaches each of the plurality of holes (61) provided in the alignment guide member is formed slightly larger than the second face of the LED structures (203, Fig 10, [0044])
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Park in combination with Park in view of Armelle and Do and Lee and Durniak in the above manner for the motivation of finding optimal hole size in the alignment guide compared to the size of the LED structure.
Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In the instant case, process optimization will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to reach ideal alignment guide groove size.
Re Claim 14 Park in view of Armelle and Do and Lee and Durniak teaches the method of claim 12, wherein in (2), a partition wall (Park, a wall is formed in 51 between holes 71) is further formed on the alignment guide (51) member so as to surround a region in which the plurality of holes (71) are formed, or to surround regions obtained by dividing the region into two or more regions (Fig 12).
Re Claim 17 Park in view of Armelle and Do and Lee and Durniak teaches the method of claim 12, wherein (4) is performed by radiating a sound wave (Durniak [0026,] vibration waves used to align LED’s will have a sound) one time or multiple times.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20200185368 A1) in view of Armelle et al. (CN 109075223 B) and Do et al. (US 20140124802 A1, IDS) and Lee et al. (US 20210193614 A1) and Durniak (US 20180261570 A1) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Keates (US 20200411717 A1).
Re Claim 19 Park in view of Armelle and Do and Lee and Durniak teaches the method of claim 12, further comprising: between (4) and (5), heat-treating (Do, [0099] states, “In addition, the soldering process may be performed in a common way, preferably by partially heating the pixel sites 13 at a temperature capable of selectively melting only the metal micro powder 23 without giving an impact to the substrate and the subminiature blue LED element.”) to improve electrical contact between the second face (bottom of 30) of the LED structure and the lower electrode (11, [0100], FIG. 2E).
Park in view of Armelle and Do and Lee and Durniak does not teach depositing an insulating material to fill a space between each LED structure and the hole into which the LED structure is inserted and to planarize a space between the plurality of aligned LED structures.
Keates teaches depositing an insulating material (2650) [0181] to fill a space between each LED structure (3614 and 2616) [0180] and the hole into which the LED structure is inserted and to planarize a space between the plurality of aligned LED structures ([0181] states, “Referring to FIG. 26B, a planarization oxide layer 2650 is formed over the structure of FIG. 26A.”).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching as taught by Keates into the structure of Park in view of Armelle and Do and Lee since Durniak teaches a method of forming an LED structure.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Keates in combination with Park in view of Armelle and Do and Lee and Durniak in the above manner for the motivation of LED pixels are the basic building block of a display, and it is critical to integrate the pixels with the LED’s being electrically isolated from one another to avoid shorting between adjacent LED structures. [0003] states, “Pixels may be the basic building blocks of a display or digital image and with geometric coordinates.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 12-14, 17, and 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH MARK SIPLING whose telephone number is (571)272-3269. The examiner can normally be reached 10 AM - 6 PM 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 at (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.
/KENNETH MARK SIPLING/ Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/DUY T NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818 6/11/26
Prosecution Insights