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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 16, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2010/0014234 A1 to Weber (hereinafter “Weber” – previously cited reference).
Regarding claim 1, Weber discloses a light emitting module, comprising:
a circuit board (display monitor having motherboard 24; Fig. 1D; paragraph [0033]);
a plurality of unit pixels arranged on the circuit board (LEDs 18 adjacent pixel cavities 20 on substrate 16; Fig. 1C; paragraph [0032]);
a molding layer covering the plurality of unit pixels (layer containing molded reflector frame 14 and lower portion of encapsulation epoxy 22 in pixel cavities 20 covering LEDs 18, where lower portion is defined as being underneath horizontal line running through pixel cavities 20 as shown in annotated Fig. 1C below; Figs. 1C-1D; paragraphs [0032]-[0033]); and
an anti-glare layer disposed on the molding layer (upper portion of encapsulation epoxy 22 having diffusants therein and disposed over layer containing lower portion of encapsulation epoxy 22; Figs. 1C-1D; paragraphs [0032]-[0033]), wherein the molding layer includes a diffuser containing molding layer having a number of light diffusing particles and being configured to make brightness of light emitted from the plurality of unit pixels uniform by blending the light emitted from the plurality of unit pixels (layer containing molded reflector frame 14, which produces diffused reflection from LEDs 18, and lower portion of encapsulation epoxy 22, which contains diffusant particles mixed therein, collectively diffuse light emitted from LEDs 18 which is capable of creating uniformity across the blended light emitted therefrom; Figs. 1C-1D; paragraphs [0032]-[0033]).
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.
Claims 1, 4-13 and 15--20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0183837 A1 to Shin et al. (hereinafter “Shin” – previously cited reference) in further view of Weber.
Regarding claim 1, Shin discloses a light emitting module, comprising:
a circuit board (light emitting display panel 20 comprising a plurality of display modules 30A-30P each having a substrate 40; abstract; Figs. 1, 3 and 6; paragraphs [0052], [0054]-[0055], [0064]);
a plurality of unit pixels arranged on the circuit board (plurality of pixels arranged on substrate 40; paragraph [0086]); a molding layer covering the plurality of unit pixels (molding member comprising in part molding and front cover disposed over pixels; Fig. 3; paragraph [0106]); and
an anti-glare layer disposed on the molding layer (anti-glare layer disposed over molding member; Fig. 6; paragraphs [0157], [0162]).
Shin fails to disclose wherein the molding layer includes a diffuser containing molding layer having a number of light diffusing particles and being configured to make brightness of light emitted from the plurality of unit pixels uniform by blending the light emitted from the plurality of unit pixels.
However, Weber discloses wherein the molding layer includes a diffuser containing molding layer having a number of light diffusing particles and being configured to make brightness of light emitted from the plurality of unit pixels uniform by blending the light emitted from the plurality of unit pixels (layer containing molded reflector frame 14, which produces diffused reflection from LEDs 18, and lower portion of encapsulation epoxy 22, which contains diffusant particles mixed therein, collectively diffuse light emitted from LEDs 18 which is capable of creating uniformity across the blended light emitted therefrom; Figs. 1C-1D; paragraphs [0032]-[0033]).
Shin and Weber are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of display modules utilizing diffusion elements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shin to incorporate the teachings of Weber to at least provide improved light uniformity, reduced glare and enhanced viewing comfort, and wider viewing angles.
Regarding claim 4, Shin in view of Weber discloses the light emitting module of claim 1. Shin further discloses wherein: the molding member includes a first molding member covering the unit pixels and a second molding member disposed on the first molding member (molding member may comprise first portion including molding 100 and front cover 300 covering pixels and a second portion including light absorbing pattern 110 covering molding 100; Fig. 9; paragraph [0305]-[0306]), the first molding member is a diffuser containing molding member, and the second molding member is a black molding member (first portion includes front cover 300 having anti-reflect layer scattering incident light via internal reflection and second portion includes light absorbing pattern 110 made from same material as black matrix 80; Fig. 9; paragraphs [0305]-[0306]).
Regarding claim 5, Shin in view of Weber discloses the light emitting module of claim 4. Shin further discloses wherein thicknesses of the first molding member measured at the four corners of the circuit board are within a range of ±10% of an average value thereof (molding member has a constant thickness dimension across the display panel 20; Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 6, Shin in view of Weber discloses the light emitting module of claim 1. Shin further discloses wherein: the molding member includes a first molding member having a height lower than those of the unit pixels (molding member may comprise first portion including layer 210 and black matrix 80 layer having a height lower than the pixels as shown in Fig. 6; paragraph [0126]) and a second molding member covering the first molding member and the unit pixels (molding member may comprise second portion including layer 220 covering black matrix 80 layer and pixels as shown in Fig. 6; paragraph [0126]), and the first molding member is a diffuser containing molding member (first portion including layer 210 having anti-reflect layer scattering incident light via internal reflection; Fig. 6; paragraphs [0260]-[0263]).
Regarding claim 7, Shin in view of Weber discloses the light emitting module of claim 1. Shin further discloses further comprising: a side seal covering side surfaces of the circuit board and the molding member (outer mounting surface on sides 45 of substrate 40 and molding member which form air gap therebetween; Fig. 6; paragraphs [0126]-[0128]).
Regarding claim 8, Shin in view of Weber discloses the light emitting module of claim 7. Shin further discloses wherein the side seal is formed of a material different from that of the molding member (mounting surface on sides 45 of substrate 40 are materially separate from molding member; Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 9, Shin in view of Weber discloses the light emitting module of claim 1. Shin further discloses wherein an upper surface profile of the molding member is substantially same as an upper surface profile of the circuit board (substrate 40 and molding member both have planar upper surfaces; Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 10, Shin in view of Weber discloses the light emitting module of claim 1. Shin further discloses wherein: the molding member includes a first molding member and a second molding member covering the first molding member (molding member having molding 100 covered by front cover 200; Fig. 6), the first molding member is a diffuser-free molding member, and has a flat upper surface (molding 100 has a planar upper surface and does not contain a diffuser structure; Fig. 6; paragraphs [0203]-[0204]), and the second molding member is a diffuser containing molding member (front cover 200 of molding member scatters light incident thereupon via internal reflection; paragraphs [0260]-[0263]).
Regarding claim 11, Shin in view of Weber discloses the light emitting module of claim 10. Shin further discloses wherein thicknesses of the second molding member measured at the four corners of the circuit board are within a range of ±10% of an average value thereof (molding member has a constant thickness dimension across the display panel 20; Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 12, Shin in view of Weber discloses the light emitting module of claim 1. Shin further discloses wherein the anti-glare layer includes an anti-glare film, the anti-glare film, including: a base; an anti-glare hard coating layer coated on the base; a low reflection coating layer coated on the anti-glare hard coating layer; and an adhesive disposed under the base (anti-glare layer 210 may comprise an anti-glare material protecting against external force disposed upon layer 220, an anti-reflective layer disposed in a stack upon anti-glare material, and an adhesive layer 230 disposed under the layer 220; Fig. 6; paragraphs [0157], [0260]).
Regarding claim 13, Shin in view of Weber discloses the light emitting module of claim 12. Shin fails to disclose wherein at least one of the base and the adhesive includes a black dye.
However, Shin discloses wherein a layer adjacent at least one of the base and the adhesive includes a black dye (light absorption pattern 110 having black ink and disposed adjacent front cover 300; Fig. 9; paragraphs [0305]-[0310]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shin in this manner to at least provide enhanced contrast, reduced light leakage, suppression of ambient light reflections, and improved black level uniformity.
Regarding claim 15, Shin discloses a display apparatus, comprising:
a plurality of light emitting modules, each including a circuit board having a black solder resist configured to reduce a difference in brightness between regions in the plurality of light emitting modules (light emitting display panel 20 comprising a plurality of display modules 30A-30P each having a substrate 40 with black matrix 80 capable of reducing a difference in brightness between regions of the plurality of display modules 30A-30P; abstract; Figs. 1, 3 and 6; paragraphs [0052], [0054]-[0055], [0064], [0089]-[0095]),
a plurality of unit pixels arranged on the circuit board (plurality of pixels arranged on substrate 40; paragraph [0086]), and
a first molding layer covering the unit pixels (molding 100 covering pixels; Fig. 3; paragraph [0106]);
a second molding layer having a second substantially flat unbroken upper surface covering the plurality of light emitting modules (front cover 200 having flat upper surface and covering each of display modules 30A-30P; Fig. 7); and
an anti-glare layer covering the second molding layer (anti-glare layer 210 covering front cover 200; Fig. 6).
Shin fails to disclose wherein the first molding layer and the second molding layer include a diffuser containing molding layer having a number of light diffusing particles and being configured to make brightness of light emitted from the plurality of unit pixels uniform by blending the light emitted from the plurality of unit pixels.
However, Weber discloses wherein the first molding layer and the second molding layer include a diffuser containing molding layer having a number of light diffusing particles and being configured to make brightness of light emitted from the plurality of unit pixels uniform by blending the light emitted from the plurality of unit pixels (layer containing molded reflector frame 14, which produces diffused reflection from LEDs 18, and lower portion of encapsulation epoxy 22, which contains diffusant particles mixed therein, collectively diffuse light emitted from LEDs 18 which is capable of creating uniformity across the blended light emitted therefrom; Figs. 1C-1D; paragraphs [0032]-[0033]).
Shin and Weber are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of display modules utilizing diffusion elements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shin to incorporate the teachings of Weber to at least provide improved light uniformity, reduced glare and enhanced viewing comfort, and wider viewing angles.
Regarding claim 16, Shin in view of Weber discloses the display apparatus of claim 15. Shin further discloses wherein the thicknesses of the diffuser containing molding layer of the first molding layer measured at four corners of the circuit board of each of the light emitting modules are within a range of ±10% of an average value thereof (molding member has a constant thickness dimension across the display panel 20; Fig. 4).
Shin fails to disclose wherein a thickness of the molding layer is less than five times a height of the unit pixels.
However, Weber discloses wherein the thicknesses of the diffuser containing molding layer of the first molding layer measured at four corners of the circuit board of each of the light emitting modules are within a range of ±10% of an average value thereof (thickness of first and second iterations of layer containing molded reflector frame 14 and lower portion of encapsulation epoxy 22 is constant across the pixel array package 10; Figs. 1C-1D; paragraph [0051]), and wherein a thickness of the molding layer is less than five times a height of the unit pixels (layer containing molded reflector frame 14 and lower portion of encapsulation epoxy 22 in pixel cavities 20 covering LEDs 18 are less than five times the height of the LEDs 18 as shown in Fig. 1C).
Shin and Weber are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of display modules utilizing diffusion elements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shin to incorporate the specific design choice proportion of height dimensions of the molding layer and unit pixels of Weber to potentially provide improved light brightness uniformity, improved image quality, and a thin compact overall structural profile.
Regarding claim 17, Shin in view of Weber discloses the display apparatus of claim 15. Shin further discloses wherein: adjacent light emitting modules are spaced apart with a gap G (gap G disposed between adjacent display modules; Fig. 6), a distance W2 between unit pixels in one light emitting module is smaller than or equal to a distance W1 between unit pixels between adjacent light emitting modules (distance between pixels in display module 30A is different than distance between pixels in display module 30E; Fig. 5), and a width W3 of the gap G between the light emitting modules is smaller than the distance W2 between unit pixels in one light emitting module (gap G is smaller than distance between pixels in display modules 30A, 30E; Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 18, Shin in view of Weber discloses the display apparatus of claim 17. Shin further discloses wherein the second molding member is partially disposed within the gap G between the light emitting modules (front cover 200 is partially disposed within gap G between display modules 30A, 30E; Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 19, Shin in view of Weber discloses the display apparatus of claim 15. Shin further discloses wherein: each of the light emitting modules includes a side seal covering side surfaces thereof, and the light emitting modules are arranged such that the side seals are in close contact with one another (outer mounting surface on sides 45 of substrate 40 of each display module 30A, 30E such that they are in close contact with one another; Fig. 6; paragraphs [0126]-[0128]).
Regarding claim 20, Shin in view of Weber discloses the display apparatus of claim 15. Shin further discloses wherein the anti-glare layer includes an anti-glare film or anti-glare glass (anti-glare layer of layer 210 may comprise an anti-glare material formed in a thin layer stack; paragraph [0260]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber in further view of US 2017/0244064 A1 to Kamiya et al. (hereinafter “Kamiya” – previously cited reference).
Regarding claim 2, Weber discloses the light emitting module of claim 1, wherein the molding layer further includes a matting agent disposed on a surface of the molding layer (powdered aluminum oxide or calcium carbonate may be disposed in epoxy 22 at surface of layer; Figs. 1C-1D; paragraphs [0032]-[0033]); wherein the molding layer is formed using a curable resin (epoxy 22 may be formed via curable epoxy; paragraph [0033]), wherein a thickness of the molding layer is less than five times a height of the unit pixels (layer containing molded reflector frame 14 and lower portion of encapsulation epoxy 22 in pixel cavities 20 covering LEDs 18 are less than five times the height of the LEDs 18 as shown in Fig. 1C), and wherein a thickness of the diffuser containing molding layer measured at four corners of the circuit board are within a range of ±10% of an average value thereof (thickness of layer is constant across the pixel array package 10; Figs. 1C-1D; paragraph [0051]).
Weber fails to disclose an ultraviolet curable resin.
However, Kamiya discloses wherein the molding layer is formed using an ultraviolet curable resin (flattening layer 15 may be made from UV curable epoxy resin; Fig. 2; paragraph [0026]).
Weber and Kamiya are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of light emitting elements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Weber to incorporate the teachings of Kamiya to at least provide a molding member having rapid curing and higher production throughput, room-temperature processing, and enhanced thickness and uniformity control.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin in further view of Weber and US 2021/0318576 A1 to Zhao et al. (hereinafter “Zhao” – previously cited reference).
Regarding claim 3, Shin discloses the light emitting module of claim 1. Shin fails to disclose wherein the diffuser includes silica.
However, Zhao discloses wherein the diffuser includes silica (silica gel layer as a diffuser for LED chips; abstract).
Shin and Zhao are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of semiconductor memory devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shin to incorporate the teachings of Zhao to at least provide improved light uniformity and reduced hotspots, high light transmittance and controlled diffusion, and improved viewing experience.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin in further view of Weber and US 2021/0347149 A1 to Shibata et al. (hereinafter “Shibata” – previously cited reference).
Regarding claim 14, Shin in view of Weber discloses the light emitting module of claim 12. Shin fails to disclose wherein the adhesive is a pressure sensitive adhesive.
However, Shibata discloses wherein the adhesive is a pressure sensitive adhesive (image display device utilizing pressure sensitive adhesive; abstract).
Shin and Shibata are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of semiconductor memory devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shin to incorporate the teachings of Shibata to at least provide optical clarity and performance, flexibility and conformability for flexible displays, and vibration and shock absorption.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 19, 2025 have been fully considered. Applicant made substantive amendments to the independent claims and provided associated arguments.
With regard to claim 1, Applicant asserts that Weber does not disclose the following limitations of claim 1: a molding layer covering the plurality of unit pixels; and an anti-glare layer disposed on the molding layer, wherein the molding layer includes a diffuser containing molding layer having a number of light diffusing particles and being configured to make brightness of light emitted from the plurality of unit pixels uniform by blending the light emitted from the plurality of unit pixels. Applicant asserts that Examiner “invents” a horizontal line in the annotated Fig. 1C of Weber, but upon closer inspection Applicant will find that the horizontal line (underneath which Examiner has defined the broadly-claimed ‘molding layer’) is original to Fig. 1C. Therefore, Examiner is forced to apply broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) to determine if Weber discloses the claimed ‘molding layer’ and Examiner determined that a layer comprising a molding member was disclosed by Weber. Applicant next takes issue with the differentiation of the upper and lower portions of the pixel cavities 20 and its application to disclosing the anti-glare layer disposed on the molding layer. Using BRI, Weber discloses an additional layer (the upper portion) that is disposed upon the lower portion and provides anti-glare functionality. Applicant did not claim that the anti-glare layer and the molding layer are made from different materials. It appears this was intended by Applicant given Applicant’s Remarks, and so Examiner suggests amending claim 1 to reflect such a construction. Finally, Examiner asserts that Weber discloses wherein the molding layer includes a diffuser containing molding layer having a number of light diffusing particles and being configured to make brightness of light emitted from the plurality of unit pixels uniform by blending the light emitted from the plurality of unit pixels (a layer containing the molded reflector frame 14, which produces diffused reflection from LEDs 18, and the lower portion of encapsulation epoxy 22, which contains diffusant particles mixed therein, to collectively diffuse light emitted from LEDs 18 capable of creating uniformity across the blended light emitted therefrom). Applicant does not explain what is meant by “the way that the molding layer of the claimed invention includes the diffuser” and so this assertion is conclusory. Further, Applicant asserts that “the reflector frame cannot be characterized as a number of light reflecting particles such as those in the diffuser containing layer” but Applicant ignores how Examiner has defined ‘molding layer’ (see above) and narrows the definition to only the reflector frame, whereas the ‘molding layer’ as defined by the Examiner contains the encapsulation epoxy 22 which contains light diffusing particles that are capable of the functionality claimed.
With regard to claim 15, Examiner no longer relies upon Weber in anticipating claim 15, but notes that “a second arbitrary horizontal line” would not be necessary to define a second molding layer. Examiner asserts that two layers can be distinguished using a single horizontal line shown in original Fig. 1C of Weber, but Examiner is open to counterarguments as to why two horizontal lines would be required.
With regard to claim 16, Applicant’s assertion relies upon the previous argument regarding the horizontal line that appears in original Fig. 1C of Weber. Examiner notes that the ‘molding layer’ as defined is less than five times the height of the LEDs 18 and pixel cavities 20 which is clearly shown in Fig. 1C.
Again with regard to claim 1 and claims 2-3 and 14, Applicant relies upon previously-addressed arguments to assert that this claim is not disclosed by Shin in view of Weber.
Again with regard to claim 15, Applicant relies upon previously-addressed arguments to assert that this claim is not disclosed by Shin in view of Weber, but also argues that Shin does not disclose “a circuit board having a black solder resist configured to reduce a difference in brightness between regions in the plurality of light emitting modules.” Examiner asserts that Shin does disclose black matrix 80 capable of reducing a difference in brightness between regions of the plurality of display modules 30A-30P.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IAN DEGRASSE whose telephone number is (571) 272-0261. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30a until 5:00p.
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, JEFF NATALINI can be reached on (571) 272-2266. 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.
/IAN DEGRASSE/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/JEFF W NATALINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2818