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
Applicants election with traverse of the invention of Group I, Claims 1 through 11 in the reply filed on November 18, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that in comparing the inventions of Groups I, II and III, because Claim 12 depends from Claim 1, the “AC signal” in Group I is required in Groups II and III (see pages 2-3 of applicants submission). Therefore, the restriction requirement as a whole should be withdrawn.
This is not found persuasive because the feature of the “AC signal” was merely one example, as was not the sole reason for distinctness between each of Groups I, II and III. Applicants are reminded that when inventions from different categories are to be compared (e.g. product, apparatus, and process), only one-way distinctness is necessary for the inventions to be separate and distinct, irrespective of the claim dependency. In addition to the reasons stated in the previous office action, here are some other examples as to why Groups I, II and III are independent and distinct.
In Group II (Claim 12), a glass substrate on which a particle molecule is oriented in a predetermined direction, is not required in Group I (Claim 1) or not required in Group III (Claim 13). In Group III (Claim 13), the process (e.g. seating step and arranging step) can be performed by hand, compared to the apparatus of Group I (Claim 1). Or alternatively, the “resistance unit” required in the apparatus of Group I (Claim 1) is not required in the process of Group III (Claim 13).
Because one-way distinctness is clear between of the inventions of Groups I, II and III, respectively, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 12 through 20 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on November 18, 2025.
NOTE: Regarding Claim 12, if at some point during prosecution, Claim 1 were to become allowable over the prior art, full consideration will be given to rejoining Claim 12 with Claim 1.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: --Particle Alignment Device for Micro LED Display--.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities.
In Claim 1, the phrase of “micro LED display” (line 1) should be changed to –micro light emitting diode (LED) display--.
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 1 through 11 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.
In Claim 1, “the glass substrate” (lines 3-4) lacks positive antecedent basis. Furthermore, what is the difference between the latter occurrence of “a glass substrate” (line 5) and the earlier occurrence of “the glass substrate” (lines 3-4)? Are each of these occurrences referring to the same glass substrate? For purposes of examination, both occurrences will be treated as the very same glass substrate.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
In this case, the term “gripper” recited alone by itself in each of Claims 1, 5, 6 and 10, is used by the claims to mean “some sort of supporting member or substrate”, as designated by element 140 in Figure 1, or elements 140a, 140b in Figures 2, 3, etc. The accepted or ordinary meaning of the term “gripper”, can be a mechanical device that grasps and hold1. Further evidence of this is supported by the prior art (e.g. U.S. Publication 2020/0091386 to Torrents Abad, hereinafter “Torrents Abad”). Torrents Abad discloses a gripper (e.g. 124) that firmly grasps, holds, and transports light-emitting structures (e.g. 112, Figs. 3A to 3C, ¶ [0032]).
So the term of “gripper” raises a great deal of confusion and is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. Or the use of the term appears to be contrary to its ordinary meaning, or the prior art. For purposes of examination, “gripper” will be broadly interpreted to mean a supporting member or substrate for a gripper electrode or glass substrate.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 8 and 11, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication 2014/0191587 to Van Goor et al (hereinafter “Van Goor”).
Claim 1: Van Goor discloses a particle alignment device (e.g. Fig. 2) for a micro LED display (e.g. ¶ [0029]), the particle alignment device comprising:
a glass electrode (e.g. 242/E1 or 241/E2, Fig. 2) arranged on one surface of a glass substrate (e.g. 223) on which a pattern is formed;
a gripper (e.g. 220) supporting a glass substrate (e.g. 223, ¶ [0024]), the gripper including a gripper electrode (e.g. 221 or 222) interposed between the glass substrate and the gripper;
a resistance unit (e.g. Rs, RL, Fig. 3) connecting the glass electrode (e.g. 300 is part of 200); and
an AC signal generator connected to the gripper electrode to generate an AC signal (e.g. ¶ [0033]),
wherein the glass electrode and the gripper electrode are arranged to oppose each other with the glass substrate interposed therebetween (e.g. Fig. 2).
Electrodes 242/E1, 241/E2 are “glass” electrodes to the extent that they can be made of transparent material (e.g. ITO) or to a thickness of a glass layer (e.g. ¶¶ [0022], [0023], [0027]).
Claim 3: Van Goor discloses the particle alignment device of claim 1, wherein the glass electrode and the gripper electrode are arranged to oppose each other such that one electrode (e.g. 221, Fig. 2) among the glass electrode and the gripper electrode overlaps an entire [bottom] area of the other electrode (e.g. 241/E2).
Claim 5: Van Goor discloses the particle alignment device of claim 1, wherein
the glass electrode (e.g. 242/E1) is spaced apart [from 241/E2] from opposite ends of the one [top] surface of the glass substrate (e.g. Fig. 2), and
the gripper electrode (e.g. 222) is spaced apart [from 221] from opposite ends of the gripper (e.g. 220).
Claim 7: Van Goor discloses the particle alignment device of claim 1, wherein, when power is supplied through the AC signal generator connected to the gripper electrode, the gripper electrode and the glass electrode receive power through the gripper electrode, the glass substrate, and the glass electrode, using a field effect type electric field (e.g. ¶ [0033]).
Claim 8: Van Goor discloses the particle alignment device of claim 1, wherein an area (e.g. E2, Fig. 2) of the glass electrode is larger than an area [end point of wire connected to 221, opposite from connection to 210, Fig. 1] of the gripper electrode (e.g. 221).
Claim 11: Van Goor discloses the particle alignment device of claim 1, wherein the glass substrate interposed between the glass electrode and the gripper electrode receives power as a capacitive impedance (e.g. C1, C2, Fig. 2).
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 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Goor in view of U.S. Publication 2018/0033823 to Hayashi et al (hereinafter “Hayashi”).
Van Goor discloses the claimed particle alignment device, as relied upon above in Claims 1 and 3, further including that the glass electrode and the gripper electrode are arranged to oppose each other, and overlap each other in terms of at least a partial area or entire areas (e.g. Fig. 2). Van Goor does not mention that the glass electrodes and gripper electrodes have different polarities.
It is noted that the glass electrodes and the gripper electrodes of Van Goor are on different surfaces from each other in a stacked arrangement (e.g. Fig. 2).
Hayashi teaches that electrodes that are on different surfaces from each other in a stacked arrangement, the electrodes on one surface can have a different polarity to the electrodes on a different surface (e.g. ¶ [0080]), which makes the device more suitable for predetermined light emission wavelengths (e.g. ¶ [0081]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Van Goor by varying the polarities between the glass electrodes and the gripper electrodes that are on different surfaces, as taught by Hayashi, to allow the particle alignment device to be more suitable for predetermined light emission wavelengths.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Goor.
Van Goor discloses the claimed particle alignment device, as relied upon above in Claims 1 and 5, further including at least one of the gripper electrodes is arranged on an upper portion of the gripper, and another one of the gripper electrodes is arranged on another portion of the gripper (e.g. Fig. 2). Van Goor does not teach that the gripper includes a first gripper supporting a first side surface of the glass substrate and a second gripper supporting a second side surface of the glass substrate.
Van Goor teaches a second embodiment in Figure 7 where the gripper (e.g. 720) is split into a first gripper (left 720) supporting a first side surface of a glass substrate (e.g. 730) and a second gripper (right 720) supporting a second side surface of the glass substrate, where the gripper can take on any shape (e.g. ¶ [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the first and second grippers in the second embodiment (Figure 7) of Van Goor, for the gripper in the first embodiment (Figure 2) of Van Goor, to produce an art-recognized equivalent particle alignment device, each having the very same purpose. Such a substitution would provide at least one of the gripper electrodes to be arranged on an upper portion of the first gripper, and the other one of the gripper electrodes to be arranged on an upper portion of the second gripper.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Goor in view of U.S. Publication 2013/0026487 to Musashi (hereinafter “Musashi”).
Van Goor discloses the claimed particle alignment device, as relied upon above in Claim 1, further including that the glass electrode is separated from an interior of the glass substrate, being that the glass electrode is formed on a top surface of the glass substrate (e.g. Fig. 2). Van Goor does not mention that the glass electrode is a transparent electrode.
Musashi teaches that in devices that include a glass electrode formed on a glass substrate, the glass electrode is transparent by using such materials of indium oxide containing Ge and Si (e.g. ¶¶ [0070], [0071]). The use of such transparent materials for the glass electrode provides a relation of sheet resistance between the transparent electrode and the glass substrate that reduces any variability of forwarding voltage for the device (e.g. ¶¶ [0005], [0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the glass electrode of Van Goor by utilizing the transparent materials of Musashi, to form a transparent electrode that reduces any variability of forwarding voltage for the particle alignment device.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Regarding Claim 10, the prior art does not teach a driver moving the additional electrode to one side of the gripper electrode such that an area of the gripper electrode is expanded when the gripper supports the glass substrate.
Accordingly, Claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) Japanese Patent Publication, JP 2013-8944, discloses a particle alignment device that includes a glass substrate (20), glass electrode (23G) , and a gripper electrode (e.g. 23S, Figs 1a to 1c, see SOLUTION).
b) Non-Patent Literature, IEEE Publication to Han et al., entitled "Dual-Plate OLED Display (DOD) Embedded With White OLED", discloses a micro LED display (e.g. Fig. 1, see entire document).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to A. DEXTER TUGBANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4570. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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, JESSICA HAN can be reached at (571) 272-2078. 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.
/A. DEXTER TUGBANG/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896
1 Gripper - definition of gripper by The Free Dictionary