DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The following is in reply to the applicants submission (e.g. amendment, remarks, etc.) filed on May 10, 2026.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12 through 20 continue to remain as being withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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.
Specification
The objection to the specification in the previous office action1 has been withdrawn in light of the amendment to the Title.
Claim Objections
The claim objections in the previous office action have been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
In light of the amendments to the specification in which the term of “gripper” has been clearly redefined, the objections to the specification in the previous office action have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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 light emitting device (LED) display (e.g. ¶ [0029]), the particle alignment device comprising:
a glass electrode (e.g. 242/E1 or 241/E2, Fig. 2) arranged on a first [top] surface of a glass substrate (e.g. 223) wherein a pattern is formed on the glass substrate;
a holder (e.g. 220) that supports the glass substrate, the glass substrate being seated on the holder (e.g. Fig. 2);
holder electrodes (e.g. 221, 222) that are interposed between the glass substrate and the holder (e.g. Fig. 2), wherein the [top surface of the] holder comprises and is direct contact with one of the [bottom surfaces of the] holder electrodes, and wherein each of the [top surfaces of the] holder electrodes are in direct contact with a second [bottom] surface of the glass substrate that is opposite to the first surface (e.g. Fig. 2);
a resistance unit (e.g. Rs, RL, Fig. 3) that connects the glass electrode to one another (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 electrodes and the holder electrodes 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 electrodes and the holder electrodes are arranged to oppose each other such that one glass electrode among the glass electrodes overlaps an entire area (E1) of the glass substrate covered by one holder electrode (e.g. 222) among the holder electrode (e.g. Fig. 2).
Claim 5: Van Goor discloses the particle alignment device of claim 1, wherein
the glass electrodes are spaced apart on opposite [left and right] ends of the first [top] surface of the glass substrate (e.g. Fig. 2), and
the holder electrodes are spaced apart on opposite [left and right] ends of the second [bottom] surface of the glass substrate (e.g. Fig. 2).
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 holder electrodes, the glass electrodes receive power through the holder 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 a first area (e.g. E2, Fig. 2) of the glass substrate covered by one of the glass electrodes is larger than a second area [end point of wire 242 connected to E1] of the glass electrode covered by one of the holder electrodes (e.g. 222).
Claim 9: Van Goor discloses the particle alignment device of claim 1, wherein each of the glass electrodes is a transparent electrode (e.g. ¶ [0027]) separated from an interior of the glass substrate [being that the glass electrode is formed on a top surface of the glass substrate].
Claim 11: Van Goor discloses the particle alignment device of claim 1, wherein the glass substrate interposed between the glass electrodes and the holder electrodes receives power as a capacitive impedance (e.g. C1, C2, Fig. 2).
In the one embodiment of Van Goor (Figure 2), Van Goor only show one holder. This one embodiment does not show more than one holder that comprises a first holder and a second holder.
However, Van Goor discloses a second embodiment in Figure 7 where the holder (e.g. 720) comprises a first holder (left 720) that supports a first side surface of a glass substrate (e.g. 730) and a second holder (right 720) that supports a second side surface of the glass substrate, where the first holder is separate and spaced apart from the second holder and 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 holders in the second embodiment (Figure 7) of Van Goor, for the holder 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 holder electrodes to be arranged on an upper portion of the first holder, and the other one of the holder electrodes to be arranged on an upper portion of the second holder.
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 electrodes and the holder electrodes 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 holder electrodes have different polarities.
It is noted that the glass electrodes and the holder 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 holder 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicants arguments filed as part of their submission have been fully considered, but have not been deemed to be found as persuasive.
Applicants assert that the prior art does not teach a plurality of “holders” recited throughout Claim 1, more specifically that the structure of the holders comprise a “first holder that supports a first side…spaced apart from the second holder” (lines 17-20 of Claim 1).
The examiner disagrees in that these limitations are met by Van Goor. What was read as the claimed “holder” was base infrastructure 220 (in Fig. 2). While the examiner agrees with applicants that this base infrastructure 220 is a single substrate in Figure 2, Van Goor discloses another embodiment in Figure 7 that the base infrastructure can be two substrates as left 720 and right 720 that are separated from each other, i.e. a plurality of holders. Each of these substrates in Figure 7 can be read as a first holder (left 720) and second holder (right 720) that are separate and spaced apart from each other (gap, not labeled in Figure 7). Van Goor explicitly states that these first and second holders can be of any shape, which includes a rectangular shape that matches the shape of the holder in Figure 1. The concept here is not to bodily incorporate the entire structure, or materials (e.g. conductive foam) of Figure 7 into the structure of Figure 1 of Van Goor. It is to say that one or ordinary skill in the art having knowledge of particle alignment devices can certainly substitute the structure of the first and second holders in Figure 7 for the single holder in Figure 1, to manufacture an art-recognized equivalent particle alignment device having the very same purpose. Van Goor discloses several different embodiments where anyone of the teachings from one embodiment can be applied to anyone of the teachings of another embodiment. This is clearly suggested by Van Goor at ¶ [0056]:
[0056] While the present invention has been described at some length and with some particularity with respect to the several described embodiments, it is not intended that it should be limited to any such particulars or embodiments or any particular embodiment, but it is to be construed with references to the appended claims so as to provide the broadest possible interpretation of such claims in view of the prior art and, therefore, to effectively encompass the intended scope of the invention. Furthermore, the foregoing describes the invention in terms of embodiments foreseen by the inventor for which an enabling description was available, notwithstanding that insubstantial modifications of the invention, not presently foreseen, may nonetheless represent equivalents thereto.
Furthermore, such a substitution would include a final structure in Figure 1 where the first holder would support a first (left) side of the second (bottom) surface of the glass substrate (e.g. 223) and the second (right) holder would support a second (right) side of the second (bottom) surface of the glass substrate (e.g. 223), with the first and second holdings being separate from each other by a gap. Because Figure 2 shows the top surface of the single holder 220 being in direct contact with the bottom surfaces of each of the holder electrodes 221, 222, in making such a substitution, the top surface of the first holder and the top surface of the second holder would make direct contact with the bottom surfaces of each of the holder electrodes 221, 222, respectively.
For at least the foregoing reasons, the rejections of Claim 1 with Van Goor is maintained. Applicants have not appeared to present any arguments to dependent Claims 2 through 11, thus, these claims stand or fall together with Claim 1.
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 holder electrode to one side of the holder electrode such that an area of the holder electrode is expanded when the holder 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
Applicants amendment filed as part of the submission, has 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 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, THOMAS J. HONG can be reached at 571-272-4570. 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 3729
1 Non-Final action, mailed on February 24, 2026.
Prosecution Insights