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
Claims 9-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 03/30/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the apparatus and the method claims are inextricably intertwined to achieve the common technical aspect of self- alignment. This is not found persuasive because the device does not need to be made by the same process as the method requires.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/17/2023, 07/14/2023, 02/27/2024, 09/23/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 19 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 19 recites, “the display apparatus of claim 13” instead of claim 14.
Claim 20 recites, “the display apparatus of claim 13” instead of claim 14.
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 1-8 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “wherein each metal layer of the at least two metal layers is a metal formed by undergoing heating without pressure applied thereto and then curing during a process of connecting the at least two device-side electrodes to the at least two driving substrate-side electrodes.” The language, term, or phrase wherein each metal layer of the at least two metal layers is a metal “ formed by undergoing heating without pressure applied thereto and then curing during a process of connecting the at least two device-side electrodes to the at least two driving substrate-side electrodes," is directed towards the process of making a display apparatus. It is well settled that "product by process" limitations in claims drawn to function are directed to the product, per se, no matter how actually made. In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (footnote 3). See also, In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685; In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523; In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324; In re Avery, 186 USPQ 161; In re Wethheim, 191 USPQ 90 (209 USPQ 554 does not deal with this issue); In re Marosi et alfunction., 218 USPQ 289; and particularly In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final product per se which must be determined in a "product by process" claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in "product by process" claims or otherwise. The above case law further makes clear that applicant has the burden of showing that the method language necessarily produces a structural difference. As such, the language "formed by undergoing heating without pressure applied thereto and then curing during a process of connecting the at least two device-side electrodes to the at least two driving substrate-side electrodes" only requires “the metal layers, which does not distinguish the invention from Kim, who teaches the structure as claimed.
Claims 2-8 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. [US 2017/0108173 A1], “Kim”.
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses display apparatus (Fig. 3 and 4 and ¶[0276]) comprising:
a micro-light-emitting device (Fig. 4, 120) comprising at least two device-side electrodes (151 and 153);
a driving substrate (310 and ¶[0119]) comprising at least two driving substrate-side electrodes (321 and 323); and
at least two metal layers (211 and 213, ¶[0121]), each metal layer (211 and 213) being interposed between a corresponding device-side electrode (151 and 153), among the at least two device-side electrodes (151 and 153), and a corresponding driving substrate-side electrode (321 and 323), among the at least two driving substrate-side electrodes, and connecting the corresponding device-side electrode, among the at least two device-side electrodes, to the corresponding driving substrate- side electrode, among the at least two driving substrate-side electrodes (as shown Fig. 4), wherein a distance (D3) between adjacent driving substrate-side electrodes (321 and 323), among the at least two driving substrate-side electrodes, is greater (as shown) than a distance (Fig. 3, D1) between adjacent device-side electrodes (151 and 153), among the at least two device-side electrodes (151 and 153), and wherein each metal layer of the at least two metal layers is a metal formed by undergoing heating without pressure applied thereto and then curing during a process of connecting the at least two device-side electrodes to the at least two driving substrate-side electrodes. The language, term, or phrase "formed by undergoing heating without pressure applied thereto and then curing during a process of connecting the at least two device-side electrodes to the at least two driving substrate-side electrodes," is directed towards the process of making the device. It is well settled that "product by process" limitations in claims drawn to function are directed to the product, per se, no matter how actually made. In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (footnote 3). See also, In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685; In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523; In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324; In re Avery, 186 USPQ 161; In re Wethheim, 191 USPQ 90 (209 USPQ 554 does not deal with this issue); In re Marosi et al function., 218 USPQ 289; and particularly In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final product per se which must be determined in a "product by process" claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in "product by process" claims or otherwise. The above case law further makes clear that applicant has the burden of showing that the method language necessarily produces a structural difference. As such, the language "formed by undergoing heating without pressure applied thereto and then curing during a process of connecting the at least two device-side electrodes to the at least two driving substrate-side electrodes" only requires a at least two metal layer, which does not distinguish the invention from Kim, who teaches the structure as claimed.
Regarding claim 14, Kim discloses a display apparatus (Fig. 3 and 4 and ¶[0276]) comprising:
a micro-light-emitting device (Fig. 4, 120);
at least two device-side electrodes (151 and 153) provided on the micro-light-emitting device (120);
a driving substrate (310 and ¶[0119]);
at least two driving substrate-side electrodes (321 and 323) provided on the driving substrate (310);
at least two metal layers (211 and 213), each metal layer being interposed between a corresponding device-side electrode (as shown), among the at least two device-side electrodes (151 and 153), and a corresponding driving substrate-side electrode, among the at least two driving substrate-side electrodes (321 and 323), and connecting the corresponding device-side electrode, among the at least two device-side electrodes, to the corresponding driving substrate- side electrode, among the at least two driving substrate-side electrodes, respectively (as shown in Fig. 4); and
a pore in an area between adjacent device-side electrodes, among the at least two device-side electrodes, and between adjacent driving substrate-side electrodes, among the at least two driving substrate-side electrodes, that are connected to the adjacent device-side electrodes, respectively (spacing between the electrode in the area where D2 is located),
wherein the pore has a polygonal cross-sectional shape that is line-symmetric with respect to a center line passing through a center between the adjacent device- side electrodes and a center between the adjacent driving substrate-side electrodes (as shown).
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 5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. [US 2017/0108173 A1], “Kim” as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sekido et al. [US 2007/0164444 A1], “Sekido.”
Regarding claim 5, Kim discloses claim 1, Kim discloses the first and second bonding portions (211, 213) may be formed of any material such as solder (¶0121]). Kim does not disclose each of the at least two metal layers comprises a Sn-Ag-Cu (SAC) alloy solder material.
However, Sekido discloses a stacked mounting structure (Fig. 12A, 800) includes at least two substrates namely a first substrate (101a) on which a first protruding electrode (801a) is formed and a second substrate (101b) on which a second protruding electrode (801b). Sekido further discloses a first protruding electrode (801a) and a second protruding electrode (801b) are formed by a solder material. Examples of the solder material are an Sn--Pb solder, as well as an Au--Sn solder, an Sn--Ag--Cu solder, an Sn--Bi solder, and an Sn--In solder (¶[0125]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a Sn--Ag--Cu solder material as taught in Sekido in the device of Kim such that each of the at least two metal layers comprises a Sn-Ag-Cu (SAC) alloy solder material because using a suitable solder material will create a proper electrical bond between the two substrate. Further, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (see MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 19, Kim discloses claim 13(or 14 – see objection above), Kim discloses the first and second bonding portions (211, 213) may be formed of any material such as solder (¶0121]). Kim does not disclose each of the at least two metal layers comprises a Sn-Ag-Cu (SAC) alloy solder material.
However, Sekido discloses a stacked mounting structure (Fig. 12A, 800) includes at least two substrates namely a first substrate (101a) on which a first protruding electrode (801a) is formed and a second substrate (101b) on which a second protruding electrode (801b). Sekido further discloses a first protruding electrode (801a) and a second protruding electrode (801b) are formed by a solder material. Examples of the solder material are an Sn--Pb solder, as well as an Au--Sn solder, an Sn--Ag--Cu solder, an Sn--Bi solder, and an Sn--In solder (¶[0125]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a Sn--Ag--Cu solder material as taught in Sekido in the device of Kim such that each of the at least two metal layers comprises a Sn-Ag-Cu (SAC) alloy solder material because using a suitable solder material will create a proper electrical bond between the two substrate. Further, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (see MPEP 2144.07).
Claims 6, 7, 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. [US 2017/0108173 A1], “Kim” as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Kim et al. [WO 2021/221454 A1] (The Examiner will rely on the US PUB [US 2024/0088329 A1], “Kim29” for easier referencing).
Regarding claim 6, Kim discloses claim 1, Kim does not explicitly disclose each of the at least two device-side electrodes comprises an electrode metal layer and a barrier metal layer, which are sequentially arranged from a side adjacent to the micro-light-emitting device.
However, Kim29 disclose a display module includes a thin film transistor (TFT) substrate including a TFT electrode pad, and at least one light-emitting diode (LED) comprising at least one LED electrode pad, and a junction structure provided between the at least one LED electrode pad and the TFT electrode pad (see Fig. 4B). The first LED electrode pad (27) may include a filler layer (27a) stacked to the p-type semiconductor layer (23), a barrier layer (27b) stacked to the filler layer (27a).The barrier layer (27b) including at least one from among Au, Ni, Ti, Cr, Pd, TiN, Ta, TiW, TaN, AlSiTiN, NiTi, TiBN, ZrBN, TiAlN, and TiB2 (¶[[0087]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a Ni barrier material as taught in Kim29 in the device of Kim such that each of the at least two device-side electrodes comprises an electrode metal layer and a barrier metal layer, which are sequentially arranged from a side adjacent to the micro-light-emitting device because using a suitable barrier material will enhance the electrical bond between the substrate and LED (¶[0083]). Further, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (see MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 7, Kim as modified discloses claim 6, Kim as modified the barrier metal layer comprises Ni (¶[[0087] of Kim29).
Regarding claim 8, Kim discloses claim 1, Kim does not explicitly disclose a surface of each of the at least two device-side electrodes and a surface of each of the at least two driving substrate-side electrodes comprise an element from Group 10 or Group 11 of the periodic table of elements.
However, Kim29 disclose a display module includes a thin film transistor (TFT) substrate including a TFT electrode pad, and at least one light-emitting diode (LED) comprising at least one LED electrode pad, and a junction structure provided between the at least one LED electrode pad and the TFT electrode pad (see Fig. 4B). The first LED electrode pad (27) may include a filler layer (27a) stacked to the p-type semiconductor layer (23). The filler layer (27a) may be formed of any one material from among Au, Cu, Ni, and Al (¶[0086]). The first TFT electrode pad (31) which will be described below to be smooth or formed of a composition of at least two from among Sn, Ag, In, Cu, Ni, Au, Cu, Bi, Al, Zn, and Ga (¶[0088]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a suitable material Group 10 or Group 11 for the electrode layers as taught in Kim29 in the device of Kim such that a surface of each of the at least two device-side electrodes and a surface of each of the at least two driving substrate-side electrodes comprise an element from Group 10 or Group 11 of the periodic table of elements because using suitable materials will enhance the electrical bond between the substrate and LED (¶[0083]). Further, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (see MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 20, Kim discloses claim 13(or 14 – see objection above), Kim does not explicitly disclose each of the at least two device-side electrodes comprises an electrode metal layer and a barrier metal layer, which are sequentially arranged from a side adjacent to the micro-light-emitting device.
However, Kim29 disclose a display module includes a thin film transistor (TFT) substrate including a TFT electrode pad, and at least one light-emitting diode (LED) comprising at least one LED electrode pad, and a junction structure provided between the at least one LED electrode pad and the TFT electrode pad (see Fig. 4B). The first LED electrode pad (27) may include a filler layer (27a) stacked to the p-type semiconductor layer (23), a barrier layer (27b) stacked to the filler layer (27a).The barrier layer (27b) including at least one from among Au, Ni, Ti, Cr, Pd, TiN, Ta, TiW, TaN, AlSiTiN, NiTi, TiBN, ZrBN, TiAlN, and TiB2 (¶[[0087]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a Ni barrier material as taught in Kim29 in the device of Kim such that each of the at least two device-side electrodes comprises an electrode metal layer and a barrier metal layer, which are sequentially arranged from a side adjacent to the micro-light-emitting device because using a suitable barrier material will enhance the electrical bond between the substrate and LED (¶[0083]). Further, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (see MPEP 2144.07).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. [US 2017/0108173 A1], “Kim” as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Suzuki et al. [US 2010/0117114 A1], “Suzuki”.
Regarding claim 15, Kim discloses claim 14, Kim does not explicitly disclose the pore has a trapezoidal cross-sectional shape comprising an upper base between the adjacent device-side electrodes of the micro-light-emitting device, a lower base between the adjacent driving substrate-side electrodes of the driving substrate, and a lateral portion between the upper base and the lower base.
However, Suzuki discloses the light-emitting device has a pair of n-electrodes (14a/b) with a p-electrode (13) therebetween, on the same plane. The supporting board (20’) with positive (21a/b) and negative electrodes (22’) are formed, opposing to the p- and n-electrodes of the light-emitting device, respectively. Bonding members (30 a, b’, c’ ) bond the p- and n-electrodes with the positive and negative electrodes, respectively. Suzuki discloses the pore/spacing between the electrode and bonding member has a trapezoidal cross-sectional shape comprising an upper base between the adjacent light-emitting device-side electrodes of the light-emitting device, a lower base between the adjacent supporting board-side electrodes of the supporting board substrate, and a lateral portion between the upper base and the lower base. By adjusting the distance (B) of the between the n-electrodes (14a/b) with a p-electrode (13) and adjusting the distance (A) of the positive (21a/b) and negative electrodes (22’), the bonding member (30 a, b’, c’ ) shape is changed resulting in the pore spacing having a trapezoidal cross-sectional shape (Fig. 7).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have a pore with a trapezoidal cross-sectional shape as taught in Suzuki in the device of Kim such that the pore has a trapezoidal cross-sectional shape comprising an upper base between the adjacent device-side electrodes of the micro-light-emitting device, a lower base between the adjacent driving substrate-side electrodes of the driving substrate, and a lateral portion between the upper base and the lower base because such a modification would ensure electrodes are appropriately spaced apart and prevent short-circuiting of the device while enhancing the bonding strength of the device (¶[0010]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 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.
Claims 16-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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.
Tomita [US 2015/0280093 A1] teaches a light-emitting device comprising a light-emitting element, an element electrode, an extending-wiring electrode and a support.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRIYA M RAMPERSAUD whose telephone number is (571)272-3464. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Wed 9am-6pm.
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, Chad Dicke can be reached at (571)270-7996. 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.
PRIYA M. RAMPERSAUD
Examiner
Art Unit 2897
/PRIYA M RAMPERSAUD/Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights