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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 12/29/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s cancellation of claims 13 – 14 and 20 – 24 is acknowledged.
Applicant’s addition of claims 25 – 32 is acknowledged.
Applicant’s amendment to the abstract removes the section directed to the merits or benefits of the device. The objection to the abstract is withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210183828 A1 hereinafter Chae in further view of US 20210193894 A1 hereinafter You.
For claim 26, Chae teaches a backplate (Chae, fig. 8 numeral 110), wherein a surface of the backplate is disposed with a first pad and a second pad configured to bond the light-emitting elements (fig. 8 shows two pads under light-emitting elements 100a and 100), the second pad is configured as a repair pad, the first pad comprises a first bonding layer having a multilayer structure, the multilayer structure comprising a plurality of single-metal layers (fig. 8 numeral 121a and 220a); and a second bonding layer with a multi-layer structure comprising a plurality of single-metal layers (fig. 8 numeral 107a, 220, 221a, 121b, and 121a). Chae also teaches the bonding temperatures of the first bonding layer and the second bonding layer being different based on the materials used (Par. [0116]; Par. [0137 – 0146]). Chae also teaches the bonding layers including metal materials such as Sn, In, Au, and alloys thereof along with different metals and different combinations for different alloys (Par. [0119 - 0123]; Par. [0112]; Par. [0134]). Examiner is interpreting Chae as teaching at least one of the pads being configured to bond light-emitting elements, as Chae includes the same structural limitations of the pads and teaches the use of the pads in performing repairs on light-emitting elements (Par. [0085]). Claim language referring intended use and other types of functional language must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Chae is silent regarding the thickness ratio of the single-metal layer formed of the first metal to the single-metal layer formed of the second metal in the first bonding layer is a first thickness ratio, the thickness ratio of the single-metal layer formed of the first metal to the single-metal layer formed of the second metal in the second bonding layer is a second thickness ratio, the first thickness ratio is greater than the second thickness ratio. However, Chae does teach the thickness ratio of the first bonding pad including a first metal layer (fig. 8 numeral 220a) having a thickness greater than the second metal layer (107a) and that ratio appears to be greater than the second pad ratio between the thickness of the first metal layer (220) and the second metal layer (107a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the immediate invention that the thickness ratios in Chae would include the thickness ratio of the first pad being greater than the thickness ratio of the second pad as Chae teaches different thickness ratios between the multiple pads including a first pad ratio that is greater than the second pad thickness ratio, and the thickness of each metal layer can be changed as needed (Chae, fig. 8; Par. [0039]; Par. [0074]; Par. [0125]; Par. [0137]). Chae does not explicitly state that a bonding temperature of the first bonding layer is higher than a bonding temperature of the second bonding layer based on the thickness ratios. However, the apparatus as claimed appears to be substantially identical in structure to the structure in Chae. As Chae teaches the two different thickness ratios, the bonding temperatures of the first bonding layer would be higher than a bonding temperature of the second bonding layer, as the structure of the bonding layers and thickness ratios in Chae are substantially identical to the immediate application. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Chae is silent regarding adhesive layers as part of comprising the first and second pads.
You teaches a backplate (You, fig. 4D numeral 110) with a first and second pad (fig. 4D numeral 115) including an adhesive layer (fig. 4D numeral 120a; Par. [0091]; Par. [0077]) and a bonding layer (fig. 4E numeral 105).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the immediate invention to combine the adhesive layers in You with the bonding layers in Chae in order to assist in aligning pad layers between different elements (Chae, Par. [0091 – 0092]) and to prevent the light emitting devices being attached to the backplate from moving during the attaching or lift-off/removal processes (You, Par. [0184]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 - 12 and 25 are allowable primarily because the references of record, alone or in combination, do not anticipate or render obvious the limitations noted therein. For example, independent claim 1’s “…wherein the first pad further comprises a first connection electrode arranged on a side of the first adhesive layer facing away from the first bonding layer and thereby the first connection electrode is located between the backplate and the first adhesive layer… an area of orthographic projection of the second adhesive layer on the surface of the backplate is 1.15 -2.5 times of an area of orthographic projection of the second connection electrode on the surface of the backplate, and the area of orthographic projection of the second adhesive layer on the surface of the backplate is 1.15 -2.5 times of an area of orthographic projection of the second bonding layer on the surface of the backplate”.
Claims 2 – 12 and 25 are allowable primarily as being dependent on an allowable base claim.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant MUST be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance”
Claims 27 - 32 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.
For claims 27 and 29, Chae and You are silent regarding the connection electrode being located between the backplate and the adhesive layer and that the bonding layer extends onto two opposite side surfaces of the connection electrode. Chae and You do not appear to teach a bonding that extends onto two opposite side surfaces of a connection electrode.
For claims 31 and 32, Chae and You are silent regarding the first and second adhesive layers extending onto two opposite side surfaces of the second bonding layer along a direction facing away from the backplate.
Claims 28 and 30 are allowable primarily as depending on an allowable claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7 - 16, filed 12/29/2025, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 10/14/2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025 directed to newly added claim 26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument focused on the prior art not teaching the bonding temperature of the first bonding layer being higher than a bonding temperature of the second bonding layer because the first thickness ration is greater than the second thickness ratio is not persuasive, as the structure of the prior art appears to be substantially identical to the immediate invention (see the rejection to claim 26 above). Any change in the bonding temperature caused by the structural limitations in the immediate invention would also be found in the prior art, as the structure in the prior art is substantially identical to the structure of the immediate invention. In this case, both the prior art and the immediate invention share the structural limitation of the thickness ratios which is the structural limitation associated with the bonding temperature. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) and In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment 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 JACOB T NELSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1031. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00 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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at 571-270-1435. 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.
/J.T.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2815
/MONICA D HARRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815