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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed 1/30/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive, the rejection has been updated to address the newly amended limitations.
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 Kim et al (U.S. Pub #2019/0181301).
With respect to claim 1, Kim teaches a display device, comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 3, 110) in which a pixel including a plurality of sub pixels (Fig. 1. SP and Paragraph 66) is defined, an adhesive layer (Fig. 3, 114 and Paragraph 100) disposed on the substrate; and
a plurality of light emitting diodes (Fig. 3, 150 and Paragraph 70) disposed on the adhesive layer in each of the plurality of sub pixels; and
a reflection layer (Fig. 1, 110r and Paragraph 89) disposed between the substrate and the adhesive layer,
wherein the adhesive layer is configured by a plurality of first parts overlapping the plurality of light emitting diodes (Fig. 3, parts underlying the LED 150) and a second part which is a remaining part excluding the plurality of first parts (Fig. 3, layer 114 covers parts of substrate that are not underlying the LED 150), and
wherein the reflection layer overlaps the plurality of first parts and the second part (Paragraph 115 and 117, the reflective material layer is also in a position not overlapping the LED).
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, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akimoto (U.S. Pub #2022/0149228), in view of Kim et al (U.S. Pub #2019/0181301).
With respect to claim 1, Akimoto teaches a display device, comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 1, 1102) in which a pixel including a plurality of sub pixels (Fig. 1, 20 and Paragraph 71) is defined; and
a plurality of light emitting diodes (Fig. 1, 150) disposed on the adhesive layer in each of the plurality of sub pixels; and
a reflection layer (Fig. 1, 110r and Paragraph 89) disposed between the substrate and the LED,
and
wherein the reflection layer overlaps the plurality of first parts and the second part.
Akimoto does not teach
an adhesive layer disposed on the substrate;
wherein the adhesive layer is configured by a plurality of first parts overlapping the plurality of light emitting diodes and a second part which is a remaining part excluding the plurality of first parts.
Kim teaches
an adhesive layer (Fig. 3, 114 and Paragraph 100) disposed on the substrate; and
a plurality of light emitting diodes (Fig. 3, 150 and Paragraph 70) disposed on a layer in each of the plurality of sub pixels; and
a reflection layer (Fig. 1, 110r and Paragraph 89) disposed between the substrate and the adhesive layer,
wherein the adhesive layer is configured by a plurality of first parts overlapping the plurality of light emitting diodes (Fig. 3, parts underlying the LED 150) and a second part which is a remaining part excluding the plurality of first parts (Fig. 3, layer 114 covers parts of substrate that are not underlying the LED 150).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide an adhesive layer in the structure of Akimoto as taught by Kim in order to facilitate the attachment of an LED element on the substrate (Paragraph 100 and 118-119).
With respect to claim 16, Akimoto teaches a plurality of transistors (Fig. 1, 103 and Paragraph 80) disposed between the substrate (Fig. 1, 102) and the reflection layer (Fig. 1, 110f) in each of the plurality of sub pixels.
With respect to claim 17, Akimoto teaches a black bank (Fig. 1, 181 and Paragraph 102) disposed on the adhesive layer, wherein the black bank is disposed between the plurality of light emitting diodes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 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
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 BENJAMIN P SANDVIK whose telephone number is (571)272-8446. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10-6.
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, Davienne Monbleau can be reached at (571)-272-1945. 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.
/BENJAMIN P SANDVIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812