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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Applicant points to fig. 6B for support for the claimed invention (pp. 6, remarks). However, fig. 6B does not teach “a minimum distance between adjacent ones of the green LED chips is smaller than a minimum distance between adjacent ones of the non-green LED chips along a direction” (claim 21) nor “a minimum distance between adjacent ones of the green LED chips is less than or equal to half of a minimum distance between adjacent ones of non-green LED chips, and the minimum distance between adjacent ones of the green LED chips is greater than or equal to one-quarter of the minimum distance between adjacent ones of non-green LED chips” (claim 22).
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.
Claim 30 is 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 30 recites “the four second LED chips are aligned with the four third LED chips along a direction.” It seems impossible to align all eight chips in a single direction when claim 1 requires the eight chips to be at the corners of two different rectangles.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 11-14,23,26,27,29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ock et al (PG Pub 2021/0241680 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Ock teaches (two of the three rectangles whose corners are marked with x’s and circles, see fig. 4A below) an inorganic light-emitting diode (LED) display, comprising: a first sub-unit, comprising four first LED chips arranged to form a first rectangle, wherein the four first LED chips locate at four corners of the first rectangle; a second sub-unit, comprising four second LED chips other than the four first LED chips, arranged to form a second rectangle, wherein the four second LED chips locate at four corners of the second rectangle; a third sub-unit, comprising four third LED chips other than the four first LED chips and the four second LED chips, arranged to form a third rectangle, wherein the four third LED chips locate at four corners of the third rectangle; wherein the first rectangle, the second rectangle, and the third rectangle are overlapped with each other to form an overlapping area (shaded), wherein the first sub-unit, the second sub-unit and the third sub-unit collectively comprise a plurality of green LED chips and a plurality of non-green LED chips, the plurality of green LED chips (eight G’s) is greater than the plurality of non-green LED chips (two B’s and two R’s) in quantity, and wherein, the overlapping area merely comprises LED chips selected from the four first LED chips, the four second LED chips and the four third LED chips.
PNG
media_image1.png
558
836
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Ock teaches the inorganic LED display of claim 11, wherein one (marked with an x, fig. 4A above) of the four first LED chips is located between adjacent two (marked with circles) of the four second LED chips in a horizontal along a direction, and one of the four third LED chips is located between adjacent two of the four second LED chips in a vertical direction.
Regarding claim 13, Ock teaches the inorganic LED display of claim 11, wherein the four first LED chips and the four third LED chips are green LED chips (marked with circles and x’s, respectively, fig. 4A above).
Regarding claim 14, Ock teaches the inorganic LED display of claim 11, wherein the four second LED chips (B’s and R’s, fig. 4A above) are non-green LED chips.
Regarding claim 23, Ock teaches the inorganic LED display of claim 11, wherein the first sub-unit, the second sub-unit, and the third sub-unit constitute a minimal repeating unit (fig. 4A). It appears that the minimal repeating unit is a single chip (102g, 102b,102r in fig. 6B of Applicant’s drawing) not plural chips that are claimed. Thus, in view of Applicant’s disclosure “a minimal repeating unit” seems to be arbitrarily defined by Applicant. Thus, the BRI, in view of Applicant’s disclosure, of Ock reads on the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 26, Ock teaches the inorganic LED display of claim 11, wherein the non-green LED chips comprise a plurality of red LED chips and a plurality of blue LED chips (fig. 4A above).
Regarding claim 27, Ock teaches the inorganic LED display of claim 26, wherein the red LED chips are greater than or equal to the blue LED chips in quantity (fig. 4A above).
Regarding claim 29, Ock teaches the inorganic LED display of claim 11, wherein one (marked with an x, fig. 4A above) of the four third LED chips is located between adjacent two (marked with circles) of the four second LED chips along a direction.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ock et al (PG Pub 2021/0241680 A1) as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Bower et al (PG Pub 2016/0064363 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Ock remains as applied in claim 23.
Ock does not teach an aperture ratio of each of the minimal repeating units is smaller than 30%.
In the same field of endeavor, Bower teaches a display with an aperture ratio of less than 30% to allow incorporation of other functional elements such as different sensors and solar cells (paragraph [0171]).
It would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make an aperture ratio of each of the minimal repeating units is smaller than 30% for the benefit of integrating other functional elements to increase the overall functionality of the display.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ock et al (PG Pub 2021/0241680 A1) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Long et al (PG Pub 2023/0352334 A1).
Regarding claim 25, Ock remains as applied in claim 11.
Ock does not teach the green LED chips, the red LED chips, and the blue LED chips in each of the minimal repeating units have substantially the same size.
In the same field of endeavor, Long teaches green, red, and blue LED chips to be the same size (paragraph [0079]), by using microLEDs, which provide benefits such as high efficiency, high brightness, and energy saving (paragraph [0003]).
It would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the green LED chips, the red LED chips, and the blue LED chips in each of the minimal repeating units to have substantially the same size by using microLEDs, for the benefits of achieving high efficiency, high brightness, and energy saving.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ock et al (PG Pub 2021/0241680 A1) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Mao et al (PG Pub 2017/0263828 A1).
Regarding claim 28, Ock remains as applied in claim 11.
Ock does not teach each of the chips comprises a pair of electrodes disposed on a side opposite to a light-emitting side of each of the LED chips.
In the same field of endeavor, Mao teaches each of the chips comprises a pair of electrodes (217, fig. 10A) disposed on a side opposite to a light-emitting side of each of the LED chips, for the known benefits of providing bias to the LED chips and preventing the electrodes from blocking and/or absorbing the light from the LED chips.
It would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make each of the first LED chips, the second LED chips, and the third LED chips to comprise a pair of electrodes disposed on a side opposite to a light-emitting side of each of the LED chips, for the known benefits of providing bias to the LED chips and preventing the electrodes from blocking and/or absorbing the light from the LED chips.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on December 12, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because previously cited Ock still teaches the amended features. See rejection above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Prior art does not teach
“the overlapping area comprises one of the four first LED chips, one of the four second LED chips and one of the four third LED chips” (claim 15).
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 FEIFEI YEUNG LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1882. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8am to 4pm EST.
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, Dale Page can be reached at 571 270 7877. 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.
/FEIFEI YEUNG LOPEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899