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 .
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.
Claim 16 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 16 recite “said micro light-emitting diodes independently emit lights with different wavelengths”.
It is not clear as to what metes and bounds of “independently” emit lights with different wavelengths. Independent from other LEDs? Independent from other factors?
For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will treat “said micro light-emitting diodes independently emit lights with different wavelengths” as -- said micro light-emitting diodes emit lights with different wavelengths --.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 11-14, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bower et al. (US 2012/0314388 A1) in view of Jeung et al. (US 2018/0204973 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
292
518
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
482
536
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1, Bower (Fig. 9C, 9D) discloses a micro light-emitting component matrix, comprising:
a plurality of micro active devices (active components 22), each having two opposite sides (sidewalls); and
a transfer layer (a photo-sensitive adhesive layer 30 and exposed patterned photo-sensitive adhesive layer 32/60) connected to said opposite sides of said micro light-emitting diodes so as to permit said micro light-emitting diodes to be retained by said transfer layer. (32) (Fig. 3-9)
wherein each of said plurality of micro active devices (active components 22) further has a top surface (see a top surface in annotated Fig. 9D-E exposed and free from 60/64) and a bottom surface (see a bottom surface in annotated Fig. 9D-E) spaced apart from each other, each of said top surface and said bottom surface being connected between said two opposite sides, said top surface and said bottom surface being exposed from the transfer layer (a photo-sensitive adhesive layer 30 and exposed patterned photo-sensitive adhesive layer 32), and being not covered by said transfer layer (a photo-sensitive adhesive layer 30 and exposed patterned photo-sensitive adhesive layer 32).
The Examiner notes under broadest reasonable interpretation the limitation “wherein each of said plurality of micro light-emitting diodes further has a top surface and a bottom surface spaced apart from each other, each of said top surface and said bottom surface being connected between said two opposite sides, said top surface and said bottom surface being exposed from the transfer layer, and being not covered by said transfer layer” is considered to be met as long as a portion or a section of a top surface is free from transfer layer. Further, as indicated in Fig. 9D-E the annotated top surface and bottom surface are still connected by side surfaces.
The Examiner recommends further defining what is included and/or excluded from “a top surface”.
Bower does not explicitly disclose that active components are micro light-emitting diodes.
Jeung discloses a plurality of micro light-emitting diodes (“LED structures.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a micro light-emitting component matrix in Bower in view of Jeung such that the active devices are micro light-emitting diodes in order to have a light-emitting device (LED) is made of a nitride semiconductor [0012-0013 Bower] and have a method a transfer assembly whose adhesive strength with LED structures can be maintained in spite of repetitive transfer processes, LED structures and a transfer assembly for selectively transferring the LED structures, and a transfer method using the same [0015 Jeung]
Examiner notes that “so as to permit said micro light-emitting diodes to be retained by said transfer layer” is a functional language.
While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claim directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429,1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959).
Regarding Claim 3, Bower in view of Jeung discloses the micro light-emitting component matrix according to claim 1, wherein
said transfer layer (30, 32) is transformable by heat or light to a flexible semi-solid state, such that said micro light-emitting diodes are retained by said transfer layer. (he photo-sensitive adhesive layer 30 can be a photo-sensitive polymer.) [0071]
Regarding Claim 4, Bower in view of Jeung discloses the micro light-emitting component matrix according to claim 1, wherein
said transfer layer (30, 32) is transformable to produce a retaining force to permit said micro light-emitting diodes to be retained by said transfer layer. (30, 32) (Fig. 3-9)
Examiner notes that “to permit said micro light-emitting diodes to be retained by said transfer layer.” is a functional language.
While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claim directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429,1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959).
Regarding Claim 11, Bower in view of Jeung discloses the micro light-emitting component matrix according to claim 1, wherein
said transfer layer (30, 32) is made of an opaque material which is selected from the group consisting of a light-reflective material, a light-absorptive material, and a combination thereof (“selectively curable photo-sensitive adhesive layer 30 can include materials that improve the absorption of light or heat” [0095]; and
said transfer layer (30, 32) further has top openings configured to permit light from said micro light-emitting diodes to transmit therethrough. (See Fig. 9)
The Examiner notes that as long as said transfer layer is not covering at least one side og the LED the limitation configured to permit light from said micro light-emitting diodes to transmit therethrough.is considered to be met.
Regarding Claim 12, Bower in view of Jeung discloses the micro light-emitting component matrix according to claim 1, wherein
said transfer layer (30, 32) is made of a material selected from the group consisting of a benzocyclobutene adhesive, a silicone, an epoxy resin, an ultraviolet curing adhesive (“selectively curable photo-sensitive adhesive layer 30 can include materials that improve the absorption of light or heat, to improve the rate of curing,” [0095], and combinations thereof.
Regarding Claim 13, Bower in view of Jeung discloses the micro light-emitting component matrix according to claim 1, wherein
said micro light-emitting diodes (individualized LED structures 100c Jeong) are independently selected from the group consisting of a face-up type light-emitting diode, a flip type light-emitting diode, and a vertical type light-emitting diode. (See at least Fig. 19, 22, 37, 40 Jeong)
Regarding Claim 14, Bower in view of Jeung discloses the micro light-emitting component matrix according to claim 1, further comprising
a bonding substrate (90) bonding to said micro light-emitting diodes opposite to said transfer layer. (30, 32)
Regarding Claim 17, Bower in view of Jeung discloses the micro light-emitting component matrix according to claim 1, wherein
each of said micro light-emitting diodes (100) includes an epitaxial structure (120) and a pair of electrodes disposed on said epitaxial structure. (140, 130) (Fig. 24, Jeong)
Regarding Claim 20, Bower in view of Jeung discloses the micro light-emitting component matrix according to claim 1, wherein
said transfer layer (30, 32) is in a solid state. (Fig. 9E) [0079-0082]
Claim(s) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bower et al. (US 2012/0314388 A1) in view of Jeung et al. (US 2018/0204973 A1) and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2019/0378760 A1)
Regarding Claim 15, Bower in view of Jeung discloses the micro light-emitting component matrix according to claim 1, wherein
said micro light-emitting diodes (100)
Bower in view of Jeung does not explicitly disclose said micro light-emitting diodes are each selected from a group consisting of a red light-emitting diode, a blue light-emitting diode, and a green light-emitting diode.
Lee discloses micro light-emitting diodes are each selected from a group consisting of red light-emitting diode, a blue light-emitting diode, and a green light-emitting diode. [0094, 0126-0127]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a micro light-emitting component matrix in Bower in view of Jeung and Lee such that said micro light-emitting diodes are each selected from a group consisting of a red light-emitting diode, a blue light-emitting diode, and a green light-emitting diode in order to implement that red, green and blue (RGB) pixels [0094].
Further, limitation in line 2, “micro light-emitting diodes are each selected from a group” is considered to be product-by-process.
“Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding Claim 16, Bower in view of Jeung discloses the micro light-emitting component matrix according to claim 1, wherein
Bower in view of Jeung does not explicitly disclose that said micro light-emitting diodes independently emit lights with different wavelengths.
Lee discloses micro light-emitting diodes independently emit lights with different wavelengths. [0094, 0126-0127]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a micro light-emitting component matrix in Bower in view of Jeung and Lee such that micro light-emitting diodes independently emit lights with different wavelengths in order to implement that red, green and blue (RGB) pixels [0094].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/17/206 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicants Arguments concerning Claim 1 on page 6.
The Examiner notes under broadest reasonable interpretation the limitation “wherein each of said plurality of micro light-emitting diodes further has a top surface and a bottom surface spaced apart from each other, each of said top surface and said bottom surface being connected between said two opposite sides, said top surface and said bottom surface being exposed from the transfer layer, and being not covered by said transfer layer” is considered to be met as long as a portion or a section of a top surface is free from transfer layer. Further, as indicated in Fig. 9D-E the annotated top surface and bottom surface are still connected by side surfaces.
The Examiner recommends further defining what is included and/or excluded from “a top surface”.
Regarding “the risk of the residuals or the particulates generated from the transfer layer remaining on the top surfaces and/or the bottom surfaces of the micro light-emitting diodes can be avoided after the micro light-emitting diodes are removed from the transfer layer. Therefore, uniformity of the light emitted from the micro light-emitting diodes can be maintained.”
Examiner further notes that the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness."). See MPEP § 716.01(c).
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 DMITRIY YEMELYANOV whose telephone number is (571)270-7920. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a.m.-6p.m.
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, Matthew Landau can be reached at (571) 272-1731. 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.
/DMITRIY YEMELYANOV/Examiner, Art Unit 2891
/MATTHEW C LANDAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights