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
In response to applicant’s arguments filed on 06/09/2026, the amendments to independent claims 1 and 16 overcome the previous prior art rejection. However, a new rejection is formulated with an additional prior art added onto the previous base references to cover the amended limitations. With respect to the applicants arguments on pages 10 and 11 referring to Liu et al (US 20190131281), the arguments are not applied to the current rejection as Liu et al is no longer used in the rejection but a different reference in place of it. Additionally, it is noted that Zhang et al (CN 115483327) is no longer used as prior art.
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) 1-7, 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lan et al (US 20210242377 A1) in view of Chu et al (US 10672829 B2) and Iguchi et al (US 20210151422).
Lan et al teaches
[claim 1] A display module comprising: a substrate (paragraph 0033, figure 1B, element 110 is the substrate);
a plurality of electrode pads provided on a surface of the substrate (paragraph 0034, figure 1B, elements 121 and 120 are the plurality of electrodes);
a first barrier provided between the plurality of electrode pads (paragraph 0033, element 140 is the barrier layer between the electrodes [elements 121 and 120]);
and a light-emitting diode, each light-emitting diode comprising device electrodes connected to corresponding electrode pads of the plurality of electrode pads, wherein each of the first barrier is provided between a pair of adjacent electrode pads corresponding to a light-emitting diode (paragraphs 0033-0034, where element 130 is the light emitting diode which contains elements 133 and 132 as the device electrodes and connected to the corresponding electrodes [element 121 and 120] on the substrate, where the barrier layer [element 140] is situated between the electrodes).
However, Lan et al does not specifically disclose
[claim 1] plurality of first barriers, and a plurality of light-emitting diodes, where in each of the plurality of first barriers is provided between a pair of adjacent electrode pads corresponding to a light-emitting diode of the plurality of light-emitting diodes, and wherein each of the plurality of first barriers comprises: a body comprising an organic material; a first thin film comprising an inorganic material and covering an upper top portion and side portions of the body, and a second thin film comprising an inorganic material, disposed between the substrate and the body, and coupling the body to the substrate.
However, Chu et al does teach
[claim 1] plurality of first barriers, and a plurality of light-emitting diodes, where in each of the plurality of first barriers is provided between a pair of adjacent electrode pads corresponding to a light-emitting diode of the plurality of light-emitting diodes (col 5 line 57 – col 6 line 3, figure 2C, where element 130 in Lan et al is in place of element 130a in Chu et al, elements 121 and 120 are in place of elements 112 and 114, and element 140 of Lan et al is in place of element 120a in Chu et al. Note there are a plurality of devices, electrodes and barrier layers in Chu et al).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the teachings of Lan et al to incorporate the teachings of Chu et al to provide a plurality of Light Emitting Diodes with barrier layers between the electrodes in order to create a functional display device that utilizes more than one light emitting diode.
However, Lan et al as modified does not specifically disclose
[claim 1] and wherein each of the plurality of first barriers comprises: a body comprising an organic material; a first thin film comprising an inorganic material and covering an upper top portion and side portions of the body, and a second thin film comprising an inorganic material, disposed between the substrate and the body, and coupling the body to the substrate.
However, Iguchi et al does teach
[claim 1] and wherein each of the plurality of first barriers comprises: a body comprising a material (figure 1, paragraph 0072, where element 34 is the barrier and has a body portion, element 35, that comprises a resin material),
a first thin film comprising an inorganic material and covering an upper top portion and side portions of the body (figure 1, paragraph 0076, where element 36 is the first thin film comprising an inorganic material [aluminum] covering a top and side portion of the body portion [element 35]),
and a second thin film comprising an inorganic material, disposed between the substrate and the body, and coupling the body to the substrate (figure 1, paragraph 0074, where the barrier comprises a second thin film disposed between the body portion [element 35] and the substrate [element 50] and comprises an inorganic material [insulating film]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the teachings of Lan et al as modified to incorporate the teachings of Iguchi et al in order to place a barrier between each LED portion to maximize directionality of the light emitting towards a specific direction thus increasing efficiency of the overall device.
However, Lan et al does not specifically disclose
[claim 1] [a body comprising an] organic [material]
However, according to MPEP 2144.05 II. ROUTINE OPTIMIZATION
A. Optimization Within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 809, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1848 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989)(Claimed ratios were obvious as being reached by routine procedures and producing predictable results); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 1149, 14 USPQ2d 1056, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(Claimed amount of wash solution was found to be unpatentable as a matter of routine optimization in the pertinent art, further supported by the prior art disclosure of the need to avoid undue amounts of wash solution); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1997)(Claims were unpatentable because appellants failed to submit evidence of criticality to demonstrate that that the wear resistance of the protective layer in the claimed thickness range of 50-100 Angstroms was "unexpectedly good"); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007) (identifying "the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the teachings of Lan et al as modified to incorporate an organic material as the body portion, considering the body portion is made of a resin [Iguchi et al, paragraph 0076], which can be organic or inorganic. Per the specific needs of the device, to minimize thermal degradation at room temperature which organic resins do better than inorganic resins, thus increasing the optimization of the device.
Regarding claim 2
Lan et al further teaches
[claim 2] The display module of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of first barriers has a height that is higher than a height of each of the plurality of electrode pads (paragraph 0034, figure 2B, element 140 is the barrier layer and has a height higher than the electrodes [elements 121 and 120]).
Regarding claims 3-7, 10-14,
Lan et al as modified teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim, claim 1, however Lan et al does not specifically disclose
[claim 3] The display module of claim 2, wherein at least one of the plurality of first barriers has an inclined upper surface.
[claim 4] The display module of claim 2, wherein at least one of the plurality of first barriers has a first inclined surface that is inclined toward a first electrode pad of a corresponding pair of adjacent electrode pads and a second inclined surface that is inclined toward a second electrode pad of the corresponding pair of adjacent electrode pads.
[claim 5] The display module of claim 2, wherein at least one of the plurality of first barriers has a first curved surface that extends toward a first electrode pad of a corresponding pair of adjacent electrode pads and a second curved surface that extends toward a second electrode pad of the corresponding pair of adjacent electrode pads.
[claim 6] The display module of claim 2, wherein at least one of the plurality of first barriers has a curved upper surface.
[claim 7] The display module of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of first barriers further comprises an insulation material
[claim 10] The display module of claim 1, further comprising at least one second barrier disposed between a first pair of adjacent electrode pads of the plurality of electrode pads and a second pair of adjacent electrode pads of the plurality of electrode pads, the first pair of adjacent electrode pads being adjacent to the second pair of adjacent electrode pads, and wherein a height of the at least one second barrier is higher than a height of each of the plurality of electrode pads.
[claim 11] The display module of claim 10, wherein the height of the at least one second barrier is lower than or equal to a height of each of the plurality of first barriers.
[claim 12] The display module of claim 11, wherein the at least one second barrier has an inclined upper surface.
[claim 13] The display module of claim 11, wherein the at least one second barrier has a curved upper surface.
[claim 14] The display module of claim 10, wherein the at least one second barrier comprises an insulation material.
However, Chu et al teaches
[claim 3] The display module of claim 2, wherein at least one of the plurality of first barriers has an inclined upper surface (figure 2B and 2C, where element 120a is curved at the top and thus has an upper surface that is inclined [i.e. not flat but pointed either in an upwards or downward direction that is not completely orthogonal to the base surface]).
[claim 4] The display module of claim 2, wherein at least one of the plurality of first barriers has a first inclined surface that is inclined toward a first electrode pad of a corresponding pair of adjacent electrode pads and a second inclined surface that is inclined toward a second electrode pad of the corresponding pair of adjacent electrode pads (figure 2B and 2C, where element 120a is curved at the top and thus has a first incline that is inclined towards the first electrode [element 121 in Lan et al in place of element 112 in Chu et al], where said surface is the right-hand side of the curve of element 120a. Likewise, the curve as another surface, on the left-hand side of the curve of element 120a, that is inclined towards the second electrode [element 120 of Lan et al in place of element 114 of Chu et al], where each electrode is adjacent to [next to] the barrier layer which includes both inclined surfaces).
[claim 5] The display module of claim 2, wherein at least one of the plurality of first barriers has a first curved surface that extends toward a first electrode pad of a corresponding pair of adjacent electrode pads and a second curved surface that extends toward a second electrode pad of the corresponding pair of adjacent electrode pads (figure 2B and 2C, where element 120a is curved at the top and thus has a first curve that is curved [as defined by having a positive curvature] towards the first electrode [element 121 in Lan et al in place of element 112 in Chu et al], where said surface is the right-hand side of the curve of element 120a. Likewise, the curve as another surface, on the left-hand side of the curve of element 120a, that is curved towards the second electrode [element 120 of Lan et al in place of element 114 of Chu et al], where each electrode is adjacent to [next to] the barrier layer which includes both inclined surfaces).
[claim 6] The display module of claim 2, wherein at least one of the plurality of first barriers has a curved upper surface (figure 2B, element 120a is the barrier layer and has a curve at the top, thus having a curved upper surface).
[claim 7] The display module of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of first barriers further comprises an insulation material (col 4 line 65 – col 5 line 16, where element 120a is used to insulate electrical conductivity between the electrodes, thus needing to be made of an insulating material [otherwise, by definition, it would conduct electricity and not insulate the electrodes from conducting]).
[claim 10] The display module of claim 1, further comprising at least one second barrier disposed between a first pair of adjacent electrode pads of the plurality of electrode pads and a second pair of adjacent electrode pads of the plurality of electrode pads, the first pair of adjacent electrode pads being adjacent to the second pair of adjacent electrode pads, and wherein a height of the at least one second barrier is higher than a height of each of the plurality of electrode pads (figures 2A-2C, col 5 line 57 – col 6 line 3, where the plurality of spacers [barrier layers] as designated by element 120a, the first barrier layer is the left hand side element 120a of figure 2B, and the electrodes are element 112 and 114 [remember, elements 121 and 120 from Lan et al are in place of element 112 and 114, since elements 112 and 114 must conduct electricity they function the same as the electrodes of Lan et al], the second barrier is the second from the left element 120a [right hand side of the first element 150a on the left], and has electrodes on either side of them as well. The two sets of electrodes likewise are adjacent to one another [that is next to one another], and the height of element 120a is greater than the height of elements 112 and 114).
[claim 11] The display module of claim 10, wherein the height of the at least one second barrier is lower than or equal to a height of each of the plurality of first barriers (col 5 line 57 – col 6 line 3, figure 2B, where element 120a is the same height throughout thus the two barrier layers are the same height).
[claim 12] The display module of claim 11, wherein the at least one second barrier has an inclined upper surface (figure 2B and 2C, where element 120a is curved at the top and thus has an upper surface that is inclined [i.e. not flat but pointed either in an upwards or downward direction that is not completely orthogonal to the base surface]).
[claim 13] The display module of claim 11, wherein the at least one second barrier has a curved upper surface (figure 2B, element 120a is the barrier layer and has a curve at the top, thus having a curved upper surface).
[claim 14] The display module of claim 10, wherein the at least one second barrier comprises an insulation material (col 4 line 65 – col 5 line 16, where element 120a is used to insulate electrical conductivity between the electrodes, thus needing to be made of an insulating material [otherwise, by definition, it would conduct electricity and not insulate the electrodes from conducting]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the teachings of Lan et al to incorporate the teachings of Chu et al to provide a plurality of Light Emitting Diodes with barrier layers between the electrodes with certain and distinguishable shapes in order to create a functional display device that utilizes more than one light emitting diode while minimizing electrical conductivity between the two electrodes with the presence, material and shape of the barrier layer.
Regarding claim 15,
Lan et al as modified above teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim, claim 10, but does not specifically disclose
[claim 15] The display module of claim 10, further comprising a third barrier surrounding the plurality of electrode pads and connected to the plurality of first barriers and the at least one second barrier, wherein a height of the third barrier is higher than a height of each of the plurality of electrode pads.
However, a different embodiment of Lan et al does teach
[claim 15] The display module of claim 10, further comprising a third barrier surrounding the plurality of electrode pads and connected to the plurality of first barriers and the at least one second barrier, wherein a height of the third barrier is higher than a height of each of the plurality of electrode pads (figure 4D, paragraph 0052, where element 132 relates to the pads [element 132 from the previous embodiment of Lan et al], where the first barrier is the left-hand side of the rectangle of element 140h2, and the second barrier is the right hand side of the rectangle 140h2, and the third barrier is element 140h1 which surrounds the plurality of electrodes related to element 132h]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the teachings of Lan et al as modified above to incorporate the new embodiment of Lan et al to isolate the electrodes using the barrier layer to minimize any electrical conductivity between the electrodes and maximize the barrier’s usage to perform such insulation.
Claim(s) 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lan et al (US 20210242377 A1) in view of Iguchi et al (US 20210151422).
Lan et al teaches
[claim 16] A display module comprising: a substrate (paragraph 0033, figure 1B, element 110 is the substrate);
a first electrode pad and a second electrode pad that are provided on a surface of the substrate (paragraph 0034, figure 1B, elements 121 and 120 are the plurality of electrodes);
a barrier provided between the first electrode pad and the second electrode pad (paragraph 0033, figure 1B, element 140 is the barrier layer between the electrodes [elements 121 and 120]);
and a light-emitting diode comprising a first device pad and a second device pad connected to the first electrode pad and the second electrode pad, respectively (paragraphs 0033-0034, figure 1B, where element 130 is the light emitting diode which contains elements 133 and 132 as the first and second device electrodes and connected to the corresponding electrodes [element 121 and 120] on the substrate, where the barrier layer [element 140] is situated between the electrodes),
wherein the barrier comprises: a body (paragraph 0034, figure 1B, where element 140 [barrier layer] contains a body portion]);
However, Lan et al does not specifically disclose
[claim 16] and a first thin film covering on an upper portion and side portions of the body, and a second thin film comprising an inorganic material, disposed between the substrate and the body, and coupling the body to the substrate.
[claim 18] The display module of claim 17, wherein the second film covers a vertical side of each of the first electrode pad and the second electrode pad.
However, Iguchi et al et al does teach
[claim 16] and a first thin film covering on an upper portion and side portions of the body (figure 1, paragraph 0076, where element 36 is the first thin film comprising an inorganic material [aluminum] covering a top and side portion of the body portion [element 35]),
and a second thin film comprising an inorganic material, disposed between the substrate and the body, and coupling the body to the substrate (figure 1, paragraph 0074, where the barrier comprises a second thin film [element 17] disposed between the body portion [element 35] and the substrate [element 50] and comprises an inorganic material [insulating film]).
[claim 18] The display module of claim 16, wherein the second film covers a vertical side of each of the first electrode pad and the second electrode pad (figure 1, paragraphs 0068 and 0074 where element 17 is the second thin film and covers a vertical side of the first electrode [element 51] and the second electrode pad [element 52]. Note, the word “covers” is interpreted broadly like the word “over” or “on” such that something does not have to be directly touching an object to “cover” said object. A roof “covers” the walls inside the house but does not directly touch the walls).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the teachings of Lan et al as modified to incorporate the teachings of Iguchi et al in order to place a barrier between each LED portion to maximize directionality of the light emitting towards a specific direction thus increasing efficiency of the overall device.
Regarding claim 19,
Lan et al further teaches
[claim 19] The display module of claim 16, wherein a height of the barrier is higher than a height of each of the first electrode pad and the second electrode pad (paragraph 0034, figure 1B, where element 140 [barrier layer] is higher than the first and second electrodes [elements 121 and 120]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lan et al (US 20210242377 A1) and Iguchi et al (US 20210151422) in further view of Chu et al (US 10672829 B2).
Lan et al as modified teaches all of the limitation of the parent claim, claim 16, but does not specifically disclose
[claim 20] The display module of claim 16, wherein the barrier has a first surface that is inclined toward the first electrode pad and a second surface that is inclined toward the second electrode pad.
However, Chu et al does teach
[claim 20] The display module of claim 16, wherein the barrier has a first surface that is inclined toward the first electrode pad and a second surface that is inclined toward the second electrode pad (figure 2B and 2C, where element 120a is curved at the top and thus has a first incline that is inclined towards the first electrode [element 121 in Lan et al in place of element 112 in Chu et al], where said surface is the right-hand side of the curve of element 120a. Likewise, the curve as another surface, on the left-hand side of the curve of element 120a, that is inclined towards the second electrode [element 120 of Lan et al in place of element 114 of Chu et al], where each electrode is adjacent to [next to] the barrier layer which includes both inclined surfaces).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the teachings of Lan et al to incorporate the teachings of Chu et al to provide a plurality of Light Emitting Diodes with barrier layers between the electrodes with certain and distinguishable shapes in order to create a functional display device that utilizes more than one light emitting diode while minimizing electrical conductivity between the two electrodes with the presence, material and shape of the barrier layer.
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 ANDREW ZABEL whose telephone number is (703)756-4788. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5PM ET.
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, Jeff W Natalini can be reached at 572-272-2266. 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.
/ANDREW JOHN ZABEL/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/JEFF W NATALINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights