DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to the Amendment file on November 17, 2025, responding to the Office action mailed on August 19, 2025, has been entered. The present Office action is made with all the suggested amendments being fully considered.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the Drawings have overcome the objections to drawings, as previously set forth in the Non-Final Office action mailed on August 19, 2025. Accordingly, all previous drawings objections are hereby withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “an organic layer between the light-emitting element and the second substrate” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claims 7 and 16. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The word “organic” only appeared once in the paragraph (¶) [0003] “an OLED (Organic Light Emitting Diode) of the Specification. However, the Claims 7 and 16 recite “an organic layer” between the light-emitting element and the second substrate”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 5 and 14 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.
Claims 5 and 14 recite the limitation "the light-shielding layer" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
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 1-3, 5, 6, 10-12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tao et al. (Tao hereinafter) (US 2020/0350361) in view of Ohmae et al. (Ohmae hereinafter) (US 11,024,783) and further in view Van Den Brand et al. (Brand hereinafter) (EP 3742477) .
Regarding Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 10-12, 14, and 15:
Tao (see FIGs. 4, 9, 12) teaches {1, 10} a display device 1A comprising: a first substrate 10; a light-emitting element 20/21 on the first substrate; a second substrate 12 opposed to the first substrate; the light-emitting element and an IC chip 50 are arranged in a pixel.
Tao (see ¶ [0086], [0088], [0090], [0119], [0120], [0129], and [0139]) teaches “each of the IC chips 50 can be arranged in association with a pixel, i.e., for a pixel (i.e., for a light emitting unit 20) to drive the pixel”; “the IC chip blocks transmission of light and reduction of an area of a low transmittance in the display area”; “an IC chip-attached LED in which an LED and an IC chip are packaged together can also be used”; “the transparent display apparatus 1A may be configured such that constituent elements such as the light emitting units … and the like are laminated between two transparent substrates … the constituent elements … can be sealed and protected between two transparent substrates 10, 12”, and “the first transparent substrate 10 and the second transparent substrate 12 may be the same or different in terms of material, thickness, and the like”; and “when a reflection suppression layer is added, a phenomenon where the shape of the transparent conductive film 35 is seen can be alleviated”; “transparent display apparatus … can be used as being attached to a plate-like body and can be used as being sealed between two plate-like bodies … is preferably transparent … an inorganic material … or an organic material such as polycarbonate or acrylic resin”.
However, Tao does not explicitly teach {1} a first protruding structure surrounding the light-emitting element on a surface of the second substrate opposed to the first substrate; and a light-shielding film disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate, wherein a supplementary angle of an inclination angle of a side surface of the first protruding structure is 30 degrees or more and 90 degrees or less; the light-shielding film is arranged to overlap the IC chip and the first protruding structure; {2, 11} a reflective film on the side surface of the first protruding structure; {3, 12} the light-shielding film is located between the first protruding structure and the second substrate; {5, 14} the IC chip is arranged between the light-shielding layer and the first substrate; {6, 15} the light-shielding film is located between the first protruding structure and the first substrate; and {11} a first protruding structure surrounding the light-emitting element on a surface of the second substrate opposed to the first substrate; and a light-shielding film disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate, wherein an inclination angle of a side surface of the first protruding structure is 30 degrees or more and 90 degrees or less; the light-shielding film is arranged to overlap the IC chip and the first protruding structure.
Ohmae (see FIGs. 5A, 5B, and 7A-11B and col.3/l.67 – col.4/l.50, col.7/ll.17-23, col.9/ll.10-15, and col.11/ll.2-29) teaches a black layer 251/451 formed on a first black interlayer film 231/41, a light reflection film 61 reflecting a portion of light emitted from the light emitting part 21 and allowing light to pass through the opening part 233, “a transparent second interlayer film 232 that is surrounded by the first interlayer film 231 and covers the light emitting part 21”, “the black first interlayer film 231 includes materials in which carbon is added to epoxy resin, silicone resin, or hybrid resin … the transparent second interlayer film 232 includes epoxy resin, silicone resin, or hybrid resin … the ight reflection film 61 is formed in an inclined plane 231B of the first interlayer film 231 that faces the opening part 233”, an a second black layer 252/452 and “an interlayer that covers the black layer and the light emitting part and on which the light diffusion part is formed, in which the light emitting party may be embodied to be located within the opening part”; and “since the light emitting device includes the black layer, the prevention of an occurrence of black floating can be attained … miniaturization … can be easily handled”.
Brand (see FIGs. 2B and 10B and ¶ [0082]) teaches “the outer edges of the recesses 31 are sloped at an angle θ … more than ten degrees, preferably more than twenty degrees or more than thirty degrees, e.g., between forty and seventy degrees … may held guide the components into the recesses … the sloped edges may provide further functionality such as reflecting light emitted by a component in the recess”.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the teaching of Tao to include the teaching of Ohmae to form at least one insulating layer with sloped openings, surrounding the light-emitting units and the IC chips and to form light reflection film around the openings and to form a black layer on all fractioned top surfaces of the at least one insulating layer to restrict the light reflection from the light-emitting device and to concentrate the light reflection in a particular viewing area and to improve the light transmission from the light-emitting units; and to further include the teaching of Brand to specify the range of the angle of sloped openings of the at least one insulating layer within certain boundary to meet the desired light reflection requirements;
The differences in specific range of angles of the inclined sidewall of the bank layer and the location of the black layer will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such specific range of angles of the inclined sidewall of the bank layer and the location of the black layer are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of the specific range of angles of the inclined sidewall and location of the black layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the specific range of angles of the instant invention to optimally achieve the same purpose of limiting the reflection of lights within the openings and to form the black layer between the bank layer and the planarization layer to meet the design requirements as long as the light transmission from the micro LEDs are not blocked by the black layer.
CRITICALITY
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed invention or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936s (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tao et al. (Tao hereinafter) (US 2020/0350361) in view of Ohmae et al. (Ohmae hereinafter) (US 11,024,783) and further in view of Van Den Bran et al. (Brand hereinafter) (EP 3742477) as applied to claim 3 or 12 above, and further in view of Kato et al. (Kato hereinafter) (JP 2006119357).
Regarding Claims 4 and 13:
Tao in the device of Ohmae in view of Brand teaches the instant invention except the black layer is longer or wider than a surface of the protrusion structure.
Kato (see ¶ [0032] and Fig. 5) teaches “the light-transmitting area of the black ink 42 is made smaller than the opening size of the opening 25 on the light-emitting side” and “instead of the black ink 42, a black film having opening corresponding to the light-transmitting portions may also be used”.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the combined teaching of Tao in the device of Ohmae in view of Brand to further include the teaching of Kato to form longer black layer on top of the protrusion/patterned insulating layer as an alternative as long as the micro-LEDs are not blocked to achieve the same purpose of transmitting lights from the micro-LEDs in the recesses/openings.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tao et al. (Tao hereinafter) (US 2020/0350361) in view of Ohmae et al. (Ohmae hereinafter) (US 11,024,783) and further in view of Van Den Bran et al. (Brand hereinafter) (EP 3742477) as applied to claim 1 or 10 above, and further in view of Sakariya et al. (Sakariya hereinafter) (US 9,029,880).
Regarding Claims 7 and 16:
Tao in the device of Ohmae in view of Brand teaches the instant invention except an organic layer between the light-emitting element and the second substrate.
Sakariya (see col.1/l.63 – col.2/l.3) teaches “an organic thin film 120 and top electrode 118 are deposited over every subpixel 108 in the pixel area 104 … may include multiple layers … typically formed over the entire pixel area 104”.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the Combined teaching of Tao in the device of Ohmae in view of Brand to further include the teaching of Sakariya to form an organic thin film covering the light-emitting units before the formation of a second substrate to meet the design requirements.
Claims 8, 9, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tao et al. (Tao hereinafter) (US 2020/0350361) in view of Ohmae et al. (Ohmae hereinafter) (US 11,024,783) and further in view of Van Den Bran et al. (Brand hereinafter) (EP 3742477) as applied to claim 1 or 10 above, and further in view of Hirasawa et al. (Hirasawa hereinafter) (JP 2009-212287).
Regarding Claims 8, 9, 17, and 18:
Tao in the device of Ohmae in view of Brand teaches the instant invention except the refractive indices of the transparent materials used.
Hirasawa (see ¶ [0033], [0060], [0078] and FIGs. 1a, 1b, 5) teaches an LED package comprising a scattering layer 40 made of a resin with preferably refractive index of about 1.4 to 1.7 and a transparent sealing material 30 filled the recess 11 with refractive index of 1.53 and “if the refractive index different is too large, the output will decrease”.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the Combined teaching of Tao in the device of Ohmae in view of Brand to anticipate all the materials used in the display panel have a refractive index and to further include the teaching of Hirasawa to specify the refractive index value of the sealing material covering the micro LEDs and between two substrates, being different from the second substrate above the micro LEDs and to adjust the refractive index of sealing layer, the substrates, and the bank layer in order to achieve the optimal illumination from the pixels of a display device.
The differences in the relationship of the refractive index of various structures and substrates will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating the relationship of the refractive index of various structures and substrates are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see paragraph on page 7) of the relationship of the refractive index of various structures and substrates, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the relationship of the refractive index of various structures and substrates of instant invention to optimize the illumination from the pixels of a display device while minimizing the manufacturing steps and saving the cost.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims filed on November 17, 2025 have been considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejections.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICE W TANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7227. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8:30 am to 5 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, Wael Fahmy can be reached at (571)272-1705. 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.
/ALICE W TANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2814
/WAEL M FAHMY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2814