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 arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on new references for teaching matters specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 18, 20, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0020310 (Gray) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0301283 (Liu), U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0109596 (Yoon), U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0369560 (Takeda).
Gray discloses (Figs. 3A-3C)
1. (Currently Amended) A micro package structure, comprising:
a micro LED panel 300 ([0024]) comprising an IC (integrated circuit) substrate 330 (Abstract) and an micro LED array area 340 ([0057]) formed on the IC substrate 330, wherein a portion of the IC substrate 330 not covered by the micro LED array area 340 forms a non-functional area ([0112], peripheral region outside display region), the IC substrate 330 comprising a first connected area (under LED layer 370) corresponding to the micro LED array area 340 and a second connected area (surrounding the first connected area) away from the first connected area, a plurality of signal metal pads 350 / 360 (equivalent traces / redistribution) are formed on the second connected area; and
one or more bonding wires 355 to connect the signal metal pads 350 with an external circuit ([0055], [0066]).
Gray fails to disclose
a top cover plane formed above the micro LED panel, wherein light emitted from the micro LED array area is transmitted upward to the top cover plane;
a seal structure formed between an edge of the micro LED panel and an edge of the top cover plane;and
a light shielding layer formed on an edge surface of the top cover plane or on at least part of a surface of the non-functional area.
Liu teaches (Fig. 2)
A micro package structure, comprising:
a top cover plane 203 / 204 formed above the micro LED panel 202, wherein light emitted from the micro LED array area (where LEDs 202B are mounted) is transmitted upward to the top cover plane 203 / 204 ([0028]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a top cover plane in Gray. The motivation would be to provide a cover including a color filter and protection for the structure through which emitted light is transmitted which is well-known in LED packages as taught by Liu. See MPEP 2144.03.
Yoon teaches
A micro package structure comprising:
a seal structure 30 formed between an edge of the micro LED panel 10 and an edge of the top cover plane 20.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a seal structure in the modified device of Gray. The motivation would be to suppress infiltration of moisture and gas and protect the display structure as taught by Yoon ([0031]).
Takeda teaches
A micro package structure comprising:
a light shielding layer 31 formed on an edge surface 23 of the top cover plane 1 / 2 or on at least part of a surface of the non-functional area ([0203], peripheral region outside display region 4).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a light shielding layer in the modified device of Gray. The motivation would be to prevent light leakage through the periphery of the display device as taught by Takeda ([0194]).
Gray discloses (Figs. 3A-3C)
4. (Currently Amended) The micro package structure according to claim 1, wherein
the micro LED array area 370 comprises a plurality of micro LEDs ([0028]); and
the IC substrate 330 comprises:
a plurality of first metal connected holes 332 connected to the plurality of micro LEDs, and
a plurality of second metal connected holes 332 (surrounding area) connected to to the plurality of signal metal pads 350 / 360.
Liu teaches ([0028])
18. The micro package structure according to claim 4, wherein the top cover plane 203 / 204 is transparent.
Liu teaches (Fig. 2)
20. The micro package structure according to claim 18, wherein a thickness of the top cover plane 203 / 204 is not greater than a thickness of the micro LED panel.
Yoon teaches
21. (New) The micro package structure according to claim 1, wherein a projection of the light shielding layer 58 on the micro LED panel 10 covers at least part of the non-functional area NDA.
Claim(s) 2, 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gray in view of Liu, Yoon, and Takeda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0066828 (Woo).
The combination of references fails to teach
2. The micro package structure according to claim 1, wherein
the signal metal pads comprise a plurality of IO (input/output) metal pads and a plurality of dummy metal pads; and
all of the IO metal pads and at least some of the dummy metal pads are formed on the second connected area.
Woo teaches (Figs. 5, 7, 10, 14)
A micro package structure, comprising:
the signal metal pads DMP1 - DMP4, DTP1, DTP2 comprise a plurality of IO (input/output) metal pads DTP1, DTP2 and a plurality of dummy metal pads DMP1 - DMP4; and
all of the IO metal pads DTP1, DTP2 and at least some of the dummy metal pads DMP1 - DMP4 are formed on the second connected area 510.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide signal metal pads in the modified device of Gray. The motivation would be to provide reduce tilting and shifting, thereby reducing or preventing damage, such as electrical and/or mechanical disconnection, which is well-known in LED packages as taught by Woo ([0007]). See MPEP 2144.03.
Woo teaches
3. The micro package structure according to claim 2, wherein all of the dummy metal pads DMP1 - DMP4 are formed on the second connected area 510.
Claim(s) 5-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gray in view of Liu, Yoon, and Takeda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0176407 (Haisch).
The combination of references fails to teach
5. The micro package structure according to claim 1, further comprising a protective layer formed on a surface of the second connected area and covering around a surface of the one or more bonding wires.
Haisch teaches (Figs. 3A-3C, 4A-4C, 5A-5C)
A micro package structure, comprising:
a protective layer ([0091]-[0095]) formed on a surface of the second connected area 408 / 409 and covering around a surface of the one or more bonding wires 406.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a protective layer in the modified device of Gray. The motivation would be to provide mechanical protection, which is well-known in LED packages as taught by Haisch. See MPEP 2144.03.
Haisch teaches (Figs. 4A-4C)
6. The micro package structure according to claim 5, further comprising an external circuit plane 408 / 409 formed at a bottom of the micro LED panel 401 with an extruded part extending outside of the micro LED panel.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an external circuit plane in the modified device of Gray. The motivation would be to couple to a flex printed circuit (FPC) that provides electrical connections from a host platform as taught by Haisch ([0070]).
Haisch teaches (Figs. 4A-4C)
7. The micro package structure according to claim 6, wherein the protective layer is further formed on a surface of the extruded part 408 / 409.
Haisch teaches (Figs. 4A-4C)
8. The micro package structure according to claim 6, further comprising a support base plane 414 formed at a bottom of the external circuit plane 408 / 409.
Haisch teaches ([0088])
9. The micro package structure according to claim 8, wherein the support base 414 plane is rigid.
Haisch teaches (Figs. 4A-4C)
10. The micro package structure according to claim 5, further comprising an external circuit plane 408 / 409 formed extending outside of a bottom of the micro LED panel 401.
Haisch teaches (Figs. 4A-4C)
11. The micro package structure according to claim 10, wherein the protective layer ([0091]-[0095]) is further formed on a part of the external circuit plane 408 / 409.
Haisch teaches (Figs. 4A-4C)
12. The micro package structure according to claim 4, further comprising a support base plane 414 formed at a bottom surface of the micro LED panel 401.
Haisch teaches ([0088])
13. The micro package structure according to claim 12, wherein the support base plane 414 is rigid.
Haisch teaches (Figs. 4A-4C)
14. The micro package structure according to claim 5, wherein a top of the protective layer ([0091]-[0095]) is lower than a top of the top cover plane 412.
Haisch fails to teach
15. The micro package structure according to claim 14, wherein the top of the protective layer is lower than a top of the micro LED array area.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the height of the protective layer in the modified device of Gray. The motivation would a matter of routine engineering design considerations as taught by Haisch. See MPEP 2144.04.
Haisch teaches ([0087])
16. (Currently Amended) The micro package structure according to claim 5, wherein a material of the protective layer ([0091]-[0095]) comprises a resin and a polymer, wherein the resin is epoxy resin and the polymer is silicone ([0087]).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gray in view of Liu, Yoon, and Takeda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0333662 (Yu).
The combination of references fails to teach
22. (New) The micro package structure according to claim 21, wherein the light shielding layer is an anti-reflection coating layer, and wherein a material of the light shielding layer is black photo resist.
Yu teaches
A micro package structure, comprising:
wherein the light shielding layer 40 is an anti-reflection coating layer, and wherein a material of the light shielding layer is black photo resist ([0038], [0047]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the light shielding layer from black photoresist in the modified device of Gray. The motivation would be to reduce reflected light and improve display contrast as taught by Yu ([0027], [0023]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent Application Publication Nos. 2021/0066828 (Woo), 2018/0033919 (Lee), 2011/0215361 (Wang) teach a micro package structure including features such as a micro LED panel, a top cover plane, and a light shielding layer where the display region is separated from the connection region and stray reflections are suppressed near the package perimeter.
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 TERESA M ARROYO whose telephone number is (703)756-1576. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (8:30 A.M. E.T. - 5:00 P.M. E.T.).
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, Sue Purvis can be reached at 571.272.1236. 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.
/TERESA M. ARROYO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
