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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an applications filed in Korea, KR 10-2022-0065642 on May 27, 2022, and KR 10-2022-0090565 on July 21, 2022. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/02/2023, 10/05/2023, 08/13/2024 and 07/17/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
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 17 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 17 recites: “The display device of claim 1, wherein the plurality of conductive particles have size of 10 nm to 1 µm.” However, it is not clear whether Claim 17 refers back to Claim 1 or Claim 11, as the preamble of Claim 17 aligns with the preamble of Claim 11 rather than the preamble of Claim 1.
For the purpose of examination, Claim 17 will be examined in the present form.
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, 2, 9, 11, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung et al. (US 20210111324 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Chung et al. teaches a display assembly comprising:
a plurality of light emitting diodes 50 (Fig. 3A: 50, paragraph 0078);
a plurality of electrodes 55 provided on the plurality of light emitting diodes 50 (Fig. 3A: 55, 50, paragraph 0098, 0101);
a substrate 10 (Fig. 3A: 10, paragraph 0078);
a plurality of electrode pads 22 provided on the substrate 10 (Fig. 3A: 22, 10, paragraph 0081),
the plurality of electrode pads 22 being connected to the electrodes 55 provided on the plurality of light emitting diodes 50 (Fig. 3A: 22, 50, 55, paragraph 0101);
and an adhesive layer 31 fixing the plurality of light emitting diodes 50 to the substrate 10 (Fig. 3B: 31, 50, 10, paragraph 0114),
wherein the adhesive layer 31 comprises:
a non-conductive polymer resin (paragraph 0115);
and a plurality of conductive particles 32 dispersed in the non-conductive polymer resin and connecting the electrodes 55 of the light emitting diodes 50 and the plurality of electrode pads 22 (Fig. 3A: 32, 55, 50, paragraph 0115, 0116, 0118).
Chung et al. fails to teach wherein the adhesive layer 31 comprises a flux agent mixed with the non-conductive polymer resin.
However, in a different embodiment, Chung et al. teaches wherein the adhesive layer 35 comprises a flux agent mixed with the non-conductive film (Fig. 3B: 35, paragraph 0088).
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the different embodiments of Chung et al. in order to have the adhesive layer comprise a flux agent mixed with the non-conductive polymer resin. Doing so would prevent the formation of an oxide film during a thermocompression bonding of the electrodes to the electrode pads, as recognized by Chung et al. (paragraph 0088).
Regarding Claim 2, Chung et al. fails to explicitly teach the display assembly of claim 1, wherein the flux agent is made of a material that improves wetting property of the plurality of conductive particles.
However, Chung et al. teaches the flux agent and the plurality of conductive particles are made of a material similar to that disclosed in the instant disclosure (See paragraph 0122 and 0116 of Chung et al and paragraph 0019, 0106-0107 of the originally filed disclosure). Therefore, the flux agent will have the above claimed property. According to MPEP § 2112.01 (I), “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established”. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding Claim 9, Chung teaches the display assembly of claim 1, wherein the adhesive layer 31 is in a film shape (Fig. 3A: 31, paragraph 0088)
Regarding Claim 11, Chung et al. teaches A display device comprising: a processor (paragraph 0196); and a display assembly comprising:
a plurality of light emitting diodes 50 (Fig. 3A: 50, paragraph 0078);
a plurality of electrodes 55 provided on the plurality of light emitting diodes 50 (Fig. 3A: 55, 50, paragraph 0098, 0101);
a substrate 10 (Fig. 3A: 10, paragraph 0078);
a plurality of electrode pads 22 provided on the substrate 10 (Fig. 3A: 22, 10, paragraph 0081),
the plurality of electrode pads 22 being connected to the electrodes 55 provided on the plurality of light emitting diodes 50 (Fig. 3A: 22, 50, 55, paragraph 0101);
and an adhesive layer 31 fixing the plurality of light emitting diodes 50 to the substrate 10 (Fig. 3B: 31, 50, 10, paragraph 0114),
wherein the adhesive layer 31 comprises:
a non-conductive polymer resin (paragraph 0115);
and a plurality of conductive particles 32 dispersed in the non-conductive polymer resin and connecting the electrodes 55 of the light emitting diodes 50 and the plurality of electrode pads 22 (Fig. 3A: 32, 55, 50, paragraph 0115, 0116, 0118).
Chung et al. fails to teach wherein the adhesive layer 31 comprises a flux agent mixed with the non-conductive polymer resin.
However, in a different embodiment, Chung et al. teaches wherein the adhesive layer 35 comprises a flux agent mixed with the non-conductive film (Fig. 3B: 35, paragraph 0088).
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the different embodiments of Chung et al. in order to have the adhesive layer comprise a flux agent mixed with the non-conductive polymer resin. Doing so would prevent the formation of an oxide film during a thermocompression bonding of the electrodes to the electrode pads, as recognized by Chung et al. (paragraph 0088).
Regarding Claim 12, Chung et al. fails to explicitly teach the display device of claim 11, wherein the flux agent is made of a material that improves wetting property of the plurality of conductive particles.
However, Chung et al. teaches the flux agent and the plurality of conductive particles are made of a material similar to that disclosed in the instant disclosure (See paragraph 0122 and 0116 of Chung et al and paragraph 0019, 0106 of the originally filed disclosure). Therefore, the flux agent will have the above claimed property. According to MPEP § 2112.01 (I), “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established”. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding Claim 19, Chung teaches the display device of claim 11, wherein the adhesive layer 31 is in a film shape (Fig. 3A: 31, paragraph 0088).
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung et al. (US 20210111324 A1), as applied to Claim 2 above, in view of Aoyama et al. (US 20170152410 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Chung et al. teaches the display assembly of claim 2, wherein the plurality of conductive particles 32 comprise: a plurality of first conductive particles 32 (Fig. 3A: 32, 55, 50, paragraph 0115, 0116, 0118).
Chung et al. fails to teach wherein the plurality of conductive particles comprise a plurality of second conductive particles having higher wetting property than the plurality of first conductive particles.
However, Aoyama et al. teaches a display assembly including an adhesive layer comprising a plurality of conductive particles C1, C2, wherein the plurality of conductive particles C1, C2 comprise: a plurality of second conductive particles C1 (paragraph 0021, 0022, 0130).
Therefore, a person or ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have combined the teachings of both Chung et al. and Aoyama et al. in order to have a plurality of second conductive particles C1. Doing so would provide an adhesive layer with high conductivity.
The combination of Chung et al. and Aoyama et al. fails to explicitly teach the plurality of second conductive particles having higher wetting property than the plurality of first conductive particles.
However, the combination teaches the plurality of first conductive particles 32 includes Cu (as taught by Chung et al. in paragraph 0116) and the plurality of second conductive particles C1 includes Au, which are the same materials disclosed in the instant application (paragraph 0009 of originally filed disclosure), and therefore would result in the claimed property, i.e., the plurality of second conductive particles having higher wetting property than the plurality of first conductive particles. According to MPEP § 2112.01 (I), “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established”. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding Claim 4, Chung et al. teaches the display assembly of claim 3, wherein the plurality of first conductive particles 32 comprise at least one of tin (Sn), silver (Ag), copper (Cu), bismuth (Bi), and cobalt (Co) (paragraph 0116).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Chung et al. and Aoyama et al. teaches the display assembly of claim 3, wherein a material of the plurality of second conductive particles C1 (i.e., Cu as taught by Aoyama et al. in paragraph 0021) and one of a material of the electrodes 55 provided on the plurality of light emitting diodes 50 or a material of the plurality of electrode pads 22 provided on the substrate 10 (i.e., Cu as taught by Chung et al. in paragraph 0084), are same.
Regarding Claim 6, Aoyama et al. teaches the display assembly of claim 5, wherein the second conductive particle C1 is made of one of gold (Au), copper (Cu), and silver (Ag) (paragraph 0021).
Claims 7, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung et al. (US 20210111324 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, in view of Aoyama et al. (US 20170152410 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Chung et al. fails to explicitly teach the display assembly of claim 1, wherein the plurality of conductive particles have size of 10 nm to 1 µm.
However, Aoyama et al. teaches a display assembly including an adhesive layer comprising a plurality of conductive particles C1, C2, wherein the plurality of conductive particles have size of 5 nm to 1 µm (see paragraph 0021, 0022, 0083, 0130). According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, a person or ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have combined the teachings of both Chung et al. and Aoyama et al. in order to the plurality of conductive particles to have a size of 10 nm to 1 µm. Doing so would make the conductive particles more wettable by increasing its surface area, as well as improve the dispersion of the particles in the solvent with minimal aggregation, as recognized by Aoyama et al. (paragraph 0083).
Regarding Claim 10, Chung et al. fails to teach the display assembly of claim 1, wherein the adhesive layer is in a paste shape.
However, Aoyama et al. teaches a display assembly including an adhesive layer, wherein the adhesive layer is in a paste shape (paragraph 0122, 0130).
Therefore, a person or ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have combined the teachings of both Chung et al. and Aoyama et al. in order to have the adhesive layer in a paste shape. Doing so would ensure better wetting and contact as adhesive pastes can flow into gaps, irregular surfaces and microscopic voids.
Regarding Claim 17, Chung et al. fails to explicitly teach the display device of claim 1, wherein the plurality of conductive particles have size of 10 nm to 1 µm.
However, Aoyama et al. teaches a display device including an adhesive layer comprising a plurality of conductive particles C1, C2, wherein the plurality of conductive particles have size of 5 nm to 1 µm (see paragraph 0021, 0022, 0083). According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, a person or ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have combined the teachings of both Chung et al. and Aoyama et al. in order to the plurality of conductive particles to have a size of 10 nm to 1 µm. Doing so would make the conductive particles more wettable by increasing its surface area, as well as improve the dispersion of the particles in the solvent with minimal aggregation, as recognized by Aoyama et al. (paragraph 0083).
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung et al. (US 20210111324 A1), as applied to Claim 12 above, in view of Aoyama et al. (US 20170152410 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Chung et al. teaches the display device of claim 12, wherein the plurality of conductive particles 32 comprise: a plurality of first conductive particles 32 (Fig. 3A: 32, 55, 50, paragraph 0115, 0116, 0118).
Chung et al. fails to teach wherein the plurality of conductive particles comprise a plurality of second conductive particles having higher wetting property than the plurality of first conductive particles.
However, Aoyama et al. teaches a display device including an adhesive layer comprising a plurality of conductive particles C1, C2, wherein the plurality of conductive particles C1, C2 comprise: a plurality of second conductive particles C1 (paragraph 0021, 0022, 0130).
Therefore, a person or ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have combined the teachings of both Chung et al. and Aoyama et al. in order to have a plurality of second conductive particle. Doing so would provide an adhesive layer with high conductivity.
The combination of Chung et al. and Aoyama et al. fails to explicitly teach the plurality of second conductive particles having higher wetting property than the plurality of first conductive particles.
However, the combination teaches the plurality of first conductive particles 32 includes Cu (as taught by Chung et al. in paragraph 0116) and the plurality of second conductive particles C1 includes Au, which are the same materials disclosed in the instant application (paragraph 0009 of originally filed disclosure), and therefore would result in the claimed property, i.e., the plurality of second conductive particles having higher wetting property than the plurality of first conductive particles. According to MPEP § 2112.01 (I), “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established”. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding Claim 14, Chung et al. teaches the display device of claim 13, wherein the plurality of first conductive particles 32 comprise at least one of tin (Sn), silver (Ag), copper (Cu), bismuth (Bi), and cobalt (Co) (paragraph 0116).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Chung et al. and Aoyama et al. teaches the display device of claim 13, wherein a material of the plurality of second conductive particles C1 (i.e., Cu as taught by Aoyama et al. in paragraph 0021) and one of a material of the electrodes 55 provided on the plurality of light emitting diodes 50 or a material of the plurality of electrode pads 22 provided on the substrate 10 (i.e., Cu as taught by Chung et al. in paragraph 0084), are same.
Regarding Claim 16, Aoyama et al. teaches the display device of claim 15, wherein the second conductive particle C1 is made of one of gold (Au), copper (Cu), and silver (Ag) (paragraph 0021).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung et al. (US 20210111324 A1), as applied to Claim 11 above, in view of Aoyama et al. (US 20170152410 A1).
Chung et al. fails to teach the display device of claim 11, wherein the adhesive layer is in a paste shape.
However, Aoyama et al. teaches a display device including an adhesive layer, wherein the adhesive layer is in a paste shape (paragraph 0122, 0130).
Therefore, a person or ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have combined the teachings of both Chung et al. and Aoyama et al. in order to have the adhesive layer in a paste shape. Doing so would ensure better wetting and contact as adhesive pastes can flow into gaps, irregular surfaces and microscopic voids.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung et al. (US 20210111324 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, in view of Iguchi et al. (JP 2008156547 A).
Chung et al. fails to teach the display assembly of claim 1, wherein the adhesive layer further comprises a pigment or dye having a black-based color.
However, Iguchi et al. teaches a display assembly comprising an adhesive layer, wherein the adhesive layer further comprises a pigment or dye having a black-based color (page 1, lines 22-27 in English Translation of Iguchi et al.).
Therefore, a person or ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have combined the teachings of both Chung et al. and Iguchi et al. in order to have the adhesive layer further comprises a pigment or dye having a black-based color. Doing so would ensure the display assembly exhibit excellent light-shielding properties, as recognized by Iguchi et al. (page 1, line 20-12).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung et al. (US 20210111324 A1), as applied to Claim 11 above, in view of Iguchi et al. (JP 2008156547 A).
Chung et al. fails to teach the display device of claim 11, wherein the adhesive layer further comprises a pigment or dye having a black-based color.
However, Iguchi et al. teaches a display device comprising an adhesive layer, wherein the adhesive layer further comprises a pigment or dye having a black-based color (page 1, lines 22-27 in English Translation of Iguchi et al.).
Therefore, a person or ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have combined the teachings of both Chung et al. and Iguchi et al. in order to have the adhesive layer further comprises a pigment or dye having a black-based color. Doing so would ensure the display device exhibit excellent light-shielding properties, as recognized by Iguchi et al. (page 1, line 20-12).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAMNA F IQBAL whose telephone number is 571-272-1587. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8.30 am - 5.30 pm 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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at 571-272-5055. 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.
/HAMNA FATHIMA IQBAL/Examiner, Art Unit 2817 09/04/2025
/Kretelia Graham/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817 September 10, 2025