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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/13/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
An amendment filed on 12/15/2025 in response to the Office Action mailed on 09/15/2025 is
being acknowledged and entered into the record. The present Final rejection is made by taking into fully
consideration all the amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7 of the remarks filed on 12/15/2025, with respect to the 112(b) rejection of Claim 17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Claim 17 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9-10 of the remarks filed on 12/15/2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1na d 11 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of previously applied prior reference of Chung et al. and newly found prior reference of Kim et al. Kim et al. teaches the newly added limitation “a solder 75, 76 between each electrode 15, 16 of the plurality of electrodes 15, 16 and each electrode pad 65, 66 of the plurality of electrode pads 65, 66”, (Fig. 4: 15, 16, 65, 66, 75, 76, paragraph 0061), in amended Claims 1 and 11. A new ground of rejection is also made for all dependent 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, 2, 9, 11, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung et al. (US 20210111324 A1), in view of Kim et al. (US 20190165230 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 plurality of 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 plurality of electrodes 55 of the plurality of 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, a solder between each electrode of the plurality of electrodes and each electrode pad of the plurality of electrode pads.
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).
Furthermore, Kim et al. teaches a display assembly comprising a solder 75, 76 between each electrode 15, 16 of the plurality of electrodes 15, 16 and each electrode pad 65, 66 of the plurality of electrode pads 65, 66 (Fig. 4: 15, 16, 65, 66, 75, 76, paragraph 0061).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the teachings of Chung et al. and Kim et al., in order to have a solder between each electrode of the plurality of electrodes and each electrode pad of the plurality of electrode pads. Doing so would provide reliable electrical connection between the electrodes and electrode pads rendered by the low-resistance conductive path formed by the solder.
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 plurality of 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 plurality of electrodes 55 of the plurality of 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, a solder between each electrode of the plurality of electrodes and each electrode pad of the plurality of electrode pads.
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).
Furthermore, Kim et al. teaches a display assembly comprising a solder 75, 76 between each electrode 15, 16 of the plurality of electrodes 15, 16 and each electrode pad 65, 66 of the plurality of electrode pads 65, 66 (Fig. 4: 15, 16, 65, 66, 75, 76, paragraph 0061).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the teachings of Chung et al. and Kim et al., in order to have a solder between each electrode of the plurality of electrodes and each electrode pad of the plurality of electrode pads. Doing so would provide reliable electrical connection between the electrodes and electrode pads rendered by the low-resistance conductive path formed by the solder.
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), in view of Kim et al. (US 20190165230 A1), as applied to Claim 2 above, further 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).
The combination of Chung et al. and Kim 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 plurality of 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 particles C1 are 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), in view of Kim et al. (US 20190165230 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, further 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 11, 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), in view of Kim et al. (US 20190165230 A1), as applied to Claim 12 above, further 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 plurality of 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 particles C1 are 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), in view of Kim et al. (US 20190165230 A1), as applied to Claim 11 above, further 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), in view of Kim et al. (US 20190165230 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, further 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), in view of Kim et al. (US 20190165230 A1), as applied to Claim 11 above, further 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
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 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 04/04/2026
/Kretelia Graham/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817 April 9, 2026
Prosecution Insights