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 asserts on Page 10 that the “first wiring 107 overlaps with, but is structurally and functionally distinct from, the second portion of the second wiring 108b.”
Based on the Examiner’s current understanding of the invention, the Examiner agrees with this assertion based on the evidence in the following paragraphs. The Examiner’s current understanding is that the shape of the elements 107 and 108 of the device of the first embodiment is depicted in Fig. 2, but elements 107 and 108 will not be placed in the same cross-section, but will instead by offset by a spacing in the y-direction of Fig. 2.
Paragraph 39 of the Specification states “the second portion 108b is provided on the substrate front surface 101a to be spaced from the first wiring.” (emphasis added) Paragraph 43 states that “[w]hen a drive signal is supplied to the drive element 102 from the outside through the first wiring 107, the drive element generates a drive signal for each light-emitting element 104, and supplied the generated drive signal to the light-emitting element 104 through the second wiring.”
As seen in Applicant’s Fig. 5, element 108b connects to 108c and 108a to provide electrical connection between the drive element 102 and the light-emitting element 104.
However, if Applicant’s assertion is true, then Fig. 1 is incorrectly described as a “cross-sectional view” (Paragraphs 27 and 30) and Applicant’s Fig. 2 is incorrectly described as an “exploded cross-sectional view” (Paragraph 27 and 30). First wiring 107 and second wiring 108 would not exist in the same cross-section depicted in Fig. 1. As is well-known in the art, a section made by a plane cutting anything transversely. If Fig. 1 were a cross-section, then wirings 107 and 108 would electrically connect and fail to serve their stated functions.
Similarly, Figs. 20 and 21 are also incorrectly described as a “cross-sectional view” and an “exploded cross-sectional view,” respectively.
Furthermore, Applicant’s Fig. 4 also omits wiring 107. If wiring 107 were directly on the substrate 101 and directly connected to drive element 102, then wiring 107 would be apparent on Fig. 4.
Applicant argues on Page 11 that claim 19 differs in scope from claim 20 because the step of the drive element and the light-emitting element are performed in opposite order.
In response to applicant's argument, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the order that the steps are performed) are not recited in the claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
While claims 19 and 20 lay out the steps in a different order, the claims do not require that the steps occur in the order that they are laid out, merely that the method comprises the recited steps.
Therefore, while the Examiner agrees that the steps being required to be performed in a different order would constitute a materially different claim scope, claims 19 and 20 as currently presented do not require the different order that the Applicant’s alleges.
Therefore, the relevant advisory in the Claim Objections section is not withdrawn and is repeated herein.
Applicant’s other arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because as discussed in the Response to Arguments section, above, Fig. 4 omits first wiring 107.
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.
The drawings were received on 12/3/2025. These amendments are acceptable to overcome the objections stated in the previous office action.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: As discussed in the Response to Arguments section, above, Figs. 1, 2, 20 and 21 are incorrectly described as cross-sectional views or exploded cross-sectional views. The Examiner suggests the following changes to accurately describe the Figures:
In Paragraphs 27 and 30, amend to “Fig. 1 is an elevation view with select parts of the insulation layer 103 and 105 removed
In Paragraphs 27 and 30, amend to “Fig. 2 is an exploded
In Paragraphs 27 and 68, amend to “Fig. 20 is an elevation view with select parts of the insulation layer 103 and 105 removed ”
In Paragraphs 27 and 68, amend to “Fig. 21 is an exploded
Appropriate correction is required.
The amendments filed 12/3/2025 are sufficient to overcome the objections to the specification stated in the previous office action. Therefore, said objections are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 19 be found allowable, claim 20 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
While Claims 19 and 20 recite method steps in different order from each other, the claims are comprising claims and the limitations as written do not distinguish distinctly different order that the steps must occur in. Therefore, claims 19 and 20 cover substantially the same scope.
The amendments filed 12/3/2025 are sufficient to overcome the other objections to the claims stated in the previous office action. Therefore, said objections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The amendments filed 12/3/2025 are sufficient to overcome the 112 rejections stated in the previous office action. Therefore, said 112 rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Akimoto (US PGPub 2020/0303471 A1).
As to claim 1, Akimoto discloses (Fig. 1) A light-emitting apparatus, comprising: a substrate 102 that includes a substrate front surface (upper surface of 102) and a substrate back surface (lower side of 102) that is situated opposite to the substrate front surface; a drive element 103 (Paragraph 92, drive transistor 26 corresponds to 103) that is mounted on a first mounting surface (upper surface of 102) on a side of the substrate front surface of the substrate 102; a light-emitting element 150 (Paragraph 41) that is mounted on a second mounting surface (top of 112) on the side of the substrate front surface of the substrate 102, the second mounting surface 112 being situated at a distance, from the substrate front surface, that is different from a distance of the first mounting surface from the substrate front surface, wherein the light-emitting element 150 is vertically aligned with and overlaps with the drive element 103 in a cross-sectional view; and an interlayer insulation layer 112 that is made of an insulating material (Paragraph 49) and formed between the drive element 103 and the light-emitting element 150.
PNG
media_image1.png
438
422
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, Akimoto discloses that when a direction in which light emitted by the light-emitting element is emitted is a light-emitting direction (Paragraph 39, light emitted upward in the positive Z direction), the first mounting surface 102 is situated opposite to an orientation of the light-emitting direction with respect to the second mounting surface 112.
As to claim 3, Akimoto discloses a black matrix 181 (Paragraph 61, light block portion, black matrix) that is arranged on the side of the substrate front surface of the substrate 102 and absorbs incident light, the black matrix including an opening (located at 182) that faces the light- emitting element 150.
As to the recitation that the black matrix absorbs incident light, the Examiner takes Official Notice that black is absorbing of light and therefore, the black matrix of the modified device will absorb incident light.
As to claim 4, Akimoto discloses a protection layer 170 (Paragraph 60) that covers the light-emitting element 150, wherein the black matrix 181 is arranged on the protection layer 170.
As to claim 5, Akimoto discloses that the black matrix 181 is arranged above the second mounting surface 112.
As to claim 6, Akimoto discloses that the second mounting surface 112 is situated farther away from the substrate front surface 102 than the first mounting surface 102.
As to claim 7, Akimoto discloses that the interlayer insulation layer 112 is stacked on the substrate front surface 102, the interlayer insulation layer 112 including a first layer surface (lower surface of 102) and a second layer surface (upper surface of 102), the first layer surface being situated on the side of the substrate front surface 102, the second layer surface being situated opposite to the first layer surface, wherein the first mounting surface is the substrate front surface 102, and wherein the second mounting surface is the second layer surface 112.
EXAMINER’S NOTE: Claims 1, 8 and 9 below are rejected under a different interpretation of the claim language with the orientation upside-down to the orientation of that shown by Akimoto et al. Fig. 1.
As to claim 1, Akimoto discloses (Fig. 1, orientation is upside-down from that depicted by Yamauchi et al.) a light-emitting apparatus, comprising: a substrate 180 that includes a substrate front surface (lower of 180) and a substrate back surface (upper of 180) that is situated opposite to the substrate front surface; a drive element 103 (Paragraph 92, drive transistor 26 corresponds to 103) that is mounted on a first mounting surface 112 on a side of the substrate front surface of the substrate; a light-emitting element 150 that is mounted on a second mounting surface 170 on the side of the substrate front surface of the substrate 180, the second mounting surface 170 being situated at a distance, from the substrate front surface, that is different from a distance of the first mounting surface from the substrate front surface, wherein the light-emitting element 150 is vertically aligned with and overlaps with the drive element 103in a cross-sectional view; and an interlayer insulation layer 112 that is made of an insulating material (Paragraph 49) and formed between the drive element and the light-emitting element.
As to claim 8, Akimoto discloses that the first mounting surface 112 is situated farther away from the substrate front surface 180 than the second mounting surface 170.
As to claim 9, Akimoto discloses a protection layer 170 (Paragraph 60) that is stacked on the substrate front surface 180, wherein the interlayer insulation layer 112 is stacked on the protection layer 170, the interlayer insulation layer 112 including a first layer surface (surface facing 180) and a second layer surface (surface facing 103), the first layer surface being situated on the side of the substrate front surface 180, the second layer surface being situated opposite to the first layer surface, wherein the protection layer 170 includes a third layer surface (surface facing 180) and a fourth layer surface (surface facing 150), the third layer surface being situated on the side of the substrate front surface, the fourth layer surface being situated opposite to the third layer surface, wherein the first mounting surface is the second layer surface 112, and wherein the second mounting surface is the fourth layer surface 170.
EXAMINER’S NOTE: Claims rejected below use the orientation rejected in the first rejection of claim 1, i.e. in the orientation shown by Fig. 1.
As to claim 10, Akimoto discloses a first wiring (Figs. 3 and 4, part of 107 that it outside of T2(103) and connects to Cm and T1) that is provided on the first mounting surface (Fig. 1, 107 disposed on first mounting surface 102) and connected to the drive element 103, and a second wiring 161d, 160k, 161k that connects the drive element 103 and the light-emitting element 150.
As to claim 11, Akimoto discloses that the second wiring 161d, 160k, 161k is provided on the first mounting surface 102, on the second mounting surface 112, and in the interlayer insulation layer 112.
As to claim 15, Akimoto discloses that the second wiring 161d, 160k, 161k is provided in the interlayer insulation layer 112 and is not provided directly on the first mounting surface 102.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6-11, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lin et al. (US PGPub 2022/0093577 A1).
As to claim 1, Lin et al. discloses (Figs. 1 and 2) A light-emitting apparatus, comprising: a substrate 110 that includes a substrate front surface (110a upper surface, as depicted in Fig. 2) and a substrate back surface (110b lower surface) that is situated opposite to the substrate front surface; a drive element 121 that is mounted on a first mounting surface 110a on a side of the substrate front surface of the substrate 110; a light-emitting element 126 that is mounted on a second mounting surface (top of 124) on the side of the substrate front surface of the substrate 110, the second mounting surface 124 being situated at a distance, from the substrate front surface 110a, that is different from a distance of the first mounting surface 110a from the substrate front surface 110a, wherein the light-emitting element 126 is vertically aligned with and overlaps with the drive element 121 in a cross-sectional view (Fig. 2, Paragraph 33); and an interlayer insulation layer 122, 124 that is made of an insulating material (Paragraphs 28 and 30) and formed between the drive element 121 and the light-emitting element 126.
PNG
media_image2.png
460
570
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
386
660
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, Lin et al. discloses (Figs. 2 or 3) that a direction in which light emitted by the light-emitting element is emitted is a light-emitting direction (Paragraph 32, implied light direction is upwards as depicted in Fig. 2, as no wires cover the light-emitting element therefore not affecting light emission efficiency; Paragraph 39, reflective layer 310 of Fig. 3 embodiment would reflect light upward / prevent light downward), the first mounting surface 110a is situated opposite to an orientation of the light-emitting direction with respect to the second mounting surface 124.
As to clam 6, Lin et al. discloses (Fig. 2) that the second mounting surface 124 is situated farther away from the substrate front surface 110a than the first mounting surface 110a.
As to claim 7, Lin et al. discloses (Fig. 2) that the interlayer insulation layer 122, 124 is stacked on the substrate front surface 110a, the interlayer insulation layer 122, 124 including a first layer surface (bottom of 122) and a second layer surface (top of 124), the first layer surface 122 being situated on the side of the substrate front surface, the second layer surface 124 being situated opposite to the first layer surface 122, wherein the first mounting surface 110a is the substrate front surface 110a, and wherein the second mounting surface (top of 124) is the second layer surface (top of 124).
EXAMINER’S NOTE: Claims 1, 8 and 9 below are rejected under a different interpretation of the claim language with the orientation upside-down to the orientation of that shown by Lin et al. Fig. 2.
As to claim 1, Lin et al. discloses (Figs. 1 and 2) A light-emitting apparatus, comprising: a substrate 150 that includes a substrate front surface (bottom of 150, as depicted in Fig. 2) and a substrate back surface (top of 150) that is situated opposite to the substrate front surface; a drive element 121 that is mounted on a first mounting surface (bottom of 122) on a side of the substrate front surface of the substrate; a light-emitting element 126 that is mounted on a second mounting surface (side of 124 that faces 150) on the side of the substrate front surface of the substrate 150, the second mounting surface 122 being situated at a distance, from the substrate front surface 150, that is different from a distance of the first mounting surface 150 from the substrate front surface 150, wherein the light-emitting element 126 is vertically aligned with and overlaps with the drive element 121 in a cross-sectional view (Paragraph 33); and an interlayer insulation layer 122 that is made of an insulating material (Paragraphs 38 and 30) and formed between the drive element 121 and the light-emitting element 126.
As to claim 8, Lin et al. discloses (Fig. 2) that the first mounting surface 122 is situated farther away from the substrate front surface 150 than the second mounting surface 124.
As to claim 9, Lin et al. discloses (Fig. 2) that a protection layer 124 (in the rejection of this claim, 124 is the protection layer and 122 is the interlayer insulation layer) that is stacked on the substrate front surface 150, wherein the interlayer insulation layer 122 is stacked on the protection layer 124, the interlayer insulation layer 122 including a first layer surface (toward 150) and a second layer surface (toward 110), the first layer surface being situated on the side of the substrate front surface 150, the second layer surface being situated opposite to the first layer surface, wherein the protection layer 124 includes a third layer surface (toward 150) and a fourth layer surface (toward 110), the third layer surface being situated on the side of the substrate front surface, the fourth layer surface being situated opposite to the third layer surface, wherein the first mounting surface 122 is the second layer surface 122, and wherein the second mounting surface 124 is the fourth layer surface 124.
EXAMINER’S NOTE: Claims rejected below use the orientation rejected in the first rejection of claim 1, i.e. in the orientation shown by Fig. 2.
As to claim 10, Lin et al. discloses (Fig. 2) that a first wiring 130 that is provided on the first mounting surface 110a (Figs. 1 and 2, Paragraph 34, wiring 130 connects to 121 and is on 122 and therefore on 110a) and connected to the drive element 121, and a second wiring 123, 125 that connects the drive element 121 and the light-emitting element 126 (Paragraphs 29, 31 and 32).
As to claim 11, Lin et al. discloses (Fig. 2) that the second wiring 123, 125 is provided on the first mounting surface 110a, on the second mounting surface 124, and in the interlayer insulation layer 124.
As to claim 15, Lin et al. discloses (Fig. 2) that the second wiring 123, 125 is provided in the interlayer insulation layer 122,124 and is not provided directly on the first mounting surface 110a.
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.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akimoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Moon et al. (US PGPub 2018/0083085 A1).
As to claim 16, Akimoto is silent as to the interlayer insulation layer 112 shielding the drive element 103from light emitted by the light-emitting element 150.
Moon et al. discloses (Figs. 2 and 4) making the corresponding insulation layer (passivation layer 180) being opaque light blocking material in order to improve reliability of the drive element (thin film transistor 135, 154, 173, 175) by shielding the drive element from light emitted by the light-emitting element (Paragraphs 6, 8 and 108-113)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to make insulating layer 112 Akimoto to be opaque in order to shield light emitted from the light-emitting element interfere with the reliability of the drive element, as taught by Moon et al.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akimoto as applied to claim 1 above, or alternatively in further in view of Yamauchi et al. (WO 2020/115837 A1, citations herein refer to the previously attached machine translation 9/4/2025).
As to claim 17, Akimoto discloses (Fig. 1) that the drive element 103 is a thin film transistor (Paragraph 41 recites 103 to be a transistor and as seen in Fig. 1 is made from thin films and therefore a thin film transistor).
Alternatively, should it be found that Akimoto does not sufficiently disclose that the transistor is a thin film transistor, Yamauchi et al. teaches that the drive element 68 is a thin film transistor (Paragraph 80).
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use specifically a thin film transistor as the transistor, since it is taught as a suitable type of transistor by Yamauchi et al. and the selection from among known suitable alternatives for their known purposes is generally within the abilities of one having ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Tohyama et al. (US PGPub 2014/0132891 A1).
As to claim 12, Lin et al. discloses (Fig. 2) that the second wiring 123, 125 is provided in the interlayer insulation layer 122, 124, but Lin et al. is silent as to the second wiring not extending beyond the second mounting surface 124.
Tohyama et al. discloses (Fig. 9) TFT 26 with second wiring 28 being provided in interlayer insulation (21 organic substrate implicitly insulating, as it being conductive would short-circuit wirings 28 with each other and with aluminum 23) without extending beyond the corresponding second mounting surface (top of 21) and the light-emitting element 22 is stacked on the section of the second wiring 28 that is closest to the light-emitting element 22.
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the second wiring not extend beyond the second mounting surface, since it is taught as suitable for connection and the selection from among known suitable alternatives for their known purposes is generally within the abilities of one having ordinary skill in the art.
As to claim 14, Lin et al. discloses a sealing body 150 that seals the light-emitting element 126 (Paragraph 36) is provided on the second mounting surface 124.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. in view of Tohyama et al. as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Akimoto (US PGPub 2020/0303471 A1).
As to claim 13, Lin et al. in view of Tohyama et al. is silent as to Applicant’s claimed black matrix.
Akimoto teaches (Fig. 2A) a black matrix 256 (Paragraph 73) that absorbs incident light and includes an opening, wherein the black matrix 256 is formed adjacent to a peripheral edge the light-emitting element 150a and is arranged on the second mounting surface (top of 112) in order to suppress light scattering to make a sharper image (Paragraph 73). [AltContent: rect]
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a black matrix formed adjacent to a peripheral edge of the light-emitting element and arranged on the second mounting surface in order to suppress light to make a sharper image, as taught by Akimoto.
As to the recitation that the black matrix absorbs incident light, the Examiner takes Official Notice that black is absorbing of light and therefore, the black matrix of the modified device will absorb incident light.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (US PGPub 2017/0069612 A1).
As to claim 18, Lin et al. discloses drive element 121 (Paragraph 26, driver chip), but does not explicitly state that the drive element 121 is an integrated circuit.
Zhang et al. teaches (Fig. 13A) making drive element 1304 from integrated circuit (Paragraph 123).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the drive element be an integrated circuit since it is taught as a suitable drive element by Zhang et al. and the selection from among known suitable drive elements for their known purposes is generally within the abilities of one having ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bower et al. (US PGPub 2018/0084614 A1) in view of Hsu (USPN 7,750,661 B2) and Kim et al. (KR 101890934 B1, citations herein refer to the previously attached machine translation 9/4/2025).
As to claim 19, Bower et al. discloses (Fig. 3A) a method for producing a light-emitting apparatus, the method comprising: mounting a drive element 18 on a first mounting surface on a side of a substrate front surface (top of 12) of a substrate 12 (Paragraph 49, although not drawn in Fig. 3A, Specification discloses drive element 18 may be alternatively disposed on substrate 12), the substrate 12 including the substrate front surface (top of 12) and a substrate back surface (bottom of 12) that is situated opposite to the substrate front surface; connecting the drive element 18 and a first wiring 14 (Paragraph 46) on the side of the substrate front surface 12 of the substrate; mounting a pair of light-emitting elements 30 on a second mounting surface (top of 20) on the side of the substrate front surface of the substrate 12, the second mounting surface 20 being situated at a distance, from the substrate front surface 12, that is different from a distance of the first mounting surface 12 from the substrate front surface 12, wherein each light-element 30 of the pair of light-emitting elements 30 is vertically aligned with and partially overlaps with the drive element 18 in a cross-sectional view; connecting the pair of light-emitting elements 30 and a second wiring 22, 24, 40 on the side of the substrate front surface of the substrate 12 (Paragraph 46).
Bower et al. is silent as to testing the drive element; when an error has occurred in the drive element, repairing the drive element in which the error has occurred.
Hsu teaches (Figs. 6 and 7) testing a drive element 120 (Fig. 7 step S304); when an error has occurred in the drive element, repairing the drive element in which the error has occurred (Step S308, Paragraphs 40, 46, Claim 1 replacing the driver).
PNG
media_image4.png
442
642
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Hsu
PNG
media_image5.png
660
520
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Hsu
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to test the drive element and replace the drive element when an error has occurred in order to repair the defect, as taught by Hsu.
Bower et al. in view of Hsu is silent as to testing a light-emitting element; and when an error has occurred in the light-emitting element, repairing the light- emitting element in which the error has occurred.
Kim et al. teaches (Figs. 1-11, Paragraphs 19-51) testing the light-emitting element 21; and when an error has occurred in the light-emitting element, repairing the light-emitting element (by replacing with light-emitting element 25) in which the error has occurred.
PNG
media_image6.png
224
354
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Kim et al.
PNG
media_image7.png
550
350
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Kim eta l.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to test the light-emitting element and replace the light-emitting element when an error has occurred in order to repair the defect, as taught by Hsu.
It is noted that Kim et al. does not explicitly recite the testing step to determine that an error has occurred. However, the testing is both implicitly disclosed by Kim et al. because Kim et al. replaces known defective light-emitting elements as well as well-known in the art to test to find defective light-emitting elements.
Furthermore, as Hsu includes explicit testing step (Fig. 7, S304) in the process of repairing the driver element, it would be further obvious to include an explicit testing step in the light-emitting repairing step in order to determine defective elements, as taught by Hsu.
It is noted that the claim recites “repairing” the driver and light-emitting device. As seen in Applicant’s Paragraphs 46 and 49, the scope of “repairing” includes replacing with another element.
Therefore, the replacement taught by Hsu and Kim et al. satisfy the claimed “repairing” limitation.
As to claim 20, Bower et al. discloses (Fig. 3A) a method for producing a light-emitting apparatus, the method comprising: mounting a pair of light-emitting elements 30 on a second mounting surface (top of 20) on a side of a substrate front surface (top of 12) of a substrate 12, the substrate 12 including the substrate front surface (top of 12) and a substrate back surface (bottom of 12) that is situated opposite to the substrate front surface; connecting the pair of light-emitting elements 30 and a second wiring 22, 24, 40 on the side of the substrate front surface of the substrate 12 (Paragraph 46); mounting a drive element 18 on a first mounting surface 12 on the side of the substrate front surface (top of 12) of the substrate 12 (Paragraph 49, although not drawn in Fig. 3A, Specification discloses drive element 18 may be alternatively disposed on substrate 12), the first mounting surface 12 being situated at a distance, from the substrate front surface 12, that is different from a distance of the second mounting surface 20 from the substrate front surface 12, wherein each light-element 30 of the pair of light-emitting elements 30 is vertically aligned with and partially overlaps with the drive element 18 in a cross-sectional view; connecting the drive element 18 and a first wiring 14 on the side of the substrate front surface of the substrate 12 (Paragraph 46).
Bower et al. is silent as to testing the drive element; when an error has occurred in the drive element, repairing the drive element in which the error has occurred.
Hsu teaches (Figs. 6 and 7) testing a drive element 120 (Fig. 7 step S304); when an error has occurred in the drive element, repairing the drive element in which the error has occurred (Step S308, Paragraphs 40, 46, Claim 1 replacing the driver).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to test the drive element and replace the drive element when an error has occurred in order to repair the defect, as taught by Hsu.
Bower et al. in view of Hsu is silent as to testing a light-emitting element; and when an error has occurred in the light-emitting element, repairing the light- emitting element in which the error has occurred.
Kim et al. teaches (Figs. 1-11, Paragraphs 19-51) testing the light-emitting element 21; and when an error has occurred in the light-emitting element, repairing the light-emitting element (by replacing with light-emitting element 25) in which the error has occurred.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to test the light-emitting element and replace the light-emitting element when an error has occurred in order to repair the defect, as taught by Hsu.
It is noted that Kim et al. does not explicitly recite the testing step to determine that an error has occurred. However, the testing is both implicitly disclosed by Kim et al. because Kim et al. replaces known defective light-emitting elements as well as well-known in the art to test to find defective light-emitting elements.
Furthermore, as Hsu includes explicit testing step (Fig. 7, S304) in the process of repairing the driver element, it would be further obvious to include an explicit testing step in the light-emitting repairing step in order to determine defective elements, as taught by Hsu.
It is noted that the claim recites “repairing” the driver and light-emitting device. As seen in Applicant’s Paragraphs 46 and 49, the scope of “repairing” includes replacing with another element.
Therefore, the replacement taught by Hsu and Kim et al. satisfy the claimed “repairing” limitation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Li et al. (US PGPub 2022/0344313 A1) discloses (Fig. 10A) a pixel IC driver 1002 for Tri-Color LED 1008.
Bibl et al. (US PGPub 2014/0267683 A1) discloses (Fig. 6C) driver element T2 overlapping light-emitting element 400.
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 STEVEN Y HORIKOSHI whose telephone number is (571)270-7811. The examiner can normally be reached Monday and Tuesday 2-10PM EDT.
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, ABDULMAJEED AZIZ can be reached at 571-270-5046. 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.
/S.Y.H/ Examiner, Art Unit 2875
/ABDULMAJEED AZIZ/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875