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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claims Status
Claims 1-9 and 12-26 are currently pending. Claims 9 and 12 have been amended. Claims 10-11 have been canceled.
Claim Objections
The claim objections of the last action are withdrawn. Claims 7, 15, 20 and 22 have been amended to overcome the objections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The 35 U.S.C. 112(a), first paragraph of Claims 15-16 of the last action is withdrawn. The applicant’s explanation of the drawings in conjunction with the instant specification is persuasive.
The rejection of Claims 6, 12-16 and 24-26 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), second paragraph is withdrawn. Claims 6, 12 and 14-15 have been amended to overcome the rejection.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 7-9, 14, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2016/0209460 A1-of record) in view of JIN et al (US 2013/0241562 A1-of record, hereafter Jin).
Re claim 1, Lee discloses in FIG. 1 a method to activate a microdevice, the method comprising:
having the microdevice (OLED EL; [0051]) in a substrate (110; [0052]);
having at least one electrode (233; [0053]) of the microdevice (OLED EL) biased by a second electrode (unseen driving line; [0053]) or a probe;
having the at least one electrode (233) a part of biasing circuits (driving circuit; [0005] and [0053]) in the substrate (110).
Lee fails to disclose a method to activate the microdevice (OLED EL) with an electron beam; having an electron beam source; and activating the microdevice (OLED EL) to operate by passing the electron beam through a pad to the microdevice (OLED EL) and to the at least one electrode (233).
However,
Jin discloses in FIGS. 2-6 a method to activate a microdevice with an electron beam, the method comprising: having an electron beam source (29; [0045]); and activating (biasing by irradiating; [0084]-[0085]) a microdevice (pixel circuit; [0063]) to operate (driving transistor M1 for leakage current detection; [0085]) by passing an electron beam (301; [0084]-[0085]) through a pad (300; [0084]) to the microdevice (pixel circuit) and to an at least one electrode (drain electrode of driving transistor M1; [0083]-[0084]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Lee by adding the electron beam source; and the activating the microdevice to operate by passing the electron beam through a pad to the microdevice and to the at least one electrode, enhancing the testing capabilities of the microdevice beyond the test pads of Lee, to the pixel circuits to determine if the transistor(s) of the pixel circuit are abnormally operated, or a wire is disconnected or short-circuited, where a predetermined driving current may not be applied to the organic light emitting diode. Accordingly, it is advantageous to check the normal operation of the transistors, e.g., driving transistors, included in the pixel circuits, e.g., to repair defects or to not progress to completion of forming the organic light emitting diode display when it is determined that the defects cannot be repaired in terms of manufacturing time and cost (Jin; [0097]).
Re claim 2, Lee and Jin disclose the method of claim 1, wherein biasing circuits are a simple electrode or pixel circuits (Lee and Jin) with complex functions representing control of the duty cycle (implied turning on/off of pixel circuit transistors during operation) and signal strength (Lee: [0017] and Jin: [0097]), as part of the microdevice testing discussed for claim 1.
Re claim 7, Lee and Jin disclose the method of claim 1, wherein a protective layer (Lee: 115; [0054]) covers surfaces on the substrate (110), part of the pad (Lee: 241; [0053])/Jin: 300) and microdevice (OLED EL) surface (sidewalls), as part of the microdevice testing discussed for claim 1.
Re claim 8, Lee discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the protective layer (115) is a dielectric (insulating) or a conductive layer redirecting the excess charge.
Re claim 9, Lee and Jin disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the electron beam source (Jin: 29 of 610; [0088]) has a structure (600; [0088]) with substrate (620; [0088]) with a circuit layer (630; [0088]), which controls a voltage or a current (of the electron beam; [0049] and [0051]) going through a tip (end of 610), as part of the microdevice testing discussed for claim 1.
Re claim 14, Lee and Jin disclose the method of claim 9, wherein the electron beam source structure (Jin: 29 in FIG. 3 or 610 in FIG. 6) is aligned (corresponding) to the microdevice (Lee: OLED EL/Jin: pixel circuit) and a distance (separation) between microdevices (Lee: OLED EL/Jin: pixel circuit) is set so that a spot size (point of incidence of the electron beam of Jin: 301) does not affect (non-interactive with; [0048]) adjacent microdevices (Lee: OLED EL/Jin: pixel circuit) or other components (of the OLED EL and/or pixel circuit), as part of the microdevice testing discussed for claim 1.
Re claims 17-18, Lee and Jin disclose the method of claim 9, wherein the electron beam source substrate (Jin: 620) has more than one tip (each end of 610); and wherein the tips (each end of 610) that are in an alignment range (for simultaneous irradiating activation; [0088]) of the microdevice (pixel circuit) will provide electrons (of 301) to the microdevice (pixel circuit) and activate (biasing by irradiating) the microdevice (pixel circuit), as part of the microdevice testing discussed for claim 1.
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Jin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gold (US 2022/0134467 A1-of record).
Re claim 3, Lee and Jin disclose the method of claim 1.
But, fail to disclose wherein a magnetic or an electric field is used to redirect the electron beam (Jin: 301) to different microdevices (Lee: OLED EL/Jin: pixel circuit).
However,
Gold discloses in FIG. 1 an electron beam operation method comprising: wherein a magnetic or an electric field ([0049]) is used to redirect ([0049]) an electron beam (151; [0049]) to different locations (altered path of travel; [0049]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Lee and Jin by using the magnetic or the electric field of Gold to redirect the electron beam to different microdevices for activation systems with limited 2-D in-plane movement capability.
Re claim 4, Lee and Jin disclose the method of claim 3.
But, fail to disclose wherein a distance of the electron beam source (Jin: 29) is further away making a spot size of the electron beam (301) larger.
However, these limitations would be obvious since the unfocused electron beam (301) would diverge more farther away (i.e. at a larger distance) from its source, making a spot size (incidence) of the electron beam (301) larger.
Re claim 5, Lee and Jin disclose the method of claim 4.
But, fail to disclose wherein a power of the electron beam is modified to compensate a change in a current density.
However, Gold would render these limitations obvious by disclosing a modulated power supply ([0052]), wherein a power of the electron beam can be modified to compensate a change in a current density (at point of incidence), as part of the electron beam redirection discussed for claim 3.
Re claim 6, Lee and Jin disclose the method of claim 1.
But, fail to disclose, wherein a magnetic or an electric field is used to direct the beam to a distance such that the current density stays within a threshold value followed by movement of the electron beam source to a new position.
However, Gold would render these limitations obvious by disclosing the magnetic or the electric field is used to direct the beam to different positions (see claim 3), and modulation of the power supply to change the current density (see claim 5), such that the beam can be directed to a distance such that the current density stays within a threshold value followed by movement of the electron beam source to a new position, as part of the electron beam redirection and current density change(s) discussed for claims 3 and 5, respectively.
Claims 12-13, 15-16 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Jin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shaw et al (US 2003/0132714 A1-of record, hereafter Shaw).
Re claims 12-13, Lee and Jin disclose the method of claim 9.
But, fail to disclose wherein a gate layer surrounds the tip (Jin: end of 610), wherein the tip is made of nano-materials including nanowire and carbon nanotube or other materials comprising tungsten, metal or a conductive material, and a dielectric forms a hollow chamber for the tip (end of 610) where the gate layer is formed on top of dielectric pillars; and wherein the gate layer is biased through a circuit layer in the electron beam source structure (Jin: 600).
However,
Shaw discloses in FIG. 4 (with references to FIGS. 1 and 4c) an electron beam source structure (400) comprising: wherein a gate layer (8; [0046]) surrounds a tip (3 as in FIG. 1; [0018] and [0048]), which is made of nano-materials including nanowire and carbon nanotube or other materials comprising tungsten, metal or a conductive material (conductive layer; [0018]), and a dielectric (6 as in FIG. 4c; [0051]) forms a hollow chamber for the tip (3) where the gate layer (8) is formed on top of dielectric pillars (left/right 6); and wherein the gate layer (8) is biased through a circuit layer (12/14; [0048]) in the electron beam source structure (400).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electron beam source structure of the method of Lee and Jin by using a gate layer surrounding the tip, which is made of a conductive material, and a dielectric forming a hollow chamber for the tip where the gate layer is formed on top of dielectric pillars; and wherein the gate layer is biased through a circuit layer in the electron beam source structure, as disclosed by Shaw, to produce an electron beam source structure that regulates the energy level emissions of the electron beam (Shaw; Abstract and [0002]).
Re claim 15, Lee and Jin and Shaw disclose the method of claim 13, wherein the tip (Shaw: 3) is biased and a microdevice contact (Shaw: 18; [0046]) within the electron beam source structure (Shaw: 400) is also biased (by voltage 24; [0046]) to allow the electron beam (Shaw: transmitted electrons 22; [0046]-[0047]) to stream from the tip (Shaw: 3) towards the microdevice (Lee: OLED EL/Jin: pixel circuit) such that a current (Shaw: electron emission; [0047]-[0048]) is controlled by the gate layer (Shaw: 8) or the biasing of the tip (3) or additional microdevices (Lee: OLED EL/Jin: pixel circuit), as would be part of the regulating the energy level emissions of the electron beam discussed for claims 12-13.
Re claim 16, Lee and Jin and Shaw disclose the method of claim 15.
But, fail to explicitly disclose wherein the electron beam source substrate has tips only for a lesser number of microdevices on the system substrate resulting in a lesser number of microdevices being on and reducing an interference.
However, these limitations would be rendered obvious since Jin and Shaw each electron beam source structures with one (1) or more tips, where Jin further discloses more devices than tips (FIG. 3 or FIG. 6), such that the electron beam source substrate would have tips only for a lesser number of microdevices on the system substrate resulting in a lesser number of microdevices being on and reducing an interference, as part of the microdevice testing discussed for claim 1, and as would be part of the regulating the energy level emissions of the electron beam discussed for claims 12-13.
Re claims 19-20, Lee and Jin and Shaw disclose the method of claim 18.
But, fail to explicitly disclose wherein each tip in a set of tips provides a smaller amount of current that is smaller than a test current to the microdevice; and wherein a lifetime of the tips is extended with a few smaller tips per microdevice due to lower current stress and redundancy effect.
However, these limitations would be rendered obvious since Jin and Shaw each electron beam source structures with one (1) or more tips, where Shaw discloses modulating power and emission current of the tips (FIG. 6; [0030]-[0033] and [0062]-[0063]), wherein each tip in a set of tips can provide a smaller amount of current (by modulating power and emission current) that is smaller (below vacuum level; [0046]) than a test current (greater than vacuum level; [0046]) to the microdevice (of Lee/Jin); and wherein a lifetime of the tips can be extended with a few smaller tips per microdevice (see claim 16) due to lower current stress (i.e. operating the electron beam source structure at a level just above vacuum level) and redundancy effect (i.e. multiple tips operating at levels just above and below vacuum level), as part of the microdevice testing discussed for claim 1, and as would be part of the regulating the energy level emissions of the electron beam discussed for claims 12-13.
Re claim 21, Lee and Jin disclose the method of claim 1.
But, fail to explicitly disclose wherein a protection electrode covers critical areas of
the substrate and is biased to collect excess electron beams.
However, Shaw discloses in the embodiment of FIG. 7 a protection electrode (46; [0064]) biased (by potential 48; [0064]) to collect (retard; [0064]) excess electron beams (low energy electrons; [0064]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electron beam source structure of the method of Lee and Jin by using the protection electrode of Shaw, to cover critical areas of the substrate and is biased to collect excess electron beams, as an additional means of regulating the gate current can be used to regulate the total emission current (Shaw; [0064]).
Re claims 25-26, Lee and Jin and Shaw disclose the method of claim 13.
But, do not explicitly disclose wherein there is at least one tip associated with each microdevice on the substrate; and wherein the gate or tip or microdevice bias is controlled so that the spot size is small and only a few microdevices turns on at the time, reducing the interference.
However, Shaw discloses (Abstract) regulating the emission current from a single field emitter (tip), from groups (sets) of emitters (tips) within a large array (many tips arranged in a pattern), or from each cell (subset of tips) within an array (tips arranged in a pattern); and controlling gate and tip bias (see claims 13, 16 and 19-20), in conjunction with beam emission apertures of varying widths and geometries ([0025]; [0027] and [0053]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the electron beam source structure of Shaw wherein there is at least one tip associated with each microdevice on the substrate; and wherein the gate or tip or microdevice bias is controlled so that the spot size is small and only a few microdevices turns on at the time, reducing the interference, in conjunction with the microdevice testing discussed for claim 1, and for the regulating of the energy level emissions of the electron beam discussed for claims 12-13.
Claims 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Jin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of LEE et al (US 2021/0159378 A1-of record, hereafter Lee 378).
Re claim 22, Lee and Jin disclose the method of claim 1.
But, fail to disclose wherein an electrode coupling the biasing circuit (Lee: driving circuit) to the microdevice (Lee: OLED EL/Jin: pixel circuit) is extended outside the microdevice to protect a part of the substrate and the circuitry (of the driving circuit).
However,
Lee 378 discloses in FIG. 4 a microdevice comprising: an electrode (133a; [0042]) coupling a biasing circuit (of 180/190; [0044]) to a microdevice (LEDs 100; [0044]) is extended outside the microdevice (LEDs 100) to protect (cover) a part of a substrate (143/180; [0046]) and the circuitry (of the biasing circuit of 180/190).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the test method of Lee and Jin by using the LEDs of Lee 378, instead of the OLED Els of Lee, to inspect the microdevices of an alternative type of light-emitting display.
Re claim 23, Lee and Jin disclose the method of claim 1.
But, fail to disclose wherein another electrode is formed to cover a sidewall and a top surface of the microdevice (Lee: OLED EL/Jin: pixel circuit) while it is coupled to the pad (Jin: 300).
However, Lee 378 discloses wherein another electrode (122; [0048]) is formed to cover a sidewall (left/right slanted planes; [0050]) and a top surface (upper plane) of the microdevice (LEDs 100; [0044]) while it is coupled to a pad (124; [0048]), as would part of the inspection of the microdevices of the alternative type of light-emitting display discussed for claim 22.
Re claim 24, Lee and Jin and Lee 378 disclose the method of claim 23, wherein the pad (Lee: 124) and the electrode (122) covering a sidewall (left/right slanted planes of LEDs 100) are the same (e.g. Cu, Au, Sn or Al; [0055] and [0065]) and a dielectric (145; [0037]) separates (FIG. 5; [0051]) the sidewall (left/right slanted planes) from the electrode (122), as would part of the inspection of the microdevices of the alternative type of light-emitting display discussed for claim 22.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reason(s): With respect to the applicant’s arguments that the e-beam irradiation of Jin is for the purposes of testing for defects of transistors in an OLED pixel driving circuit, and not for activating the microdevice to operate by passing the electron beam through a pad to the microdevice and to the at least one electrode, the examiner, respectfully, disagrees since the claimed invention itself involves e-beam irradiation which activates a microdevice to determine if defects are present in microdevices.
In the combination of Lee and Jin, Jin is provided to expand on the test capabilities of Lee by using an electron beam for activating the microdevice to operate by passing the electron beam through a pad to the microdevice and to the at least one electrode. In the case of Jin, the pixel driving circuit(s) of the OLED microdevices are supplied with electrical input(s) consistent with FIGS. 2 and 5, and an electron beam is irradiated (FIG. 5) supplying a current which activates the OLED microdevice to operate (driving transistor M1 for leakage current detection) by passing the electron beam through a pad (300) to the OLED microdevice and to an at least one electrode (drain electrode of transistor M1).
Therefore, the examiner concludes that the electron beam of Jin is, indeed, used for activating the microdevice to operate by passing the electron beam through a pad to the microdevice and to the at least one electrode. Lastly, the First Office Action issued 4/1/2026 by the China National Intellectual Property Administration provided with the applicant’s 5/1/2026 and 6/22/2026 Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) cites Lee and Jin as obvious for achieving the technical solution of claim 1 of the invention (pages 1-2). Thus, the rejection of claim 1 is maintained, and the rejection of its dependents, without rebuttal, are also maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ERIC W JONES whose telephone number is (408) 918-9765. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 AM - 6:00 PM PT.
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, N. Drew Richards can be reached at (571) 272-1736. 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.
/ERIC W JONES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2892
Prosecution Insights