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 .
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.
Claim(s)1-3,9 & 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tischler (US Pub no. 2014/0231854 A1) in view of Lim (US Pub no. 2011/0204399 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tischler et al discloses an electronic device, comprising: a substrate(165) [0041], wherein the substrate (165)further defines a plurality of transmittances, and at least one of the transmittances is greater than 20% [0041]; a trace layer (160)arranged on the substrate(165) [0039], wherein the trace layer(160) comprises a plurality of connection pads[0039] fig.1a; and a plurality of electronic components(130) arranged on the substrate(165) [0040], wherein each of the electronic components(130) includes at least one electrode (180 or 185)arranged on a face
thereof facing towards the substrate(165), and the at least one electrode (180 or 185)of each of the electronic components(130) is eutectic bonded to one of the connection pads(160) [0039].
Tischler et al teaches the substrate transmittance is greater than 20%[0041] but fails to teach under the condition of a wavelength of light being between 500 nm and 1300 nm; and the substrate thickness less than or equal to 100 µm. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to achieve the condition of a wavelength of light being between 500 nm and 1300 nm through routine experimentation to optimize supporting one or more wavelengths emitted by the light emitting elements. 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)
However, Lim et al discloses a light emitting device having a substrate thickness [0020] but fails to teach less than or equal to 100 µm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to achieve a thickness less than or equal to 100 µm through routine experimentation. 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). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Tischler et al with the teachings of Lim et al to optimize light being refracted.
Regarding claim 2, Tischler et al discloses wherein the substrate is a resilient substrate[0041].
Regarding claim 3, Tischler et al discloses wherein the transmittance is greater than 30% under the condition of the wavelength of light[0041] being greater than 550 nm. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to achieve the condition of a wavelength of light being greater than 550 nm through routine experimentation to optimize supporting one or more wavelengths emitted by the light emitting elements. 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)
Regarding claim 9, Tischler et al discloses wherein the electronic components(130) are self- illuminous components[0037].
Regarding claim 10, Tischler et al in view of Lim et al discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1 but fails to teach wherein the thickness of the substrate is less than or equal to 50 µm. However, Lim et al discloses a substrate thickness but fails to teach less than or equal to 50 µm. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to achieve a thickness less than or equal to 50 µm through routine experimentation to optimize light output. 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).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tischler (US Pub no. 2014/0231854 A1) in view of Lim (US Pub no. 2011/0204399 A1) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Hashimoto (US Pub no. 2019/0074414 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Tischler et al as modified by Lim et al discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1 but fails to teach wherein a thickness of tin material of fewer than
10 microns is defined for where between the substrate and between at least one of
the electronic components.
However, Hashimoto et al discloses wherein a thickness of tin material (20)of fewer than 10 microns [0058][0062]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Tischler et al and Lim et al with the teachings of Hashimoto et al to provide a low temperature metal to bond the light emitting element to the substrate.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tischler (US Pub no. 2014/0231854 A1) in view of Lim (US Pub no. 2011/0204399 A1) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Yanagawa (US Pub no. 2020/0402867 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Tischler et al as modified by Lim et al discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1 and further teaches wherein a face of the substrate arranged with the electronic components is defined as an upper surface, another face of the substrate
away from the electronic components is defined as a lower surface but fails to teach a gap less than 20 µm is defined between the upper surface of the substrate and the face of one of the electronic components facing the substrate.
Yanagawa et al discloses a gap distance (d) is defined between the upper surface of the substrate (2)and the face of one of the electronic components (11)facing the substrate [0089] fig 15 but fails to teach less than 20 µm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to achieve a gap less than 20 µm through routine experimentation to optimize gap control. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Tischler et al and Lim et al with the teachings of Yanagawa et al to provide improved flatness.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tischler (US Pub no. 2014/0231854 A1) in view of Lim (US Pub no. 2011/0204399 A1) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Brodoceanu (US Pub no. 2020/0395521 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Tischler et al as modified by Lim et al discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1 and Tischler et al further teaches wherein the electrode(180) and the connection pad (160)are eutectic bonded [0039] but fails to teach by laser bonding.
However, in a similar endeavor, Brodoceanu et al discloses bonding by laser [0057]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Tischler et al & Lim et al with the teachings of Brodoceanu et al in order to electrically couple the electrical contacts of the LEDs to the backplane's electrical contacts.
Regarding claim 7, Tischler et al as modified by Lim et al discloses wherein a face of the substrate(165) arranged with the electronic components(130) is defined as an upper surface, another face of the substrate(165) away from the electronic components(130) is defined as a lower surface(Tischler et al fig. 1a [0039-0040] ) but fails to teach the laser bonding is to provide a laser in a direction from the lower surface of the substrate to the upper surface of the substrate.
However, Brodoceanu et al. laser bonding is to provide a laser in a direction from the lower surface of the substrate (target substrate)to the upper surface of the substrate. [0057]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Tischler et al & Lim et al with the teachings of Brodoceanu et al in order to electrically couple the electrical contacts of the LEDs to the backplane's electrical contacts.
Regarding claim 8, Brodoceanu et al wherein the laser bonding is provided to irradiate where the at least one electrode(electrical contacts) of one of the electronic components (LEDs)and the corresponding connection pad (electronic components of target substrate)approach to or contact with each other[0057].
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tischler (US Pub no. 2014/0231854 A1) in view of Lim (US Pub no. 2011/0204399 A1) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Hussell (US pub no. 2015/0062915 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Tischler et al as modified by Lim et al discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1 but fails to teach wherein one of the connection pads and the
electrode of the corresponding electronic component define an area ratio, and the
area ratio is greater than or equal to 1 and less than or equal to 6.
However, Hussell et al discloses light emitter devices attached to the substrate wherein one of the connection pads(108) and the electrode (106)of the corresponding electronic component (104)define an area ratio[0039] but fails to teach area ratio is greater than or equal to 1 and less than or equal to 6. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the invention to achieve area ratio is greater than or equal to 1 and less than or equal to 6 through routine experimentation. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Tischler et al and Lim et al with the teachings of Hussell et al to optimize light output.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
Tischler expressly describes multiple alternative substrate optical characteristics, stating that the substrate may be optically transparent, translucent, or opaque, and giving an example that the substrate may exhibit a transmittance or reflectivity greater than 65% for optical wavelengths between approximately 400 nm and approximately 700 nm. This passage provides multiple possibilities and does not teach a single required substrate characteristic for the device of Tischler.
Tischler is concerned with illumination and viewing-related
performance and does not identify the wavelength condition recited in claim 1 of the present application, nor does Tischler provide a reasoned basis that the claimed wavelength condition is a result-effective variable for the structures and objectives of Tischler.
Moreover, the present application explains that the substrate transmittance under the claimed wavelength condition recited in claim 1 of the present application is utilized to allow a laser beam to pass through the substrate to achieve the bonding process, and that eutectic bonding is used so that pad and electrode areas can be minimized and bonding yield improved. The electronic device of the present application uses light in a specified wavelength range to eutectic ally bond the electrodes of the electronic components to the connection pads on the
substrate, and therefore the substrate necessarily must be transmissive to light in that specified wavelength range. By contrast, Tischler discloses various possible substrate characteristics and various electrical interconnection techniques, but does not establish any necessary linkage between a particular substrate optical characteristic and a particular electrical interconnection technique. Tischler does not teach or suggest this claimed combination or the stated technical rationale. Accordingly, Tischler cannot provide the teaching or suggestion required for claim 1.
Lim cannot properly be compared to, or used as a basis for meeting, the substrate of the electronic device recited in the claims of the present application.
With regards to (a): Examiner notes a prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). The prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Because Tischler explicitly discloses the transparent substrate as a viable embodiment, it is a teaching that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select the configuration to meet the claimed requirements.
With regards to (b): Examiner notes that the claims are directed to a device structure, not a method of manufacture. The presence or absence of a laser bonding process is not a limitation required by the claims. Because the claimed invention is a device , the applicant’s specific intended use of the device structure for laser bonding does not distinguish the device structure from the prior art. Furthermore, Tischler teaches approximately 400 nm and approximately 700 nm which overlaps the claimed range of 500 nm and 1300 nm. 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.
With regards to (c): Examiner notes that Tischler et al provides a linkage between the transparent substrate and eutectic bonding. Tischler discloses In some embodiments contacts 180, 185 of LEE 130 may be electrically coupled and/or attached to conductive traces 160 or 190 using a solder process, eutectic solder process, wave solder process, or a solder reflow process. As shown in fig. 1A, the conductive traces are formed on substrate 165. Lim et al is relied upon to teach the substrate thickness. Therefore the rejection is maintained.
With regards to (d): Lim et al discloses a light emitting structure (60)mounted to a substrate(70)[0019-0020]. Lim et al is only relied upon to teach the requirements of the substrate thickness. Tischler et al also discloses mounting a light emitting element (130)on a substate(165)( fig. 1a) . Both prior art are of the same field of endeavor. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LATANYA N CRAWFORD EASON whose telephone number is (571)270-3208. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM-4:30 PM.
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, Steven B Gauthier can be reached at (571)270-0373. 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.
/LATANYA N CRAWFORD EASON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights