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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Specie A (Claims 1-4) in the reply filed on 12/17/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamada et al (WO 2021/005902).
With respect to Claim 1, Yamada et al discloses a display device (Figure 10 and Abstract) comprising: a substrate (Figure 10, 102); a first electrode (Figure 10, 108a) and a second electrode (Figure 10, 108b) on the substrate (Figure 10, 102); and an LED chip (Figure 10, 110) disposed on the first electrode (Figure 10, 108a) and the second electrode (Figure 10, 108b) and having an n-side pad electrode (Figure 10, 114a, conductive member which is made of same materials as Applicants pad electrode, page 4, lines 1-25, page 7, lines 1-10 and page 9, last 30 lines) and a p-side pad electrode (Figure 10, 114b, conductive member which is made of same materials as Applicants pad electrode, page 4, lines 1-25, page 7, lines 1-10 and page 9, last 30 lines), wherein: the n-side pad electrode has a first protruding portion (Figure 10, 114a, narrower bottom portion), the first protruding portion protruding toward the substrate and in contact with the first electrode (Figure 10, 108a), and the p-side pad electrode has a second protruding portion (Figure 10, 114b, narrower bottom portion), the second protruding portion protruding toward the substrate and in contact with the second electrode (Figure 10, 108b. See Figure 10 and corresponding text, especially page 4, lines 1-25, page 7, lines 1-10, page 9, last 30 lines.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al (WO 2021/005902).
Yamada et al is relied upon as discussed above. Moreover, Yamada et al discloses wherein the substrate (Figure 11, 102) and the LED chip (Figure 11, 138) are bonded by a sealant (Figure 11, 138) while maintaining an electrical connection. See Figure 11 and corresponding text, especially the last 30 lines of page 9.
However, Yamada et al does not explicitly disclose the height of the protruding portions as a percentage of the pad electrode heights (Claims 2-3); and wherein the substrate and the LED chip are bonded by a resin while maintaining an electrical connection.
With respect to Claims 2-3, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to arrive at the claimed height requirements, as changes in shape are prima obvious. See In re Dailey, 357 F 2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Moreover, the use of a thicker passivation layer (Figure 10, 122) would result in a protruding portion of greater height. Changes in size are prima in the absence of unobvious results. See In re Gardner v. TEC Syst. Inc. 220 USPQ 777.
With respect to Claim 2, and the limitation “wherein a height of the first protruding portion is 25% or more of a height of the n-side pad electrode, and a height of the second protruding portion is 25% or more of a height of the p-side electrode”, as changes in shape are prima obvious. See In re Dailey, 357 F 2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Moreover, the use of a thicker passivation layer (Figure 10, 122) would result in a protruding portion of greater height. Changes in size are prima in the absence of unobvious results. See In re Gardner v. TEC Syst. Inc. 220 USPQ 777.
With respect to Claim 3, and the limitation “wherein a contact area between the first protruding portion and the first electrode is 50% or less of an entire area of the n-side pad in a plan view, and a contact area between the second protruding portion and the second electrode is 50% or less of an entire area of the p-side pad electrode in a plan view”, as changes in shape are prima obvious. See In re Dailey, 357 F 2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Moreover, the use of a thicker passivation layer (Figure 10, 122) would result in a protruding portion of greater height. Changes in size are prima in the absence of unobvious results. See In re Gardner v. TEC Syst. Inc. 220 USPQ 777.
With respect to Claim 4, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to use a resin as the sealant of Yamada et al, as the use of resins as sealants is well known in the art. The Examiner takes Official Notice that the use of resins as sealants is well known in the art. The use of a known material for its known purpose would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER G GHYKA whose telephone number is (571)272-1669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-6.
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, Christine Kim can be reached at 571 272-8458. 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.
AGG
February 13, 2026
/ALEXANDER G GHYKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812