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 Amendment
The amendment filed by the Applicant on 2/27/26 is acknowledged.
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 before the effective filing date.
Claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN 215342646 U) in view of Wang (CN 113903729 A)
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches a display panel:
PNG
media_image1.png
252
328
media_image1.png
Greyscale
comprising: a first electrode 12 or 13 (as is well known in the art) disposed on the substrate; a partition layer 11 disposed on the first electrode and including an opening exposing at least a portion of the first electrode; a micro light-emitting element (Title) electrically connected to the first electrode; and a reflector (outer surface of 11) disposed on the first electrode 12 and covering at least a portion of a side surface of the micro light-emitting element- wherein a height of the micro light-emitting element is in the range of about 5 um to about 7 um (the size of the Micro-LED chip is micro-nano size, specifically is 1 micron to 100 microns), and a length of the portion the reflector and the micro light-emitting element contact each other does not exceed the height of the micro light-emitting element (positioning of the inner surface of 11 with respect to the micro-LED ).
Although Liu teaches a display panel, it does not explicitly teach a pixel-defining layer and a substrate.
Wang teaches a substrate 10 and a packaging layer 12 that is considered as a pixel defining layer since Wang discloses: the packaging layer has light shielding performance, capable of preventing light emitted by micro-LED emitting to the adjacent micro-LED corresponding to the colour resistance, so as to prevent the adjacent sub-pixel between the colour, improves the display effect. Wang also teaches: and a length of the portion the reflector (reflecting layer 13) and the micro light-emitting element 11 contact each other does not exceed the height of the micro light-emitting element.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use the pixel defining layer, as disclosed in Wang, in the device of Liu, in order to prevent crosstalk between pixels of the display device.
Regarding claim 3, Liu in view of Wang teaches a display panel, wherein the reflector 11 is disposed directly on a top surface of the first electrode 12.
Regarding claim 4, Liu in view of Wang teaches a display panel, the reflector comprises a first metal (see in Wang: The reflecting layer 13 may be made of aluminum, silver, copper and the like).
Regarding claim 5, Liu in view of Wang teaches a display panel, wherein the first metal is silver (Ag), aluminum (AI), a compound of silver, or a compound of aluminum (see in Wang: The reflecting layer 13 may be made of aluminum, silver, copper and the like).
Claims 6-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN 215342646 U) in view of Wang (CN 113903729 A) and further in view of Ueda (US 20230083513)
Regarding claim 6, Liu in view of Wang teaches the invention set forth in claim 1, but is silent regarding the reflector comprises a conductive oxide. However, Kim teaches:
The transparent conductive layer forming the first pixel electrode 114, the first gate electrode 214, and the capacitor upper electrode 314 may be indium tin oxide (ITO) or indium zinc oxide (IZO). At least one selected from the group consisting of zinc oxide (ZnO), indium oxide (In2O3), indium gallium oxide (IGO), and aluminum zink oxide (AZO). It may include.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use the material, as disclosed in Kim, in the device of Liu in view of Wang, in order to achieve conductivity leads connecting the adjacent LEDs.
Regarding claim 7, Liu in view of Wang and Kim teaches the reflector comprises at least two layers (116a and 116b in Fig.5 of Kim) including a first layer including the first metal (see in Kim: For example, the lower layer portion 116a 'of the light reflection portion 116' may be made of molybdenum) but does not teach the second layer including a conductive oxide (however, Kim already teaches: the pixel electrode made of a transparent conductive material such as a conductive oxide; and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use a conductive oxide, in order to achieve a transmissive conductive portion for the reflective element).
Regarding claim 10, Liu in view of Wang and Kim teaches the display device, wherein the first electrode comprises a second metal different from the first metal (see in Kim: the first pixel electrode 114 made of a transparent conductive material and the light reflection portion 116 include aluminum (Al), platinum (Pt), palladium (Pd), silver (Ag)).
Claims 2, 12-13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Wang and further in view of Abe (US 20170245342 A1, cited previously)
Regarding claim 2, Liu in view of Wang teaches the reflector has a first reflectivity, but does not teach the first electrode has a second reflectivity lower than the first reflectivity.
However, it is well known to use reflectance for the first/lower pixel electrode as well, wherein Abe teaches a first electrode 31R that is reflective ([0052] and last 3 lines of [0113]), and also a second reflective layer 43 (Fig.10, [0068]) that covers a part of the light emitting element as shown below:
PNG
media_image2.png
307
517
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use varied reflectivity, such that the first electrode has a second reflectivity lower than the first reflectivity, by routine experimentation, based on the desired design and orientation of light, wherein the lower/higher reflectively of the first electrode varies the amount of light in the upward direction/sideward direction (see last 2 lines of [0064]; also see [0068]: This allows for the highly efficient light reflection by the reflector 43, making it possible to maintain or enhance the display intensity).
Regarding claim 12, Liu in view of Wang teaches the display panel, further comprising: an insulating layer 12 (in Wang) disposed on the reflector (13) and a portion of the pixel-defining layer (15 in Kim) but does not teach: a black matrix disposed on the pixel-defining layer.
Abe teaches a display device wherein a black matrix BM (Fig.5 or 10) disposed on the pixel-defining layer (41, [0059]) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use a black matrix, from the teachings of Abe, in the device of Liu in view of Wang, in order to improve contrast ([0059] in Abe).
Regarding claim 13, Liu in view of Wang and Abe teaches the display panel, wherein the insulating layer (18,42 in Abe) is disposed between the micro light-emitting element (from the teachings of light emitting layer 30 in Abe) and the black matrix (BM in Abe).
Regarding claim 16, Liu in view of Wang and Abe teaches the display panel, wherein the second electrode 33 ([0062] in Abe) is disposed between the pixel-defining layer (41 in Abe) and the black matrix BM (Fig.5 in Abe).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Wang and further in view of Li (CN 110429096 A)
Regarding claim 14, Liu in view of Wang and Abe teaches the invention set forth in claim 1 above, but is silent regarding a second electrode disposed on the insulating layer.
Li teaches a micro-LED wherein upper electrode 400 (Fig.1) covers the insulating layer (320, pixel defining layer) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use the upper electrode, throughout by covering the pixel defining layer, as disclosed in Li, in the device of Liu in view of Wang, in order to achieve easy manufacturing steps.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Wang and further in view of Akagawa (JP 2007165214 A, cited previously)
Regarding claim 8, Liu in view of Wang teaches a partial length of the reflector and the side surface of the micro light-emitting element contact /cover each other in a cross- sectional view
as shown below:
PNG
media_image3.png
340
347
media_image3.png
Greyscale
but does not teach is in a range of about 0.1 to about 5 micrometers.
However, the length of the reflector that surrounds the light emitting element is a matter of design. Akagawa teaches a full length of the reflector 25 that surrounds the side of the light emitting element as shown below:
PNG
media_image4.png
340
412
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to choose a length of the reflector that is in a range of about 0.1 to about 5 micrometers, based on other factors, such as the height of the micro LED and the amount of desired reflection and the orientation of light, by routine experimentation, in order to achieve the desired light and light orientation from the reflectance of the reflector.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Wang and further in view of Jeong (US 20220209088 A1, cited previously)
Regarding claim 9, Liu in view of Wang teaches the invention set forth in claim 1, but is silent regarding the first electrode and the micro light-emitting element are electrically (- - connected - -) to each other by eutectic bonding.
However, it is well known to use eutectic bonding to bond various elements of a light emitting device. Jeong teaches: The adhesive layer may adhere the Zener diode ZD to the first electrode frame EF1, and mays include a conductive paste or a eutectic metal OR For example, the thermal conductive bonding layer 410 may include a eutectic alloy and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use eutectic bonding method between the light emitting element and electrode, from the teachings of Jeong, in the device of Liu in view of Wang in order to achieve good thermal and electrical conductivity.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Wang and further in view of Park (US 20220093652 A1, cited previously)
Regarding claim 11, Liu in view of Wang teaches the invention set forth in claim 1, but is silent regarding the second metal is copper (Cu), tin (Sn), gold (Au), a compound of copper, a compound of tin, or a compound of gold.
Use of more than one material for the pixel electrode is a well-known technique. Park teaches:
[0288] The pixel electrodes ELT may contain at least one conductive material. For example, the pixel electrodes ELT may include at least one metal of various metal materials including silver (Ag), magnesium (Mg), aluminum (A1), platinum (Pt), palladium (Pd), gold (Au), nickel (Ni), neodymium (Nd), iridium (Ir), chromium (Cr), titanium (Ti), molybdenum (Mo), and copper (Cu), or an alloy including the same.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use the materials for the electrode, as disclosed in Park, in the device of Liu in view of Wang, in order to optimize conductivity and transparency as desired by the design.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Wang and Abe and further in view of Yotsuya (JP H11344602 A, cited previously)
Regarding claim 15, Liu in view of Wang and Abe teaches the invention set forth in claim 14, but is silent regarding the second electrode is disposed on the black matrix.
Configuration of the second electrode disposed on the black matrix is a well -known technique in the art. Yotsuya teaches this feature in Figure 7 as shown below, wherein 102B is the black matrix and 105B is the top electrode (see in Yotsuya: <7B> Next, a transparent conductive film (transparent electrode film) 105B to be used as a common electrode is 2B (black matrix 102 on substrate 100B)):
PNG
media_image5.png
258
298
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use the configuration, as disclosed in Yotsuya, in the device of Liu in view of Wang, in order to achieve easy manufacturing steps.
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed by the Applicant on 2/27/26 is acknowledged, however it is moot in light of new grounds of rejection for the amended claims.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fatima Farokhrooz whose telephone number is (571)-272-6043. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday, 9 am - 5 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, James Greece can be reached on (571) 272-3711.
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.
/Fatima N Farokhrooz/
Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights