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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10, in the reply filed on January 9, 2026 is acknowledged.
Accordingly, claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 9, 2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 26, 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 11, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 12, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 4, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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) 1-3, 5-8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al (US Pub 2020/0343227) in view of Kim et al (US Pub 2017/0013722).
In re claim 1, Jang et al discloses a display module comprising: a substrate (i.e. 1001) partitioned into a plurality of pixel regions (i.e. see at least Figures 2 and 3 and paragraph 0073 disclosing each light emitting device 100 may form one pixel) and including a plurality of electrode pads (i.e. 1003) disposed in the plurality of pixel regions; a bonding member (i.e. 1005) including an adhesive layer (i.e. 1005 – see at least paragraph 0099 disclosing the use of a conductive paste that includes solder particles; it is well known in the art that a conductive paste that includes solder particles can act as an adhesive) stacked on one surface of the substrate and a plurality of conductive balls (i.e. 1005a, 1005b) disposed in the adhesive layer; and a plurality of light emitting diodes (i.e. 100) including electrodes (i.e. 101) connected to the plurality of electrode pads (i.e. 1003) by the plurality of conductive balls (i.e. 1005b).
Jang et al does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of conductive balls are patterned as conductive regions corresponding to the plurality of electrode pads.
However, Kim et al discloses conductive particles (i.e. 360) are arranged in openings (i.e. 341) of a support unit (i.e. 351); an adhesive layer (i.e. 320) is arranged on the support unit (i.e. 351) and the conductive particles (i.e. 360); and the conductive particles (i.e. 360) are arranged only on a conductive pad (i.e. 271) (i.e. see at least Figures 17E, 17F, and 22).
The advantage is to obtain a display device with high definition with less difficulty of aligning the circuit member on a substrate (i.e. paragraph 0007).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the display module as taught by Jang et al with wherein the plurality of conductive balls are patterned as conductive regions corresponding to the plurality of electrode pads as taught by Kim et al in order to obtain a display device with high definition with less difficulty of aligning the circuit member on a substrate.
In re claim 2, Jang et al, as discussed above, does not disclose or suggest wherein a pattern of the plurality of conductive balls is a stripe pattern, the conductive regions are disposed in the plurality of pixel regions adjacent to each other, and the conductive regions are configured to connect, in a straight line, the plurality of electrode pads.
However, Kim et al discloses wherein the openings (i.e. 341) in which the conductive particles (i.e. 360) are arranged are in a stripe pattern (i.e. see at least Figure 4).
The advantage is to obtain a display device with high definition with less difficulty of aligning the circuit member on a substrate (i.e. paragraph 0007).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the display module as taught by Jang et al with wherein a pattern of the plurality of conductive balls is a stripe pattern, the conductive regions are disposed in the plurality of pixel regions adjacent to each other, and the conductive regions are configured to connect, in a straight line, the plurality of electrode pads as taught by Kim et al in order to obtain a display device with high definition with less difficulty of aligning the circuit member on a substrate.
In re claim 3, Jang et al, as discussed above, does not disclose or suggest wherein a pattern of the plurality of conductive balls are disposed in an island pattern in which the conductive regions are independently disposed in the plurality of pixel regions, respectively.
However, Kim et al discloses wherein openings (i.e. 342) in which the conductive particles (i.e. 360) are arranged are disposed in an island pattern (i.e. see at least Figure 5).
The advantage is to obtain a display device with high definition with less difficulty of aligning the circuit member on a substrate (i.e. paragraph 0007).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the display module as taught by Jang et al with wherein a pattern of the plurality of conductive balls are disposed in an island pattern in which the conductive regions are independently disposed in the plurality of pixel regions, respectively as taught by Kim et al in order to obtain a display device with high definition with less difficulty of aligning the circuit member on a substrate.
In re claim 5, Jang et al, as discussed above, does not disclose or suggest wherein the plurality of conductive balls are arranged in at least two layers in a thickness direction of the adhesive layer.
However, Kim et al discloses wherein the conductive particles (i.e. 360) can be arranged into two layers (i.e. see at least Figure 2).
The advantage is to obtain a display device with high definition with less difficulty of aligning the circuit member on a substrate (i.e. paragraph 0007).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the display module as taught by Jang et al with wherein the plurality of conductive balls are arranged in at least two layers in a thickness direction of the adhesive layer as taught by Kim et al in order to obtain a display device with high definition with less difficulty of aligning the circuit member on a substrate.
In re claim 6, Jang et al discloses a bonding member connecting between electrodes (i.e. 101) of a light emitting diode (i.e. 100) and electrode pads (i.e. 1003) of a display substrate (i.e. 1001), the bonding member comprising: an adhesive layer (i.e. 1005); and a plurality of conductive balls (i.e. 1005a, 1005b) disposed in the adhesive layer (i.e. see at least Figures 2 and 3).
Jang et al does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of conductive balls are patterned as conductive regions in a part of an entire region of the bonding member.
However, Kim et al discloses conductive particles (i.e. 360) are arranged in openings (i.e. 341) of a support unit (i.e. 351); an adhesive layer (i.e. 320) is arranged on the support unit (i.e. 351) and the conductive particles (i.e. 360); and the conductive particles (i.e. 360) are arranged only on a conductive pad (i.e. 271) (i.e. see at least Figures 17E, 17F, and 22).
The advantage is to obtain a display device with high definition with less difficulty of aligning the circuit member on a substrate (i.e. paragraph 0007).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the display module as taught by Jang et al with wherein the plurality of conductive balls are patterned as conductive regions corresponding to the plurality of electrode pads as taught by Kim et al in order to obtain a display device with high definition with less difficulty of aligning the circuit member on a substrate.
In re claim 7, Jang et al, as discussed above, does not disclose or suggest wherein a pattern of the plurality of conductive balls are disposed in a stripe pattern in which the conductive regions form a plurality of straight lines.
However, Kim et al discloses wherein the openings (i.e. 341) in which the conductive particles (i.e. 360) are arranged are in a stripe pattern (i.e. see at least Figure 4).
The advantage is to obtain a display device with high definition with less difficulty of aligning the circuit member on a substrate (i.e. paragraph 0007).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the display module as taught by Jang et al with wherein a pattern of the plurality of conductive balls is a stripe pattern, the conductive regions are disposed in the plurality of pixel regions adjacent to each other, and the conductive regions are configured to connect, in a straight line, the plurality of electrode pads as taught by Kim et al in order to obtain a display device with high definition with less difficulty of aligning the circuit member on a substrate.
In re claim 8, Jang et al, as discussed above, does not disclose or suggest wherein a pattern of the plurality of conductive balls is an island pattern in which the conductive regions are spaced apart from each other.
However, Kim et al discloses wherein openings (i.e. 342) in which the conductive particles (i.e. 360) are arranged are disposed in an island pattern (i.e. see at least Figure 5).
The advantage is to obtain a display device with high definition with less difficulty of aligning the circuit member on a substrate (i.e. paragraph 0007).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the display module as taught by Jang et al with wherein a pattern of the plurality of conductive balls are disposed in an island pattern in which the conductive regions are independently disposed in the plurality of pixel regions, respectively as taught by Kim et al in order to obtain a display device with high definition with less difficulty of aligning the circuit member on a substrate.
In re claim 10, Jang et al discloses wherein the adhesive layer has a black-based color (i.e. see at least paragraph 0096).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY HO whose telephone number is (571)270-1432. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM, Monday-Friday.
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, Marlon Fletcher can be reached at 571-272-2063. 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.
/ANTHONY HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817