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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment dated 08/04/2026, in which claims 1, 3 were amended, claims 5, 9-16 were withdrawn, has been entered.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to foreign application KR10-2023-0013297 filed on 01/31/2023. The foreign application is not in English. The certified copy of the foreign priority application KR10-2023-0013297 has been received.
Filing Dates for the Claims — All Claims Not Entitled to Priority Date
It appears the English translation of the non-English language foreign application KR10-2023-0013297 filed 08/04/2026 was submitted as amendments. In addition, the English translation of the non-English language foreign application KR10-2023-0013297 filed 08/04/2026 was not accompanied with a statement that the translation is accurate.
To be entitled to the filing date of the foreign priority application KR10-2023-0013297 that is not in English, an English translation of the non-English language foreign application KR10-2023-0013297 and a statement that the translation is accurate in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55 is required to perfect the claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The foreign application must adequately support the claimed subject matter, meaning satisfy the written description and enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a). See MPEP §§ 215 and 216. 37 C.F.R. 1.55(g)(3)(ii)-(iii). To demonstrate compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(a), applicant should point to support for their claimed subject matter in their translations.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki et al. (US Pub. 20210327865) in view Iguchi (US Pub. 20210358897)
Regarding claim 1, Yamazaki et al. discloses in Fig. 1, Fig. 2A-2C, paragraph [0057]-[0098] a display device comprising:
a first substrate [150B] including a thin-film transistor [120a or 120b][Fig. 2B];
a second substrate [150A] including a light-emitting element [110a or 110b] and a plurality of wiring electrodes [112 and 116] electrically connected to the light-emitting element [Fig. 1, Fig. 2A]; and
a bonding pad [117] disposed between the first substrate [150B] and the second substrate [150A], wherein the bonding pad [117] bonds the first substrate [150B] and the second substrate [150A] to each other and electrically connects the thin-film transistor [120a or 120b] of the first substrate [150B] and the light-emitting element [110a or 110b] of the second substrate [150A] to each other.
Yamazaki et al. fails to disclose
wherein the second substrate further includes a redundant light-emitting element configured to emit light of the same color as the light-emitting element, and
wherein the redundant light-emitting element and the light-emitting element are electrically connected via the plurality of wiring electrodes.
Iguchi discloses in Fig. 2, Fig. 3, Fig. 11A, Fig. 11C, paragraph [0143], [0145]-[0161]
wherein the second substrate further includes a redundant light-emitting element [a blue light emitting element 13] configured to emit light of the same color [blue] as the light-emitting element [another blue light emitting element 13 in the same column], and
wherein the redundant light-emitting element [a blue light emitting element 13] and the light-emitting element [another blue light emitting element 13 in the same column] are electrically connected via the plurality of wiring electrodes [41].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Iguchi into the method of Yamazaki et al. to include wherein the second substrate further includes a redundant light-emitting element configured to emit light of the same color as the light-emitting element, and wherein the redundant light-emitting element and the light-emitting element are electrically connected via the plurality of wiring electrodes. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Yamazaki et al. in the above manner for the purpose of improving repair efficiency; providing an LED display chip with high resolution; providing an image-forming element having an excellent color rendering property and high contrast with low defects and high yield [paragraph [0143], [0149], [0151] of Iguchi].
Regarding claim 2, Yamazaki et al. discloses in Fig. 1, Fig. 2B, paragraph [0085] wherein the first substrate [150B] further includes a plurality of reflective electrode [190] patterns overlapping the bonding pad [117][the conductive layers 190 formed of a reflective metal such as aluminum or silver].
Regarding claim 3, Yamazaki et al. discloses in Fig. 1, paragraph [0088] the plurality of wiring electrodes [112 and 116] electrically connected to the light-emitting element [110a or 110b] and bonded to the bonding pad [117].
Regarding claim 17, Yamazaki et al. discloses in Fig. 1, Fig. 7 a tiling display device comprising a plurality of display units.
The combination of Iguchi and Yamazaki et al. discloses each of the display units comprising the display device of claim 1.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki et al. (US Pub. 20210327865) in view Iguchi (US Pub. 20210358897) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Meng et al. (US Pub. 20240313173)
Regarding claim 4, Yamazaki et al. discloses in Fig. 1
wherein the second substrate further includes:
a self-assembly substrate [101].
Yamazaki et al. fails to disclose
wherein the second substrate further includes:
a black bank disposed on the self-assembly substrate;
a planarization layer disposed on the black bank;
an assembly groove in the planarization layer, wherein the light-emitting element is disposed in the assembly groove; and
a pair of assembly electrodes disposed between the black bank and the planarization layer, wherein the pair of assembly electrodes are respectively disposed on both opposing sides of the assembly groove positioned therebetween.
Meng et al. discloses in Fig. 2, paragraph [0087]-[0090]
wherein the second substrate further includes:
a self-assembly substrate [40];
a black bank [32][The light adjustment layer 32 may be a black film layer] disposed on the self-assembly substrate [40];
a planarization layer [21] disposed on the black bank [32];
an assembly groove in the planarization layer [21], wherein the light-emitting element [50] is disposed in the assembly groove; and
a pair of assembly electrodes [33] disposed between the black bank [32] and the planarization layer [21], wherein the pair of assembly electrodes [33] are respectively disposed on both opposing sides of the assembly groove positioned therebetween.
PNG
media_image1.png
432
724
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Meng et al. into the method of Yamazaki et al. to include wherein the second substrate further includes: a black bank disposed on the self-assembly substrate; a planarization layer disposed on the black bank; an assembly groove in the planarization layer, wherein the light-emitting element is disposed in the assembly groove; and a pair of assembly electrodes disposed between the black bank and the planarization layer, wherein the pair of assembly electrodes are respectively disposed on both opposing sides of the assembly groove positioned therebetween. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Yamazaki et al. in the above manner for the purpose of effectively reducing a reflective index of environmental light incident to the display baseplate, enhancing bonding between the first and second substrates, preventing occurrence of light crosstalk between the light emitters [paragraph [0087], [0090], [0113] of Meng et al.].
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki et al. (US Pub. 20210327865) in view Iguchi (US Pub. 20210358897) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Lin et al. (US Pub. 20170323873).
Regarding claims 6-7, Yamazaki et al. discloses in Fig. 1, Fig. 2A, paragraph [0060], [0063]
wherein the light-emitting element [110a or 110b] includes:
a nitride semiconductor structure including a first semiconductor layer [113], an active layer [114], and a second semiconductor layer [115];
a first electrode [112]; and
a second electrode [116];
wherein the first electrode [112] is in contact with the first semiconductor layer [113], and wherein the second electrode [116] is in contact with the second semiconductor layer [115].
Yamazaki et al. fails to disclose
wherein the nitride semiconductor structure has a trench therein extending through the second semiconductor layer and the active layer so as to expose a portion of a surface of the first semiconductor layer at one side of the nitride semiconductor structure;
wherein the first electrode is in the trench.
Lin et al. discloses in Fig. 7A, Fig. 14A, paragraph [0059]-[0060], [0070]
wherein the nitride semiconductor structure has a trench [128e] therein extending through the second semiconductor layer [122e] and the active layer [124e] so as to expose a portion of a surface of the first semiconductor layer [126e] at one side of the nitride semiconductor structure;
wherein the first electrode [144e] is in the trench [128e].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Lin et al. into the method of Yamazaki et al. to include wherein the nitride semiconductor structure has a trench therein extending through the second semiconductor layer and the active layer so as to expose a portion of a surface of the first semiconductor layer at one side of the nitride semiconductor structure; wherein the first electrode is in the trench. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Yamazaki et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable alternative configuration of the light-emitting element.
Regarding claim 8, Yamazaki et al. discloses in Fig. 1, paragraph [0093]
wherein the bonding pad [117] includes silver paste or an anisotropic conductive film containing a plurality of conductive particles therein [silver paste], wherein in a plan view of the display device, the bonding pad [117] has an area larger than an area of the first electrode [112] or the second electrode [116].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4, 6-8, 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Overall, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The claims stand rejected and the Action is made FINAL.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOPHIA T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1686. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am -5:00 pm, 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, BRITT D HANLEY can be reached at (571)270-3042. 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.
/SOPHIA T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights