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
Claims 9, 10, 18 and 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 7/21/26.
Applicant's election with traverse of species B7 in the reply filed on 7/21/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious burden in examining claims 9-10 and 18-19. This is not found persuasive because the applicant has not provided evidence that claims 9-10 and 18-19 would not be a “serious burden”. The applicant has only provided an argument. MPEP 716.01(c) II discloses “[a]rguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965) and In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984)”. Therefore the applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
37 CFR 1.105 Requirement for Information
Applicant and the assignee of this application are required under 37 CFR 1.105 to provide the following information that the examiner has determined is reasonably necessary to the examination of this application.
In response to this requirement, please provide the title, citation and copy of each publication that any of the inventors relied upon to develop the disclosed subject matter that describes the invention, particularly as to developing the layout of the display. For each publication, please provide a concise explanation of the reliance placed on that publication in the development of the disclosed subject matter.
In response to this requirement, please provide the title, citation and copy of each publication that any of the applicants relied upon to draft the claimed subject matter. For each publication, please provide a concise explanation of the reliance placed on that publication in distinguishing the claimed subject matter from the prior art.
The applicant is reminded that the reply to this requirement must be made with candor and good faith under 37 CFR 1.56. Where the applicant does not have or cannot readily obtain an item of required information, a statement that the item is unknown or cannot be readily obtained may be accepted as a complete reply to the requirement for that item.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the first openings are smaller than the second openings in diameter must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 disclose “at least the openings do not overlap the light-emitting devices”.
This limitation contradicts claim 1 limitation “wherein openings are formed on the first film layer, and at least part of the openings overlap the respective light-emitting devices”.
MPEP 2173.06 II discloses “where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In reSteele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.” Therefore, prior will not be applied to the claims.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 discloses “the second openings do not overlap the light-emitting devices.”
Claim 17 disclose “the second opening overlaps the light-emitting device in a direction parallel to the display panel.”
The claim 17 limitation contradicts claim 4 limitation “the second openings do not overlap the light-emitting devices.”
MPEP 2173.06 II discloses “where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In reSteele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.” Therefore, prior will not be applied to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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(s) 1, 4-6, 8, 11, 14, 16 and 20-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Hwang et al. (US 2024/0322097).
Regarding claim 1, Hwang et al. disclose an array layer (130)(fig 13D); one or more light-emitting devices[0057, 0058 0065-0067- describes fig. 3 which shows a plural devices pads and fig 1 is a cross section for fig 3, and fig 2. Fig. 2 is the transfer substrate transferring LEDs] (figs. 1-3 and 13D, 131-134), arranged on the array layer; a first film layer (140), at least partially arranged on the one or more light-emitting devices; and a first electrode (135), arranged on the first film layer, wherein openings are formed on the first film layer [0089, by patterning the insulating layer 140, the n-type semiconductor layer 134 of the micro-semiconductor chip 130 and the second pad 125 may be exposed] , and at least part of the openings overlap the respective light-emitting devices (figs. 1 and 13D).
Regarding claim 4, Hwang et al. disclose the openings are divided into first openings (above LED 131-134) and second openings (above electrode 125, and redundant electrode bottom portion of 122)(fig 13C), the first openings overlap with the respective light-emitting devices, and the second openings do not overlap the light-emitting devices.
Regarding claim 5, Hwang et al. disclose the first openings are different from the second openings in depth (fig 13C).
Regarding claim 6, Hwang et al. disclose the first openings are smaller than the second openings in depth (fig 13C).
Regarding claim 8, Hwang et al. disclose at least one of the second openings correspond to a redundant electrode (above bottom portion of 122)(fig 13C).
Regarding claim 11, Hwang et al. disclose at least one of the second openings (above redundant electrode 125)(fig 13C)corresponds to a jumper electrode (top portion of 122), for exposing the jumper electrode, and the jumper electrode and a redundant electrode are arranged on a same layer and made of same material.
Regarding claim 14, Hwang et al. disclose the at least one of the second openings corresponds to a redundant electrode (125), and the redundant electrode doubles as a substitute electrode for at least two of the light-emitting devices configured to emit light in different colors. ( MPEP 2131 disclosses “[t]he elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990).”)
Regarding claim 16, Hwang et al. disclose
Regarding claim 20, Hwang et al. disclose the light-emitting devices are vertically micro light-emitting diodes (figs. 1 and 13D).
Regarding claim 21, Hwang et al. disclose the display panel (display device) according to claim 1 (abstract)[0115, fig. 19, 9110].
Regarding claim 22, Hwang et al. disclose providing an array layer (130)(fig 13D); arranging one or more light-emitting devices[0057, 0058 0065-0067- describes fig. 3 which shows a plural devices pads and fig 1 is a cross section for fig 3, and fig 2. Fig. 2 is the transfer substrate transferring LEDs] (figs. 1-3 and 13D, 131-134), arranged on the array layer; arranging a first film layer (140) on the light-emitting devices; forming openings [0089, by patterning the insulating layer 140, the n-type semiconductor layer 134 of the micro-semiconductor chip 130 and the second pad 125 may be exposed]on the first film layer, wherein at least part of the openings overlap the respective light-emitting devices; and arranging a first electrode (135) on the first film layer(figs. 1 and 13D).
Regarding claim 23, Hwang et al. disclose the openings are divided into first openings (above LED 131-134) and second openings (above electrode 125, and redundant electrode bottom portion of 122)(fig 13C), the first openings overlap with the respective light-emitting devices, and the second openings do not overlap the light-emitting devices wherein the forming the openings on the first film layer comprises: forming the first openings and at least part of the second openings simultaneously[0089, by patterning the insulating layer 140, the n-type semiconductor layer 134 of the micro-semiconductor chip 130 and the second pad 125 may be exposed].
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 2024/0322097) as applied to claim 1 above in view of Yamano (US2024/0297196).
Hwang et al. disclose the invention supra.
Hwang et al. fails to explicitly disclose at least the part of the openings vary in size, shape, or depth.
Yamano disclose openings vary in depth [0052, 0056].
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (varying the depth of the opening), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (the opening sizes would change and would allow one to control how to fit openings in the limited space on substrate).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 2024/0322097) as applied to claim 5 above in view of Yamano (US2024/0297196).
Hwang et al. disclose the invention supra.
Hwang et al. fails to explicitly disclose the first openings are smaller than the second openings in diameter.
Yamano disclose the first openings are smaller than the second openings in diameter. [0052, 0056].
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (the first openings are smaller than the second openings in diameter), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (the diameters opening sizes would change and would allow one to control how to fit openings in the limited space on substrate).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 2024/0322097) as applied to claim 4 above in view of Yamano (US2024/0297196).
Hwang et al. disclose the invention supra and at least two of the second openings correspond to respective redundant electrodes (122,125)
Hwang et al. fails to explicitly disclose at least two of the openings vary in size, shape, or depth.
Yamano disclose openings vary in size (diameter) [0052, 0056].
The combination of Hwang et al. and Yamano would form at least two of the second openings
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (varying the size of the opening), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (the opening sizes would change and would allow one to control how to fit openings in the limited space on substrate).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 2024/0322097) as applied to claim 4 above in view of Cao (US 2020/0279896).
Hwang et al. disclose the invention supra.
Hwang et al. fails to explicitly disclose at least one of the second openings is provided with a step-shaped side wall.
Cao disclose a stepped shaped side wall.
The combination of Hwang et al. and Cao would produce stepped sidewall in the second opening.
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (forming stepped sidewall), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (the stepped sidewall would be formed in the second opening).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 2024/0322097) as applied to claim 4 above.
Hwang et al. disclose the invention supra.
Hwang et al. as applied to claim 4 fails to disclose at least one of the second openings is arranged between two of the light-emitting devices.
Hwang, Figures 7-10, another embodiment, disclose at least one of the second openings is arranged between two of the light-emitting devices (130)[0072-0073].
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (forming an opening between LEDs), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (the combination would form an opening between LEDs).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 2024/0322097) as applied to claim 4 above in view of Cao (US 2020/0279896).
Hwang et al. disclose the invention supra.
Hwang et al. fails to explicitly disclose the forming of the openings on the first film layer further comprises: forming at least one of the openings by two processes.
Cao discloses forming at least one of the openings by two processes [0098] (a stacked structure formed by the first pixel defining material layer 210a, the second pixel defining material layer 220a, and the third pixel defining material layer 230a is exposed and developed.)
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (using two process to form opening), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (the two process to form opening).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is 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 BRADLEY K SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-1884. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10am-6pm.
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.
/BRADLEY SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
