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 with traverse of Species B in the reply filed on 6/5/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious burden on the examiner because prior art on the elected species may be relevant to the non-elected species. This is not found persuasive because similarity of some prior art between species is not the measure of a serious search and/or examination burden. Rather, a serious search and/or examination burden exists at least because the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species require a different field of search such as searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources or employing different search strategies or search queries. The fact that some subset of prior art references found when searching the elected species may also be relevant to other unelected species does not compromise the fact that a complete search of multiple species would pose a search burden. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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(s) 1-12 is/are 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the light-emitting unit” is unclear as to how it is related to the previously recited plurality of light-emitting units.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “the plurality of light- emitting elements comprise a plurality of light-emitting diode packages, a plurality of light- emitting diode chips, or a combination thereof,” is unclear as to how the plurality of light-emitting diode packages and/or the plurality of light- emitting diode chips are related to the “a light-emitting unit” recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “the first thin-film transistor array is electrically connected to the plurality of light-emitting elements through a plurality of contact pads and a via disposed in the first substrate” is unclear as to how the contact pads and via are related to the contact pad and via hole of claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “wherein in a cross sectional view of the electronic device, a maximum width of the first thin-film transistor array is less than or equal to a distance between the at least two of the plurality of light-emitting elements,” is unclear as to how it is related to the elected embodiment. Specifically, applicant asserts that claim 11 reads on the elected species of Fig. 6, however the related disclosure of the specification is in relation to unelected species of Fig. 11 and is associated with the fact that the light emitting elements and the thin-film transistor array are on the same side of the first substrate. Accordingly, it is unclear what is required by “maximum width” and as to scope of the limitation if applied to the elected embodiment.
Note the dependent claims necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huitema et al. (US 20190096864; herein “Huitema”) in view of Bower et al. (US 20180033853; herein “Bower”).
Regarding claim 1, Huitema discloses in Figs. 1-2, 41-49J and related text an electronic device, comprising:
a first substrate (110);
a plurality of light-emitting elements (102, see [0081]) disposed on the first substrate, comprising:
a light-emitting unit;
a second substrate (substrate of 200, e.g. 220 and/or 840 and/or 850, see Figs. 41-47); and
a first thin-film transistor array (array of a first 200, see [0092]-[0093]; note that SOI transistors are well understood as thin film transistors in in the art due to the channel being a thin film, i.e. the silicon layer on the insulator layer, rather than a bulk substrate) disposed on the second substrate for driving at least a portion of the plurality of light-emitting elements (see [0092]).
Huitema does not disclose
a contact pad;
an intermediate substrate disposed on the contact pad; and
the light-emitting unit disposed on the intermediate substrate;
wherein the light-emitting unit is electrically connected to the contact pad through a via hole that penetrates the intermediate substrate.
In the same field of endeavor, Bower teaches in Fig. 1D, 12F and related text light-emitting elements comprising
a contact pad (e.g. 22, see [0075]);
an intermediate substrate (36) disposed on the contact pad; and
the light-emitting unit (34, see [0078]) disposed on the intermediate substrate;
wherein the light-emitting unit is electrically connected to the contact pad through a via hole via hole (filled with 24/28, see [0101] and [0103]) of that penetrates the intermediate substrate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Huitema by having the light emitting elements comprise a contact pad, an intermediate substrate disposed on the contact pad, and a light-emitting unit disposed on the intermediate substrate and is electrically connected to the contact pad through a via hole that penetrates the intermediate substrate, as taught by Bower, in order to provide a light emitting element having simplified structures that are easier to make with fewer steps at a lower cost (see Bower [0009] at least).
Regarding claim 2, Huitema further discloses wherein an area of the second substrate (of 200) is smaller than an area of the first substrate (110).
Regarding claim 3, the combined device shows wherein the plurality of light- emitting elements comprise a plurality of light-emitting diode packages, a plurality of light- emitting diode chips, or a combination thereof (Bower: see Fig. 12F).
Regarding claim 4, Huitema further discloses wherein the plurality of light- emitting elements are arranged in an array (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Huitema further discloses a second thin-film transistor array (of a second 200), wherein the second thin-film transistor array is disposed on a third substrate, and the first thin-film transistor array and the second thin-film transistor array are used to drive different portions of the plurality of light-emitting elements (see [0083]).
Regarding claim 6, Huitema further discloses wherein a total area of the second substrate (of first 200) and the third substrate (of second 200) is smaller than an area of the first substrate (of 110) (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Huitema further discloses wherein the first thin-film transistor array and the second thin-film transistor array are electrically connected (e.g. electrically connected at least due to being in the same display device).
Regarding claim 8, Huitema further discloses wherein the plurality of light-emitting elements (102) and the second substrate (of the first 200) are disposed on different sides of the first substrate (110).
Regarding claim 9, Huitema further discloses wherein a material of the second substrate is different from a material of the first substrate (see [0135], [0135], [0106]).
Regarding claim 10, the combined device shows wherein the first thin-film transistor array is electrically connected to the plurality of light-emitting elements through a plurality of contact pads and a via disposed in the first substrate (Bower: see Figs. 1D, 12F).
Regarding claim 11, Huitema further discloses wherein in a cross sectional view of the electronic device, a maximum width of the first thin-film transistor array is less than or equal to a distance between the at least two of the plurality of light-emitting elements (e.g. width of 200 is less than distance between left most 102 and rightmost 102).
Regarding claim 12, Huitema further discloses wherein a material of the second substrate (220/840/850) comprises glass or polyimide (PI) (see [0135] and [0136]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lauren R Bell whose telephone number is (571)272-7199. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, William Kraig can be reached at (571) 272-8660. 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.
/LAUREN R BELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights