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 .
Remarks
The 02/09/2026 cancellation of claims 1-20 has been noted and entered.
The 02/09/2026 addition of claims 26-40 has been noted and entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/16/2026, 08/07/2024, 02/19/2024, 01/31/2024 and 11/09/2023 were filed after the mailing date of the application on 10/20/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II and the corresponding claims 21-25 and the new claims 26-40 in the reply filed on 02/09/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 33 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1; claim 1 contains the following limitations in line 2 of the claim: “A method, comprising: depositing a reflection material is deposited at an angle over a backplane,…” (emphasis added). The structure of the sentence is incorrect grammatically.
Regarding claim 33; claim 33 contains the following limitations in line 6 of the claim: “depositing a reflection material a sidewall of the SI structures;…” (emphasis added). The structure of the sentence is incorrect grammatically.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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.
Rejection note: Italicized claim limitations indicate limitations that are not explicitly disclosed in the primary reference, but disclosed in secondary reference(s).
Claims 21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng (US 20200075816 A1) in view of Kim (US 20210126154 A1) in further view of Ebersbach (Substrate rotation in PVD processes and effects on the performance of coated tools, Surface and Coatings Technology, Volumes 74–75, Part 2, October 1995, Pages 654-657, https://doi.org/10.1016/0257-8972(95)08332-4).
Regarding claim 21; Cheng teaches a method (Cheng: Figs (4A)-(4E)), comprising:
depositing a reflection material is deposited at an angle over a backplane (Annotated Fig(4A) shared in this OA: Substrate 401),
the backplane (Substrate 401) having LEDs (Monochromatic LED Array 101a) disposed thereover,
subpixel isolation (SI) structures (Spacer 402) disposed over the LEDs (Monochromatic LED Array 101a) defining wells (Well) of subpixels (Blue; Red; Green),
each well including a respective LED (Monochromatic LED Array 101a) between adjacent SI structures (Spacer 402),
the reflection material is deposited on one sidewall and a top surface of SI structures (Spacer 402);
and rotating the backplane at least 90 degrees and depositing the reflection material at the angle.
PNG
media_image1.png
983
753
media_image1.png
Greyscale
While Cheng teaches a method including subpixel isolation structures (Spacer 402), it fails to disclose depositing a reflection material or the details of its deposition. Thus, Cheng fails to disclose a reflection material is deposited at an angle over a backplane, the reflection material is deposited on one sidewall and a top surface of SI structures.
Kim teaches depositing a reflection material (Kim: Fig(12): 520) at an angle, the reflection material (520) is deposited on one sidewall and a top surface of SI structures (510).
Cheng and Kim are considered analogous art for their construction of display devices. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Cheng by depositing the reflection material as disclosed in Kim to achieve the predictable results of improving the prevention of light crossing from one LED well to the other (Kim: [0101] – [0102]) and improving the light collection and production of the device leading to a better performing device.
PNG
media_image2.png
909
832
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Cheng in view of Kim disclose the construction of a display device containing LEDs in separate well separated by structural insulation walls covered with a reflective layer but it fails to explicitly disclose the deposition of the reflective layer being done at angle nor details of the configuration in which the deposition takes place. Thus, Cheng in view of Kim fails to disclose a reflection material is deposited at an angle over a backplane rotating the backplane at least 90 degrees and depositing the reflection material at the angle. However, Kim discloses that the deposition of the reflective layer (520) could be done by a variety of methods which include physical vapor deposition and chemical vapor deposition (Kim: “[0102] … The forming of the reflective film 520 may include, for example, performing a CVD process, a PVD process, or an ALD process.”).
Additionally, Ebersbach teaches a reflection material is deposited an angle (Ebersbach: Annotated Figs (1a) and (1b) shared in this OA: Angle) of deposition and rotating the backplane (substrate holder) at least 90 degrees (Abstract) and depositing the reflection material at the angle (Angle).
Cheng in view of Kim and Ebersbach are considered analogous art for their pursuit of depositing material layers on substrates. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to incorporate a rotating platform for the substrate as disclosed in Ebersbach to achieve the predictable result of improving the quality of the deposited reflective layer (Abstract) and thus improving the performance of the device.
PNG
media_image3.png
730
729
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 24; Cheng in view of Kim in further view of Ebersbach teach all the limitations of the method of claim 21.
Cheng does not teach the method further comprising: repeating rotating the backplane 90 degrees and the depositing the reflection material twice such that the reflection material is deposited on four sidewalls and the top surface of the SI structures.
Kim teaches that the reflection material (Kim: 520) is deposited on four sidewalls and the top surface of the SI structures (510).
Cheng and Kim are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Cheng by depositing the reflective material on all four sides of the SI structures as disclosed in Kim to achieve the predictable results of improving the prevention of light crossing from one LED well to the other ([0101] – [0102]) and improving the light collection and production of the device leading to a better performing device.
Cheng in view of Kim disclose the reflective layer deposition on the SI structures but fail to disclose the number of times the deposition process and the rotation of the backplane happens. Thus, Cheng in view of Kim fails to disclose the method further comprising: repeating rotating the backplane 90 degrees and the depositing the reflection material twice.
Ebersbach teaches the method further comprising repeating rotating the backplane 90 degrees and the depositing the reflection material twice such that the reflection material is deposited on four sidewalls and the top surface of the SI structures (by inspecting Table (1) and Fig (1) of Ebersbach we notice that the speed of rotation of the “substrate holder” is recorded at 3.5 and 8 rotations per minute. When this is combined with Fig (2) we notice that the coating process has continued for 700 seconds indicating that the deposition of the reflective material and rotation of the “substrate holder” and thus the substrate it holds has achieved 2 full cycles of rotations and depositions.).
Cheng in view of Kim and Ebersbach are considered analogous art for their pursuit of depositing material layers on substrates. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to incorporate a rotating platform for the substrate as disclosed in Ebersbach to improve the quality of the deposited reflective layer (Abstract) by depositing it on all four sides of the SI structure and thus improve the performance of the device.
PNG
media_image4.png
402
563
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
513
566
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng (US 20200075816 A1) in view of Kim (US 20210126154 A1) in further view of Ebersbach (Substrate rotation in PVD processes and effects on the performance of coated tools, Surface and Coatings Technology, Volumes 74–75, Part 2, October 1995, Pages 654-657, https://doi.org/10.1016/0257-8972(95)08332-4) in further view of Choi (US 20230170440 A1).
Regarding claim 22; Cheng in view of Kim in further view of Ebersbach teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 21.
Cheng in view of Kim in further view of Ebersbach does not teach the method further comprising: depositing a first color conversion material in a first well of a first subpixel, a second well of a second subpixel, and a third well of a third subpixel; curing the first color conversion material in the first well; removing the first color conversion material in the second well and the third well; depositing a second color conversion material in the second well of the second subpixel and the third well of the third subpixel; curing the second color conversion material in the second well; removing the second color conversion material in the third well; depositing a third color conversion material in the third well of the third subpixel; and curing the third color conversion material in the third well.
Choi teaches further comprising: depositing a first color conversion material (Choi: Annotated Fig (13) shared in this OA: 251) in a first well of a first subpixel (First Well of First Subpixel) , a second well of a second subpixel (Second Well of Second Subpixel), and a third well of a third subpixel (Third Well of Third Subpixel); curing ([0029]… “curing a portion of the color conversion layer material”) the first color conversion material (251) in the first well (First Well of First Subpixel); removing the first color conversion material (251) in the second well (Annotated Fig (14) of Choi shared in this OA: Second Well of Second Subpixel) and the third well (Third Well of Third Subpixel); depositing a second color conversion material (Annotated Fig (15) of Choi shared in this OA: 253) in the second well of the second subpixel (Second Well of Second Subpixel) and the third well of the third subpixel (Second Well of Second Subpixel); curing ([0029]… “curing a portion of the color conversion layer material”) the second color conversion material (253) in the second well (Second Well of Second Subpixel); removing the second color conversion material in the third well (Annotated Fig (16) of Choi shared in this OA: Third Well of Third Subpixel); depositing a third color conversion material (Annotated Fig (17) of Choi shared in this OA: 255) in the third well of the third subpixel (Third Well of Third Subpixel); and curing ([0029]… “curing a portion of the color conversion layer material”) the third color conversion material (255) in the third well (Third Well of Third Subpixel).
Cheng in view of Kim in further view of Ebersbach and Choi are considered analogous art for their construction of display devices containing LED units and color conversion layers. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Cheng in view of Kim in further view of Ebersbach by constructing the color conversion layers as disclosed in Choi to streamline the process of production of the color conversion layers while improving the performance and efficiency of the device.
PNG
media_image6.png
947
784
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
964
782
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
957
754
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
989
773
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
1042
770
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng (US 20200075816 A1) in view of Kim (US 20210126154 A1) in further view of Ebersbach (Substrate rotation in PVD processes and effects on the performance of coated tools, Surface and Coatings Technology, Volumes 74–75, Part 2, October 1995, Pages 654-657, https://doi.org/10.1016/0257-8972(95)08332-4) in further view of Oh (US 20170040374 A1) in further view of Roy (Microlens array fabrication by enhanced thermal reflow process: Towards efficient collection of fluorescence light from microarrays, Microelectronic Engineering, Volume 86, Issue 11, November 2009, Pages 2255-2261, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mee.2009.04.001).
Regarding claim 25; Chen in view of Kim in further view of Ebersbach teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 21.
Further, Cheng teaches the method (Cheng: Figs (4A)-(4E)) further comprising: disposing an encapsulation layer (Cover layer 403) over SI structures (Spacer 402) and the subpixels (Blue; Green; Red); disposing a light filter layer (Excitation filter structure 202c) disposed over the encapsulation layer (Cover layer 403); disposing a second passivation layer disposed on the light filter layer (Excitation filter structure 202c); disposing a resist on the second passivation layer; patterning the resist to form portions over the subpixels; and performing one of a gray-scale process, a thermal reflow process, or a nanoimprint lithography process to form micro-lenses from the portions of the resist over the subpixels (Blue; Green; Red).
Cheng in view of Kim in further view of Ebersbach does not teach disposing a second passivation layer.
Oh teaches disposing a second passivation layer (Oh: Annotated Fig (2F) shared in this OA: 280).
PNG
media_image11.png
700
967
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Cheng in view of Kim in further view of Ebersbach and Oh are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Cheng in view of Kim in further view of Ebersbach by depositing a passivation layer as disclosed in Oh to improve the protection of the device against external environmental factors that could damage it thus leading to a more reliable device.
Cheng in view of Kim in further view of Ebersbach in further view of Oh does not teach disposing a resist on the second passivation layer; patterning the resist to form portions over the subpixels; and performing one of a gray-scale process, a thermal reflow process, or a nanoimprint lithography process to form micro-lenses from the portions of the resist over the subpixels.
Roy teaches disposing a resist (Roy: Annotated Fig (1) shared in this OA: Photoresist) on the second passivation layer (Substrate); patterning the resist to form portions (Patterned Resist) over the subpixels; and performing one of a gray-scale process, a thermal reflow process (Thermal Treatment; 2. PDMS Microlens Fabrication and Characterization: “In our process, thermal reflow was done for 5 min at 150 °C on a hot plate”), or a nanoimprint lithography process to form micro-lenses (Micro-lenses) from the portions of the resist (Patterned Resist) over the subpixels.
Cheng in view of Kim in further view of Ebersbach and Roy are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Cheng in view of Kim in further view of Ebersbach by using photoresist to construct micro-lenses as disclosed in Roy to improve light collections from the LEDs and thus lead to a better performing display device with higher image definition.
PNG
media_image12.png
872
1061
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Claims 26, 29-31, 33, 36-38 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng (US 20200075816 A1) in view of Kim (US 20210126154 A1) in further view of Oh (US 20170040374 A1) in further view of Liu (A Novel Fabricating Method of Micro Lens-on-Lens Arrays with Two Focal Lengths, Micromachines (Basel), 2021 Nov 8;12(11):1372. doi: 10.3390/mi12111372).
Regarding claim 26; Cheng teaches a method (Cheng: Figs (4A) – (4E)), comprising:
positioning a backplane (Substrate), the backplane having:
a plurality of LEDs (monochromic LED array 101a) disposed thereon;
isolation material (Spacer 402) between each LED (monochromic LED array 101a) of the plurality of LEDs (monochromic LED array 101a); and
subpixel isolation (SI) structures (Spacer 402) disposed over the plurality of LEDs (monochromic LED array 101a);
depositing a reflection material on a sidewall of the SI structures;
disposing one or more of an encapsulation layer (Cover layer 403) and a passivation layer over the SI structures (Spacer 402);
disposing a resist over the one or more of the encapsulation layer (Cover layer 403) and the passivation layer; and
forming a plurality of microlenses from the resist via a nanoimprint lithography process.
Cheng teaches a method to construct a display composed of a plurality of LEDs on a substrate in separate wells but fails to disclose depositing a reflection material and a passivation layer. Thus, Cheng does not teach depositing a reflection material on a sidewall of the SI structures.
Kim teaches depositing a reflection material (Kim: 520) on a sidewall of the SI structures (510).
Cheng and Kim are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Cheng by depositing a reflection material on a sidewall of the SI structures as disclosed in Kim to improve the light collection and production from the LEDs leading to a better performing device.
Cheng in view of Kim teaches a method to construct a display device with wells containing LED elements and isolation structures between the LEDs but it does not disclose a passivation layer deposited on the encapsulation layer. Thus, Cheng in view of Kim does not teach disposing one or more of an encapsulation layer and a passivation layer over the SI structures.
Oh teaches disposing one or more encapsulation layer (Oh: Annotated Fig (2F) shared in this OA: 260) and a passivation layer (280) over the SI (210) structure.
Cheng in view of Kim and Oh are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Cheng in view of Kim by depositing an encapsulation layer and a passivation layer as disclosed in Oh to improve the insulation of the device against external environmental factors leading to a more reliable device.
Cheng in view of Kim in further view of Kim does not teach disposing a resist over the one or more of the encapsulation layer; and forming a plurality of microlenses from the resist via a nanoimprint lithography process.
Liu teaches teach disposing a resist (Liu: Annotated Fig (3) shared in this OA: Photoresist) over the one or more of the encapsulation layer (Silica Glass); and forming a plurality of microlenses (Microlenses) from the resist (Photoresist) via a nanoimprint lithography process (Liu: “MLLAs with high precision can be obtained by introducing soft lithography, nano-imprint technology and mask alignment exposure technology.”).
Cheng in view of Kim in further view of Oh and Liu are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Cheng in view of Kim in further view of Oh by depositing a photoresist and constructing micro-lenses out of it using nanoimprint lithography methods as disclosed n Liu to improve the light collection of the device and thus improving the performance of the display device.
PNG
media_image13.png
817
784
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 29; Cheng in view of Kim in further view of Oh in further view of Liu teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 26.
Further, Cheng teaches wherein the encapsulation layer (Cheng: Cover layer 403) is disposed on the SI structures (Spacers 402).
Regarding claim 30; Cheng in view of Kim in further view of Oh in further view of Liu teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 29
Cheng in view of Kim does not teach further comprising disposing the passivation layer over the encapsulation layer, wherein the resist is disposed on the passivation layer.
Oh teaches further comprising disposing the passivation layer (Oh: Annotated Fig (2F) shared in this OA: 280) over the encapsulation layer (260), wherein the resist is disposed on the passivation layer (280).
Cheng in view of Kim and Oh are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Cheng in view of Kim by depositing a passivation layer on the encapsulation layer as disclosed in Oh to achieve the predictable result of protecting the device from external environmental elements leading to a more reliable device.
Cheng in view of Kim in further view of Oh teaches an encapsulation layer and a passivation layer but fails to disclose a resist on the passivation layer. Thus, Cheng in view of Kim in further view of Oh fails to disclose wherein the resist is disposed on the passivation layer.
Liu teaches wherein the resist (Liu: Fig (3): Photoresist) is disposed on the passivation layer (Silica glass).
Cheng in view of Kim in further view of Oh and Liu are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Cheng in view of Kim in further view of Oh by depositing a resist layer on the passivation layer to improve the light collection ability of the device (Liu: Abstract) which leads to a better performing device.
Regarding claim 31; Cheng in view of Kim in further view of Oh in further view of Liu teach all the limitations of the method of claim 26.
Further, Cheng teaches further comprising depositing a material (Cheng: Annotated Fig (4b): enhanced color conversion structure 102b) in a subpixel well (Second Subpixel Well) defined by a respective first SI structure (Spacer 402), a respective LED of the plurality of LEDs (Monochromic LED array 101a), and a respective second SI structure (Spacer 402).
Regarding claim 33; Cheng teaches a method (Figs (4A) – (4E)), comprising:
positioning a backplane (Substrate), the backplane having:
a plurality of LEDs (monochromic LED array 101a) disposed thereon;
isolation material (Spacer 402) between each LED (monochromic LED array 101a) of the plurality of LEDs (monochromic LED array 101a); and
subpixel isolation (SI) structures (Spacer 402) disposed over the plurality of LEDs (monochromic LED array 101a);
depositing a reflection material on a sidewall of the SI structures;
disposing one or more of an encapsulation layer (Cover layer 403) and a passivation layer over the SI structures (Spacer 402);
disposing a resist over the one or more of the encapsulation layer (Cover layer 403) and the passivation layer; and
forming a plurality of microlenses from the resist via one of a gray-scale process and a thermal reflow process.
Cheng teaches a method to construct a display composed of a plurality of LEDs on a substrate in separate wells but fails to disclose depositing a reflection material and a passivation layer. Thus, Cheng does not teach depositing a reflection material on a sidewall of the SI structures.
Kim teaches depositing a reflection material (Kim: 520) on a sidewall of the SI structures (510).
Cheng and Kim are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Cheng by depositing a reflection material on a sidewall of the SI structures as disclosed in Kim to improve the light collection and production from the LEDs leading to a better performing device.
Cheng in view of Kim teaches a method to construct a display device with wells containing LED elements and isolation structures between the LEDs but it does not disclose a passivation layer deposited on the encapsulation layer. Thus, Cheng in view of Kim does not teach disposing one or more of an encapsulation layer and a passivation layer over the SI structures.
Oh teaches disposing one or more encapsulation layer (Oh: Annotated Fig (2F) shared in this OA: 260) and a passivation layer (280) over the SI (210) structure.
Cheng in view of Kim and Oh are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Cheng in view of Kim by depositing an encapsulation layer and a passivation layer as disclosed in Oh to improve the insulation of the device against external environmental factors leading to a more reliable device.
Cheng in view of Kim in further view of Kim does not teach disposing a resist over the one or more of the encapsulation layer; and forming a plurality of microlenses from the resist via one of a gray-scale process and a thermal reflow process.
Liu teaches teach disposing a resist (Liu: Annotated Fig (3) shared in this OA: Photoresist) over the one or more of the encapsulation layer (Silica Glass); and forming a plurality of microlenses (Microlenses) from the resist (Photoresist) via one of gray-scale process and a thermal reflow process (Liu: “The single layer microlens array with a height of h2 is fabricated using the traditional photoresist reflow method, as shown in Figure 3d.”).
Cheng in view of Kim in further view of Oh and Liu are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Cheng in view of Kim in further view of Oh by depositing a photoresist and constructing micro-lenses out of it using photoresist reflow method as disclosed in Liu to achieve the expected results of improving the light collection of the device and thus improving the performance of the display device.
Regarding claim 36; Cheng in view of Kim in further view of Oh in further view of Liu teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 33.
Further, Cheng teaches wherein the encapsulation layer (Cover layer 403) is disposed on the SI structures (Spacers 402).
Regarding claim 37; Cheng in view of Kim in further view of Oh in further view of Liu teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 36
Cheng in view of Kim does not teach further comprising disposing the passivation layer over the encapsulation layer, wherein the resist is disposed on the passivation layer.
Oh teaches further comprising disposing the passivation layer (Oh: Annotated Fig (2F) shared in this OA: 280) over the encapsulation layer (260), wherein the resist is disposed on the passivation layer (280).
Cheng in view of Kim and Oh are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Cheng in view of Kim by depositing a passivation layer on the encapsulation layer as disclosed in Oh to achieve the predictable result of protecting the device from external environmental elements leading to a more reliable device.
Cheng in view of Kim in further view of Oh teaches an encapsulation layer and a passivation layer but fails to disclose a resist on the passivation layer. Thus, Cheng in view of Kim in further view of Oh fails to disclose wherein the resist is disposed on the passivation layer.
Liu teaches wherein the resist (Liu: Fig (3): Photoresist) is disposed on the passivation layer (Silica glass).
Cheng in view of Kim in further view of Oh and Liu are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Cheng in view of Kim in further view of Oh by depositing a resist layer on the passivation layer to improve the light collection ability of the device (Liu: Abstract) which leads to a better performing device.
Regarding claim 38; Cheng in view of Kim in further view of Oh in further view of Liu teach all the limitations of the method of claim 33.
Further, Cheng teaches further comprising depositing a material (Cheng: Annotated Fig (4b): enhanced color conversion structure 102b) in a subpixel well (Second Subpixel Well) defined by a respective first SI structure (Spacer 402), a respective LED of the plurality of LEDs (Monochromic LED array 101a), and a respective second SI structure (Spacer 402).
Regarding claim 40; Cheng in view of Kim in further view of Oh in further view of Liu teach all the limitations of the method of claim 33.
Cheng teaches further comprising patterning the resist to form portions over a plurality of subpixel (Cheng: Annotated Figs (4A)-(4C): Blue; Green; Red) wells (Well), each subpixel (Blue; Green; Red) well (Well) defined by a respective first SI structure (Spacer 402), a respective LED (Monochromic LED array 101a) of the plurality of LEDs (Monochromic LED array 101a), and a respective second SI structure (Spacer 402), wherein forming the plurality of microlenses from the resist via one of the gray- scale process and the thermal reflow process comprises forming the plurality of microlenses via one of the gray-scale process and the thermal reflow process from the portions of the resist.
Cheng in view of Kim in further view of Oh does not teach patterning the resist to form portions, wherein forming the plurality of microlenses from the resist via one of the gray- scale process and the thermal reflow process comprises forming the plurality of microlenses via one of the gray-scale process and the thermal reflow process from the portions of the resist.
Liu teaches patterning the resist (Liu: Annotated Fig (3) shared in this OA: Photoresist) to form portions (Photoresist Portion), wherein forming the plurality of microlenses (Micro-lenses) from the resist (Photoresist) via one of the gray-scale process and the thermal reflow process (Liu: “The single layer microlens array with a height of h2 is fabricated using the traditional photoresist reflow method, as shown in Figure 3d.”) comprises forming the plurality of microlenses (Micro-lenses) via one of the gray-scale process and the thermal reflow process (Liu: “The single layer microlens array with a height of h2 is fabricated using the traditional photoresist reflow method, as shown in Figure 3d.”) from the portions of the resist (Photoresist Pieces).
Cheng in view of Kim in further view of Oh and Liu are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Cheng in view of Kim in further view of Oh by depositing a photoresist and constructing micro-lenses out of it using photoresist reflow method as disclosed in Liu to achieve the expected results of improving the light collection of the device and thus improving the performance of the display device.
Claims 27-28, and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng (US 20200075816 A1) in view of Kim (US 20210126154 A1) in further view of Oh (US 20170040374 A1) in further view of Liu (A Novel Fabricating Method of Micro Lens-on-Lens Arrays with Two Focal Lengths, Micromachines (Basel), 2021 Nov 8;12(11):1372. doi: 10.3390/mi12111372) in further view of Ebersbach (Substrate rotation in PVD processes and effects on the performance of coated tools, Surface and Coatings Technology, Volumes 74–75, Part 2, October 1995, Pages 654-657, https://doi.org/10.1016/0257-8972(95)08332-4).
Regarding claim 27; Cheng in view of Kim in further view of Oh in further view of Liu teach the method of claim 26.
Cheng does not teach wherein depositing the reflection material on the sidewall of the SI structures comprises depositing the reflection material at an angle.
Kim teaches wherein depositing the reflection material (520) on the sidewall of the SI structures (510) comprises depositing the reflection material (520) at an angle.
Cheng and Kim are considered analogous art for their construction of display devices. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Cheng by depositing the reflection material as disclosed in Kim to achieve the predictable results of improving the prevention of light crossing from one LED well to the other (Kim: [0101] – [0102]) and improving the light collection and production of the device leading to a better performing device
Cheng in view of Kim in further view of Oh in further view of Liu teaches depositing a reflection material but fails to disclose the configuration in which it is deposited. Thus, Cheng in view of Kim in further view of Oh in further view of Liu fails to disclose wherein depositing the reflection material on the sidewall of the SI structures comprises depositing the reflection material at an angle
Ebersbach teaches comprises depositing the reflection material at an angle (Annotated Figs (1a) and (1b): Angle).
Cheng in view of Kim in further view of Oh in further view of Liu and Ebersbach are considered analogous art for their pursuit of depositing material layers on substrates. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Cheng in view of Kim in further view of Oh in further view of Liu by incorporating the deposition angle as disclosed in Ebersbach to achieve the predictable result of improving the quality of the deposited reflective layer (Ebersbach: Abstract) and thus improving the performance of the device.
Regarding claim 28; Cheng in view of Kim in further view of Oh in further view of Liu in further view of Ebersbach teach all the limitations of the method of claim 27.
Cheng in view of Kim in further view of Oh in further view of Liu does not teach further comprising rotating the backplane at least 90 degrees and depositing the reflection material at the angle.
Ebersbach teaches further comprising rotating the backplane (Ebersbach: Annotated Figs (1a) and (1b) shared in this OA: Substrate holder) at least 90 degrees (Abstract) and depositing the reflection material (Abstract) at the angle (Angle).
Cheng in view of Kim in further view of Oh in further view of Liu and Ebersbach are considered analogous art for their pursuit of depositing material layers on substrates. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Cheng in view of Kim in further view of Oh in further view of Liu by incorporating a rotating platform for the substrate as disclosed in Ebersbach to achieve the predictable result of improving the quality of the deposited reflective layer (Ebersbach: Abstract) and thus improving the performance of the device.
Regarding claim 34; Cheng in view of Kim in further view of Oh in further view of Liu teach the method of claim 33.
Cheng does not teach wherein depositing the reflection material on the sidewall of the SI structures comprises depositing the reflection material at an angle.
Kim teaches wherein depositing the reflection material (520) on the sidewall of the SI structures (510) comprises depositing the reflection material (520) at an angle.
Cheng and Kim are considered analogous art for their construction of display devices. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Cheng by depositing the reflection material as disclosed in Kim to achieve the predictable results of improving the prevention of light crossing from one LED well to the other (Kim: [0101] – [0102]) and improving the light collection and production of the device leading to a better performing device
Cheng in view of Kim in further view of Oh in further view of Liu teaches depositing a reflection material but fails to disclose the configuration in which it is deposited. Thus, Cheng in view of Kim in further view of Oh in further view of Liu fails to disclose wherein depositing the reflection material on the sidewall of the SI structures comprises depositing the reflection material at an angle
Ebersbach teaches comprises depositing the reflection material at an angle (Annotated Figs (1a) and (1b): Angle).
Cheng in view of Kim in further view of Oh in further view of Liu and Ebersbach are considered analogous art for their pursuit of depositing material layers on substrates. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Cheng in view of Kim in further view of Oh in further view of Liu by incorporating the deposition angle as disclosed in Ebersbach to achieve the predictable result of improving the quality of the deposited reflective layer (Ebersbach: Abstract) and thus improving the performance of the device.
Regarding claim 35; Cheng in view of Kim in further view of Oh in further view of Liu in further view of Ebersbach teach all the limitations of the method of claim 34.
Cheng in view of Kim in further view of Oh in further view of Liu does not teach further comprising rotating the backplane at least 90 degrees and depositing the reflection material at the angle.
Ebersbach teaches further comprising rotating the backplane (Ebersbach: Annotated Figs (1a) and (1b) shared in this OA: Substrate holder) at least 90 degrees (Abstract) and depositing the reflection material (Abstract) at the angle (Angle).
Cheng in view of Kim in further view of Oh in further view of Liu and Ebersbach are considered analogous art for their pursuit of depositing material layers on substrates. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Cheng in view of Kim in further view of Oh in further view of Liu by incorporating a rotating platform for the substrate as disclosed in Ebersbach to achieve the predictable result of improving the quality of the deposited reflective layer (Ebersbach: Abstract) and thus improving the performance of the device.
Claims 32 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng (US 20200075816 A1) in view of Kim (US 20210126154 A1) in further view of Oh (US 20170040374 A1) in further view of Liu (A Novel Fabricating Method of Micro Lens-on-Lens Arrays with Two Focal Lengths, Micromachines (Basel), 2021 Nov 8;12(11):1372. doi: 10.3390/mi12111372) in further view of Choi (US 20230170440 A1).
Regarding claim 32; Cheng in view of Kim in further view of Oh in further view of Liu teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 31.
Cheng in view of Kim in further view of Oh in further view of Liu does not teach wherein the material is a sacrificial material.
Choi teaches wherein the material (Choi: Annotated Fig (13): 251) is a sacrificial layer (by examining the transition from Fig (13) to Fig(14) it can be seen that material 251 Is removed from the second and third wells).
Cheng in view of Kim in further view of Oh in further view of Liu and Choi are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Cheng in view of Kim in further view of Oh in further view of Liu by filling the wells with a sacrificial layer as disclosed in Choi to achieve the predictable result of improving control over the precision of the deposition of the color filter material leading to a better performing device.
Regarding claim 39; Cheng in view of Kim in further view of Oh in further view of Liu teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 39.
Cheng in view of Kim in further view of Oh in further view of Liu does not teach wherein the material is a sacrificial material.
Choi teaches wherein the material (Choi: Annotated Fig (13) shared in this OA: 251) is a sacrificial layer (by examining the transition from Fig (13) to Fig(14) it can be seen that material 251 Is removed from the second and third wells).
Cheng in view of Kim in further view of Oh in further view of Liu and Choi are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Cheng in view of Kim in further view of Oh in further view of Liu by filling the wells with a sacrificial layer as disclosed in Choi to achieve the predictable result of improving control over the precision of the deposition of the color filter material leading to a better performing device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 23 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim (21), but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 23; Cheng alone or in combination with other available art cannot be reasonably combined to teach the method disclosed in claim 23 and its base claims further comprising: depositing a sacrificial material in a first well of a first subpixel, a second well of a second subpixel, and a third well of a third subpixel; exposing the sacrificial material in the first well to light through an opening of a mask; removing the sacrificial material that was exposed in the first well; depositing a first color conversion material in the first well; exposing the sacrificial material in the second well to light through the opening of the mask; depositing a second color conversion material in the second well; exposing the sacrificial material in the third well to light through the opening of the mask; and depositing a third color conversion material in the third well. More precisely, the deposition of a sacrificial material in the subpixel wells and then exposing the material in the individual wells to light then etching it away then replacing it with color conversion layer is not found in prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Moataz Khalifa whose telephone number is (703)756-1770. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (8:30 am - 5:00).
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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at (571) 272-5055. 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.
/M.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/Kretelia Graham/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817 April 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights