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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sizov et al (US Publication 20200343230).
Regarding claim 6, Sizov teaches a display device, comprising:
a circuit substrate (Fig. 7, 400); and
at least one light emitting diode packaging structure, electrically connected to the circuit substrate (Fig. 7, plurality of 175 electrically connected to 400), wherein each of the at least one light emitting diode packaging structure comprises:
a plurality of light emitting diodes (Fig. 7, plurality of 175), respectively comprising a first electrode (Fig. 7, 180), a semiconductor stack structure (Fig. 7, 104, 106, and 108) and a second electrode (Fig. 3B, n-contact, para 64) stacked with each other;
a plurality of transparent packaging structures, respectively surrounding the light emitting diodes (Fig. 3A, 134, para 58-59);
a molding layer, surrounding the transparent packaging structures (Fig. 7, 170, para 61-62);
a redistribution structure, located on a first side of the molding layer (Fig. 7, 400), and comprising a conductive layer and an insulating layer (Fig. 7, conductive layer 410 and insulating layer 400, para 63),
wherein the conductive layer comprises a plurality of first conductive structures respectively filled in a plurality of first openings of the insulating layer (Fig. 7, 410 closest to 180 - Furthermore, the present claim is drawn to a device, thus the claiming of a passive method step of having filled a plurality of first openings on the insulating layer to form first conductive structures does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from that of the invention of Sizov - which as described above disclosed a filled final structure. It should be noted that a "product by process claim" is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made, In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (footnote 3). See also In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685; In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523; In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324; In re Avery, 186 USPQ 161; In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90 (209 USPQ 554 does not deal with this issue); and In re Marosi et al., 218 USPQ 289, all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final product per se which must be determined in a "product by process" claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in " product by process" claims or not. Note that applicant has the burden of proof in such cases, as the above caselaw makes clear. See also MPEP 2113 [R-1]); and
wherein the first conductive structures are electrically connected to the first electrodes of the light emitting diodes (Fig. 7, 410 electrically connected to 180); and
a common electrode, located on a second side of the molding layer, and electrically connected to the second electrodes of the light emitting diodes (Fig. 3B, 190).
Regarding claim 7, Sizov teaches the limitations of claim 6 upon which claim 7 depends.
Sizov teaches a plurality of reflective structures, respectively located on the transparent packaging structures, wherein the reflective structures are located between the molding layer and the transparent packaging structures (Fig. 3A/B, 140, para 60).
Regarding claim 8, Sizov teaches the limitations of claim 6 upon which claim 8 depends.
Sizov teaches a plurality of lens structures, located above the common electrode, wherein the lens structures respectively overlap with the light emitting diodes (Fig. 12A, lens 508 LED 175).
Regarding claim 9, Sizov teaches the limitations of claim 6 upon which claim 9 depends.
Sizov teaches wherein each of the at least one transparent double-sided display panel has a plurality of through holes (Fig. 3B and 7, through hole for 420).
Regarding claim 10, Sizov teaches the limitations of claim 6 upon which claim 10 depends.
Sizov teaches a plurality of first conductive terminals, respectively located on the first conductive structures; and at least one second conductive terminal, located on the at least one second conductive structure (Fig. 3B and 7, 182 and 420 respectively).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the prior art does not teach or render obvious " wherein the transparent packaging structures contact the first adhering layer" and “forming a molding layer…to contact the first adhering layer” and in the combination as claimed.
Claims 2-5 further limit allowable claim 1 therefore are allowable for the same reasons as above
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 6, applicant argues that Sizov fails to disclose “wherein the conductive layer comprises a plurality of first conductive structures respectively filled in a plurality of first openings of the insulating layer, and wherein the first conductive structures are electrically connected to the first electrodes of the light emitting diodes respectively”. As noted in the rejection of claim 6, the method of forming the first conductive structures does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from that of the invention of Sizov. Also, Sizov discloses the further amended limitations of: wherein the first conductive structures are electrically connected to the first electrodes of the light emitting diodes (Fig. 7, 410 electrically connected to 180);
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NICHOLAS HUTSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1750. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 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, Jeff Natalini can be reached at 571 272 2266. 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. 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.
/NICHOLAS LELAND HUTSON/ Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/JEFF W NATALINI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights