Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 02, 2026
Application No. 18/552,143

TRANSFER METHOD AND TRANSFER DEVICE OF LIGHT-EMITTING ELEMENT FOR DISPLAY

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Sep 22, 2023
Priority
Mar 25, 2021 — provisional 63/166,166 +2 more
Examiner
SLUTSKER, JULIA
Art Unit
2891
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
77%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 77% — above average
77%
Career Allowance Rate
843 granted / 1097 resolved
+8.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+12.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
1129
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.7%
-39.3% vs TC avg
§103
50.0%
+10.0% vs TC avg
§102
22.2%
-17.8% vs TC avg
§112
20.8%
-19.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1097 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 § 103 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 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) 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishio (US 2021/0005520) in view of KR’325 (KR 10-2020-0128325, cited in IDS, Machine Translation is provided). Regarding claim 11, Ishio discloses a transferring apparatus for a light emitting device for a display, comprising: a temporary substrate (Fig. 1, numeral 11a) to which singularized unit pixels (21) are attached; a light source unit (Fig.1, numeral 71) configure to irradiate ultraviolet rays to the unit pixels (31) on the temporary substrate (11) from under the wafer stage ([0250]; Fig.28); a picker unit (Fig.1, numeral 61) configure to pick up and transporting the unit pixels (31) having been irradiated with ultraviolet rays from the temporary substrate (11a) ,wherein the light source unit(71) irradiates ultraviolet rays in a unit of a predetermined area to the unit pixels, which are selected based on electrical or optical measurement data ([0250]). Ishio does not disclose (1) a loading unit for supplying the temporary substrate; (2) a wafer stage on which the temporary substrate supplied from the loading unit is located; (3) that a carrier substrate located on a bin stage and transport the unit pixels to a carrier substrate by the picker unit. Regarding element (1), Ishio discloses that apparatus include loading section ([0261]). It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was field to have a loading unit for supplying the temporary substrate for the purpose of substrate loading. Regarding element (2), Ishio discloses that the temporary substrate with unit pixel is inspected in determination section (Fig. 29, numeral 105). It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have a wafer stage on which the temporary substrate supplied from the loading unit is located for the purpose of unit pixels inspection (Ishio, [0252]). Regarding element (3), KR’325 however discloses a bin stage ([0058]) and that a carrier substrate located on a bin stage ([0058]). KR’325 further discloses transport the unit pixels to a carrier substrate (1320) by the picker unit (500) ([0058]). It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Ishio with KR’325 to have a carrier substrate located on a bin stage and transport the unit pixels to a carrier substrate by the picker unit for the purpose of effective transfer process (KR’325; [0009]). Regarding claim 12, Ishio discloses wherein the picker unit is configured to pick up and transport the unit pixels irradiated with ultraviolet rays in the unit of the predetermined area ([0250]). Regarding claim 13, Ishio discloses wherein: the picker unit includes a pickup head (lower part of 61) having an adhesive tape, and the pickup head is configured to pick up the unit pixels using the adhesive tape ([0087]). Regarding claim 14, Ishio discloses an ejector unit (61) pressing the temporary substrate while facing the pickup head ([0079]). Regarding claim 15, Ishio does not disclose a gripper unit configured to grip the temporary substrate from the loading unit and deliver the temporary substrate to the wafer stage. KR’325 however discloses a gripper unit configured to grip the temporary substrate from the loading unit and deliver the temporary substrate to the wafer stage. ([0118]; [0023]; Fig.1). It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Ishio with KR’325 to have a gripper unit configured to grip the temporary substrate from the loading unit and deliver the temporary substrate to the wafer stage for the purpose of effective transfer process. Regarding claim 16, Ishio discloses a first vision unit configured to check the unit pixels on the temporary substrate [0077]); a second vision unit configured to check the unit pixels picked up by the picker unit ([0082]); and a third vision unit configured to check the unit pixels on the carrier substrate ([0090]). Regarding claim 17, KR’325 discloses an unloading unit (1510) configured to load and unload the carrier substrate; and a transfer robot (1500) configure to move the carrier substrate from the unloading unit to the bin stage, and move the carrier substrate to which the unit pixels have been transferred from the bin stage to the unloading unit ([0058]; Fig.1). Regarding claim 18, Ishio does not disclose wherein the predetermined area encompasses 20-unit pixels or more. Ishio however discloses that the plurality of unit pixels can be removed ([0079]). It would have been therefore obvious to have the predetermined area encompasses 20-unit pixels or more for the purpose of optimizing the transfer process. Regarding claim 19, Ishio discloses wherein each of the unit pixels includes a blue light emitting device, a green light emitting device, and a red-light emitting device ([0059]). Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishio in view of KR’325 as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Fan (US 2009/0078955). Regarding claim 20, Ishio does not disclose wherein the blue light emitting device, the green light emitting device, and the red-light emitting device are stacked on one another. Fan however discloses wherein the blue light emitting device, the green light emitting device, and the red-light emitting device are stacked on one another ([0043]; Fig.1B, 1C). It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was field to modify Ishio with Fan to have the blue light emitting device, the green light emitting device, and the red-light emitting device are stacked on one another for the purpose of fabrication micro display devices (Fan, [0005]). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 06/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments that the prior art of record does not disclose the limitation of clam 11 such as “a picker unit configured to pick up the unit pixels, having been irradiated with ultraviolet rays, from the temporary substrate and transport the unit pixels to a carrier substrate located on a bin stage; and the bin stage on which the carrier substrate is located, wherein the unit pixels transported by the picker unit from the temporary substrate are arranged on the carrier substrate” are not persuasive because of the following reasons. First, Ishio discloses a picker unit (Fig.1, numeral 61) configure to pick up and transporting the unit pixels (31) having been irradiated with ultraviolet rays from the temporary substrate (11a). Second, although Ishio does not disclose that a carrier substrate located on a bin stage and transport the unit pixels to a carrier substrate by the picker unit, KR’325 however discloses a bin stage ([0058]) and that a carrier substrate located on a bin stage ([0058]). KR’325 further discloses transport the unit pixels to a carrier substrate (1320) by the picker unit (500) ([0058]). It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Ishio with KR’325 to have a carrier substrate located on a bin stage and transport the unit pixels to a carrier substrate by the picker unit for the purpose of effective transfer process (KR’325; [0009]). 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 JULIA SLUTSKER whose telephone number is (571)270-3849. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-6 pm. 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, Matthew Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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. /JULIA SLUTSKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 22, 2023
Application Filed
Apr 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103
Jun 26, 2026
Response Filed
Aug 25, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12751219
SEMICONDUCTOR SUBSTRATE, METHOD FOR PRODUCING SEMICONDUCTOR SUBSTRATE, SEMICONDUCTOR SUBSTRATE PRODUCTION DEVICE, ELECTRONIC COMPONENT, AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE
3y 3m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12745457
SUPPORT SUBSTRATE FOR PASSIVE ELECTRONIC COMPONENT, PASSIVE ELECTRONIC COMPONENT, SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE, MATCHING CIRCUIT, AND FILTER CIRCUIT
2y 10m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12740355
BOTTOM THICK OXIDATION GROWTH IN HIGH ASPECT RATIO FEATURES
3y 8m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12729435
METHODS FOR DEPOSITING GAP-FILLING FLUIDS AND RELATED SYSTEMS AND DEVICES
3y 8m to grant Granted Sep 08, 2026
Patent 12733467
METHODS FOR ETCH BARRIER DEPOSITION AND DEVICES MADE ACCORDING TO THE SAME
3y 6m to grant Granted Sep 08, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
77%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+12.9%)
2y 5m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1097 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month