DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The use of hyphen “-” in the claim is improper because it confuses that whether or not the hyphen “-” is part of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 5-12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by VAN DEN BRAND et al. (EP 3742477 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
260
536
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re Claim 1, VAN DEN BRAND et al. disclose a manipulating member (20, i.e., transfer substate) capable of manipulating at least one optoelectronic device (11 12 13, i.e., components micro-LEDs) capable of emitting light in a first wavelength range (i.e., LED can emit light at predetermined wavelength) , said manipulating member (20) comprising a body having a contact surface (i.e., transfer substrate 20 bottom surface is contact surface, Figs. 1A-1D), and a selection layer (20a, i.e., photo sensitive adhesive layer) deposited on said contact surface (Figs. 1A-1D), the selection layer (20a) consisting of a photosensitive element (20a), said photosensitive element being configured to change state locally when it is subjected to a light radiation comprised in the first wavelength range (i.e., when lase applied the adhesive loses and transferred the LED device to the transfer substrate), so as to vary between a first state in which the selection layer (20s) of the manipulating member (20) adheres with the optoelectronic device (11 12 13), and a second state in which the selection layer (20a) of the manipulating member (20) does not adhere with the optoelectronic device (11). See Figs. 1A – 1D and related text in Page 4, Paragraph [0014] – Paragraph [0021].
Re Claim 5, VAN DEN BRAND et al. disclose a method for manipulating at least one optoelectronic device (11 12 13) from a sampling substrate (10, Fig. 1A), said at least one optoelectronic device (11 12 13) being capable of emitting a light radiation comprised in a first wavelength range when supplied with electrical energy 11 12 13, i.e., components micro-LEDs) capable of emitting light in a first wavelength range (i.e., LED can emit light at predetermined wavelength), the manipulating method comprising: a step of providing the sampling substrate (10) on which the at least one optoelectronic device (11 12 13) is arranged; a step of providing a manipulating member (20) comprising a body having a contact surface (i.e., bottom surface of 20);- a step (E4) of applying a selection layer (20a) on at least one element selected from the group comprising said contact surface (i.e., bottom surface of 20) of the manipulating member (20) and the at least one optoelectronic device (11 12 13), the selection layer (20a) consisting of a photosensitive element, said photosensitive element being configured to change state locally when it is subjected to a light radiation comprised in the first wavelength range (i.e., layer 20a melts when light is applied); a step of contacting the manipulating member (20) with said at least one optoelectronic device (11 12 13) at the level of the selection layer (Fig, 1B), so as to make the manipulating member adhere (20a) with the optoelectronic device (11 12 13); - a step (E8) of supplying said at least one optoelectronic device (11 12 13) with electrical energy (Fig, 1B, i.e., heat in the form of electrical energy), involving the emission of a light radiation in the first wavelength range and the change in local state of the selection layer (20a) allowing the separation of the selection layer (20a) and the emitting optoelectronic device (11). ). See Figs. 1A – 1D and related text in Page 4, Paragraph [0014] – Paragraph [0021].
Re Claim 6, as applied to claim 5 above, VAN DEN BRAND et al. disclose all the claimed limitations including comprising a step of removing the manipulating member (20), wherein the manipulating member (20) is separated from the sampling substrate (10). See Figs. 1A – 1D and related text in Page 4, Paragraph [0014] – Paragraph [0021].
Re Claim 7, as applied to claim 5 above, VAN DEN BRAND et al. disclose all the claimed limitations including a transfer phase from the sampling substrate (10) to a receiving substrate (30), in particular a substrate for a display screen (i.e., substrate 30 is screen substrate), implemented after the step of contacting the manipulating member (20), said transfer phase comprising: a step of detaching said at least one optoelectronic device (11) from the sampling substrate (10), in particular by mechanical traction applied to the body of the manipulating member (20); and a positioning step which the contact surface (i.e., bottom surface of 20) of the manipulating member (20) is positioned opposite a receiving surface of the receiving substrate (30). See Figs. 1A – 1D and related text in Page 4, Paragraph [0014] – Paragraph [0021].
Re Claim 8, as applied to claim 7 above, VAN DEN BRAND et al. disclose all the claimed limitations including wherein the positioning step is implemented so that the contact surface of the manipulating member (20) is positioned facing a receiving surface of the receiving substrate (30), in a relative position such that the optoelectronic devices (11 12 13) are in contact with the receiving surface of the receiving substrate (30). See Figs. 1A – 1D and related text in Page 4, Paragraph [0014] – Paragraph [0021].
Re Claim 9, as applied to claim 7 above, VAN DEN BRAND et al. disclose all the claimed limitations including wherein the step of supplying electrical energy to the optoelectronic device (11 12 13) is carried out before the step of detaching said at least one optoelectronic device (11 12 13) from the sampling substrate (10). See Figs. 1A – 1D and related text in Page 4, Paragraph [0014] – Paragraph [0021].
Re Claim 10, as applied to claim 5 above, VAN DEN BRAND et al. disclose all the claimed limitations including wherein the step of supplying electrical energy to the optoelectronic device (11 12 13) makes it possible to place the optoelectronic device (11 12 13) selectively in an emission mode in which it emits a light radiation in the first wavelength range and in an extinguishing mode in which it does not emit light radiation. See Figs. 1A – 1D and related text in Page 4, Paragraph [0014] – Paragraph [0021].
Re Claim 11, as applied to claim 5 above, VAN DEN BRAND et al. disclose all the claimed limitations including wherein the sampling substrate (9) comprises a plurality of optoelectronic devices (11 12 13), each optoelectronic device (11 12 13) of the plurality of optoelectronic devices (111 12 13) being able to be individually supplied with electrical energy. See Figs. 1A – 1D and related text in Page 4, Paragraph [0014] – Paragraph [0021].
Re Claim 12, as applied to claim 11 above, VAN DEN BRAND et al. disclose all the claimed limitations including wherein the step of supplying electrical energy is implemented selectively on one or more of the optoelectronic devices (11 12 13) of the plurality of optoelectronic devices (11 12 13). See Figs. 1A – 1D and related text in Page 4, Paragraph [0014] – Paragraph [0021].
Re Claim 15, as applied to claim 5 above, VAN DEN BRAND et al. disclose all the claimed limitations including wherein the step of providing the sampling substrate (10) comprises the provision of a light emitting screen substrate comprising a plurality of optoelectronic devices (11 12 13) distributed over an emitting surface of the screen substrate, the emitting surface of the screen substrate comprising electronic connections (not shown) configured to make it possible to individually supply each optoelectronic device (11 12 13) of the plurality of optoelectronic devices (11 12 13), in particular during the step of supplying electrical energy. See Figs. 1A – 1D and related text in Page 4, Paragraph [0014] – Paragraph [0021].
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) 4 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VAN DEN BRAND et al. (EP 3742477 A1).
Re Claim 4, as applied to claim 1 above, VAN DEN BRAND et al. disclose all the claimed limitations including wherein the preterminal first wavelength range. The claimed wavelength range is withing the scope VAN DEN BRAND et al. because these wavelength ranges are red, blue, green and white light ranges of LED device. Furthermore, the claimed range outside VAN DEN BRAND et al. disclosure can be routinely optimized.
Therefore, it would have been to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention is filed to optimize the wavelength range since it has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969); Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Furthermore, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed wavelength range or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. See In re Woodruff, 919, f.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Re Claim 13, as applied to claim 1 above, VAN DEN BRAND et al. disclose all the claimed limitations including wherein the step (E8) of supplying electrical energy is implemented on optoelectronic devices (11 12 13) arranged relative to each other at a predetermined distance. Furthermore, the claimed distance can be arranged as required.
Notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 14 and 16 are 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure Radauscher et al. (US 10,573,544), Lin (US 2020/0023479), Bower et al. (US 2016/0086855), Hu et al. (US 2015/0008389), Meitl (2014/0264763) and Bower (2012/0313241) also disclose similar inventive subject matter.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROOK KEBEDE whose telephone number is 571-272-1862. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday 8:00 AM 5:00 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, 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. 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.
/BROOK KEBEDE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2894
/BK/
May 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights