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 without traverse of Group II (claims 11-20) in the reply filed on 06/01/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/01/2026.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. For example, a more descriptive title could be, “Display Device With Adhesive Layer Between Pixel Electrode and Light-Emitting Element”.
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.
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) 11-14 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 2022/0223768 A1; hereinafter, “Jung”) in view of Hata et al. (US 2006/0255357 A1; hereinafter, “Hata”).
Regarding claim 11:
Jung discloses (in Fig. 3) a display device comprising:
a transistor ACT1/G1/S1/D1 [0140] above a substrate SUB [0070];
a pixel electrode S1/RME1 [0069] at a same layer as one of electrodes D1/VL1 of the transistor;
a light-emitting element ED (Fig. 3, Fig. 6 and [0120])
an insulating (Note: this should read “insulating”) layer PAS1 [0099]) covering the transistor, the pixel electrode, and the light-emitting element, and covering an outer circumferential surface of the first semiconductor layer, the emission layer, and the second semiconductor layer (fig. 3);
a first bridge pattern CNE1 [0097] above the insulating layer PAS1, and electrically connecting the transistor to the first end of the light-emitting element ED; and
a second bridge pattern CNE2 [0097] above the insulating layer, and electrically connected to the second end of the light-emitting element.
Jung does not disclose an adhesive layer above the pixel electrode; however, it is noted Jung does not specify exactly how the light-emitting element ED is arranged/disposed/affixed in region AA1 (e.g., see [0085] wherein ED is disclosed a being arranged or disposed in region AA1).
Hata teaches it was well known in the art to incorporate an adhesive layer (e.g., silver paste [0022-0023]) to fix/attach a light emitting element to a substrate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to specifically incorporate an adhesive layer, as taught by Hata, to attached Jung’s light emitting element because the adhesive layer would ensure a strong attachment that is also electrically conductive.
Regarding claims 12-14 and 16-20:
re claim 12, When an adhesive is incorporated, the first bridge pattern CNE1 (Fig. 3 of Jung) contacts the pixel electrode RME1/S1, and wherein the first end of the light-emitting element ED contacts the adhesive layer to be electrically connected to the pixel electrode (i.e., the adhesive would surround the end of ED connected to CNE1 in order to provide strong attachment and electrical conductivity);
re claim 13, Hata discloses the adhesive layer comprises silver paste [0023], and wherein the light-emitting element is fixed to the pixel electrode by the silver paste being cured (typical result for silver paste);
re claim 14, wherein the pixel electrode RME1/S1 comprises reflective metal (e.g., see reflection arrows in Fig. 4));
re claim 16, Jung discloses the transistor comprises a gate electrode G1 above a semiconductor pattern ACT1, and a back gate electrode CAS (Fig. 3 and [0080] wherein CAS may be in electrical contact with S1) beneath the semiconductor pattern ACT1 and overlapping the gate electrode G1, and
wherein the pixel electrode RME1/S1 is at a same layer as the back gate electrode CAS (e.g., both are at layer BL, wherein “at” can be “near”, Marriam-Webster Dictionary);
re claim 17, Jung discloses the display device according to claim 12, wherein the transistor comprises a gate electrode G1 (Fig. 3) above a semiconductor pattern ACT1, and
wherein the pixel electrode RME1/S1 is at a same layer as the gate electrode G1 (e.g., both are at/near layer IL1);
re claim 18, Jung discloses a black matrix layer BM (Fig. 3 and [0090]), which is commonly a photoresist, wherein the BM layer is interposed between the substrate and the light-emitting element ED such that it could be considered part of an adhesion layer in combination with a silver paste (of Hata); accordingly, Jung (in view of Hata) renders obvious the adhesive layer comprising photoresist;
re claim 19, Jung discloses the pixel electrode RME1/S1 (Fig. 3) is electrically separated from a bottom surface of the light-emitting element ED; and
re claim 20, Jung discloses the light-emitting element is disposed on the substrate and Hata discloses bonding the light-emitting element to the substrate; accordingly, Jung (in view of Hata) disclose a flip-chip-type micro light-emitting diode, wherein such a diode is one that is disposed on and bonded to a substrate.
Therefore, Jung (in view of Hata) renders obvious claims 12-14 and 16-20.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (in view Hata) as applied to claim 11, and further in view of Kang et al. (US 2022/0077227 A1; hereinafter, “Kang”).
Regarding claim 15:
Jung (in view of Hata) discloses does not disclose a completed device; accordingly, they don’t disclose an organic layer and an inorganic layer sequentially on the insulating layer, wherein a portion of the insulating layer in contact with the second end of the light-emitting element is exposed from the organic layer and the inorganic layer.
Kang teaches, in a similar device that is closer to completion, an organic layer INS2 (Fig. 8 and [0165] and an inorganic layer INS3 (Fig. 8 and [0171]) sequentially on an insulating layer INS1, wherein a portion of the insulating layer INS1 in contact with a second end of a light-emitting element LD is exposed [on a bottom side] from the organic layer and the inorganic layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate into Jung (in view of Hata), an organic layer and an inorganic layer as taught by Kang, because the two layers would protect the display device from the environment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEX H MALSAWMA whose telephone number is (571)272-1903. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (4-12 Hours, between 5:30AM-10PM).
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, N. Drew Richards can be reached at 571-272-1736. 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.
/LEX H MALSAWMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2892
Prosecution Insights