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 .
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.
The following title is suggested:
ELECTRONIC DEVICE USED IN DISPLAYS, COMPRISE DAM WALL UNIT WITH SPACING BETWEEN BOTTOM SURFACE OF DAM WALL UNIT AND TOP SURFACE OF SUBSTRATE
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.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al., US 20240162390 A1 here after Lee.
Regarding independent claim 1, Lee discloses:
An electronic device (Lee, Figure 1, display module 10, disclosed in [0067] as containing a plurality of pixels 100), comprising:
a substrate (Lee, Figure 3, substrate 20);
a plurality of light emitting elements disposed on the substrate (Lee, Figure 3, pixel 100, containing LEDs 61, 62, and 63 on substrate 20);
a cover layer disposed on the substrate and covering the plurality of light emitting elements (Lee, Figure 3, transparent cover layer 90); and
a dam wall unit disposed between adjacent two of the plurality of light emitting elements (Lee, Figure 3, partition walls 70), wherein the dam wall unit includes a bottom surface adjacent to a top surface of the substrate (Lee, Figure 3, the bottom of partition wall 70 is adjacent substrate 20), and a spacing is included between the bottom surface of the dam wall unit and the top surface of the substrate (Lee, Figure 3, partition wall 70 is spaced apart from the top surface of substrate 20 by anisotropic conductive film 50).
Regarding claim 6, Lee discloses:
The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the dam wall unit includes a top surface opposite to the bottom surface of the dam wall unit, the cover layer includes a top surface opposite to the substrate, and in a cross-sectional view of the electronic device, the top surface of the dam wall unit is lower than the top surface of the cover layer (Lee, Figure 3, the top surface of the partition wall 70 is lower than the top surface of the cover layer 90).
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.
Claims 2-4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee applied to claim 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Pindl et al., US 20140014995 A1, hereafter Pindl.
Regarding claim 2 Lee fails to disclose the following limitation:
The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the spacing ranges from 1 micrometer to 30 micrometers.
Pindl discloses the following limitation:
wherein the spacing ranges from 1 micrometer to 30 micrometers (Pindl, Figure 2b, cavity seal 112 and [0085] which discloses the thickness of the seal to be between 3 µm and 10 µm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have applied the teaching of Pindl to the device of Lee and to there fore have formed the anisotropic conductive film (an epoxy or resin) of Lee with a thickness between 3 µm and 10 µm. Lee discloses the use of a resin or epoxy under the partition but fails to teach the thickness of the material. Pindl discloses that a seal thickness of 3 µm and 10 µm is sufficient to seal walks around a light emitting device.
Regarding claim 3 the combination of Lee and Pindl disclose the following limitation:
The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the spacing ranges from 3 micrometers to 25 micrometers (Pindl, Figure 2b, cavity seal 112 and [0085] which discloses the thickness of the seal to be between 3 µm and 10 µm).
Regarding claim 4 the combination of Lee and Pindl disclose the following limitation:
The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the spacing ranges from 5 micrometers to 20 micrometers (Pindl, Figure 2b, cavity seal 112 and [0085] which discloses the thickness of the seal to be between 3 µm and 10 µm, and MPEP 2144.05 I, which states that when ranges that overlap a prima facia case of obviousness exist).
Regarding claim 13 the combination of Lee and Pindl disclose the following limitation:
The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the dam wall unit includes a portion disposed on the cover layer (Pindl, Figure 2b, 106 forms both the wall and the cover layer).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 15: The prior art of record does not teach or render obvious a display device dam wall units between the LED devices where the dimensions of the walls and their spacings satisfy the following equations tan-1(A1/(H2-H1))≥sin-1(N2/N1); and tan-1(B1/(H3-H1))≥sin-1(N2/N1). The closest prior art of record is Lee US 20240162390 A1. Lee discloses a similar structure, but is silent on the dimensions of the structure and does not teach that the dimensions meet the claimed equations. The other prior art of record fail to remedy this deficiency
Claims 16-20 have been included because they depend from claim 15 and therefore include all of the limitations of claim 15.
Claims 5, 7-12 and 14 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.
Regarding claim 5: The prior art of record fails to teach alone or in combination a device where the cover layer incudes a recess and the dam extends into the recess. The closest prior art of record is Lee US 20240162390 A1. Lee discloses a similar structure, but the dam in Lee end prior to the cover layer, and is separated from the dam layer by another layer.
Regarding claim 7: The prior art of record fails to teach alone or in combination a device where the distance between the top surface of the dam and the top surface of the cover layer is within the claim ed range. The closest prior art of record is Lee US 20240162390 A1. Lee discloses a similar structure, however Lee fails to disclose the thickness of the layers. The other prior art of record does not remedy this deficiency.
Regarding claim 8: The prior art of record fails to teach alone or in combination a device where a light shielding layer is formed on the cover layer. The closest prior art of record is Lee US 20240162390 A1. Lee discloses a similar structure, however Lee fails to disclose a light shielding layer on the cover layer. The other prior art of record does not remedy this deficiency.
Regarding claim 9: claim 9 depends form claim 8 and therefore contains all of the limitations of claim 8 and is allowable for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 10: The prior art of record fails to teach alone or in combination a device with a dam that has a reflectivity of greater than or equal to 60%. The closest prior art of record is Lee US 20240162390 A1. Lee discloses a highly reflective dam layer, however Lee fails to disclose the specifically claimed reflectivity.
Regarding claim 11: The prior art of record fails to teach alone or in combination a device with a dam that have a correctional width of 20 to 500 um. The closest prior art of record is Lee US 20240162390 A1. Lee fails to disclose a dimension of the dam layer in the claimed range.
Regarding claim 12: The prior art of record fails to teach alone or in combination a device with a cover layer with a rough surface. The closest prior art of record is Lee US 20240162390 A1. Lee fails to disclose a cover layer with a rough surface. Pindl disclose the use of antireflection coating, but doe s not disclose a rough surface.
Regarding claim 14: The prior art of record fails to teach alone or in combination a device with an optical film disposed on the cover layer ant a portion of the dam layer disposed between the optical film and the cover layer. The closest prior art of record is Lee US 20240162390 A1. Lee fails to disclose a portion of the dam layer disposed between an optical film and the cover layer.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Huang et al., US 20230069739 A1, discloses a display with a gap between the color conversion layer and the bank.
Hung et al., US 20100163898 A1, discloses a display with projection angle between 3 and 80 degrees.
Lee et al., US 20220367765 A1, discloses a display module with banks between light emitting devices that have three levels.
Hirakata US 8492972 B2, discloses a display device with gas included within a cavity of the device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDA J FLECK whose telephone number is (703)756-1253. The examiner can normally be reached 10-2 ET.
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, William (Blake) Partridge can be reached at 571-270-1402. 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.
/LINDA J. FLECK/ Examiner, Art Unit 2812
/William B Partridge/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights