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 . 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II in the reply filed on 07/17/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-4 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 07/17/2026.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wendt (U.S PG Pub 20180141163A1) and Anzai (U.S PG Pub 20060150381A1).
Regarding claim 5, Wendt, drawn to the art of bonding an electronic component (Abstract), discloses a method comprising: providing a transfer substrate (wafer 218; Figure 2A; [0053]) comprising a side on which the electronic component (220) is disposed ([0054]; Figure 2A); providing a target substrate (210 & 212) [0050] having a bonded side (top side); configuring the bonded surface of the target substrate to face the surface of the transfer substrate on which the electronic component to be bonded is disposed and making the electronic component to be bonded in contact with the bonded surface of the target substrate ([0064]; Figure 2B). Wendt further discloses applying a push via a needle [0062] to the opposite surface of the transfer or target substrate and applying an energy beam (laser beam) (236) [0071] to release the electronic component from the transfer substrate and bond to the target substrate [0071]. Wendt further teaches that a vacuum may be implemented to pull a die from the wafer tape, and air pressure may be implemented to push the die onto a product substrate i.e. a pressing airflow is generated to push the die onto the product substrate as claimed [0072].
In the event the applicant disagrees with the above rationale, it is further known from Anzai, to generate a pressing airflow when bonding an electronic component to another substrate, as explained below.
Anzai, drawn also to the art of bonding an electronic component [0010], discloses evacuating a closed space formed by an elastomer member containing a layered assembly comprising an electronic component and a carrying substrate ([0010]; [0052]; Figure 4) and generating a vacuum in the enclosed space (Figure 3), while also disclosing pressing airflow (air entering after vacuum generation) to aid in bonding (Abstract; Figure 7; [0058-0059]).
It would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified the method of Wendt, with the step of generating airflow, as disclosed by Anzai, to arrive at the instant invention, in order to reduce the device size and improve the productivity [0002].
Regarding claim 6, Wendt as modified by Anzai discloses the instant limitations, as Wendt discloses lifting both the needle and the die/wafer tape in the process of creating a vacuum and utilizing air pressure to push the die onto a product substrate (see claim 5 rejection above).
Regarding claim 7, Wendt as modified by Anzai discloses the instant limitations (see claim 5 rejection above).
Regarding claim 8, Wendt has disclosed the energy beam being a laser beam [0071].
Regarding claims 9-10, Wendt discloses the electronic component to be a LED and discloses a process of manufacturing a LED display utilizing the process of claim 5 ([0035 & 0054]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wendt (U.S PG Pub 20180141163A1), Anzai (U.S PG Pub 20060150381A1), and in view of Noh (U.S PG Pub 20070111117A1).
Regarding claim 11, neither Wendt nor Anzai have explicitly disclosed the target substrate being a thin film transistor, however, in the art of bonding electronic components, it is known for a target/acceptor substrate to be a thin film transistor, as disclosed by Noh.
Noh, drawn also to the art of bonding an electronic component (donor film on acceptor substrate) and forming a LED (Title; Abstract), discloses the acceptor substrate to have a thin film transistor ([0064]; Figure 7A). Noh discloses that this enables formation of a pixel barrier on which at least one region of a first electrode is exposed [0064], and further that such a process leads to improved life span, yield and reliability of the LED (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified the method of Wendt, with the target substrate being a thin film transistor, as disclosed by Noh, to arrive at the instant invention, in order to enable formation of a pixel barrier on which a first electrode is exposed and to improve the life span, yield and reliability of the LED.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABHISHEK A PATWARDHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8431. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7:30am-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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571)270-5038. 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.
/ABHISHEK A PATWARDHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1746
/MICHAEL N ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights