DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species C in the reply filed on 9/7/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “physically contacts with,” is unclear as to what is required by the claim. Specifically, it is noted that “contacts with” appears to contain a grammatical and/or idiomatic error which renders the claim indefinite. It is further noted that “physical contact” would be understood to require direct contact, i.e. touching, however dependent claim 19 recites “directly and physically contacts with.” Accordingly, it would appear that applicant understands the scope of “physically contacts with,” to not require direct contact, and therefore the proper interpretation of the claim limitation is unclear.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “a plurality of dispersed particles,” is unclear as to how it is related to the “a same material” recited in claim 6.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, the limitation “the particles,” is unclear as to how it is related to the previously recited “plurality of dispersed particles.”
Regarding claim 15, the limitation “one end of the light guide pillar extends to a surface of the substrate,” is unclear as to what is required by “extends to.” Specifically, it would appear the limitation describes the feature shown in unelected Fig. 6, wherein 340 extends through IL to reach 110. Applicant, however, asserted in the response filed 9/7/2026 that the claim reads on elected Fig. 5. Accordingly, the proper interpretation of “extends to” is unclear.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “the pair of second pads is located on an opposite side of the first pad,” is unclear as opposite from what other element.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation “wherein the gap directly and physically contacts with the light-emitting device,” is unclear as to how it further limits “physically contacts with” as recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, the limitation “a normal projection of the top surface of the light guide pillar on the substrate are overlapped,” is unclear as to how it is related to the “a normal projection of the top surface of the light guide pillar on the substrate are overlapped,” recited in claim 1.
Note the dependent claims necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
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.
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) 1-2, 4-6, 8-10, 11-13, 15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. (US 20190326349; herein “Kwon”) in view of Kang et al. (US 20180122836; herein “Kang”).
Regarding claim 1, Kwon discloses in Fig. 9 and related text display panel, comprising:
a light-emitting device (120U, see [0085]);
a light-shielding layer (e.g. 162/164F, see [0085]) disposed on the light emitting surface of the light-emitting device has a sidewall surrounding an opening; and
a light guide pillar (e.g. 174, see [0030]) disposed on the light emitting surface of the light-emitting device, and located in the opening, wherein a gap (e.g. gap filled with 172) exists between the light guide pillar and the sidewall of the light-shielding layer, and the gap physically contacts with the light-emitting device; and
a normal projection of a light-emitting layer (124, see [0031]) of the light-emitting device is located within (at least partially) a normal projection of a top surface of the light guide pillar;
the light guide pillar has an inclination sidewall, and a width of the light guide pillar is greater closer to the light-emitting device.
Kwon does not disclose
a substrate;
the light-emitting device, disposed on the substrate;
the light-shielding layer, disposed on the substrate; and
the light guide pillar, disposed between the substrate and the light-emitting device; and
a driving circuit element, electrically connected to the light-emitting device, wherein the driving circuit element is disposed between the substrate and the light-shielding layer;
a normal projection of a light-emitting layer of the light-emitting device on the substrate is located within a normal projection of a top surface of the light guide pillar on the substrate;
a width of the light guide pillar is greater farther away from the substrate.
In the same field of endeavor, Kang teaches in Fig. 13 and related text a display panel
a substrate (100);
the light-emitting device (300, see [0058]) disposed on the substrate;
a layer (110) disposed on the substrate and disposed between the substrate and the light-emitting device;
a driving circuit element (T2, see [0052]), electrically connected to the light-emitting device, wherein the driving circuit element is disposed between the substrate and the layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kwon by having a substrate, the light-emitting device disposed on the substrate, a layer disposed on the substrate, a driving circuit element electrically connected to the light-emitting device and disposed between the substrate and the layer, as taught by Kang, in order to achieve an active matrix display device where the individual LEDs can be independently and selectively driven. The limitations “the light-emitting device, disposed on the substrate,” “the light-shielding layer, disposed on the substrate,” the light guide pillar, disposed between the substrate and the light-emitting device,” “the driving circuit element is disposed between the substrate and the light-shielding layer,” “a normal projection of a light-emitting layer of the light-emitting device on the substrate is located within a normal projection of a top surface of the light guide pillar on the substrate,” and “a width of the light guide pillar is greater farther away from the substrate,” are therefore taught by the combination of the driving circuit element on the substrate, the layer between the driving circuit element and the light-emitting device and being disposed on the light-emitting side of the light-emitting element, as shown by Kang, and the layer on the light-emitting side of the light-emitting element being a layer which has the light shielding layer and the light guide pillar, as shown by Kwon.
Regarding claim 2, the combined device shows wherein a light-emitting surface of the light-emitting device faces the substrate (Kang: see Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 4, Kwon does not explicitly disclose wherein a width of the gap ranges from 0.5 µm to 20 µm.
Note that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the width of the gap to be a result effective variable affecting the reflective properties of the layer and the size of the device. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Kwon to have the width within the claimed range in order to achieve desired reflection, light extraction, and overall device size, and since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B and 2143. Furthermore, it has also been held that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936, (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
Regarding claim 5, Kwon further discloses a positioning adhesive layer (e.g. 134/136, see [0042] and [0046]) disposed on a periphery of the light-emitting device and between (e.g. in at least one direction) the light- emitting device and the light-shielding layer.
Regarding claim 6, Kwon further discloses wherein the light guide pillar and the positioning adhesive layer comprise a same material (e.g. resin, see [0054] and [0046]).
Regarding claims 8-10, the combined device shows
wherein the light guide pillar (Kwon: 174) comprises a plurality of dispersed particles (see [0054]-[0056]);
wherein the particles comprise color-conversion particles, scattered particles, or a combination thereof (see [0054]-[0056]);
wherein the particles comprise quantum dot particles, phosphors, or a combination thereof (see [0054]-[0056]).
Regarding claim 11, Kwon does not explicitly disclose wherein a height of the light guide pillar ranges from 1µm to 30 µm.
Note that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the height of the light guide pillar to be a result effective variable affecting the light extraction and conversion properties of the layer and the size of the device. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Kwon to have the width within the claimed range in order to achieve desired conversion, light extraction, and overall device size, and since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B and 2143. Furthermore, it has also been held that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936, (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
Regarding claim 12, the combined device shows wherein an angle between the inclination sidewall and a bottom surface of the light guide pillar ranges from 95 degrees to 120 degrees (Kwon: see [0041]).
Regarding claim 13, the combined device shows wherein the sidewall of the light- shielding layer and the inclination sidewall of the light guide pillar are separated by the gap (Kwon: see Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 15, the combined device shows one end of the light guide pillar extends to (e.g. towards) a surface of the substrate.
Regarding claim 17, the combined device shows wherein the light-emitting device is a light-emitting diode (Kwon: see [0025]).
Regarding claim 18, the combined device shows wherein the driving circuit element comprises an active device (Kang: see [0052]).
Regarding claim 19, the combined device shows wherein the gap directly and physically contacts with the light-emitting device (Kwon: see Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 20, the combined device shows wherein a normal projection of a bottom surface of the light guide pillar on the substrate and a normal projection of the top surface of the light guide pillar on the substrate are overlapped (Kown: see Fig. 9; Kang: see Fig. 13).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon in view of Kang, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cha et al. (US 20210249564; herein “Cha”).
Regarding claim 3, Kwon does not explicitly disclose a light refractive index of the light guide pillar ranges from 1.5 to 2.0.
In the same field of endeavor, Cha teaches a light emitting device with a light guide pillar (e.g. a portion of 125 in opening 123a, see [0123]), wherein a light refractive index of the light guide pillar ranges from 1.5 to 2.0 (see [0241]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kwon by having the light refractive index of the light guide pillar ranges from 1.5 to 2.0, as shown by Cha, in order to employ a material with a refractive index which allows for improved light extraction.
Note that the range disclosed by Cha overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)). Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the refractive index to be a result effective variable affecting the light extraction properties of the pillar. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Kwon to have the refractive index within the claimed range in order to achieve desired light extraction, and since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B and 2143. Furthermore, it has also been held that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936, (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon in view of Kang, as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 20200144327; herein “Lee”).
Regarding claim 7, Kwon does not disclose wherein the positioning adhesive layer comprises a plurality of dispersed particles.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches in Fig. 3A and related text a light emitting device comprising a positioning adhesive layer (21/34, see [0023] and [0041]), wherein the positioning adhesive layer comprises a plurality of dispersed particles (see [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kwon by having the positioning adhesive layer comprises a plurality of dispersed particles, as taught by Lee, in order to improve light extraction from the device.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon in view of Kang, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Haase et al. (US 20100117997; herein “Haase”).
Regarding claim 14, Kwon does not disclose wherein the gap is an air gap.
In the same field of endeavor, Haase teaches a light emitting device wherein a gap is an air gap (see [0117]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kwon by having the gap as an air gap, as shown by Haase, in order to achieve reflectance by total internal reflection (see Haase [0117]). Additionally, Haase shows that a metallic layer and an air gap are equivalent reflective structures known in the art. Therefore, because these two were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the air gap of Haase for the metallic reflective layer of Kwon.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon in view of Kang, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 20150287900; herein “Lee”).
Regarding claim 16, Cha does not explicitly disclose a first pad and a pair of second pads, and the pair of second pads are respectively located on an opposite side of the first pad.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches in Fig. 7 and related text a display panel wherein the light emitting device has a first pad (e.g. center 138, see [0063]) and a pair of second pads (left and right 138), and the pair of second pads are respectively located on an opposite side of the first pad.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kwon by having a first pad and a pair of second pads, and the pair of second pads located on an opposite side of the first pad, as taught by Lee, in order to achieve an LED structure with improved reliability such as the lifespan of an LED assembly (see Lee [00115]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lauren R Bell whose telephone number is (571)272-7199. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-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, William Kraig can be reached at (571) 272-8660. 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.
/LAUREN R BELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights