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 .
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.
Claims 1-18 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, this claim recites the limitation of “a light measuring device electrically connected with the optical collector group” (emphasis added) in line 8. However, the specification discloses (in page 5, lines 21-23) that an optical fiber (06) is used to connect the light measuring device (03) with the second optical collect (102). Thus, it appears that there is an optical connection, rather than an electrical connection, between these elements. Furthermore, it is unclear how and in what manner the optical collector (i.e. which receives optical beams) transmits an electrical signal. Clarification is required.
Claims not specifically mentioned above are rejected by virtue of their dependency on a rejected claim.
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) 1-3, 8 and 11-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plihal et al (US 2020/0328104) in view of Lim (US 11,300,768).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, as far as the claim is understood, Plihal et al shows in Fig.1 the following elements of applicant’s claim: an optical collector group (24, 30) configured to collect light emitted from a panel (14); an image detector (28) connected with the optical collector group (24) to receive the light collected by the optical collector group, and configured to capture an image of the panel (14); and a light measuring device (34) connected with the optical collector group (30) to receive the light collected by the optical collector group, and configured to measure the light emitted from one or more portion of the panel (14), wherein the optical collector group is configured to receive the light emitted from any position of the panel (paragraphs 31-43; Fig.1). Although Plihal et al doesn’t specifically mention the feature of inspecting a micro LED array panel, such feature is well known in the art as disclosed by Lim (Fig.1; col.5, line 48-col.6, line 67) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teachings of Lim in the device of Plihal et al in view of selecting the desired specimen to be inspected according to the design requirements.
Regarding claims 2 and 16, Plihal et al shows in Fig.1 the use of a first optical collector (24) and a second optical collector (30).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, the limitations therein are shown in Fig.1a (132) of Plihal et al.
Regarding claim 8, the limitations therein are shown in Fig.1 of Lim.
Regarding claims 12-14, the specific configuration utilized for the detection area would have been an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art depending on the needs of particular application and involving only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 17, Plihal et al discloses a stage (22) on which the specimen (14) is disposed during inspection.
Regarding claim 18, the specific placement of a second optical collector would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of meeting different design requirements and achieving the particular desired performance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 and 9-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claims 4-5, the prior art fails to disclose or make obvious an inspecting tool for inspecting a micro light emitting diode array pane comprising, in addition to the other recited features stated in clam 1 and intervening claims, the arrangement utilized for the claimed first collector, second collector and micro LED array panel in the manner recited in claim 4. Regarding claims 6-7, the prior art fails to disclose or make obvious an inspecting tool for inspecting a micro light emitting diode array pane comprising, in addition to the other recited features stated in clam 1 and intervening claims, the arrangement utilized for the claimed optical transmitting channel, first collector, second collector and micro LED array panel in the manner recited in claim 6. Regarding claims 9-10, the prior art fails to disclose or make obvious an inspecting tool for inspecting a micro light emitting diode array pane comprising, in addition to the other recited features stated in clam 1 and intervening claims, the arrangement utilized for the claimed second collector and micro LED array panel in the manner recited in claim 9.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN K PYO whose telephone number is (571)272-2445. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:30 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, Georgia Y Epps can be reached at 571-272-2328. 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.
/KEVIN K PYO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2878