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 .
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) 1-6, 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsiang et al (US 2019/0206714; hereinafter Hsiang).
Regarding claim 1, Fig 5 of Hsiang discloses a method for manufacturing an electronic device comprising:
providing a plurality of microcomponents (5; Fig 13; ¶ [0032]) on a first substrate;
providing a transferring head (102; Fig 13; ¶ [0032]), wherein the transferring head comprises a substrate (30; Fig 13; ¶ [0030]) and a head unit disposed on a side of the substrate, the head unit comprises a layer (40/22/20/12/10; Fig 13), the layer has a first portion (12/10; Fig 13; ¶ [0032]) and a second portion (22/20; Fig 13; ¶ [0032]), wherein a thickness of the first portion (12/10; Fig 13; ¶ [0032]) is greater (Fig 13) than a thickness of the second portion (22/20; Fig 13; ¶ [0032]);
contacting (Fig 13C) at least one of the microcomponents by a picking surface of the first portion (12/10; Fig 13; ¶ [0032]); and
transferring the at least one of the plurality of microcomponents from the first substrate to a second substrate by the transferring head (¶ [0025]).
However Hsiang does not expressly disclose a difference between the thickness of the first portion and the thickness of the second portion is greater than or equal to 20 µm and less than or equal to 70 µm.
However, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the thickness/ size of the first/second portion of the transferring head to be a result effective variable affecting the space between the arms of transfer heads and hence affecting the transferring capability of the transfer head in order to mass transfer the micro LEDs rapidly and efficiently. Thus, it would have been obvious to *** within the claimed range, since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B
Regarding claim 2, Hsiang does not expressly disclose a difference between the thickness of the first portion and the thickness of the second portion is greater than or equal to 30 µm and less than or equal to 60 µm.
However, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the thickness/ size of the first/second portion of the transferring head to be a result effective variable affecting the space between the arms of transfer heads and hence affecting the transferring capability of the transfer head in order to mass transfer the micro LEDs rapidly and efficiently. Thus, it would have been obvious to *** within the claimed range, since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B
Regarding claim 3, Fig 13 of Hsiang discloses the first portion and the second portion are formed of a same material (¶ [0025]; Fig 13).
Regarding claim 4, Fig 12 of Hsiang discloses area of first portion (Fig 12) is greater than area of one of the plurality of micro components (Fig 12).
Regarding claim 5, Fig 14D of Hsiang discloses in a top view direction an area of the first portion is the same as an area of one of the plurality of micro components.
Regarding claim 6, Fig 13C of Hsiang discloses in a top view direction an area of the first portion is the less as an area of one of the plurality of micro components.
Regarding claim 11, Fig 5 of Hsiang discloses a transferring head comprising:
a substrate (30; Fig 13; ¶ [0030]);
a head unit disposed on a side of the substrate, the head unit comprises a layer (40/22/20/12/10; Fig 13), the layer has a first portion (12/10; Fig 13; ¶ [0032]) and a second portion (22/20; Fig 13; ¶ [0032]), wherein a thickness of the first portion (12/10; Fig 13; ¶ [0032]) is greater (Fig 13) than a thickness of the second portion (22/20; Fig 13; ¶ [0032]).
However Hsiang does not expressly disclose a difference between the thickness of the first portion and the thickness of the second portion is greater than or equal to 20 µm and less than or equal to 70 µm.
However, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the thickness/ size of the first/second portion of the transferring head to be a result effective variable affecting the space between the arms of transfer heads and hence affecting the transferring capability of the transfer head in order to mass transfer the micro LEDs rapidly and efficiently. Thus, it would have been obvious to *** within the claimed range, since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B
Regarding claim 12, Hsiang does not expressly disclose a difference between the thickness of the first portion and the thickness of the second portion is greater than or equal to 30 µm and less than or equal to 60 µm.
However, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the thickness/ size of the first/second portion of the transferring head to be a result effective variable affecting the space between the arms of transfer heads and hence affecting the transferring capability of the transfer head in order to mass transfer the micro LEDs rapidly and efficiently. Thus, it would have been obvious to *** within the claimed range, since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B
Claim(s) 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsiang et al (US 2019/0206714; hereinafter Hsiang) in view of Chang et al (US 2019/0198585; hereinafter Chang).
Regarding claim 7, Hsiang does not expressly disclose the second substrate comprises a substrate, a circuit structure layer disposed on the substrate and a pixel-defining layer disposed on the circuit structure layer and the pixel defining layer comprises at least one opening for receiving the at least one of the micro components.
In the same field of endeavor, Figs 1-2 of Chang discloses a second substrate (10; Fig 1; ¶ [0044]), a circuit structure layer (134/136; Fig 1; ¶ [0044]) disposed on the substrate and a pixel-defining layer (110; Fig 1; ¶ [0044]) disposed on the circuit structure layer and the pixel defining layer comprises at least one opening (Fig 1) for receiving the at least one of the micro components (120; Fig 1; ¶ [0044]).
Accordingly it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention such that the second substrate comprises a substrate, a circuit structure layer disposed on the substrate and a pixel-defining layer disposed on the circuit structure layer and the pixel defining layer comprises at least one opening for receiving the at least one of the micro components in order to form the target substrate with the circuit structure and the openings for the microcomponents and therefore forming a LED array.
Regarding claim 8, Hsiang in view of Chang as modified above in claim 7 (Fig 1 of Hsiang in particular) discloses the circuit structure layer (134/136; Fig 1; ¶ [0044]) comprises a thin film transistor (134; Fig 1; ¶ [0044]), the second substrate further comprises an electrodes (136; Fig 1; ¶ [0044]) electrically connected to the thin film transistor and at least one of the microcomponents is electrically connected to the electrode (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 9, Hsiang in view of Chang as modified above in claim 7 (Fig 1 of Hsiang in particular) discloses the pixel-defining layer (110; Fig 1; ¶ [0044]) covers a part of the electrode (136; Fig 1; ¶ [0044]).
Regarding claim 10, Hsiang in view of Chang as modified above in claim 7 (Fig 1 of Hsiang in particular) discloses a height of a top surface of the at least one of the micro components (120; Fig 1; ¶ [0044]) is greater than a height of the top surface of the pixel defining layer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Golda et al (US 2014/0209248)
Liu et al (US 2017/0345692)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RATISHA MEHTA whose telephone number is (571)270-7473. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:00am - 5:00 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, Eliseo Ramos Feliciano can be reached at 571-272-7925. 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.
/RATISHA MEHTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights