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.
Claim 7 is 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. Specifically, the term “penetration rate” in line 1 of claim 7 is not sufficiently clear to be interpreted by Examiner without assumption or speculation. It is unclear whether the penetration rate refers to the rate of light penetrating the glue layer, the glue layer penetrating or adhering to some other material, or some other penetration rate.
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, 3-6 and 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (US 20200051958 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hu discloses an electronic device (Fig. 8), comprising: a substrate (102); a plurality of electronic components (PX) disposed on the substrate, wherein there is a first pitch (T3) between two adjacent electronic components in a first direction (horizontal direction); and a protective glue (528) disposed on the substrate and the electronic components, and provided with at least one groove disposed between the two adjacent electronic components (Shown). However, Hu does not disclose wherein a distance between an edge of one of the two adjacent electronic components and the at least one groove satisfies an equation: 0.3mm ≤ D1 < (P/2), where D1 is the distance between the edge of the one of the two adjacent electronic components and the at least one groove, and P is the first pitch. Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to form distance D1 between the edge of the one of the two adjacent electronic components and the at least one groove within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device or provide any criticality, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 3, Hu discloses wherein a width of the at least one groove is greater than or equal to 0.05 mm (Fig. 8 shows the groove being equal to the width T3 minus the distant T2 on the sides of LEDs 404; Para. 33 "the space T2 may be ranged from 3 micrometers to 20 micrometers, and the space T3 may larger than about 20 micrometers"; in the case that T2 is 3 µm and T3 is larger than 43 µm, the groove would be greater than 0.05 mm).
Regarding claim 4, Hu does not disclose wherein a width of the at least one groove satisfies an equation: (P-W-2×D1) ≤ W1 < (P-W), where W1 is a width of the at least one groove, and W is a size of one of the electronic components in the first direction. Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to form the groove width W1 within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device or provide any criticality, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 5, Hu discloses wherein a distance from a surface of the substrate to the groove is smaller than one-third of a height of one of the electronic components (Fig. 8 shows distance from upper surface of substrate being 0, which is clearly smaller than one-third of the height of the electronic components 404).
Regarding claim 6, Hu discloses wherein a refractive index of the protective glue is greater than that of a medium in the groove (Para. 32 " the first passivation layer 426 may for example include... epoxy resin"; Para. 35 "As shown in FIG. 8, the difference between the electronic device 500 of this variant embodiment and the electronic device 400 shown in FIG. 7 is that the first passivation layer 526 includes a plurality of protecting blocks 528 spaced apart from each other, and each of the protecting blocks 528 covers all of the light emitting units 404 in the corresponding one of the pixels PX", Examiner interprets this to mean that 526 and 528 are therefore also made of epoxy resin, which is known to have a refractive index around 1.5, while the empty gap would necessarily have the refractive index around 1 of air).
Regarding claim 8, Hu discloses wherein a refractive index of the protective glue is greater than 1.3 (Para. 32 " the first passivation layer 426 may for example include... epoxy resin"; Para. 35 "As shown in FIG. 8, the difference between the electronic device 500 of this variant embodiment and the electronic device 400 shown in FIG. 7 is that the first passivation layer 526 includes a plurality of protecting blocks 528 spaced apart from each other, and each of the protecting blocks 528 covers all of the light emitting units 404 in the corresponding one of the pixels PX", Examiner interprets this to mean that 526 and 528 are therefore also made of epoxy resin, which is known to have a refractive index around 1.5).
Regarding claim 9, Hu discloses wherein an upper surface of the protective glue is a flat surface (Shown in Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 10, Hu does not disclose wherein a width of the at least one groove satisfies an equation: (P-W-2×D1) ≤ W1 < (P-2×W), where W1 is the width of the at least one groove, and W is a size of one of the electronic components in the first direction. Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to form the groove width W1 within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device or provide any criticality, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 11, Hu discloses wherein a shape of the groove is rectangular (Shown in Fig. 8).
PNG
media_image1.png
238
762
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Hu discloses wherein a height of the groove is equal to that of the protective glue (See attached figure).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (US 20200051958 A1) as applied to claims 1, 3-6, and 8-12 above, and further in view of Yamada (US 20170103972 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Hu discloses the electronic device as claimed in claim 1. However, Hu does not disclose wherein a height of the protective glue is greater than or equal to 1.2 times that of one of the electronic components and smaller than or equal to 3 times that of the one of the electronic components.
On the other hand, Yamada discloses wherein a height of the protective glue is equal to about 4.7 times that of one of the electronic components (Fig. 1; para. 34 "The light-emitting element used therein was a blue LED having a substantially square shape with... a thickness of 150 μm"; Table 1 shows H being 0.70 mm, which is about 4.7 times the height of the electronic component/LED). Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Hu in view of Yamada such that the height of the protective glue would be greater than or equal to 1.2 times the height of the electronic components and smaller than or equal to 3 times the height of the electronic components, in order to maintain a protective glue thick enough to sufficiently protect the underlying LED while also maintaining a desirable package height.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (US 20200051958 A1) as applied to claims 1, 3-6, and 8-12 above, and further in view of Cho (US 20200185453 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Hu discloses the electronic device as claimed in claim 1. However, Hu does not disclose wherein a shape of the groove is U-shaped or V-shaped.
On the other hand, Cho discloses wherein a shape of the groove is U-shaped or V-shaped (Fig. 12A, groove in 90'). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Hu according to the teachings of Cho such that the shape of the groove would be U-shaped or V-shaped rather than grooves lacking any glue material, in order to provide consistent adhesion between the glue layer and substrate and avoiding peeling around the LEDs.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (US 20200051958 A1) in view of Cho (US 20200185453 A1) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Min (US 20220262993 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Hu in view of Cho discloses the electronic device as claimed in claim 13. However, Hu in view of Cho does not disclose wherein a height of the groove is smaller than that of the protective glue.
PNG
media_image2.png
226
317
media_image2.png
Greyscale
On the other hand, Min discloses wherein a height of the groove is smaller than that of the protective glue (See attached figure). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Hu in view of Cho according to the teachings of Min such that a height of the groove would be smaller than that of the protective glue, in order to maintain a single layer of glue across the substrate to avoid peeling around the individual LEDs.
Regarding claim 15, Hu does not disclose wherein a distance between an upper surface of the substrate and the groove is smaller than one-third of a height of the electronic component. Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to form the groove height to be within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device or provide any criticality, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (US 20200051958 A1) as applied to claims 1, 3-6, and 8-12 above, and further in view of Lu (US 20190207131 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Hu discloses the electronic device as claimed in claim 1. However, Hu does not disclose wherein the groove includes a first sub-groove and a second sub-groove, the first sub-groove is disposed closest to one of the two adjacent electronic components, the second sub-groove is disposed closest to the other one of the two adjacent electronic components, and a portion of the protective glue is included between the first sub-groove and the second sub-groove.
PNG
media_image3.png
258
431
media_image3.png
Greyscale
On the other hand, Lu discloses wherein the groove includes a first sub-groove a second sub-groove (Fig. 15, see attached figure), the first sub-groove is disposed closest to one of the two adjacent electronic components (leftmost component), the second sub-groove is disposed closest to the other one of the two adjacent electronic components (rightmost component), and a portion of the protective glue (25) is included between the first sub-groove and the second sub-groove (Fig. 15, see attached figure). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Hu according to the teachings of Lu such that the device would include a first and second sub-groove, wherein the first sub-groove would be disposed closest to one of the two adjacent electronic components, the second sub-groove would be disposed closest to the other one of the two adjacent electronic components, and a portion of the protective glue would be included between the first and second sub-grooves, in order to improve the flexibility and stretchability of the device by providing a corrugated glue shape that can extend when stretched.
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto (US 20190294004 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Hashimoto discloses a manufacturing method of an electronic device, comprising the steps of: providing a substrate (Fig. 9C, 30); disposing a plurality of electronic components on the substrate (11) so that there is a first pitch between two adjacent electronic components in a first direction (Shown in Fig. 9C); and applying a protective glue (15A) to the electronic components and the substrate, so that the protective glue forms at least one groove (Fig. 10D, grooves between light emitting elements), wherein the at least one groove is disposed between the two adjacent electronic components (Shown). However, Hashimoto does not disclose wherein a distance between an edge of one of the two adjacent electronic components and the at least one groove satisfies an equation: 0.3mm ≤ D1 < (P/2), where D1 is the distance between the edge of the one of the two adjacent electronic components and the at least one groove, and P is the first pitch. Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to form distance D1 between the edge of the one of the two adjacent electronic components and the at least one groove within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device or provide any criticality, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 18, Hashimoto discloses further comprising the step of molding the protective glue to form the groove (Figs. 10C-10D; para. 81 "the first encapsulating resin 15A formed using a white resin and a layer to be the light adjustment portion 10 are cut, and separated into the individual light emitting element units 3").
Regarding claim 19, Hashimoto discloses further comprising the step of curing the protective glue (Para. 77 "The first encapsulating resin 15A formed using a white resin is supplied to a surface of the light adjustment portion 10, and cured with the light emitting element 11 embedded therein).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto (US 20190294004 A1) as applied to claims 17-19 above, and further in view of Tsuzuki (US 20210223629 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Hashimoto discloses the manufacturing method as claimed in claim 19. However, Hashimoto does not disclose before the step of curing the protective glue, the step of pressurizing and degassing the protective glue to remove air bubbles in the protective glue.
On the other hand, Tsuzuki discloses before the step of curing the protective glue (Para. 116 "sequentially performing a thermal lamination step divided into two stages of processing of an initial lamination processing and final curing processing to integrate a laminate body including a light emitting module"), the step of pressurizing (Para. 276 "...10 minutes press holding at 70 KPa upper chamber pressure") and degassing the protective glue to remove air bubbles in the protective glue (Para. 276 "vacuum lamination processing was performed at conditions of 150° C., 5 minutes vacuum drawing…"). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Hashimoto according to the teachings of Tsuzuki such that the protective glue would be pressurized and degassed to remove air bubbles prior to the curing step, in order to improve adhesion between the LED and the protective glue (Para. 157 "by performing the thermal lamination process by dividing into the initial lamination processing of causing the encapsulant sheet to follow the uneven surface of the LED without producing bubbles, and adhering, and the final curing processing of further increasing the adhesion after adhering to make an article with stable adhesion, it becomes possible to produce encapsulant of micro LEDs of stronger adhesion under high quality stability").
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL J SMITH whose telephone number is (703)756-5706. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Marlon Fletcher can be reached at (571) 272-2063. 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.
/S.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/MARLON T FLETCHER/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights