DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
2. Claims 6-8, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0152827 A1 (the ‘827 reference).
Referring to claim 6, the ‘827 reference discloses a method of repairing a micro-LED display (para [2] (paragraph(s) [0002])), the method comprising:
determining a first map (Fig. 2(2)) of the micro-LED display, wherein the first map comprises one or more locations of a defective micro-LED (ER, para [30]); and
repairing the defective micro-LED at each location of the one or more locations of the first map, wherein repairing the defective micro-LED comprises:
trimming the defective micro-LED (ER) (Fig. 2(3), para [31]) from a backplane (SB, para [29]) of the micro-LED to expose a backplane electrode (pad 102, para [29], see also Fig. 4);
disposing a repair material (MT2, para [32], Figs. 2(4), 4) on the backplane electrode (102); and
disposing a repair micro-LED (EUR, para [33], Figs. 2(5), 4) on the repair material (MT2).
Referring to claim 7, the reference further discloses:
determining a second map (Fig. 2(2)) of the micro-LED display, wherein the second map comprises one or more locations of micro-LED (ER) on the micro-LED display; and
removing a micro-LED (ER, Fig. 2(3), para [31]) located at the one or more locations.
Referring to claim 8, the reference further discloses:
determining a third map (Fig. 2(4)) of the micro-LED display, wherein the third map comprises one or more locations of electrodes (102) on the micro-LED display; and
repairing an electrode (by applying repair material MT2, para [32]) located at the one or more locations.
Referring to claim 11, the reference further discloses that the repair material (MT2) is conductive (para [32]).
Referring to claim 13, the reference further discloses that determining the first map (Fig. 2(2)) further comprises supplying electricity to the micro-LED display to determine the first map (para [30], a photoluminescence test and/or an electroluminescence test requires supplying electricity to the micro-LED display).
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 of this title, 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.
3. Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0152827 A1 (the ‘827 reference) in view of Farrens et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 20170288102 or Schneider, Jr et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 20200274029.
Referring to claim 9, the ‘827 reference discloses trimming the defective micro-LED (ER) as detailed above for claim 6, but does not disclose that trimming the defective micro-LED comprises trimming the defective micro-LED using a first laser.
Farrens, in disclosing trimming a defective micro-LED (10, Fig. 4B), teaches that trimming the defective micro-LED comprises trimming the defective micro-LED using a first laser to facilitate removing the defective micro-LED (paras [48-49]); or, Schneider, in disclosing trimming a micro-LED (10B, Fig. 16C), teaches that trimming the micro-LED comprises trimming the defective micro-LED using a first laser to facilitate removing the defective micro-LED (para [104]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized a laser to trim the reference’s defective micro-LED (ER). One would have been motivated to make such a modification in view of the teachings in Farrens or Schneider to facilitate removing the defective micro-LED.
Referring to claim 12, the ‘827 reference discloses the repair material (MT2, which is a solder material, para [32]) as detailed above for claim 11, but does not disclose that the repair material comprises indium, silver, or combinations thereof.
Schneider, in disclosing a solder material, discloses that the solder material comprises indium, silver, or combinations thereof (para [80]), thereby teaching that indium, silver, or combinations thereof are materials suitable as a solder.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized indium, silver, or combinations thereof as the repair solder materials. One would have been motivated to make such a modification in view of the teachings in Schneider that indium, silver, or combinations thereof are materials suitable as a solder.
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 1-5 and 14-20 are allowable over the prior art of record.
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The cited art, whether taken singularly or in combination, especially when all limitations are considered within the claimed specific combination, fails to teach or render obvious a device, a method of repairing a micro-LED display, and a system with all exclusive limitations as recited in claims 1, 10 and 14, which may be characterized (claim 1) in that each micro-LED electrode is bonded to each backplane electrode with an alloy of a first material of the backplane electrode and a second material of the micro-LED electrode, (claim 10) in masking the repair micro-LED on a substrate in accordance with the first map, and in identifying an unmasked repair micro-LED on the substrate using a second laser, and (claim 14) in that a first laser is configured to trim a micro-LED on the micro-LED display based on the second map, and in that a second laser is configured to perform a laser lift off on a repair micro-LED on a substrate based on the first map.
Conclusion
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TU TU V HO whose telephone number is (571)272-1778. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Thursday 6:30 - 15:00, Monday through Thursday.
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, Jeff W Natalini can be reached on 571-272-2266. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
09-30-2026
/TU-TU V HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
