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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kong et al (PG Pub 2021/0057482 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kong teaches a pixel structure (figs. 4-12, paragraph [0117]) comprising: a common electrode comprising a first common electrode portion and a second common electrode portion crossing each other (VL1 and VL2, figs. 11 and 12); and sub-pixel structures, wherein each of the sub-pixel structures (some or all of SP1 to SP4, fig. 11) comprising: a pad group (CL1), at least comprising a first pad (CL1); and a light-emitting element (ER or layers 210 to 230, fig. 8), bonded (bonded through the intervening layers) to the pad group; wherein the sub-pixel structures comprises a first sub-pixel structure, a second sub-pixel structure and a third sub-pixel structure; in a top view of the pixel structure, the pad group of the first sub-pixel structure and the pad group of the second sub-pixel structure are separated by the first common electrode portion (VL1, for example, in fig. 11), and the pad group of the second sub-pixel structure and the pad group of the third sub-pixel structure are separated by the second common electrode portion (VL2, for example).
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ruan et al (PG Pub 2022/0302174 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Ruan teaches a pixel structure comprising: a common electrode comprising a conductive portion, wherein the conductive portion comprises a first sub-portion and a second sub-portion outside the first sub-portion; and sub-pixel structures, wherein each of the sub-pixel structures comprising: a pad group (P1 and/or P2, fig. 5), at least comprising a first pad; and a light-emitting element (LED), bonded to the pad group; the sub-pixel structures comprise a first sub-pixel structure, a second sub-pixel structure and a third sub-pixel structure (three: each has an LED, fig. 5) respectively arranged in a straight direction; in a top view of the pixel structure, the pad group of the first sub-pixel structure and the pad group of the second sub-pixel structure are separated by the first sub-portion (see fig. 5 attached) of the conductive portion of the common electrode, and the pad group of the second sub-pixel structure and the pad group of the third sub-pixel structure are separated by the second sub-portion of the conductive portion of the common electrode.
PNG
media_image1.png
624
782
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Ruan teaches (see fig. 5 above) the pixel structure according to claim 9, wherein the pad group of each of the sub-pixel structures further comprises a second pad (P2 under each LED) that is structurally separated from the first pad; the conductive portion of the common electrode has a first opening, a second opening and a third opening, and the first sub-portion of the conductive portion is located between the first opening and the second opening, and the second sub-portion of the conductive portion is located between the second opening and the third opening; in the top view of the pixel structure, the second pad of the first sub-pixel structure, the second pad of the second sub-pixel structure and the second pad of the third sub-pixel structure are respectively located at the first opening, the second opening and the third opening.
Regarding claim 11, Ruan teaches the pixel structure according to claim 10, wherein an arrangement direction of the first pad (P1 under each LED) and the second pad (the extra P2 not under each LED) of each of the sub-pixel structures is staggered with an arrangement direction of the first opening, the second opening and the third opening.
Regarding claim 12, Ruan teaches pixel structure according to claim 10, wherein an arrangement direction of the first pad and the second pad of each of the sub-pixel structures is consistent with an arrangement direction of the first opening, the second opening and the third opening (fig. 5).
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.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong et al (PG Pub 2021/0057482 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ruan et al (PG Pub 2022/0302174 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Kong remains as applied in claim 1.
Kong further teaches the pixel structure according to claim 1, wherein a first direction is substantially parallel to the first common electrode portion, a second direction is substantially parallel to the second common electrode portion, and the pad group of each of the sub-pixel structures is disposed adjacent to the first common electrode portion and has a first size in the first direction, and the pad group of each of the sub-pixel structures is disposed adjacent to the second common electrode portion and has a second size in the second direction (fig. 4-12, paragraph [0117]).
Kong does not teach a ratio of a sum of the first size and the second size of the first sub-pixel structure to a sum of the first size and the second size of the second sub-pixel structure is greater than 0.8 and less than 1.2.
In the same field of endeavor, Ruan teaches sizes of pads decrease as resolution of a display increases (paragraph [0004]). Also, it was well known in the art before the affective filing date of the invention that the size of a pad affects its electrical characteristics such as current density and voltage magnitude it can withstand. Furthermore, it was well known in the art before the affective filing date of the invention that different intensities of light from LEDs of various colors, created by different amount of current through them, create light of different tones.
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to tailor the sizes of the pads to optimize the display resolution, color tone of each pixel, and electrical characteristics of the pads according to the specific requirements of the users/manufacturers. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 3, it would have been obvious the optimize the sizes as claimed. See claim 2.
Regarding claim 4, Kong teaches a first direction is substantially parallel to the first common electrode portion, there is a gap between the pad group of the second sub-pixel structure and the pad group of the third sub-pixel structure (figs. 4-12).
Kong further teaches the light emitting devices (ERs) to be microLEDs, whose side was well known to be greater than 5µm. Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that a width of the gap in the first direction (DR2, fig. 11) is greater than or equal to 5μm since they are separated by more than the size of an ER.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 ar 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Prior art does not teach
“the pad group of each of the sub-pixel structures further comprises a second pad … in a top view of the pixel structure, the long side of the first pad of the second sub-pixel structure is adjacent to the first sub-portion of the first common electrode portion, and the first pad of the second sub-pixel structure separates the second pad of the second sub-pixel structure from the common electrode; the first pad of the third sub-pixel structure has a long side and a short side adjacent to each other; in the top view of the pixel structure, the long side of the first pad of the third sub-pixel structure is adjacent to the second sub-portion of the first common electrode portion, and the first pad of the third sub-pixel structure separates the second pad of the third sub-pixel structure from the common electrode” (claim 5);
Claims 6 to 8 depend from claim 5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FEIFEI YEUNG LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1882. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8am to 4pm 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, Dale Page can be reached at 571 270 7877. 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.
/FEIFEI YEUNG LOPEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights