DETAILED ACTION
This Action is responsive to Amendment filed on 09/09/2025.
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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 § 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.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 24, which depends from Claim 18, recites the limitation: “a housing, wherein one or more processing units are located within the housing and the display located external to the housing” at lines 12-13. However, Claim 18 recites the limitation: “a housing, wherein the display and one or more processing units are located within the housing” at lines 1-3. It is unclear how the display recited in both Claim 18 and Claim 24 can be located within the housing and also external of the housing.
Claim 24, which depends from Claim 18, recites the limitation: “a housing. . .” at line 1. However, Claim 18 recites the limitation: “a housing . . .” at line 12. It is unclear whether the recitation of “a housing” in Claim 24 is referring to the housing element in Claim 18 or introducing an additional housing element to the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 12-13, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iguchi (US 2019/0355786), in view of Huang (US 2016/0307880).
Regarding claim 1, Iguchi (see, e.g., FIG. 9) discloses an apparatus comprising:
a plurality of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) 14, individual LEDs 14 comprise a body 11 that extends from a first end e.g., top end of 11 to a second end e.g., bottom end of 11 (Para 0035, Para 0036);
a first layer 51, individual of the LEDs 14 positioned with respective second ends e.g., bottom end of 11 proximate to the first layer 51 (Para 0031, Para 0046);
an insulating material 17, wherein spaces between the plurality of LEDs 14 are filled with the insulating material 17 (Para 0043, Para 0056, Para 0085-Para 0087); and
a plurality of vias 19P, individual of the vias 19P electrically coupling one of the LEDs 14 to the first layer 51, wherein the LEDs 14 are attached to a substrate 9 with a release layer e.g., sacrificial layer (not shown) (Para 0046, Para 0067, Para 0068, Para 0085, Para 0086; see also FIG. 4C),
Although Iguchi shows substantial features of the claimed invention, Iguchi fails to expressly teach that the first layer comprising aluminum and silicon.
Even though Iguchi fails to teach that the first layer comprises aluminum and silicon. Iguchi does, however, teach that the first layer 51 comprises gold, copper, and nickel (Para 0046).
Huang, on the other hand, teaches an electrode 125 formed of at least aluminum, copper gold, and aluminum silicon alloy (Para 0035).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one or ordinary skill in the art to use either copper or aluminum silicon alloy as an electrode in the device of Iguchi because these materials were recognized in the semiconductor art for their use as electrodes, as taught by Huang, and selecting between known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Iguchi (see, e.g., FIG. 9) teaches that the LEDs 14 are pyramid LEDs.
Regarding claim 4, Iguchi (see, e.g., FIG. 9) teaches that for individual of the LEDs 14, the first end e.g., top end of 11 is distal to the first layer 51 and the second end e.g., bottom end of 11 is proximate to the first layer 51.
Although Iguchi shows substantial features of the claimed invention, Iguchi fails to specify that the distance from the first end to the first layer being substantially 1.1 times a height as measured from the first end to the second end. However, differences in distance will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such distance difference is critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph) of a distance from the first end to the first layer being substantially 1.1 times a height as measured from the first end to the second end, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the distance from the first end to the first layer and the distance from the first end to the second in the device of Iguchi.
CRITICALITY
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed a distance from the first end to the first layer being substantially 1.1 times a height as measured from the first end to the second end or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 5, Iguchi (see, e.g., FIG. 9) teaches that the LEDs 14 are located on the substrate 9; wherein individual vias 19P are between a respective second end e.g., bottom end of 11 of a LED 14 of the plurality of LEDs 14 and the first layer 51; wherein the insulating material 17 extends around individual vias 19P of the plurality of vias 19P (Para 0046, Para 0067, Para 0068, Para 0085, Para 0086; see also FIG. 4C).
Regarding claim 7, Iguchi (see, e.g., FIG. 9) teaches that the apparatus 200a is a display (Para 0041, Para 0050, Para 0069, Para 0088).
Regarding claim 8, Iguchi (see, e.g., FIG. 9) teaches that the apparatus 200a is an optical interconnect (Para 0041, Para 0050, Para 0069, Para 0088).
Regarding claim 9, Iguchi (see, e.g., 8A-FIG. 8F, FIG. 9) discloses a method comprising:
forming a structure 14 on a substrate 9, the structure 14 comprising a plurality of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) 14, wherein individual LEDs 14 comprise a body 11 that extends from a first end e.g., end of 11 adjacent to 9 on the substrate 9 to a second end e.g., end of 11 adjacent to 12 (Para 0035, Para 0036, Para 0051, Para 0085-Para 0086);
filling spaces between adjacent LEDs 14 with an insulating layer 17 (Para 0087);
forming a plurality of vias 19P in the insulating layer 17, individual of the LEDs 14 connecting at a respective second end e.g., end of 11 adjacent to 12 to one of the vias 19P (Para 0046, Para 0085-Para 0087); and
forming a first layer 51 over the insulating layer 17 and respective second ends e.g., end of 11 adjacent to 12 of the LEDs 14, such that individual LEDs 14 are electrically coupled to the first layer 51 (Para 0046, Para 0067-Para 0068, Para 0085-Para 0087; see also FIG. 4C),
Although Iguchi shows substantial features of the claimed invention, Iguchi fails to expressly teach that the first layer comprising aluminum and silicon.
Even though Iguchi fails to teach that the first layer comprises aluminum and silicon. Iguchi does, however, teach that the first layer 51 comprises gold, copper, and nickel (Para 0046).
Huang, on the other hand, teaches an electrode 125 formed of at least aluminum, copper gold, and aluminum silicon alloy (Para 0035).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one or ordinary skill in the art to use either copper or aluminum silicon alloy as an electrode in the device of Iguchi because these materials were recognized in the semiconductor art for their use as electrodes, as taught by Huang, and selecting between known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 10, Iguchi (see, e.g., 8A-FIG. 8F, FIG. 9) teaches that the LEDs 14 are pyramid LEDs.
Regarding claim 12, although Iguchi shows substantial features of the claimed invention, Iguchi fails to specify that for the individual of the LEDs, a distance from the first end to the first layer is substantially 1.1 times a height measured from the first end to the second end. Iguchi (see, e.g., FIG. 9), on the other hand, does teaches that for individual of the LEDs 14, the first end e.g., end of 11 adjacent to 9 has a distance to the first layer 51 and the second end e.g., end of 11 adjacent to 12 has a distance to the first layer 51. However, differences in distance will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such distance difference is critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph) of a distance from the first end to the first layer being substantially 1.1 times a height measured from the first end to the second end, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the distance from the first end to the first layer and the distance from the first end to the second in the device of Iguchi.
CRITICALITY
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed distance from the first end to the first layer being substantially 1.1 times a height measured from the first end to the second end or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions.
Regarding claim 13, Iguchi (see, e.g., 8A-FIG. 8F, FIG. 9) teaches a release layer e.g., sacrificial layer (not shown) is positioned between the first ends e.g., end of 11 adjacent to 9 of the LEDs 14 and the substrate 9 (Para 0046, Para 0067-Para 0068, Para 0085-Para 0087; see also FIG. 4C).
Regarding claim 25, Iguchi (see, e.g., 8A-FIG. 8F, FIG. 9) teaches that the structure 14 is formed on a substrate 9 with a release layer e.g., sacrificial layer (not shown) (Para 0046, Para 0067-Para 0068, Para 0085-Para 0087; see also FIG. 4C).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18 and 20 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTONIO CRITE whose telephone number is (571) 270-5267. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00 am - 6:30 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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at (571) 272-5055. 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.
/ANTONIO B CRITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817