Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 17/485,398

MICRO LED LASER RELEASE FROM SILICON WAFER

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Sep 25, 2021
Examiner
CULBERT, CHRISTOPHER A
Art Unit
2815
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Intel Corporation
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
41%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 8m
To Grant
46%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 41% of resolved cases
41%
Career Allow Rate
137 granted / 333 resolved
-26.9% vs TC avg
Minimal +4% lift
Without
With
+4.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 8m
Avg Prosecution
81 currently pending
Career history
414
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
55.8%
+15.8% vs TC avg
§102
20.9%
-19.1% vs TC avg
§112
22.1%
-17.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 333 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/3/2026 has been entered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 (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. 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, 2, 4, 6-9, 25, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Applicant’s admitted prior art (AAPA). Regarding claim 1, AAPA discloses an apparatus (Fig. 1 of the present Application), comprising: a nucleation layer (see Fig. 1); an ablation layer (see Fig. 1) formed on the nucleation layer, the ablation layer comprising a plurality of ablation layer apertures that expose the nucleation layer (an array of what is shown in Fig. 1 will contain a plurality of apertures such as seen in Fig. 1); one or more dielectric layers (oxides and nitride in Fig. 1) formed on the ablation layer, the one or more dielectric layers comprising a plurality of dielectric layer apertures (see Fig. 1); wherein individual ones of the plurality of dielectric layer apertures are disposed concentrically with individual ones of the plurality of ablation layer apertures, the individual ones of the plurality of dielectric layer apertures comprising at least one dielectric layer aperture (aperture of top oxide) that is larger than individual ones of the plurality of ablation layer apertures in a lateral direction that is planar to the nucleation layer and the ablation layer (See Fig. 1); and a plurality of micro-light emitting diodes (GaN, only one of which is shown in Fig. 1), each of the micro-LEDs comprising a stem and a body (see Fig. 1); wherein the stem of each of the micro-LEDs is formed through the individual ones of the plurality of ablation layer apertures and the individual ones of the plurality of dielectric apertures (see Fig. 1), wherein the body of each micro-LEDs extends past the dielectric layer of the one or more dielectric layers that is most proximate to the respective body (see Fig. 1). Regarding claim 2, AAPA further discloses a substrate (see Fig. 1), wherein the nucleation layer is formed on the substrate (see Fig. 1). Regarding claim 4, AAPA further discloses wherein the ablation layer is comprises of a metal and nitrogen (¶ 0020). Regarding claim 6, AAPA further discloses an adhesion layer (see Fig. 1) formed on each of the micro-LEDs; a mirror layer (see Fig. 1) formed on the adhesion layer; and a contact layer (See Fig. 1) formed on the mirror layer. Regarding claim 7, AAPA further discloses a recipient substrate (top oxide in Fig. 1 which is considered a recipient substrate as it receives the mirror) adhered to the contact layer (via the mirror layer). Regarding claim 8, AAPA further discloses wherein each of the micro-LEDs is formed from a compound that comprises gallium and nitrogen (see Fig. 1). Regarding claim 9, AAPA further discloses wherein the bodies of each of the micro-LEDs comprise nano-pyramids (see Fig. 1). Regarding claim 25, AAPA further discloses wherein the one or more dielectric layers comprises a first dielectric layer (nitride) and a second dielectric layer (top oxide), the first dielectric layer is disposed between the ablation layer and the second dielectric layer (see Fig. 1), apertures of the first dielectric layer are the same size as ablation layer apertures (see Fig. 1), and apertures of the second dielectric layer are larger than ablation layer apertures (see Fig. 1). Regarding claim 26, AAPA further discloses wherein the lateral direction is perpendicular to a vertical growth direction of the plurality of micro-LEDs (see Fig. 1). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 (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. 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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Anderson et al. (US 2019/0237616 A1). Regarding claim 3, AAPA differs from the claimed invention by not disclosing the composition of the nucleation layer. However, nucleation layers composed of gallium and nitrogen and the corresponding function was known in the art (claim 12 of Anderson). As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to have used a nucleation layer of gallium and nitrogen as taught by Anderson for the nucleation layer of AAPA and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. (see MPEP § 2143(I)(B)). Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. (US 2023/0275186 A1). Regarding claim 5, AAPA differs from the claimed invention by not disclosing whether the oxide and nitride of the dielectric layers are silicon oxide and silicon nitride. However, dielectric layers of silicon oxide and silicon nitride and the corresponding function was known in the art (¶ 0023 of Li). As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to have used dielectric layers of silicon oxide and silicon nitride as taught by Li for the dielectric layers of AAPA and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. (see MPEP § 2143(I)(B)). Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA as applied to claim 1 above. Regarding claim 12, AAPA does not disclose that the apertures of the ablation layer are sized to a minimum size necessary for formation of each of the micro-LEDs. However, it is a matter of routine experimentation to adjust the size of the aperture to determine what sizes successfully form micro-LEDs. As such, setting the aperture of the ablation layer to the minimum size necessary for formation of the micro-LED is obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 2/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments are directed to the prior mapping of AAPA. However, AAPA also discloses the currently presented version of claim 1, as discussed in the rejection above. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER A CULBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-4893. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5. 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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at (571) 270-1435. 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. /CHRISTOPHER A CULBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 25, 2021
Application Filed
Sep 29, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 31, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 31, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 30, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Dec 29, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 23, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Feb 03, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 20, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 24, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12557465
PHOTOELECTRIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12532521
METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SELF-ALIGNED EXCHANGE GATES AND ASSOCIATED SEMICONDUCTING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12520723
ORGANIC LIGHT EMITTING DIODE AND ORGANIC LIGHT EMITTING DEVICE INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Patent 12512315
METHOD OF MANUFACTURING SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
Patent 12501743
MICRO-LED STRUCTURE AND MICRO-LED CHIP INCLUDING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 16, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
41%
Grant Probability
46%
With Interview (+4.4%)
3y 8m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 333 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month