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 .
This Office action is in response to Amendments filed 7/7/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 first dielectric layer (combination of bottom “Oxide” and “Nitride” in Fig. 1) directly abutting the ablation layer (see Fig. 1) and a second dielectric layer (upper “Oxide” in Fig. 1) directly abutting the first dielectric layer, the one or more dielectric layers comprising a plurality of dielectric layer apertures (hole in the first dielectric layer and the hole in the second dielectric layer in 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 (see Fig. 1), apertures of the second dielectric layer being 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 first dielectric layer is disposed between the ablation layer and the second dielectric layer (see Fig. 1), and
apertures of the first dielectric layer are the same size as 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
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 as a nucleation layer in an apparatus. (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 as a dielectric layer in an apparatus. (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 7/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that in AAPA “the ablation layer aperture and the apertures of the dielectric layers directly abutting the ablation layer are the same size” and therefore “AAPA does not disclose ‘apertures of the second dielectric layer [are] larger than individual ones of the plurality of ablation layer apertures,’ as recited by Applicant’s independent claim 1 as amended.” This argument is not persuasive as, in response to Applicant’s Amendments, the mapping of AAPA has been modified to account for this newly added limitation. Specifically, the lower “Oxide” and the “Nitride” in Fig. 1 of AAPA can be considered a single “dielectric layer”.
Applicant further argues that the top Oxide in AAPA’s Fig. 1 “corresponds to a fill oxide layer that id deposited around the micro-LED body after the micro-LED has grown. . . . As a result, this fill oxide layer does not ‘directly abut’ a dielectric layer (i.e., the nitride layer) . . . . [because] “the micro-LED body as shown in Fig. 1 is disposed between the fill oxide and the nitride layer.” This argument is not persuasive as the bottom surface of the top “Oxide” in Fig. 1 (which Applicant refers to as the “fill oxide”) directly contacts the nitride layer (see Fig. 1). As such, the top Oxide layer directly abuts the nitride layer (see Fig. 1).
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 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.
/C.A.C/ Examiner, Art Unit 2815
/JOSHUA BENITEZ ROSARIO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Prosecution Insights