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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/24/2025 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/23/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 4-6 and 12-14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “depositing the second transparent material … to the second transparent material’ in the last three lines of the claim, which lacks the full support of the original disclosure. The elected species of Fig. 15E does not teach this step.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “applying a transparent third material … to the planarized surface” in the last two lines of the claim, which lacks the full support of the original disclosure. The elected species of Fig. 15E does not teach this step. Claim 1 is claiming “planarizing the second transparent material to obtain a planarized surface”, where “a planarized surface” corresponds to the top horizontal surface of 7 in Fig. 15E, and there is nothing on the top horizontal surface of 7 in Fig. 15E.
Claims 4-6 and 12-14 are rejected because they depend on the rejected claim 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) 1, 4 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 2013/0119424 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kang et al. teach a method for producing a µ-LED (light emitting device having micro concavo-convex portions; Fig. 15, [0182, 0007]), comprising: providing a semiconductor body (120/113; Fig. 3, [0125]) comprising an active layer (117; Fig. 3, [0125]) and a planar surface (the top surface of 113; see Fig. 3 upside down); applying a first transparent material (111; Fig. 3, [0052, 0187]) on the planar surface of the semiconductor body (the top surface of 113; see Fig. 3 upside down); generating an out-coupling structure (11/12; Fig. 9, [0053, 0056]) in the first transparent material (111) on the planar surface of the semiconductor body (the top surface of 113; see Fig. 9) by forming a random topology (11/12, which can have random interval; [0066]) on a surface area of the first transparent material (the top surface of 111); applying a second transparent material (160; Fig. 15, [0187]) on the random topology (11/12) of the surface area of the first transparent material (the top surface of 111); and planarizing the second transparent material (160) to obtain a planarized surface (the top surface of 160); wherein applying the first transparent material (111) comprises depositing the first transparent material (111) having a high refractive index greater than 2 (111 can be SiC having a refractive index of 2.65 according to paragraph [0383] of the publication of the current application US 20220052027 A1; [0052]) to the planar surface (the top surface of 113); and wherein applying the second transparent material (160) comprises depositing the second transparent material (the top half of 160, 160 can be epoxy resin; [0187]) having a second refractive index (the refractive index of epoxy resin; [0187] to the second transparent material (the bottom half of 160).
Kang et al. do not teach a second refractive index less than 1.5.
In the same reference, Kang et al. teach a second refractive index being a refractive index of the epoxy resin (the refractive index of 160, which can be epoxy resin, [0187]), which has a refractive index of from 1.4 to 1.6 as evident from the paragraph [0079] of Fujikane et al. (US 20120091490 A1), which overlaps the claimed range of less than 1.5, that establishes a prima facie of obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 4, Kang et al. teach the method according to claim 1, wherein planarizing comprises: applying a transparent third material (161, a transmissive resin layer; Fig. 15, [0164]) having a low refractive index (161 can include epoxy resin which has a refractive index lower than the substrate 111 disclosed in [0187], i.e. a low refractive index) to the planarized surface (the top surface of 160).
Kang et al. do not teach a transparent third material having a low refractive index less than 1.5.
In the same reference, Kang et al. teach a transparent third material (161, which can be epoxy resin; [0164]) having a low refractive index (the refractive index of the epoxy resin; [0164]), which has a refractive index of from 1.4 to 1.6 as evident from the paragraph [0079] of Fujikane et al. (US 20120091490 A1), which overlaps the claimed range of less than 1.5, that establishes a prima facie of obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 12, Kang et al. teach the method according to claim 1, further comprises roughening the second transparent material (160, the bottom surface of 160 is roughened by the rough surface of 11/12; see Fig. 15).
Regarding claim 13, Kang et al. teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the high refractive index of the first transparent material (111) is greater than 2.3 (111 can be SiC having a refractive index of 2.65 according to paragraph [0383] of the publication of the current application US 20220052027 A1; [0052]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Koyama et al. (US 2021/0391514 A1) and Takiguchi et al. (US 2022/0093833 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Kang et al. teach the method according to claim 4, wherein the transparent third material (161) having the low refractive index ([0187]).
Kang et al. do not teach the transparent third material comprises SiO2 and is applied by TEOS (tetraethylorthosilicate).
In the same field of endeavor of LEDs, Koyama et al. teach the transparent third material (13 of the low refractive layer; Fig. 1, [0058]) comprises SiO2 ([0058]).
Kang et al. teach all the claimed elements except that Kang et al. is using resin for the low refractive index layer rather than SiO2.
In the same field of endeavor of semiconductor manufacturing, Koyama et al. teach using SiO2 for the low refractive index layer (13 of the low refractive layer; Fig. 1, [0058]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that resin and SiO2 are known equivalents for providing the low refractive index layer within the semiconductor art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to substitute one know element (resin) for another known equivalent element (SiO2) resulting in the predictable result of providing the low refractive index layer (KSR rationales B).
In the same field of endeavor of LEDs, Takiguchi et al. teach SiO2 is applied by TEOS (tetraethylorthosilicate) ([0147]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the inventions of Kang et al., Koyama et al. and Takiguchi et al., and to use the TEOS to form SiO2 as taught by Takiguchi et al., because Takiguchi et al. teach that TEOS is the preferred method of making SiO2 due to its low temperature process ([0147]).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Chiu (US 2009/0057702 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Kang et al. teach the method according to claim 13, wherein the first transparent material (111).
Kang et al. do not teach the first transparent material is Nb2O5.
In the same field of endeavor of light emitting devices, Chiu teaches the first transparent material (the high refractive index material of the alternate stack of 16, which is higher than the low refractive index material of the alternate stack of 16; [0032-0033]) is Nb2O5 ([0033]).
Kang et al. teach all the claimed elements except that Kang et al. are using SiC for a high refractive index material ([0052, 0187]) rather than Nb2O5.
In the same field of endeavor of semiconductor manufacturing, Chiu is using Nb2O5 ([0033]) for a high refractive index material (the high refractive index material of the alternate stack of 16; [0032-0033]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that SiC and Nb2O5 are known equivalents for providing a high refractive index material within the semiconductor art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to substitute one know element (SiC) for another known equivalent element (Nb2O5) resulting in the predictable result of providing a high refractive index material (KSR rationales B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, filed 11/24/2025, overcome the rejections to claims 1, 4-6 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 112. The rejections to claims 1, 4-6 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HSIN YI HSIEH whose telephone number is (571)270-3043. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 - 5:00 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, Zandra V Smith can be reached on 571-272-2429. 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.
/HSIN YI HSIEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899 1/24/2026