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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/09/2026 has been entered.
Specification
The amendment filed 01/14/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: newly included texts in the amended paragraph [0423] of the specification, amended features in the amended Fig. 26B.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
The amendment filed 02/09/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: newly included texts in the amended paragraph [0409] of the specification.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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 1-3, 5-7, 11, 13 and 15-16 are 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 “wherein the µ-LED array comprises a first density having a first periodicity in a first direction and a second periodicity in a perpendicular direction relative to the first direction” in the 3rd to 5th lines of the claim, which lacks the full support of the original disclosure. Applicant elected Species I of Fig. 23. The passage of the specification from line 27, page 100 to line 33, page 101 discloses the embodiment of Fig. 23, but does not disclose the above limitation. Furthermore, “density” is a broad term which has different meanings in different scientific or technology areas, while the concept of “density” was never mentioned regarding the embodiment of Fig. 23.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “said periodically arranged pillars having a second density having a third periodicity in the first direction and a fourth periodicity in the perpendicular direction, wherein the second density is higher than the first density” in the 9th to 11th lines of the claim, which lacks the full support of the original disclosure. Applicant elected Species I of Fig. 23. The passage of the specification from line 27, page 100 to line 33, page 101 discloses the embodiment of Fig. 23, but does not disclose the above limitation. Furthermore, “density” is a broad term which has different meanings in different scientific or technology areas, while the concept of “density” was never mentioned regarding the embodiment of Fig. 23.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the photonic structure is configured for beamshaping of the light generated by the µ-LEDs in such a way that the light emerges at least substantially perpendicularly from the light-emitting surface” in the claim, which lacks the full support of the original disclosure. Applicant elected Species I of Fig. 23. The passage of the specification from line 27, page 100 to line 33, page 101 discloses the embodiment of Fig. 23, but does not disclose the above limitation.
Claim 5 recites the limitations “the µ-LEDs represent a plurality of pixels” in the claim, which lacks the full support of the original disclosure. Applicant elected Species I of Fig. 23. The passage of the specification from line 27, page 100 to line 33, page 101 discloses the embodiment of Fig. 23, but does not disclose the above limitation.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the photonic structure is located close to the active region such that the photonic structure changes an optical state density present in at least portions of the active region in such a way that a band gap is generated for at least one optical mode with a direction of propagation parallel and/or at a small angle to a light emitting surface” in the claim, which lacks the full support of the original disclosure. Applicant elected Species I of Fig. 23. The passage of the specification from line 27, page 100 to line 33, page 101 discloses the embodiment of Fig. 23, but does not disclose the above limitation.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “wherein the optoelectronic device comprises a first density having a first periodicity in a first direction and a second periodicity in a perpendicular direction relative to the first direction” in the 3rd to 5th lines of the claim, which lacks the full support of the original disclosure. Applicant elected Species I of Fig. 23. The passage of the specification from line 27, page 100 to line 33, page 101 discloses the embodiment of Fig. 23, but does not disclose the above limitation. Furthermore, “density” is a broad term which has different meanings in different scientific or technology areas, while the concept of “density” was never mentioned regarding the embodiment of Fig. 23.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “said periodically arranged pillars having a second density having a third periodicity in the first direction and a fourth periodicity in the perpendicular direction” in the 9th to 11th lines of the claim, which lacks the full support of the original disclosure. Applicant elected Species I of Fig. 23. The passage of the specification from line 27, page 100 to line 33, page 101 discloses the embodiment of Fig. 23, but does not disclose the above limitation. Furthermore, “density” is a broad term which has different meanings in different scientific or technology areas, while the concept of “density” was never mentioned regarding the embodiment of Fig. 23.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “wherein the first density is a first two-dimensional (2D) periodicity and the second density is a second 2D periodicity” in the claim, which lacks the full support of the original disclosure. Applicant elected Species I of Fig. 23. The passage of the specification from line 27, page 100 to line 33, page 101 discloses the embodiment of Fig. 23, but does not disclose the above limitation. Furthermore, “density” is a broad term which has different meanings in different scientific or technology areas, while the concept of “density” was never mentioned regarding the embodiment of Fig. 23.
Claims 2-3, 5-7, 11 and 15-16 are rejected because they depend on the rejected claim 1.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 11, 13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a perpendicular direction relative to the first direction” in the 4th and 5th lines of the claim. It is unclear what kind of structural relationship between a perpendicular direction and the first direction is indicated by the term “relative”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “a perpendicular direction relative to the first direction” in the 5th lines of the claim. It is unclear what kind of structural relationship between a perpendicular direction and the first direction is indicated by the term “relative”.
Claims 2-3, 5-7, 11 and 15-16 are rejected because they depend on the rejected claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, filed 02/09/2026, did not overcome the objections to the specification. Applicant indicated in the reply that Applicant had canceled the above amendments, but the examiner did not find any amendments in the replay cancelling the above amendments. Thus, the objection still stands.
Applicant’s amendments, filed 02/09/2026, partially overcome the rejections to claims 1-3, 5-7, 11, 13 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 112. The rejections to claims 1-3, 5-7, 11, 13 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been partially withdrawn. Please see the rejections above for details.
On pages 7-8 of Applicant’s Response, Applicant argues that claims 1 and 13 are supported by Fig. 23A.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument, because Fig. 23A does not teach at least “first density”, “second density”, “first density” and “second density” in the limitations mentioned in the paragraphs 6, 7, 11 and 12 of the previous final rejection regarding claims 1 and 13 respectively. Thus, the 112 rejections still stands.
On page 9 of Applicant’s Response, Applicant argues that the 112 rejections on claim 2, 5, and 7 because the recited features are not explicitly disclosed in "the passage of the specification from line 27, page 100 to line 33, page 101" associated with the elected species of Figure 23, is improper.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument, because the examiner has to examine the 112(a) issues based on the original disclosure. According to MPEP 714.02, “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure”, when the amendments are filed, which Applicant failed to do that. Due to the huge numbers of the embodiments in this application, it would be reasonable for the examiner to focus on "the passage of the specification from line 27, page 100 to line 33, page 101", which is directly related to the elected species to examine the 112(a) issues. The 112(a) issues is examined based on the following guideline: “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.” Arbitrary combining the features from different embodiments to create a new embodiment is generally considered new matter, because the combination was not made “at the time the application was filed.” Applicant can still argue it by specifically pointing out the support of the limitation under 112(a) rejection from which feature of which embodiment and why the current elected embodiment should also have this feature at the time the application was filed. The examiner would consider the arguments and determine whether the arguments are persuasive. At present, the arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chen et al. (US 2022/0352423 A1) teach an active-matrix micro-LED micro display with CMOS backplane using photonic crystal elements.
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 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 3/10/2026