Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/513,587

µ-LED, µ-LED DEVICE, DISPLAY AND METHOD FOR THE SAME

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Oct 28, 2021
Examiner
HSIEH, HSIN YI
Art Unit
2899
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Osram Opto Semiconductors GmbH
OA Round
4 (Non-Final)
51%
Grant Probability
Moderate
4-5
OA Rounds
3y 10m
To Grant
57%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 51% of resolved cases
51%
Career Allow Rate
321 granted / 631 resolved
-17.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+6.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 10m
Avg Prosecution
57 currently pending
Career history
688
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
39.3%
-0.7% vs TC avg
§102
23.1%
-16.9% vs TC avg
§112
35.3%
-4.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 631 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/30/2025 and 02/05/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Abu-Ageel (US 2009/0050905 A1). Regarding claim 1, Abu-Ageel teaches an optoelectronic component (310; Fig. 4B, [0032]), comprising: a µ-LED array (micro-guides 140 of Fig. 2A; Fig. 4B, [0031, 0028]) with at least one µ-LED (140; Fig. 4B, [0031, 0028]) which emits electromagnetic radiation (140 includes the active layer 30, i.e. the photon-emitting layer; Fig. 4B, [0031]) via a light emission surface (a horizonal surface along the top surface of 150B; see Fig. 4B below, [0032]); a photonic structure (150B; Fig. 1, [0032]) for beam-shaping of the electromagnetic radiation (beam-shaping by enhancing the extraction of light within a certain cone angle; [0032]) before exiting via the light emission surface (a horizonal surface along the top surface of 150B) in a main radiation direction (the upward direction in Fig. 4B), wherein the photonic structure (150B) is configured to shape a far field of the electromagnetic radiation (enhancing the extraction of light within a certain cone angle which would shape the far field of the radiation; [0032]); and a collimating optical system (micro-lens array150; Fig. 4B, [0032]) arranged downstream of the light emission surface (a horizonal surface along the top surface of 150B) as viewed in the main radiation direction (the upward direction in Fig. 4B), the collimating optical system (150) being configured to collimate the electromagnetic radiation (light emitted by the layer 30; [0031-0032]) in a second spatial direction (the horizontal direction in Fig. 4B according the curvature of 150 in Fig. 4B) orthogonal to a first spatial direction (the direction into the paper of Fig. 4B) and to the main radiation direction (the upward direction in Fig. 4B), wherein the first spatial direction (the direction into the paper of Fig. 4B) is orthogonal to the main radiation direction (the upward direction in Fig. 4B). PNG media_image1.png 341 461 media_image1.png Greyscale [AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Light emitting surface)] Fig. 4B of Abu-Ageel showing the light emission surface as a dash line Regarding claim 8, Abu-Ageel teaches the optoelectronic component according to claim 1, wherein the photonic structure (150B) is arranged in a first semiconductor layer (50 of epitaxial layer 20 of InGaAlP, a semiconductor layer; Fig. 4B, [0031, 0033]) below the light emission surface (a horizonal surface along the top surface of 150B), and/or (or) wherein the photonic structure is formed in a second semiconductor layer of an optoelectronic emitter unit, and/or (or) wherein the optoelectronic emitter unit comprises a converter material layer and the photonic structure is formed in the converter material layer or in a layer between the converter material layer and the light emission surface (Abu-Ageel teaches the first option: “wherein the photonic structure is arranged in a first semiconductor layer below the light emission surface”). Regarding claim 15, Abu-Ageel teaches the optoelectronic component of claim 1, wherein the second spatial direction (the horizontal direction in Fig. 4B) is substantially orthogonal to the main radiation direction (the upward direction in Fig. 4B). 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. 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) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abu-Ageel as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bergenek et al. (US 2012/0261642 A1). Regarding claim 2, Abu-Ageel teaches the optoelectronic component according to claim 1, wherein the photonic structure (150B). Abu-Ageel does not teach the photonic structure is a one-dimensional photonic crystal. In the same field of endeavor of light emitting devices, Bergenek et al. teach the photonic structure (4; Fig. 2, [0050]) is a one-dimensional photonic crystal (Fig. 4A, [0057]). Abu-Ageel teach all the claimed elements except that Abu-Ageel is using a two-dimensional photonic crystal ([0047]) for extracting more light at certain angles ([0032]) rather than a one-dimensional photonic crystal. In the same field of endeavor of semiconductor manufacturing, Bergenek et al. teach using a one-dimensional photonic crystal (4; Figs. 2 and 4A, [0050, 0057]) for extracting more light at certain angles ([0040]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a two-dimensional photonic crystal and a one-dimensional photonic crystal are known equivalents for extracting more light at certain angles 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 (a two-dimensional photonic crystal) for another known equivalent element (a one-dimensional photonic crystal) resulting in the predictable result of extracting more light at certain angles (KSR rationales B). Regarding claim 3, Abu-Ageel teaches the optoelectronic component according to claim 1, wherein the photonic structure (150B). Abu-Ageel does not teach the photonic structure is formed as a one-dimensional photonic crystal, in such a way that the electromagnetic radiation is at least approximately collimated in the first spatial direction. In the same field of endeavor of light emitting devices, Bergenek et al. teach the photonic structure (4; Fig. 2, [0050]) is formed as a one-dimensional photonic crystal (Fig. 4A, [0057]), in such a way that the electromagnetic radiation (light emitted by the active layer; [0040]) is at least approximately collimated (into a small solid angle range; [0040]) in the first spatial direction (the horizonal direction in Fig. 2). Abu-Ageel teach all the claimed elements except that Abu-Ageel is using a two-dimensional photonic crystal ([0047]) for extracting more light at certain angles ([0032]) rather than a one-dimensional photonic crystal. In the same field of endeavor of semiconductor manufacturing, Bergenek et al. teach using a one-dimensional photonic crystal (4; Figs. 2 and 4A, [0050, 0057]) for extracting more light at certain angles ([0040]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a two-dimensional photonic crystal and a one-dimensional photonic crystal are known equivalents for extracting more light at certain angles 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 (a two-dimensional photonic crystal) for another known equivalent element (a one-dimensional photonic crystal) resulting in the predictable result of extracting more light at certain angles (KSR rationales B). Response to Arguments Applicant’s amendments, filed 02/05/2026, overcome the rejections to claims 1-3, 8 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 112. The rejections to claims 1-3, 8 and 15 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 3/2/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 28, 2021
Application Filed
Sep 13, 2024
Response Filed
Oct 16, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Jan 21, 2025
Response Filed
Apr 30, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Aug 05, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 03, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Feb 05, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 02, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598786
FIELD EFFECT TRANSISTOR STRUCTURES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12575243
DISPLAY DEVICE AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12550486
OPTOELECTRONIC DEVICE WITH AXIAL THREE-DIMENSIONAL LIGHT-EMITTING DIODES
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12538616
LIGHT EMITTING DIODE WITH OPTIMISED ELECTRIC INJECTION FROM A SIDE ELECTRODE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12538617
3D LIGHT-EMITTING DIODE AND ASSOCIATED MANUFACTURING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
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

4-5
Expected OA Rounds
51%
Grant Probability
57%
With Interview (+6.2%)
3y 10m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 631 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