Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/539,678

LIGHT-EMITTING DIODE CHIPS AND MANUFACTURING PROCESSES THEREOF

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Dec 01, 2021
Examiner
YEMELYANOV, DMITRIY
Art Unit
2891
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Creeled Inc.
OA Round
6 (Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
7-8
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
393 granted / 538 resolved
+5.0% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+18.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
43 currently pending
Career history
581
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
52.4%
+12.4% vs TC avg
§102
23.2%
-16.8% vs TC avg
§112
22.4%
-17.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 538 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . 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. Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 8, 21-23 and 25-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beeson et al. (US 2012/0086028 A1) in view of Yoon et al. (US 2009/0311817 A1) and Hsieh et al. (US 2005/0263776 A1). Regarding Claim 1, Beeson (Fig. 5A) discloses a light emitting diode (LED) chip, comprising: an epitaxial layer structure (104, “multi-layer semiconductor structure”) comprising a first side (top as depicted in Fig. 5A) and a second side (bottom as depicted in Fig. 5B) [0125, 0129-0131]; a first contact (via 82, 102) on the epitaxial layer structure (104), the first contact comprising at least one contact via (via 82) proximate the first side (top as depicted in Fig. 5A) of the epitaxial layer structure (104); a wavelength conversion element (50, wavelength conversion chip) comprising at least one lumiphore (“phosphor powders into ceramic elements”) [0027], the wavelength conversion element proximate (50) the first side of the epitaxial layer structure (104), the at least one contact via (82) extending through the wavelength conversion element (20); [0147] (Fig. 5A) and a bottom of the at least one contact via (82) forms part of an electrically conductive path to the epitaxial layer (104); and and a transparent bonding layer (202, “a transparent and thermally conducting bonding layer 202”) [0150] positioned between the epitaxial layer structure (104) and the wavelength conversion element (50), the transparent bonding layer (202) (“Example materials for bonding layer 202 include low melting point transparent conducting oxides (TCOs), low melting point inorganic glasses and polymer”) [0151]. Beeson does not explicitly disclose that the at least one contact via further extending into a portion of the epitaxial layer structure and the first contact extending above the wavelength conversion element in a direction away from the epitaxial layer structure and a bottom of the at least one contact via forms part of an electrically conductive path to the portion of the epitaxial layer Yoon (Fig. 2, 3E, 4E) discloses at least one contact via (160) further extending into a portion (portion of 120) of an epitaxial layer structure (140, 130, 120) and a bottom of the at least one contact via (opening for 160) forms part of an electrically conductive path to the portion of (portion of 120) the epitaxial layer (140, 130, 120). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify light emitting diode (LED) chip Beeson in view of Yoon such that the at least one contact via further extending into a portion of the epitaxial layer structure and a bottom of the at least one contact via forms part of an electrically conductive path to the portion of the epitaxial layer in order to improve electrical characteristics of the LED [0043]. Beeson in view of Yoon does not explicitly discloses the first contact extending above the wavelength conversion element in a direction away from the epitaxial layer structure, Hsieh (Fig. 1) discloses a first contact (1301) on an epitaxial layer structure (12), the first contact comprising at least one contact via (1301) and a first contact (1301) extending above a wavelength conversion element (14) in a direction away from an epitaxial layer structure, (12) [0024]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify light emitting diode (LED) chip Beeson in view of Yoon and Hsieh such that the first contact extending above the wavelength conversion element in a direction away from the epitaxial layer structure in order to enhance light-emitting performance of the LED [0023]. Hereinafter, unless specifically noted all the paragraph and figure references are taken from prior art of Beeson. Regarding Claim 4, Beeson in view of Yoon and Hsieh discloses the LED chip of claim 1, wherein the wavelength conversion element (50) comprises a first planar side (left side) and a second planar side (right side) opposite to and parallel to the first planar side (left of 50). (Fig. 5A) Regarding Claim 5, Beeson in view of Yoon and Hsieh discloses the LED chip of claim 1, wherein the wavelength conversion element (50) comprises at least one of a ceramic material or phosphor in glass. (“ in the case of a phosphor powder, to sinter the powder to form a ceramic layer”) [0085, 0102, 0103]; (“Exemplary inorganic materials include, but are not limited to, silicon dioxide, optical glasses and chalcogenide glasses.”) [0082] Regarding Claim 6, Beeson in view of Yoon and Hsieh discloses the LED chip of claim 1, wherein the wavelength conversion element (50). Beeson further discloses wavelength conversion element comprises inorganic materials (“Phosphor materials are typically optical inorganic materials doped with ions of lanthanide (rare earth) elements or, alternatively, ions such as chromium, titanium, vanadium, cobalt, manganese or magnesium”) [0080] (“Quantum dot materials are small particles of inorganic semiconductors”) [0081] (“ Host materials include polymer materials and inorganic materials” [0082] in order to simplify annealing steps of wavelength conversion element and increase the wavelength conversion efficiency of the layer [0085]. Beeson in view of Yoon and Hsieh does not explicitly disclose the wavelength conversion element is devoid of organic material. However, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the LED chip in Beeson in view of Lee and Hsieh to select materials for the wavelength conversion element is devoid of organic material in order simplify annealing steps of wavelength conversion element and increase the wavelength conversion efficiency [0085] and since the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (See MPEP 2144.07). Regarding Claim 8, Beeson in view of Yoon and Hsieh discloses the LED chip of claim 1, wherein the wavelength conversion element (50) is attached to the epitaxial layer structure (104) via direct or indirect wafer bonding. (See Fig. 5A). Examiner notes that “via direct or indirect wafer bonding” is a functional language. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claim directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429,1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). The Examiner notes that the limitation is considered to be met as long as the wavelength conversion element is attached to the epitaxial layer structure. Regarding Claim 21, Beeson in view of Yoon and Hsieh discloses the LED chip of claim 1, further comprising an electrically conductive substrate (“a thin layer (not shown) of a transparent material”… “l transparent layer is located between the metal layer and the multilayer semiconductor structure 104”) [0124] on the second side of the epitaxial layer structure (104, “multi-layer semiconductor structure”). Regarding Claim 22, Beeson in view of Yoon and Hsieh discloses the LED chip of claim 21, further comprising wherein the first contact (102) is electrically connected with the first side of the epitaxial layer structure (104). Regarding Claim 23, Beeson in view of Yoon and Hsieh discloses the LED chip of claim 22, wherein the at least one contact via (1301 Hsieh) extends entirely through the wavelength conversion element (14 Hsieh) Regarding Claim 25, Beeson in view of Yoon and Hsieh discloses the LED chip of claim 1. Beeson in view of Yoon and Hsieh as previously combined does not explicitly disclose the wavelength conversion element comprises a support element and a lumiphoric layer on the support element, wherein the lumiphoric layer is positioned between the support element and the epitaxial layer structure. Hsieh (Fig. 4) discloses a wavelength conversion element (14, 15) comprises a support element (15) and a lumiphoric layer (14) on the support element (15), wherein the lumiphoric layer (14) is positioned between the support element (15) and an epitaxial layer structure (13) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the LED chip in Beeson in view of Yoon and Hsieh such that the wavelength conversion element comprises a support element and a lumiphoric layer on the support element, wherein the lumiphoric layer is positioned between the support element and the epitaxial layer structure in order to provide protect the fluorescent material structure and other structures below the fluorescent material structure from humidity, shock [0030]. Regarding Claim 26, Beeson in view of Yoon and Hsieh discloses the LED chip of claim 25, wherein the support element (15) comprises a light- transmissive material. (“ glass”, “diffuser, light-gathering layer, i.e. lens”) [0030, 0031] Regarding Claim 27, Beeson in view of Lee and Hsieh discloses the LED chip of claim 26, wherein the support element (15) comprises glass. (“glass”) [0030] 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. Claim(s) 3, 7, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beeson et al. (US 2012/0086028 A1) in view of Yoon et al. (US 2009/0311817 A1) and Hsieh et al. (US 2005/0263776 A1) and further in view of Krames et al. (US 2011/0156056 A1). Regarding Claim 3, Beeson in view of Yoon and Hsieh discloses the LED chip of claim 1, wherein the transparent bonding layer (202). Beeson in view of Yoon and Hsieh does not explicitly disclose the transparent bonding layer has a thickness less than 5 microns. Krames (Fig. 5) discloses a transparent bonding layer has a thickness less than 5 microns. (“SiO.sub.2 may be used as a bonding layer at a thickness less than, for example, 100 .ANG.”) [0039]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the LED chip in Beeson in view of Yoon and Hsieh and Krames such that the transparent bonding layer has a thickness less than 5 microns in order to provide highly transparent and extremely thin bonding between ceramic phosphor is bonded to a nucleation structure [0034, 0039] Regarding Claim 7, Beeson in view of Yoon and Hsieh discloses the LED chip of claim 1, wherein a refractive index of the wavelength conversion element (50) [0155, 0156, 0227]. Beeson in view of Yoon and Hsieh does not explicitly disclose a refractive index of the wavelength conversion element is based on emission characteristics of the epitaxial layer structure. Krames (Fig. 5) discloses a refractive index of a wavelength conversion element (52) is based on emission characteristics of an epitaxial layer structure (12, 14, 10, 58) (“phosphor, other ceramic forming materials such as alumina may be included, for example to facilitate formation of the ceramic or to adjust the refractive index of the ceramic.” [0031] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the LED chip in Beeson in view of Yoon and Hsieh and Krames such that a refractive index of the wavelength conversion element is based on emission characteristics of the epitaxial layer structure in order to adjust the refractive index of the ceramic [0031] and avoid total internal reflection in wavelength conversion element [0006]. The Examiner notes that limitation “a refractive index of the wavelength conversion element is based on emission characteristics of the epitaxial layer structure.” Is considered to be met as long as long as a refractive index of the wavelength conversion element is capable of being adjusted. Regarding Claim 10, Beeson in view of Yoon and Hsieh discloses the LED chip of claim 1. Beeson in view of Yoon and Hsieh does not explicitly disclose a distance between the epitaxial layer structure and the at least one lumiphore of the wavelength conversion element is less than 5 microns. Krames (Fig. 5) discloses a distance (“the surface of nucleation layer 58 and the surface of ceramic phosphor 52 are bonded together. An optional bonding layer may be disposed between the two bonded surfaces. The bonding layer is preferably highly transparent.”) [0039] between an at least one lumiphore of a wavelength conversion element (52) and an epitaxial layer structure (12, 14, 10, 58) is less than 5 microns. (SiO.sub.2 may be used as a bonding layer at a thickness less than, for example, 100 ANG) [0039]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the LED chip in Beeson in view of Yoon and Hsieh and Krames such that a distance between the epitaxial layer structure and the at least one lumiphore of the wavelength conversion element is less than 5 microns in order to provide highly transparent and extremely thin bonding between ceramic phosphor that is bonded to a nucleation structure [0034, 0039] Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beeson et al. (US 2012/0086028 A1) in view of Yoon et al. (US 2009/0311817 A1) and Hsieh et al. (US 2005/0263776 A1) and further in view of Andrews et al. (US 2008/0121911 A1) Regarding Claim 24, Beeson in view of Yoon and Hsieh and Andrews discloses the LED chip of claim 22, further comprising Beeson in view of Lee, Hsieh and Andrews as previously combined does not explicitly disclose second contact on a side of the electrically conductive substrate that is opposite the epitaxial layer structure, wherein the second contact is electrically connected with the second side of the epitaxial layer structure. However, Andrews (Fig. 3G) disclose a second contact (130) on a side of an electrically conductive substrate (120b) that is opposite an epitaxial layer structure (110), wherein the second contact (130) is electrically connected with a second side of the epitaxial layer structure (bottom of 110). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the LED chip in Beeson in view of Lee, Hsieh and Andrews such that second contact on a side of the electrically conductive substrate that is opposite the epitaxial layer structure, wherein the second contact is electrically connected with the second side of the epitaxial layer structure in order to provide external electrical connections [0052]. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see Page 5-6, filed 02/182026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beeson et al. (US 2012/0086028 A1) in view of Lee et al. (5,717,226 B1) and Hsieh et al. (US 2005/0263776 A1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beeson et al. (US 2012/0086028 A1) in view of Yoon et al. (US 2009/0311817 A1) and Hsieh et al. (US 2005/0263776 A1). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kim et al. (2005/0104081 A1) and Kim (US 2010/0181586 A1) disclose the at least one contact via forms part of an electrically conductive path to the portion of the epitaxial layer and a second contact on a side of an electrically conductive substrate that is opposite an epitaxial layer structure, wherein the second contact is electrically connected with a second side of the epitaxial layer structure. Kim et al. (US 2009/0215279 A) and Ibe et al. (US 2009/0001886 A1) disclose inorganic (devoid of organic material) encapsulation layer. 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 DMITRIY YEMELYANOV whose telephone number is (571)270-7920. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a.m.-6p.m. 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, Matthew Landau can be reached at (571) 272-1731. 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. /DMITRIY YEMELYANOV/Examiner, Art Unit 2891 /MATTHEW C LANDAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 01, 2021
Application Filed
Jul 16, 2024
Examiner Interview (Telephonic)
Jul 27, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 28, 2024
Response Filed
Dec 22, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Mar 04, 2025
Interview Requested
Mar 06, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 06, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Mar 07, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 11, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 22, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jun 24, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 08, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Oct 14, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 29, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 06, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 18, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Feb 18, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 13, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604565
MICRO LIGHT-EMITTING COMPONENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12581773
INDIUM GALLIUM NITRIDE LIGHT EMITTING DIODES WITH REDUCED STRAIN
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12575096
THREE-DIMENSIONAL MEMORY DEVICES AND METHODS FOR FORMING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12568724
DISPLAY DEVICE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12568716
WAFER-SCALE SEPARATION AND TRANSFER OF GAN MATERIAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 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

7-8
Expected OA Rounds
73%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+18.7%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 538 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