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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 11, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “light emission system” (claim 1) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings (Fig. 11) are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “thick sub-structure”, “thin sub-structure” (claim 1); “quantum well structure”, “plurality of quantum dots” and “double heterojunction structure” (claims 6, 19 and 28); “electron blocking layer” (claim 14); “first thick sub-structure” and “second thick sub-structure” (claims 14 and 21) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 16 and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities: undefined acronyms/symbols, such as "Al(In)GaN", (first occurrence: claim 3). The examiner suggests that applicant spell out all the acronyms/symbols when using them for the first time in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6, 14 and 16-28 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. There is no adequate description in the elected embodiment of Fig. 11 for the claim limitations of “a thin sub-structure being disposed lateral to the thick sub-structure”, as recited in claim 1; “the electron blocking layer being configured for preventing lateral mobility of free electron carriers between the first thick sub-structure and the second thick sub-structure”, as recited in claim 14; “the electron blocking layer is formed of a p-type Al(In)GaN”, as recited in claim 16, “the electron blocking layer is less than one micron in thickness”, as recited in claim 17; “the electron blocking layer is 0.5 microns in thickness”, as recited in claim 18; “the thin portion of the substructure is formed of a p-type Al(In)GaN”, as recited in claim 23; “the thin portion of the substructure has a width less than a height of the thin portion of the substructure”, as recited in claim 24; “the thin portion of the substructure is less than one micron in thickness”, as recited in claim 25; “the thin portion of the substructure is 0.5 microns in thickness”, as recited in claim 26.
Claim 20 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. There is no support in the specification for the claim limitation of “an array of micro light-emitting diodes (microLEDs) including: a semiconductor substrate; at least one prep layer …; an active region …; a thick sub-structure …; and a thin sub-structure …, wherein the array of microLEDs are formed from the active region”, as recited in claim 20 because the disclosure does not enable an artisan to from the array of microLEDs just from the active region when “an array of micro light-emitting diodes (microLEDs) including: a semiconductor substrate; at least one prep layer …; an active region …; a thick sub-structure …; and a thin sub-structure …”, as recited in 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 3, 16, 20 and 23 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.
The claimed limitation of “Al(In)GaN”, as recited in claims 3, 16 and 23, is unclear as to what “(In)” means/stand for.
The claimed limitation of “the array of microLEDs are formed from the active region”, as recited in claim 20, is unclear as to how the array of microLEDs can be just formed from the active region when “an array of micro light-emitting diodes (microLEDs) including: a semiconductor substrate; at least one prep layer …; an active region …; a thick sub-structure …; and a thin sub-structure …”, as recited in claim 1.
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) 1-6, 14 and 16- 28, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McGroddy et al. (2015/0187740).
As for claim 1, McGroddy et al. show in Fig. 6 and related text a light emission system, comprising:
an array of micro light-emitting diodes (microLEDs) ([0047], lines 2-3) including:
a semiconductor substrate 102 ([0047], lines 20-22);
at least one prep layer 104 disposed on at least a portion of the semiconductor substrate;
an active region 108 disposed on the at least one prep layer;
a thick sub-structure 118/(covered upper portion of) 110 (directly below layer 118) disposed on the active region; and
a thin sub-structure (exposed upper portion of) 110 disposed on the active region, the thin sub-structure being disposed lateral to the thick sub-structure,
the thick sub-structure defining a shape and a size of at least one of microLED from the array of microLEDs, and
the thin sub-structure being configured for preventing mobility of free electron carriers therethrough.
The limitation "configured for preventing mobility of free electron carriers therethrough" has not been given patentable weight because it is considered to be intended use and/or functional language. This type of description does not affect the structure of the final device. It is respectfully noted that intended use and/or other types of functional language must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). Note that Applicant has burden of proof in such cases, as the above case law makes clear. Furthermore, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
As for claim 2, McGroddy et al. show the thin sub-structure includes an electron blocking layer (bottom portion of) 110 (Fig. 6).
As for claims 3, 16 and 23, McGroddy et al. show the thin (portion of the) sub(-)structure (electron blocking layer) is formed of a p-type Al(In)GaN ([0047], lines 16-19; [0050]).
As for claims 4, 17 and 25, McGroddy et al. show the thin (portion of the) sub(-)structure (electron blocking layer) is less than one micron in thickness ([0051], line 5);
As for claims 5, 18 and 26, McGroddy et al. show the thin (portion of the) sub(-)structure (electron blocking layer) is 0.5 microns in thickness ([0051], line 5).
As for claims 6, 19 and 28, McGroddy et al. show the active region includes at least one of a quantum well structure, a plurality of quantum dots, and a double heterojunction structure ([0049]).
As for claim 14, McGroddy et al. show Fig. 6 and related text a plurality of microLEDs ([0047], lines 2-3), comprising:
a semiconductor substrate 102 ([0047], lines 20-22);
at least one prep layer 104 disposed on at least a portion of the semiconductor substrate;
an active region 108 disposed on the at least one prep layer;
an electron blocking layer (bottom portion of) 110 disposed on the active region; and
a first thick sub-structure 113 (of D1) disposed on the electron blocking layer;
the first thick sub-structure (leftmost one of) 118/(covered upper portion of) 110 (directly below layer 118) being physically separate from a second thick sub-structure (second from leftmost one of) 118/(covered upper portion of) 110 (directly below layer 118) and defining a shape and a size of a corresponding one of the plurality of microLEDs, and
the electron blocking layer being configured for preventing lateral mobility of free electron carriers between the first thick-sub-structure and the second thick-substructure.
The limitation "configured for preventing lateral mobility of free electron carriers between the first thick sub-structure and the second thick sub-structure" has not been given patentable weight because it is considered to be intended use and/or functional language. This type of description does not affect the structure of the final device. It is respectfully noted that intended use and/or other types of functional language must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). Note that Applicant has burden of proof in such cases, as the above case law makes clear. Furthermore, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
As for claim 20, McGroddy et al. show the array of microLEDs are formed from the active region (Fig. 6).
As for claim 21, McGroddy et al. show the thick sub-structure is a first thick sub-structure (leftmost one of) 118/(covered upper portion of) 110 (directly below layer 118), the thin sub-structure is configured for preventing the mobility of the free electrode carriers between the first thick sub-structure and a second thick sub-structure (second from leftmost one of) 118/(covered upper portion of) 110 (directly below layer 118) (Fig. 6).
The limitation "configured for preventing the mobility of the free electron carriers between the first thick sub-structure and the second thick sub-structure" has not been given patentable weight because it is considered to be intended use and/or functional language. This type of description does not affect the structure of the final device. It is respectfully noted that intended use and/or other types of functional language must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). Note that Applicant has burden of proof in such cases, as the above case law makes clear. Furthermore, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
As for claim 22, McGroddy et al. show in Fig. 6 and related text a microLED, comprising:
a semiconductor substrate 102 ([0047], lines 20-22);
at least one prep layer 104 disposed on at least a portion of the semiconductor substrate;
an active region 108 disposed on the at least one prep layer;
a sub-structure 118/110 disposed on the active region and having a thick portion 118/(covered upper portion of) 110 lateral to a thin portion; and
a thin sub-structure (exposed upper portion of) 110 configured for preventing mobility of free electron carriers therethrough.
The limitation "configured for preventing mobility of free electron carriers therethrough" has not been given patentable weight because it is considered to be intended use and/or functional language. This type of description does not affect the structure of the final device. It is respectfully noted that intended use and/or other types of functional language must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). Note that Applicant has burden of proof in such cases, as the above case law makes clear. Furthermore, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
As for claim 24, McGroddy et al. show the thin portion of the substructure has a width (arbitrarily chosen) less than a height (arbitrarily chosen) of the thin portion of the substructure (Fig. 6).
As for claim 27, McGroddy et al. show the thin portion of the substructure is a first thin portion (left exposed upper portion of 110 from 2nd from leftmost one of 118) of the substructure, the thick portion of the substructure is disposed between the first thin portion of the substructure and a second thin portion (right exposed upper portion of 110 from 2nd from leftmost one of 118) of the substructure (Fig. 6).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 19, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “the subject matter of independent claims 1, 14, and 21 corresponds with the features explicitly shown in FIG. 11” because “the thick sub- structure 542 shown in FIG. 5 corresponds with the "thick sub-structure" shown in annotated FIG. 11 (below). The thin sub-structure 544 shown in FIG. 5 corresponds with the "thin sub- structure" shown in annotated FIG. 11 (below)”.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because specification never discloses that the apparatus shown in Fig. 11 is made from the method as shown in Fig. 5; therefore, the drawings fail to show the "thick sub-structure" and the "thin sub-structure" as claimed in at least independent claims 1, 14, and 21.
Applicant argues that “the subject matter of dependent claims 6, 19, and 28, which corresponds with the active region 1130, is explicitly shown in FIG. 11” because paragraph [0023] states that "an active region 330 is formed via, for example, epitaxial deposition. In embodiments, active region 330 includes one or more quantum wells, quantum dots, or double heterojunction structures configured for light emission therefrom." The active region 330 described in paragraph [0023] corresponds with active region 1130 shown in FIG. 11”.
Although paragraph [0023] describes the limitation, the drawing of (the elected embodiment of Fig. 11) in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. See MPEP §6.08.02(d) and 37 C.F.R. 1.83(a).
Applicant argues that “the "electron blocking layer 544" and the "electron blocking layer 744" shown in FIGS. 5 and 9, respectively, correspond with the "shallow steps 1160" shown in FIG. 11. Accordingly, the electron blocking layer claimed in dependent claim 14 is explicitly shown in FIG. 11”.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because specification never discloses that the apparatus shown in Fig. 11 is made from the method as shown in Fig. 5 or Fig. 9; therefore, the drawings fail to show the "electron blocking layer" as claimed in at least dependent claim 14.
Applicant argues that “the "thin-substructure" and the "thin portion," as described in the specification (see paragraphs [0009], [0026], and [0028]) and as noted above, correspond with the "electron blocking layer.” Accordingly, the limitations that are related to the "thin-substructure," "thin portion," and the "electron blocking layer" are explicitly supported by the claims and the specification, as-filed. Based on the amendments, and remarks provided above, withdrawal of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, First Paragraph is respectfully requested”.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because the "thin-substructure", the “thin portion”, and the "electron blocking layer," as described in the specification, paragraphs [0009], [0026] and [0028], are corresponding to an unelected embodiment of Fig. 5, not Fig. 11.
Rest of Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6, 14 and 16-28 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 MEIYA LI whose telephone number is (571)270-1572. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-3PM.
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, LYNNE GURLEY can be reached at (571)272-1670. 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.
/MEIYA LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811