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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/06/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 and 7-10 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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the structural cooperative relationships among “a layer of a converter material”, “a converted light” and “unconverted light” in claim 1.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the polarizing element" in the last line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the polarizing element" in the last line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the polarizing element" two times in the last two lines of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Clams 2-3, 5 and 7-10 are rejected because they depend on the rejected claim 1.
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) 1-3, 5 and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(2) as being anticipated by Harrold et al. (US 2021/0104647 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Harrold et al. teach µ-LED arrangement having at least one µ-LED (110; Fig. 2, [0079]) configured to emit radiation (intrinsic property of LEDs) via a light-emitting surface (the top surface of 300; Fig. 2, [0088]), and further comprising: a layer of a converter material (400; Fig. 2, [0088]) on the light-emitting surface (the top surface of 300); a polarization element (800/500/600; Fig. 2, [0083]) adjoining the layer (400) at least in sections (sections of 800, 500 and 600) and configured to change a polarization and/or an intensity (the polarization; [0089]) of a converted light (the light of 925 after deflected/converted from 804; see Figs. 13A-13B, [0138])) when the radiation (light from 110; Fig. 2, [0087]) passes through the polarization element (800/500/600), characterised in that the polarization element (800/500/600) comprises a photonic structure (800; Fig. 2, [0086]) configured to couple the converted light (the light of 925 after deflected/converted from 804) perpendicularly out of an emission surface of the µ-LED arrangement (the top surface of 800; see Figs. 13A-13B) and deflect unconverted light (the light of 925 before deflected/converted from 804; see Figs. 13A-13B) laterally (sideways from the original direction before the deflection from 804; see Fig. 13B).
Regarding claim 2, Harrold et al. teach µ-LED arrangement according to claim 1, characterized in that the polarization element (800/500/600) is a three-dimensional photonic structure (the structure of 800/500/600 is a 3-d structure; see Fig. 2) and/or that the polarization element (800/500/600) is configured in the form of a layer (a layer of 800/500/600) which is arranged at least in regions (800/500/600) on the light-emitting surface (the top surface of 300).
Regarding claim 3, Harrold et al. teach µ-LED arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the µ-LED (110) is a vertical µ-LED (a LED emitting light vertically, see Fig. 2) with one connecting contact (126, 128) on opposite sides (the left side and the right side).
Regarding claim 5, Harrold et al. teach µ-LED arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the polarization element (800/500/600) has spiral and/or rod-shaped structural elements (rod-shaped structures; see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Harrold et al. teach µ-LED arrangement according to claim 1, characterised in that the polarization element (800/500/600) comprises at least one three-dimensional photonic crystal ([0037]).
Regarding claim 8, Harrold et al. teach µ-LED arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the polarization element (800/500/600) comprises at least two two-dimensional photonic crystals (500 and 600 which can be formed of photonic crystal; [0037]) arranged one behind the other along a beam path of the radiation (light from 110) penetrating the polarizing element (800/500/600; see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Harrold et al. teach µ-LED arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the polarization element (800/500/600) comprises at least two different polarization properties and/or degrees of transmission (two different polarization properties; [0089]) depending on a wavelength of the radiation (light from 110) passing through the polarizing element (800/500/600).
Regarding claim 10, Harrold et al. teach µ-LED arrangement according to claim 1, characterised in that the converter material (material of 400) is configured to, in response to being excited by excitation radiation (light from 110; Fig. 2, [0088]) emanating from the µ-LED (110), emit converted radiation ([0088]), and in that excitation radiation (light from 110; Fig. 2, [0088]) incident on the polarizing element (800/500/600) is polarized differently and/or absorbed to a different extent (polarized differently; [0089]) when passing through the polarizing element (800/500/600; [0089]) compared with converted radiation (926; [0088]) passing through (passing through 400, 926 is not polarized by 500/600).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, filed 03/06/2026, overcome the rejections to claims 1-3, 5 and 7-10 under 35 U.S.C. 112. The rejections to claims 1-3, 5 and 7-10 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Rodriguez et al. (US 20130286633 A1) teach a illumination device using a periodic antenna array to control the directionality, the polarization, and the color of the secondary wavelength light.
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 4/3/2026
Prosecution Insights