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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Claims 1-15 are currently amended.
Claims 1-8 and 14-15 are rejected herein.
Claims 9-13 are objected to herein.
Response to Arguments
In view of Applicant’s amendment to the title filed 09/11/2025, the objection to the title in the prior Office Action dated 06/11/2025 is withdrawn.
In view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 09/11/2025, the objections to the claims and the rejections to the claims under 35 USC §112 in the prior Office Action dated 06/11/2025 are withdrawn, excepted as otherwise repeated in the present paper.
Otherwise, Applicant's arguments filed 09/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that in Robin “the active region 53 of the photodiodes 50 and the active region 43 of the LEDs 40 are formed simultaneously” and “[f]or at least this reason, claim 1 distinguishes over Robin.” Remarks, page 10. This argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the active regions of the photodiodes and LEDs are not formed simultaneously) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim 1 merely recites that the method comprises successive steps a) and b). Notably, step b) recites “depositing an organic active photosensitive semiconductor layer” and does not recite forming photodiodes or forming the active region of photodiodes. Accordingly, claim 1 does not require that the active regions of the photodiodes and the active regions of the LEDs are not formed simultaneously.
Further, as disclosed by Robin, a plurality of LEDs (40) is not formed until each individual LED is created by etching. See, e.g., FIG. 3c and paragraph [0094]. That is to say, prior to such etching a plurality of LEDs (40) have not been formed as claimed. Notably, the active photosensitive semiconductor layer (63) is deposited at a different time or in a different step, i.e., not simultaneously with the forming of the plurality of LEDs (40). See, e.g., FIG. 3a.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant also argues that “Robin does not teach or suggest that the active photosensitive layer is an organic active semiconductor layer” and “[f]or this additional reason, claim 1 further distinguishes over Robin.” Remarks, page 10. This argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In the current instance, Applicant’s argument attacking Robin individually does not show nonobviousness because the rejection is based on a combination of references, namely Robin in view of Swelm. Notably, Swelm discloses an active photosensitive layer which is an organic active semiconductor layer.
The Applicant further argues that “[f]or reasons that should be clear from the foregoing discussion, claim 14 separately distinguishes over Robin.” Remarks, page 10. This argument is not persuasive.
First, claim 14 is an apparatus or product claim directed to “an optoelectronic device” and not a method of manufacturing.
Second, claim 14 does not recite or require that any steps (e.g., forming a plurality of LEDs and depositing an active photosensitive semiconductor layer) are carried out successively or otherwise not simultaneously. Accordingly, any arguments related to such a limitation as advanced with respect to claim 1 are not germane to claim 14.
Third, Applicant’s argument against Robin individually regarding the active photosensitive layer not being taught by Robin as an organic active photosensitive semiconductor layer is again not persuasive insomuch as the rejection is based on the combination of Robin in view of Swelm, and Swelm discloses an active photosensitive layer which is an organic active semiconductor layer.
Finally, it is note that Applicant’s amendments have necessitated the new grounds of rejection herein. In particular, currently amended claims 1 and 14 have now been additionally rejected under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over Koide in view of NPL1. See the rejections herein below. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments against Robin are not germane to the rejections based on Koide.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robin (US 20170186908 A1) in view of Swelm (US 20180308998 A1).
[AltContent: textbox (20’)]
PNG
media_image1.png
574
779
media_image1.png
Greyscale
ANNOTATED FIG. 1a of ROBIN
Regarding claim 1, Robin discloses (see generally, e.g., FIG. 1a as annotated herein):
An optoelectronic device (1) manufacturing method (FIGS. 3a-3h) comprising the successive steps of:
a) forming, on an integrated control circuit (20) previously formed inside and on top of a semiconductor substrate (20’), a plurality of inorganic light-emitting diodes (40); and
b) depositing an active photosensitive semiconductor layer (53) to totally fill all free spaces laterally extending between the plurality of inorganic light-emitting diodes (40).
Note, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), “all free spaces” is read to include only those spaces not occupied by other elements or components. For example, insomuch as elements 47, 48, 57 and 58 occupy their respective spaces, those spaces are not “free” spaces. Therefore, the active photosensitive semiconductor layer (53) totally fills all free spaces laterally extending between the plurality of inorganic light-emitting diodes (40) as claimed.
Further, as disclosed by Robin, the “plurality” of inorganic light-emitting diodes (40) is formed when etching is performed to separately form individual mesa structures. See, e.g., FIG. 3c and paragraph [0094]. Accordingly, the “depositing” step and the “forming” step are successively performed one after the other, i.e., they are not simultaneously performed. Moreover, under the BRI, claim 1 only requires that the steps are performed successively, the order in which the steps are successively performed is not explicitly recited in the claim.
While Robin discloses the active photosensitive semiconductor layer (53), Robin does not explicitly disclose that the active photosensitive semiconductor layer (53) is organic.
However, in analogous art, Swelm discloses a photosensitive diode (see generally, e.g., FIG. 2) wherein the active photosensitive semiconductor layer (28, 30) is organic (paragraphs [0052]-[0055]).
It would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the organic semiconductor layer as taught by Swelm in the active photosensitive semiconductor layer (53) of Robin according to known methods to yield predictable results, for example, in order to use a known, readily available and/or suitable material for its intended purpose as matrix material in the active layer of a photosensitive diode.
Regarding claim 2, Robin in view of Swelm as applied to claim 1 discloses the method according to claim 1.
Robin further discloses forming of a plurality of photosensitive diodes (50) each including a portion of the active photosensitive semiconductor layer (53).
Regarding claim 3, Robin in view of Swelm as applied to claim 2 discloses the method according to claim 2.
Robin further discloses forming of electrodes (55, 58) of the plurality of photosensitive diodes (50) between the plurality of inorganic light-emitting diodes (40).
Robin does not explicitly disclose that forming of the electrodes is after step a) and before step b).
It would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed either or both the electrodes (55, 58) of Robin after forming the plurality of inorganic diodes (40) of Robin and before depositing the active photosensitive semiconductor layer (53) of Robin according to known methods to yield predictable results, e.g., based on an “obvious to try” rationale. See, e.g., MPEP §2143(I)(E). Indeed, it would have been obvious to try different orders of manufacturing steps to achieve the device disclosed by Robin.
In particular, it is found that:
(1) At the relevant time, there had been a recognized problem in the art, namely, “a requirement to control the characteristics of the emission spectrum of the optoelectronic device and notably that associated with the light-emitting diode itself” and “a requirement for an optoelectronic device having a monolithic structure that allows a high density of light-emitting diodes” – see, e.g., Robin, paragraph [0005];
(2) There had been a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized problem – notably, Robin identifies one such solution in which manufacturing steps are carried out in order to produce a device that addresses the problem, while explicitly noting that “[v]arious modifications and variants will be apparent to the person skilled in the art” (paragraph [0104]) – accordingly, a finite number of similar solutions are realized by varying an order of the manufacturing steps; and
(3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success – indeed, the device disclosed by Robin could readily have been pursued by one of ordinary skill in the art using manufacturing steps executed in a different order, e.g., such that electrodes for the photosensitive diodes are formed after the plurality of inorganic light-emitting diodes are formed on the integrated control circuit and before the active photosensitive semiconductor layer is deposited.
Additionally, differing the order of performing process steps is generally a common practice which normally requires only ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered a routine expedient. Indeed, selection of any order of performing process steps can be prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. There is no evidence currently of record that forming the electrodes of the photosensitive diode after step a) and before step b) achieves any new or unexpected results.
Regarding claim 4, Robin in view of Swelm as applied to claim 1 discloses the method according to claim 1.
Robin does not explicitly disclose wherein the active photosensitive semiconductor layer comprises at least one polymer material.
However, in analogous art, Swelm discloses a photosensitive diode (see generally, e.g., FIG. 2) wherein the active photosensitive semiconductor layer (28, 30) comprises at least one polymer material (paragraphs [0052]-[0055]).
It would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the polymer material as taught by Swelm in the active photosensitive semiconductor layer (53) of Robin according to known methods to yield predictable results, for example, in order to use a known, readily available and/or suitable material for its intended purpose as matrix material in the active layer of a photosensitive diode.
Regarding claim 5, Robin as applied to claim 1 discloses the method according to claim 1.
Robin does not explicitly disclose wherein the active photosensitive semiconductor layer comprises quantum dots.
However, in analogous art, Swelm discloses a photosensitive diode (see generally, e.g., FIG. 2) wherein the active photosensitive semiconductor layer (28, 30) comprises quantum dots (paragraphs [0052]-[0055]).
It would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the quantum dots as taught by Swelm in the active photosensitive semiconductor layer (53) of Robin according to known methods to yield predictable results, for example, in order to use a known, readily available and/or suitable material for its intended purpose in the active layer and/or material of a photosensitive diode.
Regarding claim 6, Robin in view of Swelm as applied to claim 1 discloses the method according to claim 1.
Robin does not explicitly disclose wherein the active photosensitive semiconductor layer is an organic semiconductor layer.
However, in analogous art, Swelm discloses a photosensitive diode (see generally, e.g., FIG. 2) wherein the active photosensitive semiconductor layer (28, 30) is an organic semiconductor layer (paragraphs [0052]-[0055]).
It would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the organic semiconductor layer as taught by Swelm in the active photosensitive semiconductor layer (53) of Robin according to known methods to yield predictable results, for example, in order to use a known, readily available and/or suitable material for its intended purpose as matrix material in the active layer of a photosensitive diode.
Regarding claim 14, Robin discloses (see generally, e.g., FIG. 1a as annotated herein):
An optoelectronic device (1) comprising:
an integrated control circuit (20) formed inside and on top of a semiconductor substrate (20’);
a plurality of inorganic light-emitting diodes (40) arranged on a surface (i.e., an upper surface) of the integrated control circuit (20); and
an active photosensitive semiconductor layer (53) totally filling all free spaces laterally extending between the plurality of inorganic light-emitting diodes (40).
Note, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), “all free spaces” is read to include only those spaces not occupied by other elements or components. For example, insomuch as elements 47, 48, 57 and 58 occupy their respective spaces, those spaces are not “free” spaces. Therefore, the active photosensitive semiconductor layer (53) totally fills all free spaces laterally extending between the inorganic light-emitting diodes (40) as claimed.
While Robin discloses the active photosensitive semiconductor layer (53), Robin does not explicitly disclose that the active photosensitive semiconductor layer (53) is organic.
However, in analogous art, Swelm discloses a photosensitive diode (see generally, e.g., FIG. 2) wherein the active photosensitive semiconductor layer (28, 30) is organic (paragraphs [0052]-[0055]).
It would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the organic semiconductor layer as taught by Swelm in the active photosensitive semiconductor layer (53) of Robin according to known methods to yield predictable results, for example, in order to use a known, readily available and/or suitable material for its intended purpose as matrix material in the active layer of a photosensitive diode.
Regarding claim 15, Robin in view of Swelm as applied to claim 14 discloses the device according to claim 14.
Robin further discloses:
An optoelectronic device (see generally, e.g., FIGS. 3a-3g) comprising a transfer substrate (60) and a plurality of elementary chips (40, 50) bonded and electrically connected (e.g., via electrical connection elements 48 and 58) to the transfer substrate (60), each elementary chip (40, 50) comprising a device according to claim 14 (see above treatment of claim 14 herein), the integrated control circuit (20) being arranged on a side of the transfer substrate (60).
Note, FIG. 3g illustrates the device after the structure in FIG. 3f has been flipped, mated to the integrated control circuit (20) and the transfer substrate (60) removed. However, before the transfer substrate (60) is removed, the integrated control circuit (20) is on a side of the transfer substrate (60), e.g., the underside thereof. See, e.g., paragraphs [0089]-[0100].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robin in view of Swelm as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bailly (US 20210118954 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Robin in view of Swelm as applied to claim 1 discloses the method according to claim 1.
Robin further discloses wherein the active photosensitive layer (53) is between the plurality of inorganic light-emitting diodes (40).
Robin does not explicitly disclose that the active photosensitive layer is deposited by liquid deposition.
However, in analogous art, Bailly discloses (see generally, e.g., FIG. 3) a photodiode (PH) having an active photosensitive semiconductor layer (34) which is deposited by liquid deposition. See, e.g., paragraph [0089].
It would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used liquid deposition as taught by Bailly to deposit the active photosensitive semiconductor layer (53) of Robin according to known methods to yield predictable results, for example, in order to form the active photosensitive semiconductor layer while advantageously employing printing techniques. See, e.g., paragraph [0089] of Bailly.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robin in view of Swelm as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Templier (US 20190131343 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Robin in view of Swelm as applied to claim 1 discloses the method according to claim 1.
Robin further discloses (see generally, e.g., FIGS. 3a-3h) the transfer of an active inorganic light-emitting diode stack (61, 62, 63, 65) (see, e.g., FIG. 3a) onto the integrated control circuit (20) (compare, e.g., FIGS. 3a and 3g), and a step of etching of trenches (see, e.g., FIG. 3c) in the active inorganic light-emitting diode stack (61, 62, 63, 65), to laterally separate the plurality of inorganic light-emitting diodes (40) from one another.
Robin does not explicitly disclose that the step of etching is performed after the transfer.
However, in analogous art, Templier disclose (see generally, e.g., FIGS. 1A-1I) a step of transferring (compare, e.g., FIG. 1A and 1C) of an active inorganic light-emitting diode stack (150) onto the integrated control circuit (110), and then a step of etching (see, e.g., FIGS. 1E-1G) of trenches (170) in the active inorganic light-emitting diode stack (150), to laterally separate the plurality of inorganic light-emitting diodes (172) from one another.
It would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the plurality of inorganic diodes (40) of Robin by a step of transfer of an active inorganic light-emitting diode stack (61, 62, 63, 65) of Robin onto the integrated control circuit (20) of Robin, and then a step of etching of trenches in the active inorganic light-emitting diode stack, to laterally separate the plurality inorganic light-emitting diodes from one another as taught by Templier according to known methods to yield predictable results, for example, “an advantage of this manufacturing method is that, during the step of transferring the active … stack onto the control circuit, the positions of the different LEDs of the device in the active stack are not defined yet” and “[t]here is accordingly no strong alignment accuracy constraint during the transfer.” Templier, paragraph [0031].
Claims 1-3, 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koide (US 20220165971 A1) in view of NPL1 (Cok, R. S., et al. (2017), Inorganic light-emitting diode displays using micro-transfer printing, Jnl Soc Info Display, 25: 589-609, doi: 10.1002/jsid.610).
Regarding claim 1, Koide discloses (see generally, e.g., FIGS. 2 and 10):
An optoelectronic device manufacturing method comprising the successive (see, e.g., paragraph [0051]) steps of:
a) forming, on an integrated control circuit (SW) previously formed inside and on top of a semiconductor substrate (11, 12), a plurality of light-emitting diodes (LED); and
b) depositing an organic active photosensitive semiconductor layer (OPD) to totally fill all free spaces laterally extending between the plurality of light-emitting diodes (LED).
While Koide discloses that the LEDs are micro LEDs (see, e.g., paragraph [0020]), Koide does not explicitly disclose that the plurality of light-emitting diodes are inorganic.
However, in analogous art, NPL1 discloses micro LEDs that are inorganic. NPL1 further discloses that inorganic LEDs benefit from better efficiency, longer lifespan, e.g., as compared to organic LEDs, and that inorganic LEDs can exhibit physical robustness, and can achieve high brightness with a small aperture ratio. See, e.g., the Introduction, page 589.
It would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the plurality of LEDs (40) of Koide inorganic and/or to have used inorganic LEDs for the LEDs (40) of Koide as taught by NPL1 according to known methods to yield predictable results, for example, have LEDs which exhibit good efficiency, long lifespan, physical robustness, and which can achieve high brightness with a small aperture ratio. See, e.g., the Introduction of NPL1, page 589.
Regarding claim 2, Koide in view of NPL1 as applied to claim 1 discloses the method according to claim 1.
Koide further discloses forming of a plurality of photosensitive diodes (PE, OPD, CE) each including a portion of the active photosensitive semiconductor layer (OPD).
Regarding claim 3, Koide in view of NPL1 as applied to claim 2 discloses the method according to claim 2.
Koide further discloses after step a) and before step b), a step of forming of electrodes (CE, PE) of the plurality of photosensitive diodes (PE, OPD, CE) between the inorganic light-emitting diodes (LED).
Note, electrode (CE) is formed after step a) and electrode (PE) is formed before step b). Accordingly, as claimed, the step of forming the electrodes (CE, PE) is carried out after step a) and before step b).
Regarding claim 6, Koide in view of NPL1 as applied to claim 1 discloses the method according to claim 1.
Koide further discloses wherein the active photosensitive semiconductor layer (OPD) is an organic semiconductor layer (see, e.g., paragraph [0022]).
Regarding claim 14, Koide discloses (see generally, e.g., FIGS. 2 and 10):
An optoelectronic device comprising:
an integrated control circuit (SW, PL) formed inside and on top of a semiconductor substrate (11, 12);
a plurality of light-emitting diodes (LED) arranged on a surface (i.e., an upper surface) of the integrated control circuit (SW, PL); and
an organic active photosensitive semiconductor layer (53) totally filling all free spaces laterally extending between the plurality of inorganic light-emitting diodes (LED).
While Koide discloses that the LEDs are micro LEDs (see, e.g., paragraph [0020]), Koide does not explicitly disclose that the plurality of light-emitting diodes are inorganic.
However, in analogous art, NPL1 discloses micro LEDs that are inorganic. NPL1 further discloses that inorganic LEDs benefit from better efficiency, longer lifespan, e.g., as compared to organic LEDs, and that inorganic LEDs can exhibit physical robustness, and can achieve high brightness with a small aperture ratio. See, e.g., the Introduction, page 589.
It would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the plurality of LEDs (40) of Koide inorganic and/or to have used inorganic LEDs for the LEDs (40) of Koide as taught by NPL1 according to known methods to yield predictable results, for example, have LEDs which exhibit good efficiency, long lifespan, physical robustness, and which can achieve high brightness with a small aperture ratio. See, e.g., the Introduction of NPL1, page 589.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koide in view of NPL1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Swelm.
Regarding claim 4, Koide in view of NPL1 as applied to claim 1 discloses the method according to claim 1.
Koide does not explicitly disclose wherein the active photosensitive semiconductor layer comprises at least one polymer material.
However, in analogous art, Swelm discloses a photosensitive diode (see generally, e.g., FIG. 2) wherein the active photosensitive semiconductor layer (28, 30) comprises at least one polymer material (paragraphs [0052]-[0055]).
It would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the polymer material as taught by Swelm in the active photosensitive semiconductor layer (OPD) of Koide according to known methods to yield predictable results, for example, in order to use a known, readily available and/or suitable material for its intended purpose as matrix material in the active layer of a photosensitive diode.
Regarding claim 5, Koide in view of NPL1 as applied to claim 1 discloses the method according to claim 1.
Koide does not explicitly disclose wherein the active photosensitive semiconductor layer comprises quantum dots.
However, in analogous art, Swelm discloses a photosensitive diode (see generally, e.g., FIG. 2) wherein the active photosensitive semiconductor layer (28, 30) comprises quantum dots (paragraphs [0052]-[0055]).
It would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the quantum dots as taught by Swelm in the active photosensitive semiconductor layer (OPD) of Koide according to known methods to yield predictable results, for example, in order to use a known, readily available and/or suitable material for its intended purpose in the active layer and/or material of a photosensitive diode.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koide in view of NPL1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bailly.
Regarding claim 7, Koide in view of NPL1 as applied to claim 1 discloses the method according to claim 1.
Koide further discloses wherein the active photosensitive layer (OPD) is between the plurality of light-emitting diodes (LED).
Koide does not explicitly disclose that the active photosensitive layer is deposited by liquid deposition.
However, in analogous art, Bailly discloses (see generally, e.g., FIG. 3) a photodiode (PH) having an active photosensitive semiconductor layer (34) which is deposited by liquid deposition. See, e.g., paragraph [0089].
It would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used liquid deposition as taught by Bailly to deposit the active photosensitive semiconductor layer (OPD) of Koide according to known methods to yield predictable results, for example, in order to form the active photosensitive semiconductor layer while advantageously employing printing techniques. See, e.g., paragraph [0089] of Bailly.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koide in view of NPL1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Templier.
Regarding claim 8, Koide in view of NPL1 as applied to claim 1 discloses the method according to claim 1.
Koide does not explicitly disclose wherein step a) comprises a step of transfer of an active inorganic light-emitting diode stack onto the integrated control circuit, and then a step of etching of trenches in the active inorganic light-emitting diode stack, to laterally separate the plurality of inorganic light-emitting diodes from one another.
However, in analogous art, Templier disclose (see generally, e.g., FIGS. 1A-1I) a step of transferring (compare, e.g., FIG. 1A and 1C) of an active inorganic light-emitting diode stack (150) onto the integrated control circuit (110), and then a step of etching (see, e.g., FIGS. 1E-1G) of trenches (170) in the active inorganic light-emitting diode stack (150), to laterally separate the plurality of inorganic light-emitting diodes (172) from one another.
It would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the plurality of inorganic diodes (LED) of Koide by a step of transfer of an active inorganic light-emitting diode stack onto the integrated control circuit, and then a step of etching of trenches in the active inorganic light-emitting diode stack, to laterally separate the plurality inorganic light-emitting diodes from one another as taught by Templier according to known methods to yield predictable results, for example, “an advantage of this manufacturing method is that, during the step of transferring the active … stack onto the control circuit, the positions of the different LEDs of the device in the active stack are not defined yet” and “[t]here is accordingly no strong alignment accuracy constraint during the transfer.” Templier, paragraph [0031].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art of record, either alone or in combination, fails to disclose, along with the other claimed limitations and/or features, inter alia: after step a) and before step b), a step of anisotropic deposition of a conductive layer on top of and between the plurality of inorganic light-emitting diodes, in such as manner as to anticipate the claim or render the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art of record, either alone or in combination, fails to disclose, along with the other claimed limitations and/or features, inter alia: transferring onto the integrated control circuit, a structure on a support substrate between the plurality of inorganic light-emitting diodes, where the structure includes a stack comprising, from the support substrate, a first conductive layer, an insulating layer, and a second conductive layer, the second conductive layer being flush with a surface of the plurality of inorganic light-emitting diodes opposite to the support substrate, in such as manner as to anticipate the claim or render the claim obvious.
Claim 11 depends from claim 10 and hence is indicated as including allowable subject matter for at least the same reason as claim 10.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art of record, either alone or in combination, fails to disclose, along with the other claimed limitations and/or features, inter alia: after step b), a step of bonding of a temporary support substrate on a side of a surface of the optoelectronic device opposite to the integrated circuit, followed by a step of cutting of an assembly comprising the integrated circuit, the active photosensitive layer, and the plurality of organic light-emitting diodes into a plurality of elementary chips, in such as manner as to anticipate the claim or render the claim obvious.
Claim 13 depends from claim 12 and hence is indicated as including allowable subject matter for at least the same reason as claim 12.
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 JOHN P CORNELY whose telephone number is (571)272-4172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30 AM - 4:00 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, Davienne Monbleau can be reached at (571) 272-1945. 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.
JOHN P. CORNELY
Examiner
Art Unit 2812
/J.P.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2812
/DAVIENNE N MONBLEAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812