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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicants' arguments involve discussing why the previously cited prior art documents fail to disclose the amended limitations. Examiner finds this argument persuasive and has brought in an additional reference to address the amended claim limitations. The applicability of the reference to the amended elements is discussed in the claim rejections below.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-11, 21-23, and 28-33 are pending in the application and are currently being examined. Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, and 11 have been amended. Claims 12-20 and 24-27 have been canceled. New claims 30-33 have been added.
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 " the micro-LED comprises an aluminum nitride (AlN) nucleation layer disposed on a sapphire substrate, a plurality of silicon dioxide (SiO2) cone structures disposed on the aluminum nitride nucleation layer in a hexagonal array having a pitch of 800-1200 nm and a cone diameter of 150-250 nm, and a gallium nitride (GaN) layer on the AlN nucleation layer and the plurality of SiO2 cone structures" of claim 30 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 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.
Claim 30 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 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.
Line 4 of claim 30 states “a hexagonal array having a pitch of 800-1200 nm”. This range does not appear in the specification. The closest value Examiner can find in the specification is “A hexagonal array having a pitch of about 1000 nm” in [0045]. The word “about” is not defined anywhere in the specification and thus cannot in itself teach the range in the claim. For the purposes of examination, claim 30 will be interpreted to read “a hexagonal array having a pitch of 1000 nm”.
Lines 4-5 of claim 30 states “a cone diameter of 150-250 nm”. This range does not appear in the specification. The closest value Examiner can find in the specification is “a circle diameter of about 200 nm” in [0045]. The word “about” is not defined anywhere in the specification and thus cannot in itself teach the range in the claim. For the purposes of examination, claim 30 will be interpreted to read “a cone diameter of 200 nm”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6, and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chakraborty (US 2009/0236621 A1) in view of Chang (US 2009/0250718 A1), in view of Slater Jr. et al. (US 2002/0123164 A1, hereafter Slater) and further in view of Cho (US 2021/0005584 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fig. 3 of Chakraborty teaches a micro-light-emitting diode (micro-LED) structure comprising:
a micro-LED (102, [0025]);
an optically-transparent medium (108, [0027]) covering the micro-LED (102), the optically-transparent medium (108) having an internal surface (see annotated Fig. 3) adjacent to the micro-LED (102) and an external surface (see annotated Fig. 3) through which light from the micro-LED (102) is emitted from the optically-transparent medium (108),
the micro-LED (102) comprising an engineered surface (106, [0026]) with non-planar features (see annotated Fig. 3) that are configured to create a controlled alteration of direction of ambient light of visible wavelengths that has entered the optically-transparent medium (108) from a specular direction into a range of angles to trap the ambient light inside the micro-LED structure, the engineered surface (106) comprising features (here, a textured surface) configured to alter reflectance of the ambient light within a predetermined range of angles from normal to the engineered surface to increase total internal reflection.
Chakraborty teaches the engineered surface is formed to increase total internal reflectance of the emitted light to increase light extraction from the LED [0026]. As the engineered surface has the features to alter reflectance, the surface will simultaneously increase the total internal reflectance of ambient light.
Chakraborty fails to teach the external surface of the optically-transparent medium comprising non-planar features that are similar to the non-planar features of the engineered surface, the non-planar features of the external surface configured to redirect the ambient light of visible wavelengths entering the optically-transparent medium through the external surface at angles that promote total internal reflection at the engineered surface.
However, Chang teaches in Fig. 2 an LED covered with an optically transparent medium (encapsulation portion, 24, [0019]) comprising non-planar features that are similar to the non-planar features (light output surface, 25, [0019] is a roughened surface) of the engineered surface (of Chakraborty).
Chang teaches the roughened output surface is formed to increase to increase light extraction from the LED [0019]. As the roughened output surface has the necessary features to alter reflectance, the surface will simultaneously increase the total internal reflectance of ambient light of visible wavelengths.
Chakraborty in view of Chang is silent on the micro-LED comprising doped epitaxial semiconductor layers and an active region disposed between the doped epitaxial semiconductor layers, the active region configured to emit light at a predetermined wavelength.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would know to use any formation of micro-LEDs in the art. Slater teaches in Fig. 3 a micro-LED (300, [0055]) comprising doped epitaxial semiconductor layers (120, 140, [0037]) and an active region (130, [0037]) disposed between the doped epitaxial semiconductor layers (120, 140), the active region configured to emit light at a predetermined wavelength (an example in [0047]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure of Chakraborty to include the micro-LED taught by Slater. Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater fails to disclose the micro-LED disposed on an optically absorbing backplane. However, Chakraborty states the mount surface can be any number of suitable surfaces [0025]. In Fig. 2 Cho teaches an LED structure similar to Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater in which a substrate (50, [0058]) can have a black layer (not shown) disposed on it [0058]. The transparent medium allows ambient light through (as it is transparent), allowing this light to hit the black layer. This black layer is applied to absorb external light [0058], which means it absorbs the ambient light. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the LED of Slater to include the black layer as taught in Cho in order to get the expected result of improving contrast as in [0058] of Cho.
PNG
media_image1.png
368
661
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho teaches the micro-LED structure of claim 1. Fig. 1 of Chakraborty further discloses a roughened layer of the optically-transparent medium (108, [0027]) (as the optically-transparent medium is disposed on top of the textured surface (106, [0026]), the optically-transparent medium (108) would have a similar structure to it), the roughened layer having at least one surface configuration selected from periodic configurations, corrugated configurations, and random configurations. As the surface is described purely as textured, one can reasonably assume the structures are random [0026].
Regarding claim 33, Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho teaches the micro-LED structure of claim 1. Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho further teach he engineered surface (106 of Chakraborty, [0026]) is adjacent to the optically absorbing backplane (in Cho 50, [0058] can have a black layer (not shown) disposed on it [0058], one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably assume the black layer covers the entirety of the substrate). As the entirety of the device is deposited on the substrate, and the backplane covers the entire substrate, the backplane extends laterally beyond the LED, and thus the engineered surface. Thus, in a plan view, the engineered surface is adjacent to the optically absorbing backplane.
Claim(s) 2-3, 7, 21, 23 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater and further in view of Cho, as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Song et al. (US 2009/0001398 A1, hereafter Song).
Regarding claim 2, Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho teaches the micro-LED structure of claim 1. However, Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho does not teach the limitation of where the structure comprises nanospheres disposed in etched recesses of one of the doped epitaxial semiconductor layers.
Song teaches a semiconductor device similar to Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho in Fig. 2 in which there is a doped epitaxial semiconductor layer (120, [0035]) that is etched to have recesses and nanospheres disposed within them (150, [0035]). These spheres aid in diffused reflection of light [0043] of Song. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the micro-LED structure of Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho to incorporate the nanospheres as taught in Song.
Regarding claim 3, Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho in further view of Song teach the micro-LED structure of claim 2. Song further discloses the nanospheres (150, [0035]) comprise silica [0034] and the doped epitaxial layer (120, [0035]) is n-type [0038].
Regarding claim 7, Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho teaches the micro-LED structure of claim 1. However, Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho does not teach the limitation of where the structure comprises self-assembled periodic nanospheres disposed in a layer on one of the doped epitaxial semiconductor layers.
Song teaches a semiconductor device similar to Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho in Fig. 2 in which the structure comprises self-assembled periodic nanospheres (150, [0035]) disposed in a layer on one of the doped epitaxial semiconductor layers (120, [0035]) [0020]. These spheres aid in diffused reflection of light [0043] of Song. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the micro-LED structure of Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho to incorporate the nanospheres as taught in Song.
Regarding claim 21, Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho teaches the micro-LED structure of claim 1. However, Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho does not teach the limitation of the engineered surface comprises at least one layer that includes geometric shapes selected from prisms and spheres.
Song teaches a semiconductor device similar to Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho in Fig. 2 in which at least one layer of an engineered surface (120, [0035]) comprises nanospheres (150, [0035]). These spheres aid in diffused reflection of light [0043] of Song. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the micro-LED structure of Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho to incorporate the nanospheres as taught in Song.
Regarding claim 23, Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho teaches the micro-LED structure of claim 1. However, Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho does not teach the limitation of the engineered surface comprises an embedded surface located between the optically-transparent medium and one of the doped epitaxial semiconductor layers, the embedded surface configured to provide a focusing or defocusing effect on the ambient light that has entered the optically-transparent medium.
Song teaches a semiconductor device similar to Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho in Fig. 2 in which the structure comprises self-assembled periodic nanospheres (150, [0035]) disposed in a layer on one of the doped epitaxial semiconductor layers (120, [0035]) [0020] (which is located between the optically-transparent medium and one of the doped epitaxial semiconductor layers). These spheres aid in diffused reflection of light [0043] of Song, thus configured to provide a defocusing effect on any light hitting said surface, including ambient light that has entered the optically-transparent medium. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the micro-LED structure of Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho to incorporate the nanospheres as taught in Song.
Regarding claim 28, Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho in view of Song teach the micro-LED structure of claim 21. Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho in view of Song fail to disclose the engineered surface and the external surface of the optically-transparent medium have similar embedded geometric shapes, and the embedded geometric shapes comprise spheres of multiple sizes.
However, the nanospheres of Song discloses the silica particles (150, [0035], and 350, [0062]) can be formed on different layers. These spheres are also taught to be formed within a range of sizes, meaning they have multiple sizes [0016]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the external surface (108, [0027] in contact with 106, [0026]) to include similar nanospheres in order to increase light diffusion, as taught by Song [0043].
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho, and in further view of Song and Kameno (US 2015/0056371 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho teaches the micro-LED structure of claim 1. However, Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho does not teach the limitation of where the structure comprises hollow nanospheres disposed on a layer between the optically-transparent medium and one of the doped epitaxial semiconductor layers on a side of the micro-LED opposite the optically-transparent medium.
Song teaches a semiconductor device similar to Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho in Fig. 2 in which there is a doped epitaxial semiconductor layer (120, [0035]) and nanospheres disposed on it (150, [0035]). The incorporation of this layer in the device taught by Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho would also have the nanosphere layer between the epitaxial semiconductor layer (Slater, 120, [0037]) and the optically transparent medium (Chakraborty 108, [0027]). These spheres aid in diffused reflection of light [0043] of Song. As the nanospheres are taught to be on the side of layer 120 closest to the substrate, which equates to a side of the micro-LED opposite the optically-transparent medium of Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the micro-LED structure of Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho to incorporate the nanospheres as taught in Song.
Song fails to disclose that the nanoparticles are hollow. However, one skilled in the art would know to utilize hollow nanospheres as in Kameno because they further reduce light scattering [Abstract]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the micro-LED of Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho in view of Song to utilize hollow nanospheres.
Regarding claim 5, Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho in view of Song and in further view of Kameno teach the micro-LED structure of claim 4. Song teaches the spheres to comprise Si and can be disposed in a monolayer [0015].
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho and in further view of Erchak et al. (US 2006/0204865 A1, hereafter Erchak).
Regarding claim 8, Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho teaches the micro-LED structure of claim 1. However, Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho fails to disclose an etched recesses of one of the doped epitaxial semiconductor layers on a side of the micro- LED opposite the optically-transparent medium.
Erchak teaches an LED similar to that of Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho in Fig. 5a in which the micro-LED comprises a roughened layer (120, [0023]) containing multiple recesses one of the doped epitaxial semiconductor layers (150, [0058]) opposing the optically-transparent medium (155, [0059]). If this layer were integrated into the LED of Slater, it would further be in opposition to the optically-transparent medium (108, [0026]) in Chakraborty. The patterning 120 is utilized to aid in the extraction of light emitted by the LED, as Erchak states in [0054]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the LED of Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho to have the roughened surface as taught in Erchak.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho in view of Erchak, and in further view of Zhao et al. (US 2015/0364651 A1, hereafter Zhao).
Regarding claim 9, Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho in view of Erchak teach the micro-LED structure of claim 8. In Fig. 2, Slater teaches one of the doped epitaxial semiconductor layers is n-doped GaN, and the micro-LED is a flip chip structure, Chakraborty also describes the LED chip 102 is a flip-chip [0025]. However, Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho and in further view of Erchak don’t explicitly teach a thin-film flip chip structure.
Zhao asserts that forming thin-film flip chips is common and well known in the art for LEDs and improves output efficiency [0004] of Zhao. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flip chip of Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho in view of Ercha1 to be a thin-film flip chip, as discussed in Zhao.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho in view of He et al. (US 2018/0122996 A1, hereafter He).
Regarding claim 10, Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho teaches the micro-LED structure of claim 1. Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho fails to disclose the structure comprises plated AIN on a patterned sapphire substrate of the micro-LED.
He teaches an LED similar to Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho in which a sapphire substrate is patterned [0009] and an AlN film is disposed onto it [0020]. The AlN film aids in heat dissipation to prolong the life of the LED. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the LED of Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho to include the patterning of the sapphire substrate and the addition of the AlN film.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho in view of Zhu et al. (US 2020/0227255 A1, hereafter Zhu).
Regarding claim 11, Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho teaches the micro-LED structure of claim 1. Slater also discloses the usage of a distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) adjacent to surface of the micro-LED [0005]. However, Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho is silent on the DBR comprising a plurality of nanoporous layers.
Zhu teaches the utilization of porous surfaces, particularly in distributed Bragg reflectors. Zhu also teaches the pores being on the nanoscale [0074]. Zhu teaches the use of multiple layers of varying porosities to lead to controlled deflection of particular wavelengths [0134]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the DBR of Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho to include nanoporous layers as in Zhu.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho in view of Heremans et al. (US 6,504,180 B1, hereafter Heremans).
Regarding claim 22, Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho teaches the micro-LED structure of claim 1. Slater fails to disclose the limitation of the engineered surface comprises spatially varying features in which at least one of a density or type of features is greater normal to the micro-LED and reduced further off axis relative to the micro-LED.
Heremans teaches a micro-LED structure similar to Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho in Fig 10 in which the engineered surface (12, column 10 line 13) comprises spatially varying features (roughened surface, 41, column 13 line 11) in which at least one of a density or type of features is greater normal to the micro-LED and reduced further off axis relative to the micro-LED. In Heremans, the roughened surface is contained to the central area of 12, with a surface not containing a roughened portion at the borders (see annotated Fig. 10). This inclusion of a border with no roughened surface allows for a metal layer to be formed (19, column 10, line 36) to facilitate the formation of an optically small LED for high resolution devices (column 16, lines 5-7). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho to include the surface as taught by Heremans.
PNG
media_image2.png
495
884
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho in view of Song as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Romero et al. (US 2021/0294021 A1, hereafter Romero).
Regarding claim 29, Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho in view of Song teach the micro-LED structure of claim 21. Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho in view of Song fail to disclose the engineered surface and the external surface of the optically-transparent medium have similar embedded geometric shapes, and the embedded geometric shapes comprise prisms of multiple sizes.
However, the nanospheres of Song discloses the silica particles (150, [0035], and 350, [0062]) can be formed on different layers. These spheres are also taught to be formed within a range of sizes, meaning they have multiple sizes [0016]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the external surface (108, [0027] in contact with 106, [0026]) to include similar nanospheres in order to increase light diffusion, as taught by Song [0043].
While Song teaches spheres as the embedded shape, one of ordinary skill would know to utilize any of various shapes as Romero does. Romero teaches a variety of shapes including spheres and prisms, making them obvious variants of one another [0097] these shapes are used as light guides to change the path of light internally [0003]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the embedded geometric shapes from spheres to prisms as taught by Romero.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho, in view of Lin (US 2022/0199860 A1) in view of Seo et al. (US 2016/0036002 A1, hereafter Seo) in view of Lee et al. (US 2014/0183462 A1, hereafter Lee) in view of Morinaka et al. (US 2015/0177427 A1, hereafter Morinaka), and further in view of Park et al. (US 2013/0330505 A1, hereafter Park).
Regarding claim 30, Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater, and in further view of Cho teach the micro-LED structure of claim 1. Chakraborty further teaches the micro-LED comprises a gallium nitride layer ([0029]).
Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater, and in further view of Cho fail to teach wherein:
the micro-LED comprises an aluminum nitride (AlN) nucleation layer disposed on a sapphire substrate, a plurality of silicon dioxide (SiO2) cone structures disposed on the aluminum nitride nucleation layer in a hexagonal array having a pitch of 800-1200 nm and a cone diameter of 150-250 nm, and a gallium nitride (GaN) layer on the AlN nucleation layer and the plurality of SiO2 cone structures, and
a nucleation rate of the GaN layer on the AlN nucleation layer is greater than a nucleation rate of the GaN layer on surfaces of the SiO2 cone structures such that the SiO2 cone structures are incorporated into the GaN layer as scattering elements configured to redirect ambient light of visible wavelengths entering the optically-transparent medium toward the optically absorbing backplane.
While Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater and in further view of Cho are silent on the micro-LED comprises an aluminum nitride (AlN) nucleation layer disposed on a sapphire substrate, Lin teaches a similar micro-LED. Lin teaches a sapphire substrate (11, [0033]) with an AlN nucleation layer (buffer layer, 13, [0029], described as nucleation layer in [0034]). As Chakraborty is silent on the material of the substrate, one of ordinary skill in the art would know to use a substrate known for LEDs, such as the sapphire substrate of Lin. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the micro-LED of Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater, and in further view of Cho to comprise an aluminum nitride (AlN) nucleation layer disposed on a sapphire substrate as taught by Lin in order to get high-quality gallium nitride crystal growth for Chakraborty’s gallium nitride layer as taught by Lin in [0034].
Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho and in view of Lin fail to teach a plurality of silicon dioxide (SiO2) structures disposed on the aluminum nitride nucleation layer. However, Seo teaches a similar display device in which cylinders (on surface 400, [0074]) are formed to increase the refractive index ([0074]). The cylinders comprise SiO2 ([0060]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the aluminum nitride layer of Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho and in view of Lin to have the cylinders of Seo in order to alter the direction in which light progresses, as Seo teaches in [0063]. This would mean that the cylinders are scattering elements configured to redirect ambient light of visible wavelengths entering the optically-transparent medium toward the optically absorbing backplane of Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho and in view of Lin.
As Chakraborty’s gallium nitride layer is on the aluminum nitride nucleation layer of Lin, and the cylinders are disposed on the aluminum nitride layer as well, the gallium nitride layer is also on the plurality of cylinders.
Seo fails to teach the SiO2 structures to be cones (they are described as cylinders). However, Fig. 2 of Lee teaches a similar display device with a plurality of protrusions (331a, [0062]). These protrusions are taught to be formed in a variety of shapes, including cylinders and cones ([0076]), making cones an obvious variant of the cylinders in Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho and in view of Lin in view of Seo.
Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho and in view of Lin in view of Seo in view of Lee are silent on the cones being in a hexagonal array. Seo teaches in Fig. 3 an array, but not a hexagonal array. However, in Fig. 2 Morinaka teaches the array like in Seo (2b) and a hexagonal array (2a), with the hexagonal array being preferred ([0038]) Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the array taught by Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho and in view of Lin in view of Seo in view of Lee to be a hexagonal array to improve light extraction in the device, as Morinaka teaches in ([0038]).
Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho and in view of Lin in view of Seo in view of Lee in view of Morinaka are silent on a hexagonal array having a pitch of 1000 nm and a cone diameter of 200 nm. One of ordinary skill in the art would know to use a pitch and cone diameter known in the art prior to filing. In Fig.2, Park teaches a pitch and width of protrusions (121, [0049]). The pitch can be 1 micron, or 1000 nm ([0049]), the pitch required in the present claim. The width can be 0.2 microns, or 200 nm ([0049]), the diameter required of the cones in the present claim.
Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho and in view of Lin in view of Seo in view of Lee in view of Morinaka in view of Park do not explicitly teach a nucleation rate of the GaN layer on the AlN nucleation layer is greater than a nucleation rate of the GaN layer on surfaces of the SiO2 cone structures such that the SiO2 cone structures are incorporated into the GaN layer. However, as this is merely a recitation of the chemical properties of the materials, and not a recitation of physical limitations of the structure Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho and in view of Lin in view of Seo in view of Lee in view of Morinaka in view of Park inherently teach the limitation as the materials and structure are the same to get such a result.
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho above, in view of Matsumoto (US 2015/0318308 A1) and further in view of Zhu.
Regarding claim 31, Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho teach the micro-LED structure of claim 1. Chakraborty is silent on the engineered surface comprises a multilayer reflective structure. One of ordinary skill in the art would know to use an LED structure known in the art, as Slater shows in Fig. 18.
The engineered surface (106 of Chakraborty, [0026]) comprises a multilayer reflective structure (1820 of Slater, [0108]) disposed on a surface of the micro-LED adjacent to the optically absorbing backplane (in Cho 50, [0058] can have a black layer (not shown) disposed on it [0058], one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably assume the black layer covers the entirety of the substrate). As the entirety of the device is deposited on the substrate, and the backplane covers the entire substrate, the backplane extends laterally beyond the LED, and thus the engineered surface. Thus, in a plan view, the engineered surface is adjacent to the optically absorbing backplane.
The multilayer reflective structure (1820) comprises a distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) (reflector, 1828, Slater states a reflector may contain a DBR in [0052]), an absorbing metal layer (barrier 1814, [0107], Slater states a barrier can comprise Titanium/tungsten in [0050], TiW is known to be an absorbing material as taught by Matsumoto in [0070]) disposed on a surface of the DBR (1820) facing the optically absorbing backplane (deposited on substrate as taught by Cho).
The absorbing metal layer (1814) is configured to absorb the ambient light of visible wavelengths outside the wavelength range emitted by the active region. As the absorption layer is made of a material that absorbs incident light that would reflect to a viewer ([0023] of Matsumoto), the absorbing metal layer is configured to absorb the ambient light of visible wavelengths outside the wavelength range emitted by the active region.
Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho in view of Matsumoto do not explicitly teach the DBR having a reflectance centered within a wavelength range of light emitted by the active region, and the DBR is configured to reflect light within the wavelength range emitted by the active region and to transmit ambient light of visible wavelengths outside the wavelength range emitted by the active region toward the absorbing metal layer.
However, Zhu teaches the utilization of porous surfaces, particularly in distributed Bragg reflectors. Zhu also teaches the pores being on the nanoscale [0074]. Zhu teaches the use of multiple layers of varying porosities to lead to controlled deflection of particular wavelengths [0134]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the DBR of Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater in view of Cho to include nanoporous layers as in Zhu to have a reflectance centered within a wavelength range of light emitted by the active region, and the DBR is configured to reflect light within the wavelength range emitted by the active region and to transmit ambient light of visible wavelengths outside the wavelength range emitted by the active region toward the absorbing metal layer.
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater and further in view of Cho, and further in view of Hu et al. (US 2020/0235261 A1, hereafter Hu).
Regarding claim 32, Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater and further in view of Cho teach the micro-LED structure of claim 1. Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater and further in view of Cho fail to teach an anti-reflective coating is disposed at the internal surface of the optically-transparent medium at an interface between the optically-transparent medium and the micro-LED,
the anti-reflective coating is configured to reduce Fresnel reflection of the ambient light of visible wavelengths that has passed through the engineered surface and is propagating toward the optically absorbing backplane, and
reduction of Fresnel reflection at the internal surface increases a proportion of the ambient light reaching the optically absorbing backplane for absorption thereby.
However, in Fig. 4 Hu teaches a similar device in which LEDs (120A, 120B, 120C, [0030]) are covered by an optically transparent medium (transparent substrate, 110, [0029]). At the interface of the LEDs (120A, 120B, 120C) and the transparent medium (110) is an anti-reflective layer (140, [0039]). This antireflective layer is used to reduce the amount of external light irradiating the device ([0039]). This also by definition would decrease the Fresnel reflection of the ambient light of visible wavelengths that has passed through the engineered surface and is propagating toward the optically absorbing backplane, and reduction of Fresnel reflection at the internal surface increases a proportion of the ambient light reaching the optically absorbing backplane for absorption thereby, as necessary in the current claim. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display device of Chakraborty in view of Chang in view of Slater and further in view of Cho to include the anti-reflective layer of Hu in order to increase the transmittance of the device, as Hu teaches in [0039].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SAMMANTHA K SALAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-2484. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, N. Drew Richards can be reached at 571-272-1736. 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.
/SAMMANTHA K SALAZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2892
/ERIC W JONES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2892
Prosecution Insights