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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/17/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-12, 21-23, and 28-29 are pending in the application and are currently being examined. Claims 1, 21, and 22 have been amended. Claims 13-20, and 24-27 have been canceled. New claims 28-29 have been added.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/18/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
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 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chakraborty (US 2009/0236621 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 micro-LED (102) comprising an engineered surface (106, [0026]) 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, an external surface of the optically-transparent (108) medium having similar features as the engineered surface (106) (as the optically-transparent medium is disposed on top of the textured surface (106), the optically-transparent medium (108) would have a similar structure to it).
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 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 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 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.
Regarding claim 6, Chakraborty 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 structure selected from structure including periodic structures, corrugated structures, and random structures. As the surface is just described as textured, one can assume the structures are random [0026].
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 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 Slater in view of Cho teaches the micro-LED structure of claim 1. However, Chakraborty 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 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 Slater in view of Cho to incorporate the nanospheres as taught in Song.
Regarding claim 3, Chakraborty 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 Slater in view of Cho teaches the micro-LED structure of claim 1. However, Chakraborty 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 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 Slater in view of Cho to incorporate the nanospheres as taught in Song.
Regarding claim 21, Chakraborty in view of Slater in view of Cho teaches the micro-LED structure of claim 1. However, Chakraborty 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 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 Slater in view of Cho to incorporate the nanospheres as taught in Song.
Regarding claim 23, Chakraborty in view of Slater in view of Cho teaches the micro-LED structure of claim 1. However, Chakraborty 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 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 Slater in view of Cho to incorporate the nanospheres as taught in Song.
Regarding claim 28, Chakraborty in view of Slater in view of Cho in view of Song teach the micro-LED structure of claim 21. Chakraborty 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 Slater in view of Cho, and in further view of Song and Kameno (US 2015/0056371 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Chakraborty in view of Slater in view of Cho teaches the micro-LED structure of claim 1. However, Chakraborty 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 opposing the optically-transparent medium.
Song teaches a semiconductor device similar to Chakraborty 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 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. 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 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 Slater in view of Cho in view of Song to utilize hollow nanospheres.
Regarding claim 5, Chakraborty 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 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chakraborty 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 Slater in view of Cho teaches the micro-LED structure of claim 1. However, Chakraborty in view of Slater in view of Cho fails to disclose an etched recesses of one of the doped epitaxial semiconductor layers opposing the optically-transparent medium.
Erchak teaches an LED similar to that of Chakraborty 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 Slater in view of Cho to have the roughened surface as taught in Erchak.
Regarding claim 12, Chakraborty in view of Slater in view of Cho teaches the micro-LED structure of claim 1. However, Chakraborty in view of Slater in view of Cho fails to disclose the structure comprising a photolithographic structured surface.
Erchak teaches an LED similar to that of Chakraborty in view of Slater in view of Cho in Fig. 5a in which the micro-LED comprises a roughened layer (120, [0023]) that is formed using photolithography [0084] of Erchak. 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 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 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 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 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 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 Slater in view of Cho in view of He et al. (US 2018/0122996 A1, hereafter He).
Regarding claim 10, Chakraborty in view of Slater in view of Cho teaches the micro-LED structure of claim 1. Chakraborty 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 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 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 Slater in view of Cho in view of Zhu et al. (US 2020/0227255 A1, hereafter Zhu).
Regarding claim 11, Chakraborty 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 a top or bottom surface of the micro-LED [0005]. However, Chakraborty 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 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 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 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 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 Slater in view of Cho to include the surface as taught by Heremans.
PNG
media_image1.png
495
884
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chakraborty 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 Slater in view of Cho in view of Song teach the micro-LED structure of claim 21. Chakraborty 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.
Conclusion
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