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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 13-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected claims, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/7/25.
Applicant’s election without traverse of 1-12 in the reply filed on 7/7/25 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7-8, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Choi et al. (US 20200168663 A1; hereinafter Choi).
Regarding Claim 1. Choi (Fig.3) discloses a light emitting device, comprising:
an array of light emitting diodes (240, [0093]), wherein each of the light emitting diodes comprises a vertical stack of a first doped compound semiconductor region (245; [0093]), a second doped compound semiconductor region (242; [0093]), and an active region (243; [0093]) configured to emit radiation at a peak wavelength located between the first (245) and the second (242) doped compound semiconductor regions ; and
an electrically inactive insulating region (247, [0097]) comprising a semiconductor material of the second doped compound semiconductor regions (242) and atoms of at least one electrically inactive dopant species ([0097]), laterally surrounding each of the active regions (243), and disposed between each neighboring pair of the active regions (243).
Regarding Claim 5. The light emitting device of Claim 1, Choi ([0074], [0097]) discloses wherein the at least one electrically inactive dopant species (247) comprises oxygen or nitrogen.
Regarding Claim 7. The light emitting device of Claim 1, Choi (Fig.3) discloses further comprising a backplane (210/230; [0079]-[0080]), wherein the array of light emitting diodes attached to a front side of the backplane (210/230).
Regarding Claim 8. The light emitting device of Claim 7, further comprising Choi (Fig.3) discloses a common transparent conductive n- side electrode (246; [0087]/[0090]) located over the first doped compound semiconductor regions (245) of the array of light emitting diodes.
Regarding Claim 12. The light emitting device of Claim 1, Choi (Fig.3) discloses further comprising: first color conversion medium portions (271; [0099]) overlying a first subset of the light emitting diodes of the array of the light emitting diodes and configured to convert incident radiation emitted by first subset of the light emitting diodes into a first emission light having a first peak wavelength longer than the indicated radiation wavelength ([0107]); and
second color conversion medium portions (272) overlying a second subset of the light emitting diodes of the array of the light emitting diodes and configured to convert incident radiation emitted by the second subset of the light emitting diodes into a second emission light having a second peak wavelength longer than the first peak wavelength ([0107]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Batres et al. (US 20200176634; hereinafter Batres).
Regarding Claim 6. The light emitting device of Claim 1, Choi (Fig.3) discloses wherein: the active regions of the array of light emitting diodes have a same composition and are configured to emit radiation at a same peak wavelength.
Choi does not particularly disclose the dimensions of the LEDs.
Batres (fig.5E; [0071]) discloses in a related art an array of LEDs wherein each of the light emitting diodes comprises a micro light emitting diode having lateral dimensions which are less than 100 microns.
Therefore, it would have been obvious in the art before the effective filing of the application to have the light emitting diodes comprises a micro light emitting diode having lateral dimensions which are less than 100 microns allows each pixel to act as an independent, self-emitting light source, delivering unmatched brightness, infinite contrast, and high pixel density.
Claim(s) 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Danesh et al. (US 20200075803 A1; hereinafter Danesh) in view of Ando et al. (2016/0181532 A1; hereinafter Ando).
Regarding Claim 2. The light emitting device of Claim 1, wherein: Choi does not particularly discloses the electrically inactive insulating region is at least partially amorphous; and the active region and the first and the second doped compound semiconductor regions are single crystalline.
Danesh ([0184]) discloses wherein the active region and the first and the second doped compound semiconductor regions are single crystalline.
Therefore it would have been obvious in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have single crystalline semiconductor region since it forces current directly into the single-crystalline active region for light generation.
Danesh is silent regarding the inactive region being partially amorphous material.
Ando ([0199]) discloses the electrically inactive insulating region is at least partially amorphous.
Therefore it would have been obvious in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have a partially amorphous inactive insulating region to Block unwanted current pass and therefore more efficient LED.
Regarding Claim 3. The light emitting device of Claim 2, wherein: Choi (Fig.3) discloses the first doped compound semiconductor regions (245) are portions of a continuous first doped compound semiconductor layer; and the electrically inactive insulating region (247) comprises sidewalls and a horizontal surface that contact surfaces of the first doped compound semiconductor layer (245).
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Danesh in view of Ando in view of Chong (US 2021/0320234 A1; hereinafter Chong).
Regarding Claim 4. The light emitting device of Claim 2, wherein: Choi (Fig.3) discloses the first doped compound semiconductor regions (245) of adjacent light emitting diodes are separated from each other by the electrically inactive insulating region (247); and
the electrically inactive insulating region (247) comprises sidewalls that contact sidewalls of each of the first doped compound semiconductor regions (245).
Choi does not particularly disclose wherein the electrically inactive insulating region comprises sidewalls that contact entire sidewalls of each of the first doped compound semiconductor regions.
Chong (Fig.3) discloses in a related art a LED structure wherein the electrically inactive insulating region (116/112; [0039]) comprises sidewalls that contact entire sidewalls of each of the first doped compound semiconductor regions (108 or 106).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in the art before the effective filing of the application to have entire sidewalls of the doped compound semiconductor region covered by inactive insulating region to avoid current leakage and better isolate each LED.
5 Claim(s) 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Danesh et al. (US 20200075803 A1; hereinafter Danesh)
Regarding Claim 9. The light emitting device of Claim 8, Choi (Fig.3) discloses wherein each of the light emitting diodes further comprises a discrete conductive p-side electrode (241; [0087]) contacting the second doped compound semiconductor region (242).
Choi does not particularly disclose that the p-side electrode is transparent.
Danesh ([0076]) discloses in a related art an array of LEDs wherein the p-side electrode is a transparent electrode.
Therefore, it would have been obvious in the art before the effective filing of the application to have a transparent p-side electrode to maximizes light extraction efficiency and ensures uniform light emission.
Regarding Claim 10. The light emitting device of Claim 9, Choi (Fig.3) discloses wherein the array of light emitting diodes further comprises an array of reflectors (238) interposed between the backplane (210/230) and the second doped compound semiconductor regions (242) and configured to reflect radiation emitted from the active regions away from the backplane, wherein the array of reflectors is bonded to the front side of the backplane (210/230).
Regarding Claim 11. The light emitting device of Claim 10, Choi (Fig.3) discloses wherein: the array of light emitting diodes further comprises an array of insulating spacers (237; [0089]) disposed between the active regions (243) and the array of reflectors (238); and each of the insulating spacers (237) comprises an opening through which a portion of a respective reflector (238) of the array of reflectors extends vertically to contact a respective one of the p-side electrodes (241; [0087]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAJAR KOLAHDOUZAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5842.
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, Leonard Chang can be reached on (571)270-3691. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HAJAR KOLAHDOUZAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2898
/Leonard Chang/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights