Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/049,705

LED STRUCTURE, INK FOR INKJET AND LIGHT SOURCE COMPRISING THE SAME

Final Rejection §103§112
Filed
Oct 26, 2022
Examiner
RAHMAN, MOIN M
Art Unit
2898
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Kookmin University Industry Academy Cooperation Foundation
OA Round
2 (Final)
87%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 87% — above average
87%
Career Allow Rate
635 granted / 732 resolved
+18.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +15% lift
Without
With
+14.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
46 currently pending
Career history
778
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
53.7%
+13.7% vs TC avg
§102
26.9%
-13.1% vs TC avg
§112
17.8%
-22.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 732 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . 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 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. Status of the application This office Action is in response to Applicant's Application filled on 11/14/2025. Claims 1-3 and 5-15 are pending for this examination. Response to Arguments Applicant’s reply filed on 11/14/2025 has been entered and considered. Applicant’s amendments necessitated the shift in grounds of rejection detailed below. The shift in grounds of rejection renders Applicant’s arguments moot. Thus, this rejection is properly made FINAL. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-3,5, 9 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding Claim 1, The instant claims recite limitation “a stacking direction of the layers becomes a contact surface with respect to an electrode after a liquid comprising the LED structure has been contacted with the electrode” is not clear because after a liquid with respect to an electrode is not defined. In addition, “a stacking direction of the layers becomes a contact surface”, is that upper surface or lower surface of the layers became contact surface, is not defined. Therefore, the resulting claim is indefinite and is failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. Appropriate corrections defining these limitations within metes and bounds of the claimed invention are required. Claims 2-3, 5, 9 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, because of their dependency status from claim 1. Claim Rejection- 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 of this title, 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. Claims 1-2, 9 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Do et al (US 2016/0172339 A1; hereafter Do) in view of MORI et al (US 2021/0183943 A1; hereafter MORI). PNG media_image1.png 443 438 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 1. Do discloses an LED structure (Fig. [5], element [21/22/23], Para [ 0091]) in which layers comprising a first conductive semiconductor layer (Fig. [5], first conductive type semiconductor layer 21, Para [ 0094]), a photoactive layer (Fig. [5], active layer 22, Para [ 0095]), and a second conductive semiconductor layer (Fig. [5], second conductive semiconductor layer 23, Para [ 0096]) are stacked, wherein in order that any one of two opposite target surfaces of the LED structure (Fig. [5], element [21/22/23], Para [ 0091]) perpendicular to a stacking direction of the layers becomes a contact surface with respect to an electrode ( electrode 12/11, Para [ 0091]) after a liquid comprising the LED structure has been contacted with the electrode and the LED structure has been precipitated from the liquid ( Para [ 0091-0096]), a ratio S/t of an area S of any one of the target surfaces and a distance t between the two target surfaces satisfies 1.5 or more, and the areas of the two target surfaces are each independently 0.2 to 100 um2 ( Para [ 0087] discloses “the nano-scale LED device may have a length of about 100 nm to about 10 μm, preferably, about 500 nm to about 5 μm” and Para [ 0088] discloses “aspect ratio of the nano-scale LED device according to the present invention may be about 1.2 to about 100, preferably, about 1.2 to about 50, more preferably, about 1.5 to about 2.0, and further preferably, about 1.5 to about 10”. Therefore, based on the LED device length and aspect ratio, desire target surface and distance can be achieved by optimize the LED structure for enhance light emitting efficiency of light emitting device). where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)”, as stated in MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been able to adjust the target surfaces and a distance t between the two target surfaces and the areas according to characteristics desired for the particular application, such as for enhance efficiency of light emitting device. Discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. But Do does not disclose explicitly after a liquid comprising the LED structure. In a similar field of endeavor, MORI discloses after a liquid comprising the LED structure (Fig. [1], Para [ 0071]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Do in light of MORI teaching “after a liquid comprising the LED structure (Fig. [1], Para [ 0071])” for further advantage such as reliable formation of LED structure by using well-known process. Regarding claim 2. Do and MORI disclose the LED structure according to claim 1, Do further discloses wherein one of the first conductive semiconductor layer and the second conductive semiconductor layer is an n-type III-nitride semiconductor layer, and the other one is a p-type III-nitride semiconductor layer (Para [ 0091-0096]). Regarding claim 9. Do and MORI disclose the LED structure according to claim 1, Do further discloses further comprising a protective film (Fig. [5], insulation film 30, Para [ 0110]) configured to surround an exposed side surface of the LED structure (Para [ 0091-0096]). Regarding claim 13. Do and MORI disclose the LED structure according to claim 1, Do further discloses further comprising a second electrode layer provided on the first conductive semiconductor layer (Fig. [5], Para [ 0091]) and a first electrode layer provided on the second conductive semiconductor layer (Fig. [5], Para [ 0091]). Regarding claim 14. Do and MORI disclose an ink composition for inkjet, comprising a plurality of the LED structures according to claim 1 (Do, Para [ 0177-0179]). Regarding claim 15. Do and MORI disclose a light source which is equipped with the LED structure according to claim 1 (Do, Para [ 0091-0096]). 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 MOIN M RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5002. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00pm. 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, Julio Maldonado can be reached at 571-272-1864. 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. /MOIN M RAHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 26, 2022
Application Filed
Aug 12, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Nov 14, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 20, 2026
Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604603
LIGHT-EMITTING ELEMENT AND DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598775
Source/Drains In Semiconductor Devices and Methods of Forming Thereof
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593504
TRANSISTORS WITH VARYING WIDTH NANOSHEET
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588382
Color stable multicolor OLED device structures
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581727
ELECTRONIC CIRCUIT AND SEMICONDUCTOR MODULE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
87%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+14.6%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 732 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month