DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the RCE with PTO-1449 (IDS) as filed on August 27, 2026. Additionally, the Examiner has carefully reviewed all claims 1 and 4-15, and therefore has uncovered minor informalities (as “Claim Objections”, claims 1 and 4-9) and has uncovered vague / indefinite issues (under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for independent claim 1 and dependent claims 5 and 7). Because a timely RCE was filed on August 27, 2026, this action is made NON-FINAL.
Claims 1 and 4-15 remain pending, with claim 1 as the sole independent claim.
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 allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). 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, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 27, 2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by Applicant in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on August 27, 2026, have been considered and made of record (note attached copy of forms PTO-1449).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: regarding sole pending independent claim 1, in the final section, the language “a plurality of first vias extending from the pads, to which the microLEDs are bonded…” should read “a plurality of first vias extending from each of the pads, to which the plurality of microLEDs are bonded…” for proper and consistent claiming (only “each microLED bonded to a pad” was recited to first define the pads; a “plurality” of microLEDs was recited). Note the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection below for the omission of “each” / “every” pad in claim 1. Regarding claims 4 and 6, the term “each microLED” should read “each microLED of the plurality of microLEDs” for consistency with claim 1. Regarding claims 8-9, the term “the photodetectors” should read “the plurality of photodetectors” for consistency with claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 is the sole independent claim, and further claims 4-15 are also rejected herein under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same reasons, as least as being in dependent form.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “a pad”, and then “…extending from the pads”, in the claim body. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the second “pad(s)” limitation in the claim. For example, in the phrase “… extending from the pads”, it is unclear if these “pads” are all (each and every) of the pads…. or merely some of those pads. Therefore, such claiming of claim 1 is not directly clear. Note the “Claim Objections” to claim 1 above, which can be fixed in the manner noted above (section (3)). For these reasons, independent claim 1 is rejected as being indefinite based on the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claims 4-15 are also rejected as inherently including such feature(s).
Claims 5 and 7 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 5 and 7 recite the limitation "a corresponding pad”, then “each of the corresponding pads” in the claim body. Further, claims 5 and 7 also recite “connected to some of the inter-substrate interconnects”. There is insufficient antecedent bases for these limitation(s) in the claim. For example, the term “a corresponding pad” is unclear in comparison to the “pad” and “pads” outlined in claim 1. Is this a different or new pad? In other words, is the “corresponding pad” (of claims 5 and 7) different in relation to the “pad(s)” defined in claim 1? Or is this feature the same “pad.” Such claiming in claims 5 and 7 is not directly clear. Further, having a combination of “some” defined interconnects is also not directly clear in scope (metes-and-bounds) because this scope is not clearly outlined by this claim, and “some” may be construed as a vague frame of reference which does not provide clarity of meaning. For these reasons, claims 5 and 7 are rejected as being indefinite based on the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Allowable Subject Matter
Other than the “Claim Objections” and “Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 112(b)” as noted above, claims 1 and 4-15 would otherwise be allowable of the closest “Prior Art.” Claim 1 is the sole pending independent claim and was amended into condition for allowance in the paper as previously filed May 5, 2026.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons of indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art of record (Pezeshki US ‘664; Yim US ‘368; Pezeshki US ‘337) does not expressly teach or reasonably suggest, in combination, each claim limitation as was amended into independent claim 1 on May 5, 2026. In particular, the Examiner must consider the context of such amended features in view of the original specification and drawings (notably Fig. 3). For these reasons, and based on careful review of Applicant’s remarks (previously dated May 5, 2026), as well as the closest prior art found in the current record, the Examiner is unable to present a prima facie case of obviousness as required under 35 U.S.C. 103 for amended independent claim 1. Claims 4-15 are also allowed at least as being in dependent claim form.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Because new issues with “Claim Objections” and “Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 112(b)” have been uncovered after the filing of an RCE, this office action is made NON-FINAL. The normal statutory periods for non-final rejections will apply.
Inventorship
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.
Conclusion
Because a timely RCE was filed on August 27, 2026, and the rejections presented herein under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are new grounds of rejection (not previously considered by Applicant), this action is made non-final.
See the attached PTO-892 form reference A to Youn US ‘219, which pertains to the state of the art of photonic integrated circuits with an optical transceiver, interposer, and front-end circuitry to O/E integration.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Petkovsek whose telephone number is (571) 272-4174. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 6 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at (571) 272-2397. 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.
/DANIEL PETKOVSEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 September 2, 2026
