DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 13, 21, 22 and 24 are 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.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “a cavity geometry configured to emit light corresponding to desired optical modes while suppressing other optical modes that are not desired,” does not appear to have support in the originally filed disclosure. Specifically, applicant’s specification does not provide any disclosure related to “cavity geometry” or which “cavity geometries” would be capable of “emit[ting] light corresponding to desired optical modes while suppressing other optical modes that are not desired.”
Regarding claim 21, the limitation “the electrode is configured to electrically drive the quantum well such that the electrical driving of the quantum well produces spontaneous emission, and wherein the resonant micro-cavity is arranged with a cavity geometry configured to direct the spontaneous emission in a manner characteristic of a micro-pixel light-emitting diode” does not appear to have support in the originally filed disclosure. Specifically, applicant’s specification does recite any disclosure of “spontaneous emission,” how the electrode is configured to produce spontaneous emission, of what does or does not constitute “spontaneous emission in a manner characteristic of a micro-pixel light-emitting diode.” Further, the specification does not provide any disclosure related to “cavity geometry” or which “cavity geometries” would be capable of achieving the claimed effect.
Regarding claim 22, the limitation “a cavity geometry configured to favor vertical propagation of the light emission produced by the electrical driving of the quantum well over horizontal propagation,” does not appear to have support in the originally filed disclosure. Specifically, applicant’s specification does not provide any disclosure related to “cavity geometry” or which “cavity geometries” would be capable of “favor[ing] vertical propagation of the light emission produced by the electrical driving of the quantum well over horizontal propagation.” Additionally, there appears to be no disclosure of vertical propagation being “favor[ed]” over horizontal propagation.
Regarding claim 24, the limitation “a cavity geometry configured to favor vertical propagation of the light emission produced by the electrical driving of the quantum well over horizontal propagation,” does not appear to have support in the originally filed disclosure. Specifically, applicant’s specification does not provide any disclosure related to “cavity geometry” or which “cavity geometries” would be capable of “confin[ing] light emission laterally within a footprint corresponding to a single micro-pixel of the micro-pixel LED array.” Additionally, there appears to be no disclosure of confining light emission laterally within a footprint corresponding to a single micro-pixel of the micro-pixel LED array.
Note the dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of the claims on which they depend.
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, 5-7, 12-13, and 21-28 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.
Regarding claims 3, 26 and 27, the limitation “an optical reflector forms at least part of an electrode,” is unclear as to what is required by “at least part of an electrode.” Specifically, Applicant argues that a multilayer reflective film separate from a metal structure cannot be construed as part of the electrode (see pg. 11 of Remarks filed 1/9/2026). Applicant’s elected invention, however, has a Bragg reflector—a multilayer reflective film separate from an otherwise conductive contact structure—as the “optical reflector” which is required by the claim to be a part of the electrode. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments conflict with what appears to be the disclosed invention and what required by the claim, and therefore render the proper interpretation of “part of an electrode” indefinite.
“Regarding claim 3, the limitation “the resonant micro-cavity corresponds to a Fabry-Perot cavity,” is unclear because a Fabry-Perot cavity is understood to be defined by two parallel reflective surfaces, however claim 1 requires one of the reflective surfaces to be concavely shaped.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “a cavity geometry configured to emit light corresponding to desired optical modes while suppressing other optical modes that are not desired,” is indefinite. Specifically, applicant’s specification does not define “cavity geometry” or the bounds of “cavity geometry” which would be capable of “emit[ting] light corresponding to desired optical modes while suppressing other optical modes that are not desired,” and therefore the proper scope of the claim cannot be ascertained.
Regarding claim 21, the limitation “the electrode is configured to electrically drive the quantum well such that the electrical driving of the quantum well produces spontaneous emission, and wherein the resonant micro-cavity is arranged with a cavity geometry configured to direct the spontaneous emission in a manner characteristic of a micro-pixel light-emitting diode” is indefinite. Specifically, as applicant’s specification does recite any disclosure of “spontaneous emission,” how the electrode is configured to produce spontaneous emission, of what does or does not constitute “spontaneous emission in a manner characteristic of a micro-pixel light-emitting diode,” it is unclear what is required by spontaneous emission or of the structure which is capable of achieving spontaneous emission. Further, the specification does not provide any disclosure related to “cavity geometry” or which “cavity geometries” would be capable of achieving the claimed effect, and therefore the proper scope of the claim cannot be ascertained.
Regarding claim 22, the limitation “a cavity geometry configured to favor vertical propagation of the light emission produced by the electrical driving of the quantum well over horizontal propagation,” is indefinite. Specifically, applicant’s specification does not define “cavity geometry” or the bounds of “cavity geometry” which would be capable of “favor[ing] vertical propagation of the light emission produced by the electrical driving of the quantum well over horizontal propagation,” and therefore the proper scope of the claim cannot be ascertained. Additionally, it is unclear as to the proper interpretation of “favor.”
Regarding claim 23, the limitation “the first contact and the second contact are configured to electrically interface with drive electronics to establish a current path through the quantum well,” is unclear as to what is required by “electrically interface.”
Regarding claim 24, the limitation “a cavity geometry configured to confine light emission laterally within a footprint corresponding to a single micro-pixel of the micro-pixel LED array,” is indefinite. Specifically, applicant’s specification does not define “cavity geometry” or the bounds of “cavity geometry” which would be capable of “confin[ing] light emission laterally within a footprint corresponding to a single micro-pixel of the micro-pixel LED array,” and therefore the proper scope of the claim cannot be ascertained. Additionally, it is unclear as to the proper interpretation of “confine…laterally within a footprint” of a micro-pixel.
Regarding claim 26, the limitation “wherein the device is structured as a micro-pixel light-emitting diode (LED) device,” is unclear as to how it is related to the preamble, which recites “a micro-pixel light emitting diode (LED),” and as to what is required by “structured as.”
Regarding claim 27, the limitation “wherein the optical reflector corresponds to another Bragg reflector” is unclear as to how it is related to the recitation of “an optical reflector forms at least part of an electrode. Specifically, Applicant argues that a multilayer reflective film separate from a metal structure cannot be construed as an electrode (see pg. 11 of Remarks filed 1/9/2026), so it is unclear how the “optical reflector” of the claim can be a part of the electrode and a Bragg reflector.
Note the dependent claims necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 13, and 21-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Furukawa (JP H10200200 A, using machine translation provided herewith; herein “Furukawa”)
Regarding claims 1, 26 and 27, Furukawa teaches in Fig. 1 and related text a micro-pixel light emitting diode (LED) device, comprising:
a first contact (10/26, see pg. 5 para. 5 and 7) located about a top contact region of a top portion of the device, wherein the first contact has a first conductivity type;
a distributed Bragg reflector (12, see pg. 4 para. 7) located about an aperture region of the top portion of the device;
a second contact (20/24, see pg. 5 para. 3 and 6) located about a bottom contact region in a bottom portion of the device, wherein the second contact has a second conductivity type that is different from the first conductivity type;
an optical reflector (e.g. 20) of the second contact, wherein the optical reflector of the second contact forms at least a portion of an electrode;
a quantum well (16, see pg. 4 para. 9) located in a central portion of the device between the top portion and the bottom portion; and
a resonant micro-cavity (see pg. 3 para. 5) formed about the quantum well between the distributed Bragg reflector and the optical reflector of the second contact, wherein the distributed Bragg reflector corresponds to a top reflector of the resonant micro-cavity and the optical reflector corresponds to a bottom reflector of the resonant micro-cavity, and wherein one or more of the optical reflector and the distributed Bragg reflector are concavely shaped (see Fig. 1).
It is the Examiner' s position that the limitation “wherein the device is structured such that the resonant micro-cavity promotes vertical light propagation and confines horizontal light propagation” is a functional limitation of the apparatus claimed. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114.I and 2112.01. Additionally, because the device of Furukawa has all of the structural limitations of the claimed invention the device is capable of operating/being operated in the manner claimed by the applicant. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114.II and 2112.01.
Regarding claim 2, Furukawa further discloses wherein the quantum well corresponds to a multiple quantum well (MQW) (see pg. 6 para. 5).
Regarding claim 3, Furukawa further discloses wherein the resonant micro-cavity corresponds to a Fabry-Perot cavity.
Regarding claim 5, Furukawa further discloses wherein the first conductivity type is p-type, and the second conductivity type is n-typ
Regarding claim 6, Furukawa further discloses wherein the distributed Bragg reflector (12) is configured to emit light from the resonant micro-cavity at a surface about the aperture region (see pg. 5 last paragraph).
Regarding claim 7, Furukawa further discloses wherein the optical reflector is concave with respect to a focal point located along an axis that extends between the optical reflector and the distributed Bragg reflector (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, (Currently Amended) The device of claim 1, wherein the resonant micro-cavity is arranged with a cavity geometry configured to emit light corresponding to desired optical modes while suppressing other optical modes that are not desired.
Furukawa further discloses wherein the resonant micro-cavity is arranged with a cavity geometry configured to emit light corresponding to desired optical modes while suppressing other optical modes that are not desired.
It is the Examiner' s position that the limitation of "to emit light corresponding to desired optical modes while suppressing other optical modes that are not desired,” is a functional limitation of the apparatus claimed. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114.I and 2112.01. Additionally, because the device of Furukawa has all of the structural limitations of the claimed invention the device is capable of operating/being operated in the manner claimed by the applicant. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114.II and 2112.01.
Regarding claims 21-25, Furukawa further discloses each of the claimed limitations. Specifically, it is the Examiner' s position that each of the claims merely recite functional limitations of the apparatus claimed. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114.I and 2112.01. Additionally, because the device of Furukawa has all of the structural limitations of the claimed invention the device is capable of operating/being operated in the manner claimed by the applicant. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114.II and 2112.01.
Regarding claim 28, Furukawa further discloses wherein the optical reflector (20) corresponds to another distributed Bragg reflector.
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.
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) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furukawa in view of Grundmann (US 2021/0159373; herein “Grundmann”).
Regarding claim 12, Furukawa does not explicitly disclose a micro-lens formed over and aligned with the aperture region of the device, wherein the micro-lens is configured to collimate light emitted by the distributed Bragg reflector.
In the same field of endeavor, Grundmann teaches in Figs. 8-11 and related text a micro-lens (840/940/1040/1130) located above the LED (820/920/1020/1120) formed over and aligned with the aperture region of the device (central top region), wherein the micro-lens is configured to collimate light emitted by the distributed Bragg reflector (see [0101]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Furukawa by having the distributed Bragg reflector about a surface of the aperture region of the device, wherein the micro-lens is configured to collimate light emitted by the distributed Bragg reflector, as taught by Grundmann, in order to provide additional optical functionality of the device. Note that the limitation “a micro-lens located above the distributed Bragg reflector about a surface of the aperture region of the device” is taught by the combination of the lens being above the LED as shown by Grundmann, and LED having the distributed Bragg reflector about a surface of the aperture region of the device at the top of the device as shown by Furukawa.
Additionally, it is the Examiner' s position that the limitation of a “the micro-lens is configured to collimate light emitted by the distributed Bragg reflector,” is a functional limitation of the apparatus claimed. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114.I and 2112.01. Additionally, because the device of Furukawa has all of the structural limitations of the claimed invention the device is capable of operating/being operated in the manner claimed by the applicant. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114.II and 2112.01.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (page 10) that “Fabry-Perot cavity” recited in claim 3 is not indefinite because it is “well-established” that one or both of the parallel surfaces can be curved and that “curvature does not negate parallelism of the surfaces.”
In response, the examiner disagrees. Specifically, it is respectfully submitted that one of ordinary skill would understand that a curved surface cannot be parallel to flat surface as “parallel” is defined as “of, relating to, or designating two or more straight coplanar lines that do not intersect” or “being an equal distance apart everywhere” (see American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition). Accordingly, the curvature absolutely does negate parallelism. If applicant it is interested in submitting evidence that this understanding is incorrect, or that Fabry-Perot cavities can include curved surface, the examiner will consider. It is noted, however, that arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence (see MPEP 2145 and 716.01(c)).
Applicant argues (page 11) that Furukawa does not teach or suggest an optical reflector forming at least a portion of an electrode because the optical reflector 20 of Furukawa is a semiconductor multilayer film and the reference shows a metal structure that is separate from the multilayer which is the electrode.
In response, the examiner disagrees. Specifically, it is noted that applicant’s elected invention is a multilayer reflective film as the optical reflector. Accordingly, it is the examiner’s position that, as best understood, “an optical reflector” being “a portion of the electrode” as claimed can include a multilayer reflective film because applicant employs a multilayer reflective film for the claimed element.
Applicant agues (page 13-16) that the limitations of 13 and 21-25 are not taught by Furukawa.
In response, the examiner disagrees. Specifically, each of the claims recites functional limitations of the apparatus claimed. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114.I and 2112.01. Additionally, because the device of Furukawa has all of the structural limitations of the claimed invention the device is capable of operating/being operated in the manner claimed by the applicant. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114.II and 2112.01.
Applicant argues (page 17-18) that modification of Furukawa with the teachings of Grundmann do not result in a microlens “aligned” with the aperture region.
In response, the examiner disagrees. Specifically, the Examiner notes that in accordance with MPEP 2111, USPTO personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997).Therefore the claim limitation “aligned” has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation and merely requires, e.g., “To adjust (parts of a mechanism, for example) to produce a proper relationship or orientation.”
Applicant argues (page 18-19) the Furukawa does not teach the invention of claim 26 because it does not teach “pixel-level LED device structures configured for spontaneous-emission-based operation in a micro-pixel format.”
In response, the examiner disagrees. Specifically, even if applicant’s disclosure provided support for a “pixel-level LED device structures configured for spontaneous-emission-based operation in a micro-pixel format,” the currently rejected claim does not recite these features.
Applicant argues (page 18-19) the Furukawa does not teach the invention of claim 26 because it does not teach promotion of vertical light propagation confinement of horizontal light propagation.
In response, the examiner disagrees. Specifically, the feature on which applicant relied is a functional limitation of the apparatus claimed. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114.I and 2112.01. Additionally, because the device of Furukawa has all of the structural limitations of the claimed invention the device is capable of operating/being operated in the manner claimed by the applicant. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114.II and 2112.01.
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 Lauren R Bell whose telephone number is (571)272-7199. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, William Kraig can be reached at (571) 272-8660. 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.
/LAUREN R BELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896 2/13/2026