Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/108,574

LED ARRAY FOR IN-PLANE OPTICAL INTERCONNECTS

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Feb 10, 2023
Examiner
YEUNG LOPEZ, FEIFEI
Art Unit
2899
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
AvicenaTech Corp.
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
78%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allow Rate
858 granted / 1060 resolved
+12.9% vs TC avg
Minimal -3% lift
Without
With
+-3.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
47 currently pending
Career history
1107
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
52.0%
+12.0% vs TC avg
§102
26.1%
-13.9% vs TC avg
§112
17.6%
-22.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1060 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 September 19, 2025 has been entered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claim(s) 1-3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beeson et al (PG Pub 2007/0085105 A1), Saenger Nayver et al (PG Pub 20190094642 A1), Misra et al (PG Pub 2004/0119077 A1), and Shen et al (PG Pub 2002/0190260 A1) Regarding claim 1, Beeson teaches a light emitting device, comprising: a waveguide (150, figs. 1G to 1I) having an insertion hole; a light emitting diode (102, paragraph [0043]) comprising: a Gallium nitride (GaN) n-type layer (120), a GaN p-type layer (132), a GaN active layer (126), between the GaN n-type layer and the GaN p-type layer, comprising at least one quantum well layer containing In (GaN-based, paragraph [0048] such as InGaN, paragraph [0043]), a reflective layer (138, paragraph [0041]) on the GaN p-type layer, wherein the distance between the at least one quantum well layer and the reflective layer is chosen so that light generated from the GaN active layer is preferentially emitted into lateral modes away from a surface normal to the GaN active layer (fig. 1I); wherein the GaN active layer is positioned within the insertion hole of the waveguide to allow for light from the GaN active layer to be efficiently coupled into the waveguide; wherein the reflective layer is a metal (paragraph [0041]); and wherein the reflective layer is a p-side contact for the GaN p-type layer (138 is contact for p-GaN layer 132, paragraph [0049], fig. 1H). Beeson does not teach the distance between the at least one quantum well layer and the reflective layer is chosen in terms of full wave optical thickness (FWOT). Saenger Nayver teaches full wave optical thickness is a unit of length and can be found by dividing the product the physical thickness of a layer (d, equation 2) and refractive index of the layer (n(λ)) by the wavelength of the reference light (λ). Thus, it is inherent that the distance in Beeson’s device can be expressed in terms of full wave optical thickness (FWOT) by converting a unit to another. Beeson does not teach the distance in terms of FWOT is about 0.4. In the same field of endeavor, Misra teaches light interference patterns from a light emitting region of a device can be adjusted by the distance between the active layer (thus, the quantum well layer) and the reflective contact layer (paragraph [0034], fig. 3). The light interference patterns are also a function of the phase shift, Φ, which is reflector material dependent (paragraph [0033]), the reflector imparts on the light when the light is being reflected (equation 3, paragraph [0040]), and a function of Φ’, which depends on the distance between the active layer and the reflector (paragraph [0039]). Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the distance in terms of FWOT, to about 0.4, for example, to optimize the light interference patterns according to its intended use. “[W]here 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). Finally, in the same field of endeavor, Shen teaches when FWOT (d/lambda, fig. 23) is about 0.4, the topside flux is near zero. Beeson teaches the device to be a side emitting device (fig. 1H and abstract). Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the distance in terms of FWOT to about 0.4, for the benefit of reducing the top emitting flux to produce light from the sides of the device. Regarding claim 2, Beeson teaches the light emitting device of claim 1, wherein the reflective layer is parallel to the GaN active layer (figs. 1G to 1I). Regarding claim 3, Beeson teaches the light emitting device of claim 1, wherein the chosen distance between the at least one quantum well layer and the reflective layer is dependent on a phase shift with respect to light reflected by the reflective layer (changing the distance between the quantum well layer and the reflective layer inherently changes the phase shift of the light). Regarding claim 7, Beeson teaches the light emitting device of claim 5, wherein the waveguide is on a substrate (104, paragraph [0138]). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3 and 7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FEIFEI YEUNG LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1882. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8am to 4pm EST. 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, Dale Page can be reached on 571 270 7877. 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. /FEIFEI YEUNG LOPEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 10, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 30, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Feb 05, 2024
Response Filed
Mar 20, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Sep 24, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 08, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 11, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 17, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 13, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Sep 19, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 01, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 07, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604577
MICRO-LED ENCAPSULATED STRUCTURE INCLUDING TWO POLYMERIC LAYERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598839
LIGHT EMITTING DEVICE FOR DISPLAY AND DISPLAY APPARATUS HAVING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598950
ELECTROSTATIC CHUCK HEATER AND FILM DEPOSITION APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589462
APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SEMICONDUCTOR STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12593727
DISPLAY DEVICE USING SEMICONDUCTOR LIGHT-EMITTING DIODES, AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
81%
Grant Probability
78%
With Interview (-3.0%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1060 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