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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Takeya et. Al. (US 20170358624 A1 hereinafter Takeya).
Regarding claim 1, Takeya teaches in Fig. 1 or 14 with associated text a micro LED, comprising: a light emitting structure 112 [0045]; a passivation layer 125 formed on the light emitting structure (Fig. 1 or 14, [0045]); a reflective layer 117a formed on the passivation layer (Fig. 1 or 14, [0045]); and an electrical conductive layer 116 formed on the top surface of the passivation layer and on the top surface of the reflective layer (Fig. 1 or 14, [0045]), wherein the electrical conductive laver covers an entire top surface of the micro LED including the top surface of the passivation layer and the top surface of the reflective layer (Fig. 1 or 14).
Regarding claim 2, Takeya teaches the top surface of the reflective layer is equal to or lower than a top surface of the passivation layer (equal to Fig. 1); and the electrical conductive layer is further formed on an upper sidewall of the passivation layer which is higher than the top surface of the reflective layer (claim requires a conditional equal to or less than limitation since the limitation “the electrical conductive layer is further formed on an upper sidewall of the passivation layer which is higher than the top surface of the reflective layer” comes after this limitation it is only required when the top surface of the reflective layer is lower than a top surface of the passivation layer ).
Regarding claim 3, Takeya teaches the reflective layer is full filled in a space (space defined by 125) between adjacent light emitting structures (Fig. 1 or 14).
Regarding claim 4, Takeya teaches the top surface of the reflective layer is higher than a top surface of the light emitting structure (Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 5, Takeya teaches a material of the reflective layer is metal or oxide material ([0067]) .
Regarding claim 8, Takeya teaches an inclined angle of a sidewall of the light emitting structure is less than 90 (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Takeya teaches a thickness of the reflective layer is greater than half a thickness of the light emitting structure (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Takeya teaches the light emitting structure is a mesa structure with a flat top surface (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Takeya teaches the light emitting structure is a cone structure without a steeple top (the sides slope inward from a base to a flat topped portion so that the shape is interpreted to be a cone structure without a steeple top Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Takeya teaches a conductive substrate (130 including 152) electrically connected with the light emitting structure and formed under the light emitting structure (Fig. 1, [0075]).
Regarding claim 14, Takeya teaches the conductive substrate is an integrated circuit (IC) substrate [0044].
Regarding claim 15, Takeya teaches the conductive substrate is bonded with the light emitting structure (Fig. 1, [0075]).
Regarding claim 16, Takeya teaches in Fig. 1 or 14 with associated text a micro LED panel 100 comprising two or more micro LEDs (112, 125 and 117a (Fig. 1, [0045]), wherein each one of the two or more micro LEDs comprises: a light emitting structure 112 [0045]; a passivation layer 125 formed on the light emitting structure (Fig. 1 or 14, [0045]); a reflective layer 117a formed on the passivation layer (Fig. 1 or 14, [0045]); and an electrical conductive layer 116 formed on the top surface of the passivation layer and on the top surface of the reflective layer (Fig. 1 or 14, [0045]), wherein the electrical conductive laver covers an entire top surface of the micro LED including the top surface of the passivation layer and the top surface of the reflective layer (Fig. 1 or 14); wherein the reflective layer is formed between adjacent ones of light emitting structures of the two or more micro LEDs (Fig. 1 or 14).
Regarding claim 17, Takeya teaches a micro LED chip 100 comprising one or more micro LED panels 100, wherein each one of the one or more micro LED panels comprises two or more micro LEDs (112, 125 and 117a (Fig. 1, [0045]), and each one of the two or more micro LEDs comprises: a light emitting structure 112 [0045]; a passivation layer 125 formed on the light emitting structure(Fig. 1 or 14, [0045]); a reflective layer 117a formed on the passivation layer (Fig. 1 or 14, [0045]); and an electrical conductive layer 116 formed on the top surface of the passivation layer and on the top surface of the reflective layer (Fig. 1 or 14, [0045]), wherein the electrical conductive laver covers an entire top surface of the micro LED including the top surface of the passivation layer and the top surface of the reflective layer (Fig. 1 or 14); wherein the reflective layer is formed between adjacent ones of light emitting structures of the two or more micro LEDs (Fig. 1 or 14).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeya as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Seo et. Al. (US 20160284941 A1 hereinafter Seo).
Regarding claim 6, Takeya teaches the micro LED according to claim 1..
Takeya does not specify the reflective layer is formed by stacked layers.
Seo discloses in Figs. 4H with associated text a micro LED similar to that of Takeya wherein a reflective layer is formed by stacked layers (Cr/Ni/Au [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use stacked layers as taught by Seo for the reflective layer of Takeya because according to Seo such a structure is suitable for a reflective electrode [0026] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have “stacked layers”, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 7, Takeya in view of Seo teaches the reflective layer comprises stacked layers of Ni, Ag, or Au (Cr/Ni/Au [0026])
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeya as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Cho et. Al. (US 20220310701 A1 hereinafter Cho).
Regarding claim 12, Takeya teaches the micro LED according to claim 1.
Takeya does not specify a micro lens formed on the electrically conductive layer and the reflective layer.
Cho discloses in Figs. 4 with associated text wherein a micro lens 400 is formed on the electrically conductive layer 310 and a shielding layer 500 (Fig. 4, [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a micro lens as taught by Chi on the conductive and reflective layers of Takeya because according to Cho such a structure enhances a light concentrating effect (Fig. 4, [0035]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-16 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
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 AARON J GRAY whose telephone number is (571)270-7629. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-4pm.
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, Toledo Fernando can be reached on 5712721867. 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.
/AARON J GRAY/Examiner, Art Unit 2897