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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-11, 14-15 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7.25.2025 and subsequent email communication on 8.7.2025 (see Office Action Appendix).
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.
Claims 12 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al. (of record, US 20040206961 A1) in view of Okuno (of record, US 20090309126 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Yamada discloses a light emitting diode with a vertical structure (Fig. 1), comprising:
a substrate, the substrate being an n-type substrate (7, “n-type GaAs single crystal substrate (also simply referred to as "substrate", hereinafter) 7”);
an n-type buffer layer (2, “n-type GaAs buffer layer 2”) formed on
a light emitting structure (24) formed on the n-type buffer layer, the light emitting structure comprising an n-type semiconductor layer (4, “n-type AlGaInP cladding layer 4”), an active layer (5, “AlGaInP active layer 5”) and a p-type semiconductor layer (6, “p-type AlGaInP cladding layer 6”) from bottom to top;
a p electrode disposed (30/9) on the light emitting structure; and
an n electrode (15) disposed on one side, away from the metal atom layer, of the substrate (Fig. 1).
Yamada fails to disclose a metal atom layer formed on the substrate, wherein the metal atom layer is an Al atom layer, and, an n-type buffer layer formed on the metal atom layer, wherein a material of then-type buffer layer is a group III-Nitride.
Okuno discloses (Fig. 5) a metal atom layer (20, “aluminum regions 20”) formed on the substrate (10), wherein the metal atom layer is an Al atom layer (“aluminum regions 20”), and, an n-type (partly n-type) buffer layer (30/40) formed on the metal atom layer (20), wherein a material of the (partly) n-type buffer layer is a group III-Nitride (“aluminum nitride buffer layer 30” and “gallium nitride single-crystal layer 40” are both III-Nitrides; also, “(Si)-doped GaN n-contact layer 40”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ the metal atom layer and the III-Nitride of Okuno in Yamada and arrive at the claimed invention so as to ensure “a portion of light emitted from the light-emitting layer toward the substrate is reflected by the metallic aluminum regions, and thus light extraction performance is improved” as disclosed by Okuno at [0012] and because the use of conventional materials (III-Nitrides) to perform their known function is prima-facie obvious (MPEP 2144.07) was within the capabilities of one skilled in the art and would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding claim 16, Yamada/Okuno discloses wherein materials of the n-type semiconductor layer and the p-type semiconductor layer are group III-Nitrides ([0041] – “also referred to as "InGaAlN", hereinafter”, [0088]).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Yamada/Okuno fails to disclose wherein a horizontal width of the light emitting diode with the vertical structure is less than 500 µm and wherein a horizontal width of the light emitting diode with the vertical structure is less than 100 µm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to arrive at a value within the claimed range so as to employ MicroLEDs meeting the claimed widths and, e.g., allows for high integration densities in displays or panels.
Regarding claim 19, Yamada discloses a light emitting diode (LED) display panel, comprising a light emitting diode with a vertical structure (Fig. 1), wherein the light emitting diode with the vertical structure comprises:
a substrate, the substrate being an n-type substrate (7, “n-type GaAs single crystal substrate (also simply referred to as "substrate", hereinafter) 7”);
an n-type buffer layer (2, “n-type GaAs buffer layer 2”) formed on
a light emitting structure (24) formed on the n-type buffer layer, the light emitting structure comprising an n-type semiconductor layer (4, “n-type AlGaInP cladding layer 4”), an active layer (5, “AlGaInP active layer 5”) and a p-type semiconductor layer (6, “p-type AlGaInP cladding layer 6”) from bottom to top;
a p electrode disposed (30/9) on the light emitting structure; and
an n electrode (15) disposed on one side, away from the metal atom layer, of the substrate (Fig. 1).
Yamada fails to disclose a metal atom layer formed on the substrate, wherein the metal atom layer is an Al atom layer, and, an n-type buffer layer formed on the metal atom layer, wherein a material of then-type buffer layer is a group III-Nitride.
Okuno discloses (Fig. 5) a metal atom layer (20, “aluminum regions 20”) formed on the substrate (10), wherein the metal atom layer is an Al atom layer (“aluminum regions 20”), and, an n-type (partly n-type) buffer layer (30/40) formed on the metal atom layer (20), wherein a material of the (partly) n-type buffer layer is a group III-Nitride (“aluminum nitride buffer layer 30” and “gallium nitride single-crystal layer 40” are both III-Nitrides; also, “(Si)-doped GaN n-contact layer 40”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ the metal atom layer and the III-Nitride of Okuno in Yamada and arrive at the claimed invention so as to ensure “a portion of light emitted from the light-emitting layer toward the substrate is reflected by the metallic aluminum regions, and thus light extraction performance is improved” as disclosed by Okuno at [0012] and because the use of conventional materials (III-Nitrides) to perform their known function is prima-facie obvious (MPEP 2144.07) was within the capabilities of one skilled in the art and would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding “a light emitting diode (LED) display panel, comprising a light emitting diode with a vertical structure” in the preamble, it is the examiner’s position the no structure is recited which distinguishes over the prior art, however, in the event the term LED panel provides additional structure, which the examiner does not concede, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide a panel as claimed in Yamada/Okuno so as to allow for high integration densities in displays or panels since the use of conventional materials (panels) to perform their known function is prima-facie obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11.11.2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant alleges:
PNG
media_image1.png
256
598
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This is not found persuasive because (a) the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981), (b) in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986), (c) Okuno discloses the buffer layer (30/40) as being a Group III-Nitride and partly n-type group III-Nitride (“aluminum nitride buffer layer 30” and “gallium nitride single-crystal layer 40” are both III-Nitrides; also, “(Si)-doped GaN n-contact layer 40”).
The applicant alleges:
PNG
media_image2.png
150
600
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The examiner acknowledges applicant’s argument but this does not address how and why the claims overcome the prior art of record. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Moreover, the examiner notes that neither applicant’s argument nor [0039] show evidence of unexpected results to support a position of non-obviousness.
The applicant alleges:
PNG
media_image3.png
286
612
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The examiner acknowledges applicant’s argument but this does not address how and why the claims overcome the prior art of record. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Moreover, the examiner notes that neither applicant’s argument nor [0050] ] show evidence of unexpected results to support a position of non-obviousness.
The applicant alleges:
PNG
media_image4.png
214
590
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The examiner acknowledges applicant’s argument but this does not address how and why the claims overcome the prior art of record. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
The applicant alleges:
PNG
media_image5.png
242
582
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The examiner acknowledges applicant’s argument but this does not address how and why the claims overcome the prior art of record. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
The applicant alleges:
PNG
media_image6.png
336
596
media_image6.png
Greyscale
This is not found persuasive because (a) the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981), (b) in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986), and (c) Okuno discloses the buffer layer (30/40) as being a Group III-Nitride and partly n-type group III-Nitride (“aluminum nitride buffer layer 30” and “gallium nitride single-crystal layer 40” are both III-Nitrides; also, “(Si)-doped GaN n-contact layer 40”).
The applicant alleges:
PNG
media_image7.png
326
601
media_image7.png
Greyscale
This is not found persuasive because (a) the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981), and, (b) in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The applicant alleges:
PNG
media_image8.png
248
610
media_image8.png
Greyscale
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
The applicant alleges:
PNG
media_image9.png
428
622
media_image9.png
Greyscale
This is not found persuasive because (a) the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981), (b) in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986), (c) Yamada discloses
a material of then-type buffer layer is a group III-V (“n-type GaAs buffer layer 2”)
Finally, the examiner notes that “arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence” (MPEP 2145) wherein applicant’s remarks do not include factually supported objective evidence and the sections of the specification that the applicant points to do not include factually supported objective evidence to show evidence of unexpected results to support a position of non-obviousness.
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 ANDRES MUNOZ whose telephone number is (571)270-3346. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM Central Time.
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, Eva Montalvo can be reached at (571)270-3829. 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.
/Andres Munoz/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights