DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
A restriction requirement was mailed on 7/16/25.
Applicant’s election of species XIV (Figs. 9A-9B) in the reply filed on 8/5/25 was previously acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 4-9 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102, some of which 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, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2005/0056855 A1 (“Lin”).
Lin teaches, for example:
PNG
media_image1.png
303
404
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
338
382
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Lin teaches:
1. A micro light emitting diode (see e.g. Figs. 10A-10B), comprising:
an epitaxial structure (e.g. comprising one or more of 31 and/or 33), having a surface and comprising a first-type semiconductor layer (e.g. 331, or horizontal portions thereof), a light emitting layer (e.g. the portion wherein 331 interfaces with 335, wherein light is emitted, see para 43) and a second-type semiconductor layer (e.g. 335, or horizontal portions thereof), wherein the light emitting layer is located between the first-type semiconductor layer and the second-type semiconductor layer (see e.g. Fig. 10A and para 43);
a first electrode (e.g. 65, see e.g. para 59), disposed on the surface of the epitaxial structure;
a second electrode (e.g. 674, see e.g. para 59 and Fig. 10B), disposed on the surface of the epitaxial structure,
wherein the second electrode is located outside around the first electrode (it is on the perimeter of the layer 33, see e.g. Figs. 10A-10B), and the second electrode is symmetrically disposed with respect to a geometric center of a bonding surface of the epitaxial structure (see e.g. Figs. 10A-10B); and
a via (e.g. comprising one of 678, see e.g. para 678 and Fig. 10B), extending from the second-type semiconductor layer to the first-type semiconductor layer, wherein the via consists of only one single via (the one of 678 that is identified as the “via” or the “single via” is just one via; the overall claim language is open-ended due to the use of the language “comprising” in the limitation “a micro light emitting diode comprising…”, , “the transitional term ‘comprising’ … is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps”, see MPEP 2111.03; thus the claim in in no way precludes other vias in the micro light emitting diode) and the single via is only on one side of the epitaxial structure (each via is only on the top side of the epitaxial structure; furthermore, each via is in a single location in top view, and would each be on e.g. the right side of the epitaxial structure in the top view shown in Fig. 10B); and
an insulating layer (e.g. 677, see e.g. para 59, Figs. 10A-10B), disposed on the second-type semiconductor layer (677 directly contacts the top and side of 335; 677 also directly contacts 65),
wherein the insulating layer extends to cover an inner wall of the single via (see e.g. Fig. 10A), and the single via is non-symmetrically disposed with respect to the geometric center of the bonding surface of the epitaxial structure (any single 678 is not symmetric with respect to the center of 335; furthermore, there are several subsets of 678 that are not symmetric about the center of 335).
10. The micro light emitting diode according to claim 1, wherein
a ratio of an orthographic projection area of the at least one via on the second electrode to an area of the second electrode is less than or equal to 0.5 (see Fig. 10B, wherein a single via 678 has an area that is perhaps 1/100 of the area of 676; thus, the “at least one via” which can be a single via or a relatively small number of vias clearly occupies an area much less than 0.5 of the area of 676).
11. The micro light emitting diode according to claim 1, wherein an outer surface of the second electrode 674 distal to the epitaxial structure (e.g. on the top surface thereof) is a horizontal plane (the entire top surface of 674 is a horizontal plane, so various regions thereof are on the same horizontal plane).
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 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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of US 2022/0029059 A1 (“Kishimoto”).
Lin teaches claim 1 and further discloses wherein a gap is provided between the second electrode and the first electrode on the bonding surface (the distance between 65 and 674 is present, see Fig. 10B).
Lin does not explicitly teach that the gap is greater than or equal to 0.5 microns and is smaller than or equal to 10 microns.
Kishimoto teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, in combination with Lin that the gap is greater than or equal to 0.5 microns and is smaller than or equal to 10 microns (the disclosed gap is between 0.5 and 15 micrometers, see e.g. Fig. 16 and para 222).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the invention of Kishimoto to the invention of Lin. The motivation to do so is that the combination produces the predictable results of allowing effective isolation between electrodes (see e.g. para 72, 220, etc.).
Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed size is for a particular unobvious purpose, produces an unexpected result, or is otherwise critical. It has been found that mere changes in the size of an object, lacking any convincing proof of criticality or unobviousness thereof, is not sufficient for patentability. See e.g. MPEP 2144.04; in re Rose, F.3d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); in re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984);
To overcome a prima facie case of obviousness, Applicant must show factual evidence that the particular range is critical or achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. See e.g. MPEP 716.02(b); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
It has been held that when claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It is clearly within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art to discover the claimed range given the overlap of the claimed and disclosed range. It has been established that the Office or “a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’ Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). It is also well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of US 2019/0319015 A1 (“Schuele”).
Lin teaches claim 1, and further teaches wherein a distance is provided between the second electrode on the bonding surface and a surrounding surface of the epitaxial structure (see Fig. 10A, wherein the side of 674 where it is bonded to 677 has a distance between it and the outermost side surface of 331).
Lin does not explicitly teach that the distance is smaller than or equal to 5 microns and is greater than or equal to 0.5 microns.
Schuele teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, in combination with Lin that the distance is smaller than or equal to 5 microns and is greater than or equal to 0.5 microns (Schuele discloses values for the entire extent of the epitaxial structure being between 150 and 1000 micrometers, see e.g. para 10; this value influences the other values such as the interval distance; it would have been within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the cross-sectional width of the device, and consequently the interval distance, and arrive at values such as those claimed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the invention of Schuele to the invention of Lin. The motivation to do so is that the combination produces the predictable results of providing known dimensions of the LED as a basis for routine optimization thereof.
Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed size is for a particular unobvious purpose, produces an unexpected result, or is otherwise critical. It has been found that mere changes in the size of an object, lacking any convincing proof of criticality or unobviousness thereof, is not sufficient for patentability. See e.g. MPEP 2144.04; in re Rose, F.3d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); in re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984);
To overcome a prima facie case of obviousness, Applicant must show factual evidence that the particular range is critical or achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. See e.g. MPEP 716.02(b); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
It is clearly within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art to discover the claimed range given the overlap of the claimed and disclosed range. It has been established that the Office or “a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’ Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). It is also well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant merely argues that Lin does not teach the “single via” limitation (see remarks filed 5/26/26, pages 5-6). However, as discussed above, Lin does teach a via meeting the requirements of the claim. If the Applicant is still arguing that the “consists of a single via” is not met, it is. The claim does not prohibit more than one overall via, as long as one via meets the limitation.
Conclusion
Conclusion / Finality
Applicant's amendment changed the scope of the claims and 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Conclusion / Prior Art
The prior art made of record, because it is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, but which is not relied upon specifically in the rejections above, is listed on the Notice of References Cited.
Conclusion / Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Parendo who can be contacted by phone at (571) 270-5030 or by direct fax at (571) 270-6030. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9 am to 4 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Billy Kraig, can be reached at (571) 272-8660. The fax 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.
/Kevin Parendo/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights