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
Applicants’ election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-11 in the reply filed on December 29, 2025 is acknowledged. While applicant argues there is no search and/or examination burden, no evidence is provided to demonstrate how searching under two separate classifications would not present a burden during examination. In addition, Applicants already withdrew claims 12-20.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AlA) 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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being unpatentable in view of Young et al. (WO 2021183411 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Young et al. discloses a light-emitting diode die (monolithic die, [0003]) comprising:
A first light emitting stack on a second light emitting stack, wherein the first light emitting stack comprises a first n-type layer (104) on a first light-emitting active region (106), the first light-emitting active region on a first p-type layer (104p), with the first p-type layer on a first tunnel junction (UBM layer 124a), the second light emitting stack comprises a second n-type layer in contact with the first tunnel junction on a second tunnel junction, the second tunnel junction on a second p-type layer, the second p-type layer on a second light-emitting active region, the second light-emitting active region on a third n-type layer and a metal contact on the second light emitting stack and extending to the first light emitting stack (Fig. 4, 5B).
PNG
media_image1.png
223
365
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Young et al. discloses an LED die wherein the metal contact (P-contact layer 105 composed of silver, N-contact material 118n) comprises a cathode and anode layer.
Regarding Claim 3, Young et al. discloses an LED die wherein a forward current passes in parallel through the first light emitting stack and the second light emitting stack using a single voltage source (using current spreading layer 311 on the P-type layer).
Regarding Claim 4, Young et al. discloses an LED die further comprising a sub-mount (guard layer 309, 347b, Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image2.png
449
615
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, Young et al. discloses an LED die wherein the first n-type layer, the second n-type layer, and the third n-type layer independently comprise one or more of III-nitride materials:
[0040] “the semiconductor layers 104 comprises one or more of gallium nitride (GaN), aluminum nitride (AIN), indium nitride (InN), aluminum gallium nitride (AlGaN), indium gallium nitride (InGaN), indium aluminum nitride (InAIN), aluminum indium gallium nitride (AlInGaN) and the like.”
Regarding Claim 6, Young et al. discloses an LED die wherein the first n-type layer, the second n-type layer, and the third n-type layer comprise gallium nitride.
Regarding Claim 7, Young et al. discloses an LED die wherein the cathode layer (140) and the anode layer independently comprise silver:
[0053] “In one or more embodiments, the P-contact layer 105 may comprise any suitable metal known to one of skill in the art. In one or more embodiments, the P-contact layer 105 comprises silver (Ag).”
Regarding Claim 8, Young et al. discloses an LED die comprising a dielectric layer (307) on the LED die.
Regarding Claim 9, Young et al. discloses an LED die further comprising a bonding metal layer (124a).
Regarding Claim 10, Young et al. discloses an LED die wherein the bonding metal layer comprises gold:
[0079] “The UBM layer 124a may comprise any suitable metal known to the skilled artisan. In one or more embodiments, the UBM layer 124a may comprise gold (Au).”
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of Young et al. (WO 2021183411 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Young et al. discloses an LED die which emits light of varying frequencies but does not disclose emission of green light from the active regions. However, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the application to select emission spectrums using green light to increase efficiency in the green spectral range.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to JOSHUA SCOTT WYATT at telephone number (703)756-1937.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video 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, Joshua Benitez can be reached on (571) 270-1435. 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.
/JOSHUA SCOTT WYATT/Examiner, Art Unit 2815
/JAY C KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815