Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/263,566

MONOLITHIC, CASCADED, MULTIPLE COLOR LIGHT-EMITTING DIODES WITH INDEPENDENT JUNCTION CONTROL

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Jul 31, 2023
Examiner
MENZ, DOUGLAS M
Art Unit
2897
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
The Regents of the University of California
OA Round
2 (Final)
88%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 88% — above average
88%
Career Allow Rate
670 granted / 760 resolved
+20.2% vs TC avg
Minimal +5% lift
Without
With
+4.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
790
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.8%
-38.2% vs TC avg
§103
36.0%
-4.0% vs TC avg
§102
53.2%
+13.2% vs TC avg
§112
2.3%
-37.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 760 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 (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. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-9, 11 and 32-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (US 2020/0287080). Regarding claims 1 and 35, Kim discloses a device and method, comprising: forming a plurality of monolithic, cascaded, multiple color IlI-nitride light-emitting diodes (LEDs) with independent junction control (fig. 1 and paragraphs 0031-0047), wherein: each of the plurality LEDs is comprised of at least an n-type III-nitride layer (11, 21, fig. 1), a III-nitride emitting layer (12, 22, fig. 1), and a p-type III-nitride layer (13, 23 fig. 1 and paragraphs 0030, 0035-0037); adjacent LEDs of the plurality of LEDs are separated and electrically connected by an n-type tunnel junction (TJ) insertion layer (32, fig. 1 and paragraph 0034) located between the p-type III-nitride layer of a first one of the adjacent LEDs (13, fig. 1) and the n-type III-nitride layer of a second one of the adjacent LEDs (21, fig. 1); the p-type III-nitride layer of the first one of the adjacent LEDs (13, fig. 1) and the n-type tunnel junction insertion layer form a tunnel junction (32, fig. 1 and paragraphs 0031-0047); and the p-type III-nitride layer (13, fig. 1) of the first one of the adjacent LEDs is at least partially covered by the n-type tunnel junction insertion layer (32, fig. 1). Regarding claim 2, Kim further discloses wherein the p-type II-nitride layer of the first one of the adjacent LEDs is at least partially exposed by etching to create one or more access points (figs. 6-8 and paragraphs 0053-0055). Regarding claim 4, Kim further discloses wherein the first one of the adjacent LEDs includes one or more contact layers or pads for injection of current that controls emission of the first one of the adjacent LEDs independently, wherein the contact layers or pads are deposited on one or more of the access points (41, 40, 42 fig. 1 and paragraphs 0038-0043). Regarding claim 6, Kim further discloses wherein the III-nitride emitting layer is comprised of one or more InxAlyGazN quantum wells (QWs), where x+y+z=1, and x, y and z are between 0 and 1 (paragraph 0030). Regarding claims 7-8, Kim further discloses wherein an emission wavelength of each of the plurality of LEDs is controlled by an indium composition in the III-nitride emitting layer and wherein the III-nitride emitting layer of each of the LEDs has a different indium composition and a different emission wavelength (paragraphs 0030-0032, note: Kim discloses InxAlyGazN composition of active layers (paragraph 0030) and LEDs of blue and green light (paragraph 0032), it is understood that the variance of indium content dictates the color output i.e. wavelength). Regarding claim 9, Kim further discloses wherein the plurality of monolithic, cascaded, multiple color III-nitride LEDs comprise blue and green LEDs or blue, green, and red LEDs (paragraph 0023). Regarding claim 11, Kim further discloses wherein each of the plurality LEDs are micro-sized LEDs (paragraph 0023). Regarding claim 32, Kim further discloses wherein the one or more contact layers (31, fig. 1) or pads (40, 41, 42, fig. 1) are deposited on the p-type III-nitride layer of the first one of the LEDs, the n-type tunnel junction insertion layer, and the n-type III-nitride layer of the second one of the LEDs (fig. 1). Regarding claim 33, Kim further discloses wherein the n-type tunnel junction insertion layer is comprised of n-InGaN/n+GaN (paragraphs 0030-0036). Regarding claim 34, Kim further discloses wherein the n-type tunnel junction insertion layer is comprised of p+GaN / n-InGaN / n+GaN (paragraphs 0030-0036). 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. Claims 12 and 25-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2020/0287080). Kim discloses the devices of claims 1 and 11, as mentioned above and explicitly discloses LEDs for the microLED field (paragraph 0023). Kim does not explicitly disclose the emitting area of claim 12, the layer thicknesses of claims 25-27 or the output powers of claims 28-30, however, such parameters were well within the known characteristics of microLEDs at the time of filing and would therefore be deemed obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. Regarding claim 31, Kim discloses the device of claim 2, as mentioned above. Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein the p-type III-nitride layer of the first one of the LEDs is activated by thermal annealing to remove hydrogen through sidewalls of the p-type III-nitride layer of the first one of the LEDs at least partially exposed by the etching. However, the use of thermal annealing to remove hydrogen in the manufacture of LEDs was widely known at the time of filing and would therefore be deemed obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 1/27/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has amended the independent claim 1 and argues that the distinction between Applicant’s invention and Kim’s device is that the tunnel junction insertion layer of Applicant’s device is between the p-type layer of the first LED and the n-type layer of the adjacent LED, whereas Kim discloses a tunnel junction insertion layer between the p-type layer of the first LED and the p-type layer of the adjacent LED. Examiner agrees with Applicant about these differences, however Applicant only claims that the tunnel junction insertion layer is between the p-type layer of the first LED and the n-type layer of the adjacent LED. This limitation is clearly anticipated by Kim as mentioned in the above rejection. Applicant is advised to amend the claim to more precisely point out Applicant’s invention. Furthermore, Kim anticipates or renders obvious the newly submitted claims as mentioned above. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DOUGLAS M MENZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1877. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm. 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, Jacob Choi can be reached at 469-295-9060. 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. /DOUGLAS M MENZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897 2/20/26
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 31, 2023
Application Filed
Oct 25, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Jan 27, 2026
Response Filed
Feb 20, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604653
STRETCHABLE ELECTRONIC MATERIALS AND DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604607
Display Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604562
SEMICONDUCTOR STRUCTURE AND MANUFACTURE METHOD THEREFOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604756
METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601045
MANUFACTURING EQUIPMENT FOR LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
88%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+4.6%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 760 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