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 Objections
Claims 1-18 are objected to because of the following informalities: Throughout claims 1-18 a variety of starting words (a, the, no word, inconsistent use of “optoelectronic” or not) are intermixed without consistency. For clarity, Applicant should use a consistent phrasing, such as “a”/”an” for the independent claim, and “the” for all dependent claims, and use “optoelectronic device” or just “device” for all claims. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2, 4, 7, 11 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamaguchi et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0352910) in view of Sakong et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0013236).
Regarding claim 1, Hamaguchi teaches an optoelectronic device comprising, a stack comprising an alternation of at least one semiconductor layer of a first material (Fig. 16, active layer 23 is a superlattice stack, paragraph [0100]) and of semiconductor layers of a second material (paragraph [0100]-[0102], many different semiconductor materials can be used as barrier layer), each layer of the first material being sandwiched between two layers of the second material and defining a quantum well (paragraph [0100]), wherein :
- the first material is an inorganic perovskite material (see paragraph [0102]); and
- the second material is an inorganic semiconductor material (see paragraph [0100]-[0101]).
Hamaguchi does not specifically teach a control integrated circuit and, the stack being on one side of said integrated circuit. However, Sakong teaches that a MQW LED can be on one side of a control IC (Sakong Fig. 3, substrate 300 has driving IC, paragraph [0044]). It would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date that the device of Hamaguchi could have had a control IC under it because this is a necessary part in order to provide power and signals to the LEDs.
Regarding claim 2, Hamaguchi in view of Sakong teaches the optoelectronic device of claim 1, wherein the second material comprises a III-V compound (see Hamaguchi paragraph [0100]-[0101]).
Regarding claim 4, Hamaguchi in view of Sakong teaches an optoelectronic device according to claim 1 in which the second material comprises a III-N compound (Hamaguchi paragraph [0100]).
Regarding claim 7, Hamaguchi in view of Sakong teaches a device according to claim 1, in which each layer of the first material has a crystal structure aligned with the crystal structure of the underlying layer of the second material, according to an epitaxial relationship (Hamaguchi paragraph [0103]).
Regarding claim 11, Hamaguchi in view of Sakong teaches a device according to claim 1, wherein the multiple quantum well stack constitutes an active emissive layer of an LED disposed on said face of the control integrated circuit (see Hamaguchi Fig. 16).
Regarding claim 15, Hamaguchi in view of Sakong teaches a device according to claim 1, wherein the stack comprises a plurality of semiconductor layers of the first material (see Hamaguchi paragraph [0100], can be superlattice).
Regarding claim 16, Hamaguchi in view of Sakong teaches a method of manufacturing an optoelectronic device according to claim 1, in which layers of the first material and layers of the second material are deposited successively in the same deposition chamber in such a way that each layer of the first material has a crystal structure aligned with the crystal structure of the underlying layer of the second material, according to an epitaxial relationship (see Hamaguchi paragraph [0103]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamaguchi in view of Sakong, further in view of Lunt et al. (U.S. 2021/0148004).
Regarding claim 3, Hamaguchi in view of Sakong teaches the optoelectronic device of claim 1, but does not specifically teach wherein the first material is an inorganic halogen perovskite material.
Hamaguchi does not specifically say what type of perovskite material is used. However, Lunt teaches that a heterostructure for optoelectronics can be an inorganic halide perovskite (see paragraph [0012]). It would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date that the perovskite of Kim in view of Hamaguchi could have been an inorganic halide because Lunt teaches that halide perovskites can be formed epitaxially in order to allow for high efficiency devices that are less toxic than organic lead perovskites (Lunt paragraphs [0005]-[0006]).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamaguchi in view of Sakong, further in view of Ma (WO2019/196292).
Regarding claim 5, Hamaguchi in view of Sakong teaches a device according to claim 1, but does not teach wherein each layer of the first material has a thickness of between 1 and 20 nm.
However, Ma teaches that the layers of quantum wells can be around 3 nm (translation page 6). It would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date that the unknown thickness of the quantum well layers of Hamaguchi could have been similar to the thickness of the quantum well layers of Ma because it would have been a simple substitution of one known thickness for another with predictable results.
Regarding claim 6, Hamaguchi in view of Sakong teaches a device according to claim 1, but does not teach wherein each layer of the second material has a thickness of between 1 and 100 nm.
However, Ma teaches that the barrier layers can be around 4 nm (translation page 6). It would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date that the unknown thickness of the barrier layers of Hamaguchi could have been similar to the thickness of the barrier layers of Ma because it would have been a simple substitution of one known thickness for another with predictable results.
Claims 8-10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamaguchi in view of Sakong, further in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0369549).
Regarding claim 8, Hamaguchi in view of Sakong teaches a device according to claim 1, but does not teach further comprising an LED on said face of the control integrated circuit, the multiple quantum well stack being disposed on a face of the LED opposite the control integrated circuit and being adapted to convert the light emitted by the LED.
However, Kim teaches that a multiple quantum well superlattice can be used as a color conversion layer on the face of an LED, opposite the driving substrate (see Kim Fig. 2, MQW stack 200 is on face of LED/substrate 202). It would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date that the MQW stack taught by Hamaguchi could have also been used for a color conversion layer because Kim teaches that MQW color conversion layers allows for a second peak at higher intensity, spectral width and directionality than standard color conversion layers (Kim Abstract and paragraphs [0003]-[0005]).
Regarding claim 9, Hamaguchi in view of Sakong and Kim teaches a device according to claim 8, wherein the LED comprises an emissive active layer sandwiched between a semiconductor layer doped with a first conductivity type and a semiconductor layer doped with a second conductivity type, and wherein the multi-quantum-well stack coats a face of the semiconductor layer doped with the second conductivity type opposite the emissive active layer.
Sakong teaches the LED comprises an emissive active layer (Sakong Fig. 4A, emissive layer 132) sandwiched between a semiconductor layer doped with a first conductivity type (layer 133) and a semiconductor layer doped with a second conductivity type (layer 131), and wherein the multi-quantum-well stack coats a face of the semiconductor layer doped with the second conductivity type opposite the emissive active layer (Fig. 4A, analogous color conversion layer 190R coats face of 131 opposite emissive layer). It would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date that the LED of Hamaguchi in view of Kim could have been the structure taught by Sakong because this is a standard structure for microLEDs.
Regarding claim 10, Hamaguchi in view of Sakong teaches a device according to claim 9, wherein the active emissive layer of the LED comprises a multiple quantum well stack (Sakong paragraph [0029]).
Regarding claim 18, Hamaguchi in view of Sakong teaches the method of claim 16, further comprising an LED on said face of the control integrated circuit, the multiple quantum well stack being disposed on a face of the LED opposite the control integrated circuit and being adapted to convert the light emitted by the LED and comprising a step of transferring the LED onto said face of the integrated control circuit, the stack being deposited on the face of the LED opposite the integrated control circuit, after said transfer step.
However, Kim teaches that a multiple quantum well superlattice can be used as a color conversion layer on the face of an LED, opposite the driving substrate (see Kim Fig. 2, MQW stack 200 is on face of LED/substrate 202). It would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date that the MQW stack taught by Hamaguchi could have also been used for a color conversion layer because Kim teaches that MQW color conversion layers allows for a second peak at higher intensity, spectral width and directionality than standard color conversion layers (Kim Abstract and paragraphs [0003]-[0005]).
Further, Sakong teaches that the formation of the color conversion layers occurs after transfer of the LEDs from the growth substrate to the driving substrate (see Sakong Fig. 10-16). It would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date that the formation of the color conversion layers would occur after the transfer step because they are positioned on the same face that the growth substrate is previously attached to, preventing them from deposited prior to transfer.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamaguchi in view of Sakong, further in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0285445)(“Kim2”).
Regarding claim 12, Hamaguchi in view of Sakong teaches a device according to claim 11, but does not teach in which the LED further comprises an electron-transport layer on the side of one face of the multiple-quantum-well stack and a hole-transport layer on the side of another face of the multiple-quantum- well stack.
However, Kim2 teaches a MQW perovskite LED with electron transport and hole transport semiconductor layers sandwiching the emissive layer (Kim2 paragraphs [0150], [0158], [0165], Fig. 6A). It would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date that electron transport and hole transport layers could have been formed on the emissive layer of Hamaguchi because this a common method of providing greater control over charge carriers in the device.
Regarding claim 13, Hamaguchi in view of Sakong and Kim2 teaches a device according to claim 12, wherein the electron transport layer and the hole transport layer are made of inorganic semiconductor materials (Kim2 paragraph [0136], entire LED is inorganic).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamaguchi in view of Sakong and Kim2, further in view of Obana et al. (WO 2016203724).
Regarding claim 14, Hamaguchi in view of Sakong and Kim2 teaches a device according to claim 12, but does not teach wherein the electron transport layer is made of titanium dioxide and wherein the hole transport layer is made of nickel oxide or Spiro-OMeTAD.
However, Obana teaches that the hole transport can be Spire-OMeTAD, and the electron transport layer can be TiO2 (see Obana Fig. 6). It would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date that the auxiliary layers could have been the materials listed in Obana because it would have been a simple substitution of one ETL/HTL material for another with predictable results.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamaguchi in view of Sakong, further in view of Lubyshev et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0328315).
Regarding claim 17, Hamaguchi in view of Sakong teaches the method of claim 16, in which the layers of the first material and the layers of the second material are deposited by pulsed laser deposition.
However, Lubyshev teaches that PLD is a suitable alternative to the various methods disclosed by Hamaguchi (Lubyshev paragraph [0049]). It would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date that PLD could have been used because it would have been a simple substitution of one known deposition method for another with predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Evan G Clinton whose telephone number is (571)270-0525. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday at 8:30am to 5:30pm.
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, Zandra Smith can be reached at 571-272-2429. 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.
/EVAN G CLINTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899