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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6, 9-10, 15 and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said face of the control integrated circuit" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. All other claims depend from claim 1 and inherit the deficiency of claim 1.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "a device" in line 1. Claim 6 depends from a method claim, and therefore should recite “the method” instead of “a device”.
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 1-4, 9-10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamaguchi et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0352910) in view of Lunt, III et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0148004), Kim et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0369549), and Sakong et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0013236).
Regrading claim 1, Hamaguchi teaches a method of manufacturing 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]),
- the first material being a perovskite material (paragraph [0102]); and
- the second material being an inorganic semiconductor material (paragraphs [0100]-[0101]),
wherein the layers of the first material and the 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 (paragraph [0103], epitaxially deposited stack).
Hamaguchi does not teach control integrated circuit and the stack being on one side of said integrated circuit; and the optoelectronic device 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, the method further 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 step of transferring the LED onto said face of the integrated control circuit.
Hamaguchi only teaches inorganic materials for the MQW (paragraph [0102]), but does not specifically teach that the perovskite is inorganic. 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]).
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/control integrated circuit (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 the method further comprising a step of transferring the LED onto said face of the integrated control circuit (see Sakong Fig. 13-15, LEDs transferred to driving/control circuit 300), the stack being deposited on the face of the LED opposite the integrated control circuit, after said step of transferring the LED onto said face of the integrated control circuit. (see Sakong Fig. 15-16, color conversion layers are deposited in cavities 183 after transfer of LED to driving/control substrate 300). 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.
Regarding claim 2, Hamaguchi in view of Lunt, Kim and Sakong teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the second material comprises a III-V compound (see Hamaguchi paragraph [0100]-[0101]).
Regarding claim 3, Hamaguchi in view of Lunt, Kim and 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]).
Regarding claim 4, Hamaguchi in view of Lunt, Kim and Sakong teaches the method of claim 1 in which the second material comprises a III-N compound (Hamaguchi paragraph [0100]).
Regarding claim 9, Hamaguchi in view of Lunt, Kim and Sakong 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 Lunt, Kim and 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 15, Hamaguchi in view of Lunt, Kim and Sakong teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the stack comprises a plurality of semiconductor layers of the first material (see Hamaguchi paragraph [0100], can be superlattice).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamaguchi in view of Lunt, Kim and 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.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamaguchi in view of Lunt, Kim and 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant first argues that the perovskite of Hamaguchi is not taught to be inorganic. However, as discussed above, previously cited art Lunt teaches that a perovskite for use in a MQW stack can be inorganic. Applicant further argues that the MQW stack is not taught to be deposited after the LED is transferred, however as discussed in previous claim 18, Sakong teaches that the color conversion layer is deposited after the LED is transferred, and Kim teaches that the MQW stack is the color conversion layer, and therefore the combination teaches that the MQW stack is deposited after the LED is transferred.
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 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
Prosecution Insights