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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/14/2026 regarding the rejection of claim 1 in view of Biwa and Kim have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant specifically argues that Biwa fails to teach “wherein the first dielectric layer and the second dielectric layer enclose the reflective coating to electrically isolate the reflective coating from the first electrode.”
The applicant based the argument on the fact, Biwa's device relies on electrically connecting this metal layer to the first electrode, rather than isolating it. Specifically, Biwa states that "the metal layer 17 is connected to the pad electrode 19. With this configuration, the metal layer 17 is electrically conducted to the first electrode" (Biwa [0130]). Biwa reinforces this in the Abstract, stating that "the metal layer is conducted to the first electrode portion and insulated from the second electrode portion." This is the opposite of what is claimed.
This argument is not persuasive because the applicant is referencing embodiments that the examiner did not cite to address the argued limitation. In the office action of 03/12/2026 layer 53 was the electrode cited to be isolated from the reflective coating layer 47. It should be noted that the reference to electrode 17 of other embodiments was to provide obviousness to make the coating layer 47 a reflective coating layer.
Referring to paragraph 169, Biwa explicitly stated that “The metal layer 47 …. The metal layer 47 is insulated from the second electrode 45 (pad electrode 53).” It should be noted that although Biwa refers to pad electrode 53 as a second electrode, that does not limit the office from interpreting pad electrode 53 (second electrode) as a first electrode for rejection purposes.
The rejections in view of Biwa and Kim are deemed reasonable and would be maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 09/14/2026, with respect to claims 12 and 18 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 12 and 18 have been withdrawn.
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 1-4 and 9-11are 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.
The claims are rejected specifically in view of the limitation “a reflective coating” in lines 9 and 10. A person having ordinary skills in the art would find the claim unclear because it would be uncertain as the whether the “a reflective coating” in line 9 is the same as or different from the “a reflective coating” of line 10.
For examination purpose, “a reflective coating” will be understood as “the reflective coating.”
Claims 10 and 11 are further rejected view of the limitation that the reflective coating layer comprises a plurality of layers of a Distributed Bragg Reflector (DBR) (as claimed in claim 10 and wherein the plurality of layers of the DBR comprises alternating layers of SiO₂ and TiO2 (as claimed in claim 11).
A person having ordinary skills in the art will find the limitations indefinite because in claim 1 require that the reflective coating layer comprise a metal layer. Thus, it is unclear how the metal layer comprises plurality of layers of a DBR (claim 10), and wherein the DBR comprises SiO₂ and TiO2. As noted in the specification of the application, the reflective coating layer can be a metal layer, and in another instance, plurality of layers of a DBR is used instead of the metal layer (Para 56).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
The claimed “the plurality of layers of the DBR which comprises alternating layers of SiO₂ and TiO2 as material of the reflective coating layer does not further limit the limitation of claim 1 where the reflective coating layer comprise metal layer.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements
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 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biwa et al. [US PGPUB 20180062047] in view of Kim et al. [US PGPUB 20170108173] (hereinafter Biwa and Kim).
Regarding claim 1, referring to Fig. 8 of Biwa, Biwa teaches a Light-Emitting-Diode (micro-LED) structure comprising:
a first electrode (53, Para 168) configured to be coupled to a corresponding third electrode (202, Para 168) on a backplane (200, Fig. 8);
a second electrode (52, Para 168) configured to be coupled to a corresponding fourth electrode (201, Para 168) on the backplane (Fig. 8);
an LED layer (41-43, Para 166) comprising a first side coupled to the first electrode and the second electrode and sidewalls extending in a direction away from the backplane (Fig. 8); and
a first dielectric layer (46, Para 166) between the LED epilayer and a coating (47, Para 166, Fig. 8);
a second dielectric layer (48, Para 166) over the reflective coating (Fig. 8), wherein the first electrode and the second electrode extend through the coating (Fig. 8), and wherein the first dielectric layer and the second dielectric layer enclose the coating (Fig. 8) to electrically isolate the coating from the first electrode (Para 169, Fig. 8).
In the embodiment of Fig. 8, Biwa does not specifically disclose that the Light-Emitting-Diode (micro-LED) structure is a micro-Light-Emitting-Diode (micro-LED) structure,
the backplane comprising an array of micro-LED structures;
that the LED layer is an epilayer; and
that the coating is a reflective coating.
Referring to Fig. 1 of Biwa, Biwa discloses a micro-Light-Emitting-Diode (micro-LED) structure (Para 114 – LED chip has a size of, for example, 5 μm or more and 100 mm or less),
the backplane comprising an array of micro-LED structures (Fig. 1); and
coating 17 is a reflective coating (Para 129, also see Fig. 16/17).
At least In view of such teaching further disclosure by Biwa, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the embodiment of Fig. 8 further comprise the teachings of Fig. 1, at least based on the rationale of using known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way using or to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143.I.C/D); where using micro-LEDs allows forming compact an array which has a reflective coating that improves luminance of the device.
Referring to the invention of Kim, Kim teaches various methods of forming LED layers, wherein in an instance, the LED layers are formed as epilayers (Para 126).
In view of such teaching by Kim, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the invention of Biwa comprise the teachings of Kim at least based on the rationale of using known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way using (MPEP 2143.I.C).
Regarding claim 2, the modified invention of Biwa teaches a micro-LED structure wherein the reflective coating substantially covers the sidewalls of the LED epilayer to prevent light leakage out of the sidewalls of the LED epilayer (Biwa, Para 173).
Regarding claim 3, Biwa teaches a micro-LED structure wherein the reflective coating further covers a portion of the first side of the LED epilayer (Biwa Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 4, Biwa teaches a micro-LED structure wherein the reflective coating leaves an opening on the first side of the LED epilayer to which the first electrode is coupled (Biwa, Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 9, the modified invention of Biwa teaches micro-LED structure wherein the reflective coating comprises a material from the group consisting of: Al, Rh, Pt, Ag, Au, and Cr (Biwa, Para 131).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-13, 15-19 and 21 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 12-13 and 15-17 are allowed because all prior arts of record and related prior arts not of record either singularly or in combination fail to anticipate or render obvious a method of fabricating a micro-LED structure, the method comprising:
forming a reflective coating on the sidewalls of the LED epilayer, wherein forming the reflective coating comprises selectively forming a plurality of non-conductive layers of a Distributed Bragg Reflector (DBR) on the LED epilayer to leave the first level and the second level exposed without etching the reflective coating, (as claimed in claim 12), in combination with the rest of claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
Claims 18-19 and 21 are allowed because all prior arts of record and related prior arts not of record either singularly or in combination fail to anticipate or render obvious a micro-LED array comprising:
wherein the plurality of pixel isolation structures extend are formed of a single dielectric material that extends from the backplane substrate to above a height of the LED epilayers of the plurality of micro-LED structures; and
the second reflective coatings on the portion of the plurality of pixel isolation structures that extends above the height of the LED epilayers do not extend below the height of the LED epilayers, (as claimed in claim 18), in combination with the rest of claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
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 ISMAIL A MUSE whose telephone number is (571)272-1470. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM-5:00 PM.
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, William Partridge can be reached at (571)270-1402. 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.
/ISMAIL A MUSE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights