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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species B (Fig. 7, Claims 1-12) in the reply filed on 06/22/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that a search of species B necessarily encompasses a search of Species A, and there can be no undue burden to search Species A with the elected Species B. This is not found persuasive because There is a search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply:
the species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries)
the prior art applicable to one species would not likely be applicable to the other species.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 06/22/2026..
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the
“a second transparent conductive oxide layer” of Claim 2
“a third transparent conductive oxide layer” of Claim 9
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 3, 5, 9, 10 are 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 term “about 50 Angstroms to about 2000 Angstroms” in claim 3 and 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “the active region of less than or equal to about 50 microns.” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claim.
Originally filed specification fails to disclose any functional, structural or experimental baseline showing what deviation is permitted under term “about”. Since the originally filed specification does not provide a standard for measuring this degree the metes and bounds of the claim are indefinite.
Claim 9 recites “at least a first and a second light emitting diode as in claim 5 arranged adjacent to each other”
It is not clear what limitations are brought from Claims 5, 4 and 1 into Claim 9. It is not clear “at least a first and a second light emitting diode” are different from “a light emitting diode” from Claim 1
Claims 6-8, 11 and 12 are rejected as being dependent on Claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chong (US 2024/0339566 A1) in view of Valentine (US 11,355,480 B1) and Bhusal et al. (US 2018/0033912 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Chong (Fig. 9) discloses a light emitting diode comprising:
a stack of semiconductor layers comprising an n-type (AlxnGa1-xn)ynIn1-ynP layer the second doping type semiconductor layer 113 may be n-type AlInGaP) (;
a p-type (AlxpGa1-xp)ypIn1-ypP layer (first doping type semiconductor layer 111 may be p-type AlInGaP); [0075-0080] and
an active region (112) disposed between the n-type (AlxnGa1-xn)ynIn1-ynP layer (113) and the p-type (AlxpGa1-xp)ypIn1-ypP layer (111) and comprising at least one (AxqwGa1-xqw) yqwIn1-yqwP quantum well layer; and
a transparent conductive oxide contact layer (300 on 113; “the electrode layer 300 is used as a common electrode, preferably adopting ITO (indium tin oxide)”) disposed on and making Ohmic contact to at least a portion of a surface of the n-type (Al.sub.xnGa.sub.1-xn).sub.ynIn.sub.1-ynP layer opposite from the active region (112) [0130]; wherein 0≤xn≤0.6; 0≤yn<1; 0≤xp≤1; 0≤yp<1; 0≤xqw≤1; and 0≤yqw<1.
Chong does not explicitly disclose that an active region comprising at least one (AxqwGa1-xqw) yqwIn1-yqwP, that contact is ohmic contact to n-type layer and 0≤xn≤0.6; 0≤yn<1; 0≤xp≤1; 0≤yp<1; 0≤xqw≤1; and 0≤yqw<1.
Valentine (Fig. 5) discloses an active region (530) comprising at least one (AxqwGa1-xqw) yqwIn1-yqwP [column 16, lines 45-60] , that contact (560) is ohmic contact to n-type layer (540) [column 14, lines 52-67; column 17, lines 30-65].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a light emitting diode in Chong in view of Valentine such that an active region comprising at least one (AxqwGa1-xqw) yqwIn1-yqwP, that contact is ohmic contact to n-type layer in order to have AlInGaP micro-LED emit red, orange, yellow, or green light [column 16, lines 45-60] and provide ohmic contact and reducing the contact impedance of the device and to allow transmission of charge (i.e., current) through epitaxial layered structure [column 14, lines 52-67; column 17, lines 30-65].
Chong in view of Valentine does not explicitly disclose 0≤xn≤0.6; 0≤yn<1; 0≤xp≤1; 0≤yp<1; 0≤xqw≤1; and 0≤yqw<1.
Bhusal discloses a light-emitting diode comprising n-type semiconductor layer, active layer and p-type semiconductor layer with varying Al, Ga, In and P content in order to allow for bandgap tuning by layer composition, lower resistance and support current spreading, supports low sheet resistance and tailored current flow, enables thin-film architecture and top-side n-contacting [0005]-[0007], [0019], [0020-0021], [0035]-[0039]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a light emitting diode in Chong in view of Valentine and Bhusal such that 0≤xn≤0.6; 0≤yn<1; 0≤xp≤1; 0≤yp<1; 0≤xqw≤1; and 0≤yqw<1 in order to allow for bandgap tuning by layer composition, lower resistance and support current spreading, supports low sheet resistance and tailored current flow, enables thin-film architecture and top-side n-contacting [0005]-[0007], [0019], [0020-0021], [0035]-[0039] and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 2, Chong in view of Valentine and Bhusal discloses the light emitting diode of claim 1, wherein
the transparent conductive oxide contact layer is or comprises an Indium Tin Oxide layer. (ITO) [Chong 0096].
Regarding Claim 4, Chong in view of Valentine and Bhusal discloses the light emitting diode of claim 1, wherein
the transparent conductive oxide contact layer (300 on 113)) is disposed only on a central portion of the surface of the n-type (Al.sub.xnGa.sub.1-xn).sub.ynIn.sub.1-ynP layer, comprising:
a transparent dielectric layer (160, SiO) [0103] disposed on portions of the surface of the n-type (Al.sub.xnGa.sub.1-xn).sub.ynIn.sub.1-ynP layer surrounding the transparent conductive oxide contact layer; and
a second transparent conductive oxide layer (300 on 160) disposed on the transparent dielectric layer (160) and making physical and electrical contact with the transparent conductive oxide contact layer (300 on 113).
Regarding Claim 5, Chong in view of Valentine and Bhusal discloses the light emitting diode of claim 4, wherein
Chong in view of Valentine and Bhusal as previously combined does not explicitly disclose the n-type (Al.sub.xnGa.sub.1-xn).sub.ynIn.sub.1-ynP layer has a maximum dimension parallel to the layer and opposite from the active region of less than or equal to about 50 microns.
However, Bhusal discloses an n-type (Al.sub.xnGa.sub.1-xn).sub.ynIn.sub.1-ynP layer (50) has a maximum dimension parallel to the layer and opposite from an active region (52) of less than or equal to about 50 microns. [0020-0029]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a light emitting diode in Chong in view of Valentine and Bhusal such that the n-type (Al.sub.xnGa.sub.1-xn).sub.ynIn.sub.1-ynP layer has a maximum dimension parallel to the layer and opposite from the active region of less than or equal to about 50 microns in order to let the n-side match emission wavelength and reduce absorption and balance conductivity and optical transparency [0005]-[0007], [0019]-[0020], [0025]-[0027]
Regarding Claim 6, Chong in view of Valentine and Bhusal discloses the light emitting diode of claim 5, comprising:
a contact (121) disposed on only a central portion of a surface of the p-type (Al.sub.xpGa.sub.1-xp).sub.ypIn.sub.1-ypP layer opposite from the active region; and
a dielectric layer (120, “the substrate may be made of a non-conductive material, such as glass, plastic, or sapphire wafers.”) disposed on portions of the surface of the p-type (Al.sub.xpGa.sub.1-xp).sub.ypIn.sub.1-ypP layer surrounding the contact (121).
Chong in view of Valentine and Bhusal does not explicitly disclose that a contact is a metal contact.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a light emitting diode in Chong in view of Valentine and Bhusal such that a contact is a metal contact in order to provide low resistance contacts that electrically connected to the driving circuit, [0130] and since the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (See MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 8, Chong in view of Valentine and Bhusal discloses the display device comprising a plurality of LEDs as in claim 5 configured and arranged as pixel red emitters. (“ red microLEDs may be based on AlGaInP quantum wells” [column 13, lines 18-30]) Valentine
Regarding Claim 9, Chong in view of Valentine and Bhusal discloses the light emitting microLED array comprising:
at least a first and a second light emitting diode (left and center 110) as in claim 5 arranged adjacent to each other; and
a third transparent conductive oxide layer making physical and electrical contact with the second transparent conductive oxide layer (300on 160) on the first light emitting diode (110) and making physical and electrical contact with the second transparent conductive oxide layer (300 on 160) on the second light emitting diode (center 110); wherein
the third transparent conductive oxide layer together with the transparent conductive oxide contact layer and the second transparent conductive oxide layer on the first light emitting diode and the transparent conductive oxide contact layer and the second transparent conductive oxide layer on the second light emitting diode form a shared transparent conductive oxide contact to the n-type (Al.sub.xnGa.sub.1-xn).sub.ynIn.sub.1-ynP layer of the first light emitting diode and the n-type (Al.sub.xnGa.sub.1-xn).sub.ynIn.sub.1-ynP layer of the second light emitting diode. (See 300 connecting array of 110 in Fig. 9 of Chong)
Regarding Claim 11, Chong in view of Valentine and Bhusal discloses the light emitting microLED array of claim 9, wherein the at least first and second light emitting diodes each comprise:
a metal contact (121) disposed on a central portion of a surface of the p-type (Al.sub.xpGa.sub.1-xp).sub.ypIn.sub.1-ypP layer opposite from the active region; and
a dielectric layer (120, “the substrate may be made of a non-conductive material, such as glass, plastic, or sapphire wafers.”) disposed on portions of the surface of the p-type (Al.sub.xpGa.sub.1-xp).sub.ypIn.sub.1-ypP layer surrounding the metal contact. (121).
Chong in view of Valentine and Bhusal does not explicitly disclose that a contact is a metal contact.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a light emitting diode in Chong in view of Valentine and Bhusal such that a contact is a metal contact in prder to provide low resistance contacts that electrically connected to the driving circuit, [0130] and since the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (See MPEP 2144.07).
Claim(s) 3, 7 and 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chong (US 2024/0339566 A1) in view of Valentine (US 11,355,480 B1) and Bhusal et al. (US 2018/0033912 A1) and further in view of Xin et al. (US 10,516,081 B1).
Regarding Claim 3, Chong in view of Valentine and Bhusal discloses the light emitting diode of claim 1.
Chong in view of Valentine and Bhusal does not explicitly disclose the transparent conductive oxide contact layer has a thickness perpendicular to the n-type (Al.sub.xnGa.sub.1-xn).sub.ynIn.sub.1-ynP layer of about 50 Angstroms to about 2000 Angstroms.
Xin discloses a transparent conductive oxide contact layer (101) has a thickness perpendicular to the n-type layer of about 50 Angstroms to about 2000 Angstroms. (“the conductive contacts 101 are formed of a transparent material such as ITO, the conductive contacts may be thicker, such as 1,000 to 2,000 angstroms.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a light emitting diode in Chong in view of Valentine and Bhusal and Xin such that he transparent conductive oxide contact layer has a thickness perpendicular to the n-type (Al.sub.xnGa.sub.1-xn).sub.ynIn.sub.1-ynP layer of about 50 Angstroms to about 2000 Angstroms in order to facilitate the formation of an ohmic contact (Xin)
The specific claimed thicknesses of a transparent conductive oxide contact layer, absent any criticality, are only considered to be the "optimum" thickness that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine using routine experimentation based, among other things, on the desired adhesive strength, manufacturing costs, etc. (see Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and since neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e., results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained.
Accordingly, since the applicants have not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of the stated thickness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of Chong in view of Valentine and Bhusal and Xin.
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed dimensions or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claim 7, Chong in view of Valentine and Bhusal discloses the light emitting diode of claim 5, comprising
Chong in view of Valentine and Bhusal does not explicitly disclose a metal contact between disposed on or electrically connected to the second transparent conductive oxide layer, the metal contact not obstructing transmission of light emitted from the active region through the (Al.sub.xnGa.sub.1-xn).sub.ynIn.sub.1-ynP layer.
Xin (Fig. 3) discloses a metal contact (316) between disposed on or electrically connected to a second transparent conductive oxide layer (350), the metal contact not obstructing transmission of light emitted from an active region (108).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a light emitting diode in Chong in view of Valentine and Bhusal and Xin such that a metal contact between disposed on or electrically connected to the second transparent conductive oxide layer, the metal contact not obstructing transmission of light emitted from the active region through the (Al.sub.xnGa.sub.1-xn).sub.ynIn.sub.1-ynP layer in order to provide a low resistance terminal contact for Vss, ground, low voltage contact, etc. [column 8, lines 10-27] and since the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (See MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 10, Chong in view of Valentine and Bhusal discloses the light emitting microLED array of claim 9, wherein
Chong in view of Valentine and Bhusal does not explicitly disclose the shared transparent conductive oxide contact has a thickness perpendicular to the n-type (Al.sub.xnGa.sub.1-xn).sub.ynIn.sub.1-ynP layers of about 50 Angstroms to about 2000 Angstroms in a region between the first light emitting diode and the second light emitting diode.
Xin discloses a shared transparent conductive oxide contact (101) has a thickness perpendicular to the n-type (Al.sub.xnGa.sub.1-xn).sub.ynIn.sub.1-ynP layers of about 50 Angstroms to about 2000 Angstroms. (“the conductive contacts 101 are formed of a transparent material such as ITO, the conductive contacts may be thicker, such as 1,000 to 2,000 angstroms.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a light emitting diode in Chong in view of Valentine and Bhusal and Xin such that the shared transparent conductive oxide contact has a thickness perpendicular to the n-type (Al.sub.xnGa.sub.1-xn).sub.ynIn.sub.1-ynP layers of about 50 Angstroms to about 2000 Angstroms in a region between the first light emitting diode and the second light emitting diode in order to provide transparent conductive overlays vertical inorganic semiconductor LED (Xie) and provide balance conductivity and optical transparency.
The specific claimed thicknesses of a shared transparent conductive oxide contact, absent any criticality, are only considered to be the "optimum" thickness that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine using routine experimentation based, among other things, on the desired adhesive strength, manufacturing costs, etc. (see Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and since neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e., results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained.
Accordingly, since the applicants have not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of the stated thickness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of Chong in view of Valentine and Bhusal and Xin.
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed dimensions or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claim 12, Chong in view of Valentine and Bhusal discloses the light emitting microLED array of claim 9, comprising
Chong in view of Valentine and Bhusal does not explicitly disclose a metal contact disposed on or electrically connected to the shared transparent conductive oxide contact, the metal contact not obstructing transmission of light emitted from the active region through the (Al.sub.xnGa.sub.1-xn).sub.ynIn.sub.1-ynP layer of either the first or the second light emitting diodes.
Xin (Fig. 3) discloses a metal contact (316) disposed on or electrically connected to the shared transparent conductive oxide contact (350), the metal contact not obstructing transmission of light emitted from the active region (108).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a light emitting diode in Chong in view of Valentine and Bhusal and Xin such that a metal contact disposed on or electrically connected to the shared transparent conductive oxide contact, the metal contact not obstructing transmission of light emitted from the active region through the (Al.sub.xnGa.sub.1-xn).sub.ynIn.sub.1-ynP layer of either the first or the second light emitting diodes in order to provide a low resistance terminal contact for Vss, ground, low voltage contact, etc. [column 8, lines 10-27] and since the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (See MPEP 2144.07).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ishizaki (US 2013/0270520 A1) discloses AlGInP LED with varying layer compositions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DMITRIY YEMELYANOV whose telephone number is (571)270-7920. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a.m.-6p.m.
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, Matthew Landau can be reached at (571) 272-1731. 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.
/DMITRIY YEMELYANOV/Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights