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 .
Claims Objection
Claim 29 is objected for claim language “…..wherein the conductive side further connects…”
Examiner suggests the applicant to amend the claim as “….wherein the conductive side arm further connects…”.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,211,970 (Hereinafter ‘970). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
With respect to claim 21: ‘970 discloses:
A micro light emitting diode (LED) structure having a high light extraction efficiency, comprising (Claim 1, Col. 16, lines 64-65):
a bottom conductive layer (Claim 1, Col. 16, line 66);
a bottom dielectric layer on top of the bottom conductive layer (Claim 1, Col. 17, lines 2-3);
a light emitting layer on top of the bottom dielectric layer (Claim 1, Col. 17, lines 2-3);
a top conductive structure on top of the light emitting layer (Claim 1, Col. 17, line 1); and
a conductive side arm in contact with the light emitting layer and the bottom conductive layer (Claim 1, Col. 17, lines 4-6);
wherein:
the light emitting layer comprises a first-type semiconductor layer, an active layer at a bottom of the first-type semiconductor layer, and a second-type semiconductor layer at a bottom of the active layer (Claim 1, Col. 17, lines 7-10); and
the conductive side arm electrically connects the second-type semiconductor layer to the bottom conductive layer (Claim 1, Col. 17, lines 20-21).
Claims 22-40 are also rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of ‘970.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,908,988 (Hereinafter ‘988) in view of Tsai (US 2019/0355888, hereinafter Tsai). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
With respect to claim 21: ‘988 discloses:
A micro light emitting diode (LED) structure having a high light extraction efficiency, comprising (Claim 1, Col. 16, lines 64-65):
a bottom conductive layer (Claim 1, Col. 16, line 66);
a bottom dielectric layer on top of the bottom conductive layer (Claim 1, Col. 17, lines 2-3);
a light emitting layer on top of the bottom dielectric layer (Claim 1, Col. 17, lines 2-3);
a top conductive structure on top of the light emitting layer (Claim 1, Col. 17, line 1); and
a conductive side arm in contact with the light emitting layer and the bottom conductive layer (Claim 1, Col. 17, lines 4-6).
‘988 does not explicitly disclose that the light emitting layer comprises a first-type semiconductor layer, an active layer at a bottom of the first-type semiconductor layer, and a second-type semiconductor layer at a bottom of the active layer; and the conductive side arm electrically connects the second-type semiconductor layer to the bottom conductive layer.
In an analogous art, Tsai discloses that the light emitting layer comprises a first-type semiconductor layer (440), an active layer (430) at a bottom of the first-type semiconductor layer (Fig. 3D), and a second-type semiconductor layer (420) at a bottom of the active layer (Fig. 3D); and the conductive side arm electrically connects the second-type semiconductor layer to the bottom conductive layer (454 connects 420 to 488). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘988’s device by having Tsai’s disclosure in order to improve the luminance of the light emitting chip.
Claims 22-40 are also rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of ‘988.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,626,550 (Hereinafter ‘550) in view of Tsai. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
With respect to claim 21: ‘550 discloses:
A micro light emitting diode (LED) structure having a high light extraction efficiency, comprising (Claim 1, Col. 16, lines 56-57):
a bottom conductive layer (Claim 1, Col. 16, line 58);
a bottom dielectric layer on top of the bottom conductive layer (Claim 1, Col. 16, lines 58-62);
a light emitting layer on top of the bottom dielectric layer (Claim 1, Col. 16, lines 58-64);
a top conductive structure on top of the light emitting layer (Claim 1, Col. 16, line 60); and
a conductive side arm in contact with the light emitting layer and the bottom conductive layer (Claim 1, Col. 16, lines 61-65).
‘550 does not explicitly disclose that the light emitting layer comprises a first-type semiconductor layer, an active layer at a bottom of the first-type semiconductor layer, and a second-type semiconductor layer at a bottom of the active layer; and the conductive side arm electrically connects the second-type semiconductor layer to the bottom conductive layer.
In an analogous art, Tsai discloses that the light emitting layer comprises a first-type semiconductor layer (440), an active layer (430) at a bottom of the first-type semiconductor layer (Fig. 3D), and a second-type semiconductor layer (420) at a bottom of the active layer (Fig. 3D); and the conductive side arm electrically connects the second-type semiconductor layer to the bottom conductive layer (454 connects 420 to 488). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘550’s device by having Tsai’s disclosure in order to improve the luminance of the light emitting chip.
Claims 22-40 are also rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of ‘550.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,621,383 (Hereinafter ‘383). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
With respect to claim 21: ‘383 discloses:
A micro light emitting diode (LED) structure having a high light extraction efficiency, comprising (Claim 1, Col. 16, lines 57-58):
a bottom conductive layer (Claim 1, Col. 16, line 59);
a bottom dielectric layer on top of the bottom conductive layer (Claim 1, Col. 16, lines 60-65);
a light emitting layer on top of the bottom dielectric layer (Claim 1, Col. 16, lines 60-65);
a top conductive structure on top of the light emitting layer (Claim 1, Col. 16, line 61); and
a conductive side arm in contact with the light emitting layer and the bottom conductive layer (Claim 1, Col. 16, lines 64-67);
wherein:
the light emitting layer comprises a first-type semiconductor layer, an active layer at a bottom of the first-type semiconductor layer, and a second-type semiconductor layer at a bottom of the active layer (Claim 1, Col. 17, lines 1-10); and
the conductive side arm electrically connects the second-type semiconductor layer to the bottom conductive layer (Claim 1, Col. 17, lines 1-15).
Claims 22-40 are also rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of ‘383.
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 21, and 26-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a (1) as being anticipated by Tsai.
With respect to claim 21, Tsai discloses a micro (Para 0045- diameter 60 microns) light emitting diode (LED) structure (Para 0003) having a high light extraction efficiency (Para 0060; the luminance of the light emitting chip is increased), comprising:
a bottom conductive layer (488 of Fig. 3D – Para 0065);
a bottom dielectric layer (410) on top of the bottom conductive layer (Fig. 3D);
a light emitting layer (420/430/440) on top of the bottom dielectric layer;
a top conductive structure (486) on top of the light emitting layer; and
a conductive side arm (454) in contact with the light emitting layer and the bottom conductive layer (Fig. 3D); wherein: the light emitting layer comprises a first-type semiconductor layer (440), an active layer (430) at a bottom of the first-type semiconductor layer (Fig. 3D), and a second-type semiconductor layer (420) at a bottom of the active layer (Fig. 3D); and the conductive side arm electrically connects the second-type semiconductor layer to the bottom conductive layer (454 connects 420 to 488).
With respect to claim 26, Tsai discloses wherein the bottom conductive layer (488) has a protruded bottom extending laterally from a bottom portion of the bottom conductive layer (Fig. 3D – 488 has a protruded bottom extended laterally), a top surface of the protruded bottom connecting to and supporting the conductive side arm (Fig. 3D – top of the protruded part connecting and supporting 454).
With respect to claim 27, Tsai discloses wherein a lateral width of the bottom conductive layer is larger than a lateral width of the bottom dielectric layer (Fig. 3D – lateral width of 488 is larger than a lateral width of 410).
With respect to claim 28, Tsai discloses wherein the bottom conductive layer has a protruded top extending outside of the bottom dielectric layer, a top surface of the protruded top connecting to and supporting the conductive side arm (Fig. 3D ).
With respect to claim 29, Tsai discloses wherein the conductive side further connects to a side surface of the protruded top of the bottom conductive layer (Fig. 3D).
With respect to claim 30, Tsai discloses wherein the conductive side arm has an inverted L shape (Fig. 3D – 454 has inverted L shape); and the conductive side arm comprises a horizontal portion and a vertical portion (Fig. 3D).
With respect to claim 31, Tsai discloses wherein: the lateral width of the bottom dielectric layer is larger than a lateral width of the light emitting layer (Fig. 3D – lateral width of 410’s bottom part is bigger that lateral width of (420/430/440); a side surface of the horizontal portion of the conductive side arm connects to the second- type semiconductor layer of the light emitting layer (Fig. 3D – sider surface of the horizontal portion of 454 connects to 420); and a lower surface of the vertical portion of the conductive side arm connects to the protruded top of the bottom conductive layer (Fig. 3D – lower surface of the vertical portion of 454 connects to protruded top of 488).
With respect to claim 32, Tsai discloses wherein the lateral width of the bottom dielectric layer is equal to a lateral width of the second- type semiconductor layer of the light emitting layer (fig. 3D – top of 410 is laterally aligned with bottom of 420 - lateral width of top of 410 is equal to lateral width of the bottom of 420); the lateral width of the second-type semiconductor layer is larger than a width of the active layer of the light emitting layer (Fig. 3D – lateral width of 420 is larger than 430); a lower surface of the horizontal portion of the conductive side arm connects to the second-type semiconductor layer (Fig. 3D); a lower surface of the vertical portion of the conductive side arm connects to the protruded top of the bottom conductive layer (Fig. 3D); and a gap is formed between the conductive side arm and the active layer (Fig. 3D – there is a gap between 454 and 430).
With respect to claim 33, Tsai discloses wherein: the second-type semiconductor layer of the light emitting layer comprises a second-type top semiconductor layer (420a of Fig. 3A) and a second-type bottom (420b) semiconductor layer; the lateral width of the bottom dielectric layer is equal to a lateral width of the second- type bottom semiconductor layer (Fig. 3A – lateral width of 410 is equal to a lateral width of 420b); the lateral width of the second-type bottom semiconductor layer is larger than a width of the second-type top semiconductor layer (lateral width of 420b is greater than the lateral width of 420a); a lower surface of the horizontal portion of the conductive side arm connects to the second-type bottom semiconductor layer (Fig. 3A);
a lower surface of the vertical portion of the conductive side arm connects to the protruded top of the bottom conductive layer (Fig. 3A); and a gap is formed between the conductive side arm and the second-type top semiconductor layer (Fig. 3A - gap between 454 and 420a).
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 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai in view of Kim et al. (US 2010/0078670, hereinafter Kim).
With respect to claim 22, Tsai discloses the micro-LED structure according to claim 21.
Tsai does not explicitly disclose an ohmic contact layer positioned between the top conductive structure and the light emitting layer.
In an analogous art, Kim discloses an ohmic contact layer (132 of Fig. 4 – Para 0046) positioned between the top conductive structure (150 – Para 0048) and the light emitting layer (110/116). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tsai’s device by having Kim’s disclosure in order to improve light extraction efficiency of a LED device.
With respect to claim 23, Tsai/Kim discloses the micro LED structure according to claim 22.
Tsai does not explicitly disclose wherein a lateral width of the ohmic contact layer is much narrower than a lateral width of the light emitting layer.
In an analogous art, Kim discloses wherein a lateral width of the ohmic contact layer is much narrower than a lateral width of the light emitting layer (Fig. 4 – lateral width of 132 is much smaller than the lateral width of 116).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tsai’s device by having Kim’s disclosure in order to improve light extraction efficiency of a LED device.
With respect to claim 24, Tsai/Kim discloses the micro-LED structure according to claim 22.
Tsai does not explicitly disclose wherein the ohmic contact layer is a metal film.
In an analogous art, Kim discloses wherein the ohmic contact layer is a metal film (Para 0048; silver, titanium, aluminum).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tsai’s device by having Kim’s disclosure in order to improve light extraction efficiency of a LED device.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai/Kim in view of Muramoto et al. (US 2012/0012884, hereinafter Muramoto).
With respect to claim 25, Tsai/Kim disclose the micro-LED structure according to claim 22.
Tsai/Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein the top conductive structure and the ohmic contact layer are transparent.
In an analogous art, Muramoto discloses wherein the top conductive structure and the ohmic contact layer are transparent (Para 0023 – 10a and 10b comprises of a transparent material). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tsai/Kim’s device by having Muramoto’s disclosure in order to improve the transmittance of the light emitting device.
Claims 37-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai in view of Lin (US 2015/0069434, hereinafter Lin).
With respect to claim 37, Tsai discloses the the micro-LED structure according to claim 21.
Tsai does not explicitly disclose that the bottom dielectric layer
is a composite reflective layer.
In an analogous art, Lin discloses that the bottom dielectric layer
is a composite reflective layer (32 & 34 of Fig. 5 – Para 0029; 0032). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tsai’s device by having Lin’s disclosure in order to improve the light generation efficiency of a LED device.
With respect to claim 38, Tsai discloses the the micro-LED structure according to claim 21.
Tsai disclose that the bottom dielectric layer comprises an insulating reflective dielectric layer (410 of Fig. 3D – Sapphire is a dielectric and reflective).
Tsai does not explicitly disclose that a composite metal reflective layer arranged at a bottom of the insulating reflective dielectric layer.
In an analogous art, Lin discloses that a composite metal reflective layer (34 of Fig. 5) arranged at a bottom of the insulating reflective dielectric layer (Para 0029).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tsai’s device by having Lin’s disclosure in order to improve the light generation efficiency of a LED device.
With respect to claim 39, Tsai/Lin discloses the micro-LED structure according to claim 38.
Tsai discloses the insulating reflective dielectric layer comprises a top insulating dielectric layer (410 of Fig. 3D – Sapphire is a dielectric and reflective).
Tsai does not explicitly disclose a bottom distributed Bragg reflector arrange at a bottom of the top insulating dielectric layer.
In an analogous art, Lin discloses a bottom distributed Bragg reflector (36 of Fig. 5) arrange at a bottom of the top insulating dielectric layer (Para 0029 and 0031).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tsai’s device by having Lin’s disclosure in order to improve the light generation efficiency of a LED device.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai in view of Chou et al. (US 2017/0005235, hereinafter Chou).
With respect to claim 40, Tsai discloses the micro-LED structure according to claim 21.
Tsai does not explicitly disclose wherein the micro LED structure has a light extraction efficiency of at least 20%.
In an analogous art, Chou discloses wherein the micro LED structure has a light extraction efficiency of at least 20% (Para 0214-0215). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tsai’s device by having Chou’s disclosure in order to improve the performance of a light emitting device.
There is no prior art rejection for claims 34-36. With respect to claim 34, none of the prior art on record disclose or render obvious the claimed limitations including “a transparent isolation layer filled in to the gap between the conductive side arm and the second- type top semiconductor layer” when considered as a whole along with all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 35 depends on claim 34 and claim 36 depends on claim 35.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD M CHOUDHRY whose telephone number is (571)270-5716. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Fairbanks Brent can be reached at 408-918-7532. 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.
/MOHAMMAD M CHOUDHRY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899