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 without traverse of claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 5/13/26 is acknowledged.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1,12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over Lopez et al., (Lopez) US 2026/0026137.
Regarding claim 1, Lopez shows in FIG. 1, and discloses a semiconductor structure, comprising: a light-emitting structure (100)(abstract) comprising a plurality of light-emitting units (101a, 101b)[0037], wherein an insulating structure (114)[0071] is disposed between adjacent two light-emitting units (101a,101b); and a light-control layer (122), disposed on a side of the light-emitting structure, comprising a plurality of light-control regions regularly disposed and a substrate structure (124) disposed between adjacent two light-control regions, one light-control region (122) corresponding to at least one light- emitting unit, wherein the substrate structure (124) comprises a growth substrate layer structure and an etching stop layer (126) structure stacked along a direction away from the light-emitting structure.
Regarding claim 12, Lopez shows in FIG. 1, and discloses a semiconductor structure having a driving circuit (904) [0094], wherein the driving circuit is connected with the semiconductor structure to drive the semiconductor structure to emit light [0094].
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3,4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopez as applied to claims 1,12, and further in view of Charles US 2021/0119075.
Regarding claims 3,4, Lopez discloses a device having a growth substrate (124) and etching stop (126) having a thickness.
Lopez differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly disclose a device wherein a thickness of the growth substrate layer structure is less than or equal to 50 m; wherein a thickness of the etching stop layer structure is 10-100 nm.
Charles discloses a device wherein a thickness of the growth substrate layer structure is less than or equal to 50 m [0063]; wherein a thickness of the etching stop layer structure is 10-100 nm.
Charles is evidence that ordinary workers skilled in the art would find reasons, suggestions or motivations to modify the device of Lopez. Therefore, at the time the invention was made; It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Charles in the device of Lopez to help reduce degradation [0009].
As for the thickness of the growth substrate layer structure is less than or equal to 50 m; wherein a thickness of the etching stop layer structure is 10-100 nm, Applicant did not show criticality of the particular thickness. To establish unexpected results over a claimed range or optimum value, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2,5-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC-ANTHONY ARMAND whose telephone number is (571)272-5178. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, Steven B Gauthier can be reached at 571-270-0373. 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.
MARC - ANTHONY ARMAND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2813
/MARC-ANTHONY ARMAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights