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 .
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 first bonding electrode.. is flush with said second bonding electrode 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of group I in the reply filed on 1/16/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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, 6-8, 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the prior art of record (figure 1) in view of Young et al. (US 2022/0285425).
Prior art figure 1 discloses a micro light-emitting diode [0005] that includes a semiconductor epitaxial structure including a first semiconductor layer (201), a second semiconductor layer (203), and an active layer (202) disposed between said first semiconductor layer and said second semiconductor layer, said semiconductor epitaxial structure having a first mesa surface (S11) defined by said first semiconductor layer that is exposed from a recess of said semiconductor epitaxial structure (fig. 1), a second mesa surface (S12) defined by said second semiconductor layer, and a connecting wall (w11)[0005] disposed between and interconnecting said first mesa surface and said second mesa surface, a first contact electrode (204) disposed on said first mesa surface and electrically connected to said first semiconductor layer, a second contact electrode (205) disposed on said second mesa surface and electrically connected to said second semiconductor layer, a first bonding electrode (207) disposed on and electrically connected to said first contact electrode, and a second bonding electrode (208) disposed on and electrically connected to said second contact electrode; a base frame (250) that is disposed on and supports said micro light-emitting diode; and a bridging structure (240) that interconnects said micro light-emitting diode and said base frame, a periphery of said micro light-emitting diode being disposed on said bridging structure (fig.1).
The prior art figure 1 paragraph [0005] fails to disclose said connecting wall cooperates with said first mesa surface to form a first included angle, where 105°≤ θ1 ≤ 165°.
Young et al. (US 2022/0285425) disclose connecting wall cooperates with said first mesa surface to form a first included angle, where 105°≤ θ1 ≤ 115° [60 to 75 degrees, 0069]( Young discloses measuring the angle from the inside of the mesa wall, whereas the current application measures from outside the mesa wall. The examiner submits the claimed 105° outside the wall measurement (as shown in figure 2) would be equivalent to 75° inside the wall measurement, because the outside angle measurement and the inside angle measurement must add up to 180° degrees. The examiner submits the 120° outside the wall would be equivalent to 60° inside the wall, because the outside angle measurement and the inside angle measurement must add up to 180° degrees.)
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (inclining the sidewall at a certain angle), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (i.e. would create an inclined sidewall).
Regarding claim 2, Young et al. disclose the first angle is [60 degrees, 0069]. (The examiner submits the 120° outside the wall would be equivalent to 60° inside the wall, because the outside angle measurement and the inside angle measurement must add up to 180° degrees.)
Regarding claim 6, Prior art figure 1 discloses an insulation layer (206) that covers said connecting wall (w11)[0005], said first mesa surface, and said second mesa surface, a part of said insulation layer that covers said connecting wall cooperating with a part of said insulation layer that covers said first mesa surface. The combination of Prior art figure 1 and Young et al. would disclose a part of said insulation layer that covers said connecting wall cooperating with a part of said insulation layer that covers said first mesa surface to form a second included angle that ranges from 105° to 165° (because the insulation layer would be conformal to the sidewall) [60 to 75 degrees, 0069]( Young discloses measuring the angle from the inside of the mesa wall, whereas the current application measures from outside the mesa wall. The examiner submits the claimed 105° outside the wall measurement (as shown in figure 2) would be equivalent to 75° inside the wall measurement, because the outside angle measurement and the inside angle measurement must add up to 180° degrees. The examiner submits the 120° outside the wall would be equivalent to 60° inside the wall, because the outside angle measurement and the inside angle measurement must add up to 180° degrees.)
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Prior art figure 1 (conformal insulation) and Young et al. (angled sidewall) would disclose the second angle is [60 degrees, 0069]. (The examiner submits the 120° outside the wall would be equivalent to 60° inside the wall, because the outside angle measurement and the inside angle measurement must add up to 180° degrees.)
Regarding claim 8, Prior art figure 1 discloses said base frame (250) includes a substrate (220) and a bonding layer (210), said bonding layer being disposed on said substrate (fig. 1), said bridging structure (240) being disposed on said bonding layer and connecting said bonding layer to said micro light-emitting diode (figure 1).
Regarding claim 10, Prior art figure 1 discloses a material for the the bridging material. The bridging material would inherently be one of is made of a dielectric material, a metal material, or a semiconductor material. The examiner submits dielectric material, a metal material, or a semiconductor material would cover encompass the electrical conductivity properties of all materials and the material bridging material would have to have a electric property of a dielectric material (no conduction of electrons), a metal material (conduction of electrons), or a semiconductor material (conduction controlled by doping).
Regarding claim 12, Prior art figure 1 discloses said base frame has an indented receiving space for disposing said micro light-emitting diode, and said micro light-emitting device includes a sacrificial layer (209)[0005], said sacrificial layer being disposed in said indented receiving space and between said micro light-emitting diode and said base frame (fig. 1).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the prior art of record (figure 1) in view of Young et al. (US 2022/0285425) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Park et al. (US 2020/0185368).
The prior art of record (figure 1) in view of Young et al. disclose the invention supra.
The prior art of record (figure 1) in view of Young et al. fail to disclose the first bonding electrode extends onto said second mesa surface and is flush with said second bonding electrode.
Park et al. disclose the first bonding electrode (16) extends onto said second mesa surface and is flush with said second bonding electrode(17) (fig. 1).
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (arrangement of bonding electrodes), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (i.e. the electrodes would create an electrical contact to the LED).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the prior art of record (figure 1) in view of Young et al. (US 2022/0285425) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Park et al. (US 2020/0185368).
The prior art of record (figure 1) in view of Young et al. disclose the invention supra.
The prior art of record (figure 1) in view of Young et al. fail to disclose each of said first bonding electrode and said second bonding electrode is made of one of Au, Ag, Al, Pt, Ti, Ni, Cr.
Park et al. disclose disclose each of said first bonding electrode and said second bonding electrode is made of one of Ti [0057].
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (using titanium as an electrode), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (i.e. the titanium electrodes will create an electrical contact to the LED).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the prior art of record (figure 1) in view of Young et al. (US 2022/0285425) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Taninaka et al. (US 2007/0228397).
The prior art of record (figure 1) in view of Young et al. disclose the invention supra.
The prior art of record (figure 1) in view of Young et al. fail to disclose each of said first bonding electrode and said second bonding electrode has a thickness ranging from 0.5 μm to 3μm.
Taninaka et al. disclose the bonding electrode with gold (gold alloyed with germanium) has a thickness of 500nm(0.5 μm)[0051].
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (changing the thickness of a bonding electrode), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (i.e. the bonding electrodes will create an electrical contact to the LED).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the prior art of record (figure 1) in view of Young et al. (US 2022/0285425) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Chuang et al. (US 2017/0170369).
The prior art of record (figure 1) in view of Young et al. disclose the invention supra.
The prior art of record (figure 1) in view of Young et al. fail to disclose said bonding layer is made of silicone.
Chuang et al. disclose said bonding layer is made of silicone [0008].
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (using a silicone bonding material), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (i.e. silicone would bond two different bodies).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the prior art of record (figure 1) in view of Young et al. (US 2022/0285425) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Wi et al. (US 2023/0411575).
The prior art of record (figure 1) in view of Young et al. disclose the invention supra.
The prior art of record (figure 1) in view of Young et al. fail to disclose the micro LED is a flip chip.
Wi disclose the micro LED is a flip chip structure[01555].
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (using flip chip), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (i.e. the flip chip would directly bond to other substrate and avoid wirebonding).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the prior art of record (figure 1) in view of Young et al. (US 2022/0285425) as applied to claim 12 above and further in view of McGinty et al. (US 2020/0174323).
The prior art of record (figure 1) in view of Young et al. disclose the invention supra.
The prior art of record (figure 1) in view of Young et al. fail to disclose a part of said sacrificial layer covering said connecting wall of said micro light-emitting diode has a thickness no smaller than 1 μm.
McGinty et al. disclose a part of said sacrificial layer is 3 μm.
The combination the prior art of record (figure 1) in view of Young et al. and McGinty et al. would teach the sacrificial layer covering said connecting wall of said micro light-emitting diode.
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (changing the thickness of the sacrificial layer), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (i.e. sacrificial layer cover the connecting wall of the mLED).
Claim(s) 14, 15, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the prior art of record (figure 1) in view of Young et al. (US 2022/0285425).
Prior art figure 1 discloses a semiconductor epitaxial structure [0005] including a first semiconductor layer (201), a second semiconductor layer (203), and an active layer (202) disposed between said first semiconductor layer and said second semiconductor layer, said semiconductor epitaxial structure having a first mesa surface (S11) defined by said first semiconductor layer that is exposed from a recess of said semiconductor epitaxial structure, a second mesa (S12) surface defined by said second semiconductor layer, and a connecting wall (W11) disposed between and interconnecting said first mesa surface and said second mesa surface, a first contact electrode (204) disposed on said first mesa surface and electrically connected to said first semiconductor layer, a second contact electrode (205) disposed on said second mesa surface and electrically connected to said second semiconductor layer, a first bonding electrode (207) disposed on and electrically connected to said first contact electrode; and a second bonding electrode (208) disposed on and electrically connected to said second contact electrode (fig.1).
The prior art figure 1 paragraph [0005] fails to disclose said connecting wall cooperates with said first mesa surface to form a first included angle, where 105°≤ θ1 ≤ 165°.
Young et al. (US 2022/0285425) disclose connecting wall cooperates with said first mesa surface to form a first included angle, where 105°≤ θ1 ≤ 115° [60 to 75 degrees, 0069]( Young discloses measuring the angle from the inside of the mesa wall, whereas the current application measures from outside the mesa wall. The examiner submits the claimed 105° outside the wall measurement (as shown in figure 2) would be equivalent to 75° inside the wall measurement, because the outside angle measurement and the inside angle measurement must add up to 180° degrees. The examiner submits the 120° outside the wall would be equivalent to 60° inside the wall, because the outside angle measurement and the inside angle measurement must add up to 180° degrees.)
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (inclining the sidewall at a certain angle), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (i.e. would create an inclined sidewall).
Regarding claim 17, Young et al. disclose the first angle is [60 degrees, 0069]. (The examiner submits the 120° outside the wall would be equivalent to 60° inside the wall, because the outside angle measurement and the inside angle measurement must add up to 180° degrees.)
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Prior art figure 1 (conformal insulation) and Young et al. (angled sidewall) would disclose the second angle is [60 degrees, 0069]. (The examiner submits the 120° outside the wall would be equivalent to 60° inside the wall, because the outside angle measurement and the inside angle measurement must add up to 180° degrees.)
Regarding claim 18, Prior art figure 1 discloses said base frame (250) includes a substrate (220) and a bonding layer (210), said bonding layer being disposed on said substrate (fig. 1), said bridging structure (240) being disposed on said bonding layer and connecting said bonding layer to said micro light-emitting diode (figure 1).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the prior art of record (figure 1) in view of Young et al. (US 2022/0285425) as applied to claim 14 above and further in view of Park et al. (US 2020/0185368).
The prior art of record (figure 1) in view of Young et al. disclose the invention supra.
The prior art of record (figure 1) in view of Young et al. fail to disclose the first bonding electrode extends onto said second mesa surface and is flush with said second bonding electrode.
Park et al. disclose the first bonding electrode (16) extends onto said second mesa surface and is flush with said second bonding electrode(17) (fig. 1).
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (arrangement of bonding electrodes), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (i.e. the electrodes would create an electrical contact to the LED).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY K SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-1884. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10am-6pm.
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, Marlon Fletcher can be reached at 571-272-2063. 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.
/BRADLEY SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817