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 Species 1 (encompassing claims 1-8 and 20) in the reply filed on 2/3/26 is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim 8 is 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.
Claim 8 states the transparent conductive layer is “completely” attached to the epitaxial structure. “Completely” is plainly defined as “to a complete degree” or “entirely” (Webster’s Online Dictionary). Within the elected species, the transparent conductive layer corresponds to layer 60 (Fig. 1) and the epitaxial structure corresponds to structure 20 (Fig. 1). It is unclear to the examiner how the transparent conductive layer is completely or entirely attached to the epitaxial structure due to portions of intervening layer 50 (also described as the “second insulating layer”). As a result, the examiner is unclear if “completely” as in the phrase “completely attached” has a different definition from that of a plain dictionary definition and claim 8 is rendered indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “completely attached” as - - directly attached - - to. However, appropriate correction and/or clarification is requested.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lan et al. (CN 113707780; published 11/26/21; references to English translation; “Lan”).
Regarding claim 1, Lan discloses a micro light emitting device, comprising:
An epitaxial structure (10, 20, 30, Fig. 4) having a first [top] surface and a second [bottom] surface opposite to said first surface, and including a first semiconductor layer (10, Fig. 4), an active layer (20, Fig. 4) and a second semiconductor layer (30, Fig. 4) that are arranged in such order in a direction from said first surface to said second surface ([n0039]);
A conductive layer (60, Fig. 4) formed on a surface of said first semiconductor layer (10, Fig. 4) away from said active layer (20, Fig. 4) ([n0039]); and
A first insulating layer (50, Fig. 4) formed on said surface of said first semiconductor layer away from said active layer, and exposing at least a part of said conductive layer (60, Fig. 4) ([n0040]).
Regarding claim 3, Lan discloses the conductive layer (60, Fig. 4) contains a reflective metal ([n0051]).
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lan et al. (CN 113707780; published 11/26/21; references to English translation; “Lan”) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 2, Lan discloses the conductive layer (60, Fig. 4) contains titanium (Ti), gold (Au), or chromium (Cr) ([n0051]) but does not disclose its thickness ranges from 50 Å to 1000 Å. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select a conductive layer thickness from 50 Å to 1000 Å, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 7, Lan discloses the conductive layer (60, Fig. 4) is a dot-shaped electrode ([n0050]) which is completely attached to the epitaxial structure (10, 20, 30, Fig. 4). Yet, Lan does not disclose a width of the conductive layer is between 0.5 µm and 8 µm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select a conductive layer width between 0.5 µm and 8 µm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 4-5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lan et al. (CN 113707780; published 11/26/21; references to English translation; “Lan”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lim et al. (KR 20120053189; published 5/25/12; references to English translation; “Lim”).
Regarding claim 4, Lan discloses the micro light emitting device comprises a transparent conductive layer (40, Fig. 4) electrically connected to the second semiconductor layer (30, Fig. 4) but does not disclose it is formed on a second insulating layer. However, Lim discloses a transparent conductive layer (130, Fig. 3) electrically connected to a second semiconductor layer (126, Fig. 3) and formed on a second insulating layer (140, Fig. 3) ([0037]-[0038]). Because both Lim and Lan teach methods of forming micro light emitting devices, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to substitute one method for the other to achieve the predictable result of a second insulating layer formed on a surface of the second semiconductor layer and the transparent conductive layer formed on the second insulating layer and electrically connected to the second semiconductor layer. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 5, Lan and Lim disclose the transparent conductive layer has a thickness within the range of 0.1 Å and 1000 Å (Lan: [n0066]) but do not disclose the second insulating layer has a thickness within the range of 0.1 Å to 4000 Å. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select a second insulating layer thickness between 0.1 Å and 4000 Å, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 8, Lan and Lim disclose the transparent conductive layer is a dot-shaped electrode (Lim: 130, Fig. 3) which is completely attached to the epitaxial structure (120, Fig. 3) but do not disclose it has a width ranging from 0.5 µm and 8 µm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select a transparent conductive layer width between 0.5 µm and 8 µm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lan et al. (CN 113707780; published 11/26/21; references to English translation; “Lan”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Iguchi (U.S. 2020/0251460 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Lan discloses a micro light emitting device (Fig. 1; [n0039]) but does not disclose its shortest side is not greater than 20 µm and its longest side is not greater than 200 µm. However, Iguchi discloses a micro light emitting device with a shortest side is not greater than 20 µm and a longest side is not greater than 200 µm ([0174]-[0175]). This has the advantage of decreasing the overall size of the micro light emitting device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Lan with the micro light emitting device having a shortest side is not greater than 20 µm and having a longest side is not greater than 200 µm, as taught by Iguchi, so as to decrease the overall size of the micro light emitting device.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lan et al. (CN 113707780; published 11/26/21; references to English translation; “Lan”) in view of Lo et al. (U.S. 2021/0175278 A1; “Lo”).
Regarding claim 20, Lan discloses a micro light emitting device as claimed in claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above) but does not disclose at least two micro light emitting devices. However, Lo discloses at least two micro light emitting devices which are electrically connected to each other ([0029]). This has the advantage of forming a display panel. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Lan with at least two micro light emitting devices which are electrically connected to each other, as taught by Lo, so as to form a display panel.
Yet, Lan and Lo do not disclose the distance between the two micro light emitting devices is 2 µm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the spacing distance between two adjacent micro light emitting devices to be 2 µm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REEMA PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1436. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm EST.
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, Christine Kim can be reached at (571)272-8458. 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.
/REEMA PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812 2/18/2026