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 M I: claims 1-10, in the “Amendment/Request for Reconsideration-After Non-Final Rejection - 02/03/2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant’s traversal arguments, on the assertion that ‘cited prior art Chaji does not expressly disclose “preventing the donor substrate from touching microdevices on pads on the system substrate with a buffer layer height”. However, this is not persuasive since Chaji with sufficient specificity teaches the claimed requirement of “preventing the donor substrate from touching microdevices on pads on the system substrate with a buffer layer height”.
Examiner like to copy, in part, the obvious portion of the said limitation “However, Chaji further discloses the thickness of the buffer layers may be substantial, e.g. as thick as the donor substrate ( [00110]). Since the thickness (e.g. height) of the buffer layer is substantial).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contemplate the buffer layer with a substantial thickness (e.g. height) to prevent the donor substrate from touching microdevices on pads on the system substrate, since, this at least, will prevent damages to existing microdevices (as an example, see Fig.1B of the present application where the buffer layer 104 is as thick as the donor substrate 102)’.
Moreover, mere presence of donor substrate attached buffer layer between donor substrate and microdevices on pads, must prevent donor substrate from touching microdevices on pads. It is to be noted that the prior art description i.e., ipsis verbis, such as “prevent touching” is not required to understand the inherent properties of the prevent touching. (See Vas-Cath, 935 F.2d at 1563, 19 USPQ2d at 1116; Martin v. Johnson, 454 F.2d 746, 751, 172 USPQ 391, 395 (CCPA 1972). See also MPEP § 2141.02. VI “A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). Therefore, presence of donor substrate attached buffer layer between donor substrate and microdevices on pads met with sufficient specificity the claimed requirement of “preventing the donor substrate from touching microdevices on pads on the system substrate with a buffer layer height”,
The requirement is still deemed proper, and is therefore made FINAL, and thus the required provisional election (see MPEP § 818.03(b)) becomes an election without traverse.
Applicant’s request for rejoinder, when appropriate, will be given due consideration as suggested in “Requirement for Restriction/Election - 12/03/2025”, specifically, upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which are written in dependent form or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowed generic claim.
In view of the above, this office action considers claims 1-10 and 18-31 pending for prosecution, wherein claims 18-31 are withdrawn from further consideration, and 1-10 are presented for examination.
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 of this title, 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.
Notes: when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as (1; Fig 5b; [0051]) = (element 1; Figure No. 5b; Paragraph No. [0051]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. These conventions are used throughout this document.
Claims 1 and 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over to ZOU; Quanbo et al. (US 20200075560 A1) hereinafter Zou’560; in view of ZOU; Quanbo et al. (US 20170330857 A1) hereinafter Zou’857.
Regarding Claim 1, Zou’560 teaches a method to transfer microdevices (Fig 2; [0032]) the method comprising (see the entire document, Figs 2, 5A-5d, along with any disclosure related to the implementations, specifically, as cited below; see alternative rejection of this claim in section III, infra):
PNG
media_image1.png
475
1431
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Zou’560 Fig 5b (annotated)
(See below for “forming a buffer layer” on a donor substrate (1; annotated Fig 5b: [0051]; first cited in [0030]);
having microdevices (3) see below for “located on a top of the buffer layer”)
having a system substrate (2) with transferred microdevices (3) on pads (some of 22, 4; Fig 5b: [0051] , [0030, 039]);
having other pads (other of 22, 4, not populated yet) on the system substrate (2) without microdevices (3);
bringing the donor (1) and system substrate (2) closer (annotated Fig 5b; 2, 3, 22, 4) such that selected microdevices (3) to be transferred are closer to associated pads (22, 4) on the system substrate (2 detailed as [0051] original substrates (R, B) of micro-light emitting diodes of the three primary colors red, green and blue are concurrently and alternatively used, and the micro-light emitting diodes (r, g, b) of the three primary colors red, green and blue on them are transferred to receiving substrates (I, II, III)) ; and
(see below for “preventing the donor substrate from touching microdevices on pads on the system substrate with a buffer layer height).
As indicated above Zou’560 does not expressly disclose forming a buffer layer on a donor substrate 1 and having the microdevices 3 located on a top of the buffer layer. and “preventing the donor substrate from touching microdevices on pads on the system substrate with a buffer layer height”
However, in the analogous art, Zou’857 teaches a method for transferring micro-LED, a method for manufacturing a micro-LED device, a micro-LED device and an electronic apparatus containing a micro-LED device ([0001]), wherein (Fig 6E along with figs 6A-6D; [0124-0129]) the method comprising forming a buffer layer 305 on a donor substrate 306, having microdevices 302 located on a top of the buffer layer 305
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 use process of Zou’857 by Zou’560 to form a buffer layer on the donor substrate and have the microdevices located on a top of the buffer layer, and thereafter the combination of (Zou’857 and Zou’857)’s method comprises steps as claimed, since the step inclusion, at least, would enable the microdevices to be temporarily bonded to the donor substrate through the barrier layer, as recognized by (Zou’857 [0128]).
The combination of (Zou’857 and Zou’857) further teaches “preventing the donor substrate (1) from touching microdevices (3) on pads on the system substrate with a buffer layer (in view of Zou’857 305) height. (see note below)
Examiner like to note that, presence of donor substrate attached buffer layer (in view of Zou’857 305) between donor substrate (1) and microdevices (3) on pads, must prevent donor substrate from touching microdevices on pads. It is to be noted that the prior art description i.e., ipsis verbis, such as “prevent touching” is not required to understand the inherent properties of the prevent touching. (See Vas-Cath, 935 F.2d at 1563, 19 USPQ2d at 1116; Martin v. Johnson, 454 F.2d 746, 751, 172 USPQ 391, 395 (CCPA 1972). See also MPEP § 2141.02. VI “A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). Therefore, presence of donor substrate attached buffer layer between donor substrate and microdevices on pads met with sufficient specificity the claimed requirement of “preventing the donor substrate from touching microdevices on pads on the system substrate with a buffer layer height”.
Regarding Claim 3, The combination of (Zou’857 and Zou’857) as applied to the method of claim 1, further teaches, wherein (in view of Zou’857) the buffer layer (Zou’857 305) is formed by a patterning or an etching process and is a polymer, a dielectric or a metal (Figs 6D-6E; [0128, 0130]).
Regarding Claim 4. The combination of (Zou’857 and Zou’857) as applied to the method of claim 1, further teaches, wherein (in view of Zou’857) wherein ([0020-0021]) the buffer layer (Zou’857 305) is aligned to an edge of last microdevices (3) on the donor substrate (1).
Regarding Claim 5. The combination of (Zou’857 and Zou’857) as applied to the method of claim 1, further teaches, wherein (in view of Zou’857 [0112]) the buffer layer (Zou’857 305) is formed on top of the microdevices (3 in view of Zou’857 micro-LED) and then transferred ([0112]) to the donor substrate (original substrate).
Regarding Claim 6. The combination of (Zou’857 and Zou’857) as applied to the method of claim 1, further teaches, wherein (in view of Zou’857 [0112]) is partly formed on the top of the donor substrate (original substrate) and the microdevices (3 in view of Zou’857 micro-LED) are bonded to ([0126]) the buffer layer (Zou’857 305).
Regarding Claim 7. The combination of (Zou’857 and Zou’857) as applied to the method of claim 1, further teaches, wherein (in view of Zou’857 [0112]) there are layers between buffer layers (Zou’857 305) and microdevices (3 in view of Zou’857 micro-LED) such as passivation (polymer 303; in view of Zou’857 [0126]) or anchors.
Regarding Claim 8. The combination of (Zou’857 and Zou’857) as applied to the method of claim 1, further teaches, wherein (in view of Zou’857 [0112]) there is another layer between buffer layer (Zou’857 305) and microdevices (polymer 303; in view of Zou’857 [0126]) such as a cavity structure.
Regarding Claim 9. The combination of (Zou’857 and Zou’857) as applied to the method of claim 1, further teaches, wherein (in view of Zou’857 [0112]) the buffer layer (Zou’857 305) is etched (Figs 6D-6E; [0128, 0130]) in the donor substrate ( (Zou’857 original substrate).
Regarding Claim 10. The combination of (Zou’857 and Zou’857) as applied to the method of claim 1, further teaches, wherein (in view of Zou’857 [0112]) a mask (Zou’857 light resist [0128]) is formed on top of the area with the microdevices (3 in view of Zou’857 micro-LED), and an etching process is (Figs 6D-6E; [0128, 0130]) used to form the buffer layer (Zou’857 305), wherein etching is either dry etch or w wet etch.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over to ZOU; Quanbo et al. (US 20200075560 A1) hereinafter Zou’560; in view of ZOU; Quanbo et al. (US 20170330857 A1) hereinafter Zou’857; in further view of in view of Machamer; David et al. (US 6244151 B1) hereinafter Machamer.
Regarding Claim 2. While the combination of (Zou’857 and Zou’857) as applied to the method of claim 1, does not expressly disclose wherein the height of the buffer layer (in view of Zou’857 305) is larger (obvious because thickness of the buffer layer 305 inherently larger than total thickness of ) than a sum of surface non-uniformities, parallel error between the two substrates (1 and 2), and difference between a height of transferred microdevices (3) and the microdevice (3) selected for transfer.
Moreover, in the analogous art, Machamer discloses (column 2, Lines 6-12) the non-parallel slot condition was addressed by installing layered shim material under the bar. Layers of the shim material are peeled back and trimmed to provide an approximation of the non-parallel condition; and the shim is installed between the bar and the bottom surface of the slot to compensate for the out-of-parallel error, regardless of its cause.
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 use process of Machamer by Zou’560 to configure the buffer layer is larger such that than a sum of surface non-uniformities, parallel error between the two substrates (1 and 2), and difference between a height of transferred microdevices (3) and the microdevice (3) selected for transfer), and thereafter the combination of (Zou’857, Zou’857 and Machamer)’s method comprises steps as claimed, since the step inclusion, at least, correct any errosrs and improve the performances of the buffer layer.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over to Chaji G; (WO 20180964455 A1) hereinafter Chaji.
Regarding Claim 1, Chaji teaches a method to transfer microdevices (Abstract, the micro- devices are then transferred to a system substrate) the method comprising (see the entire document, Figs 6A-6H and 7-8. along with any disclosure related to the implementations as described, specifically, as cited below; see alternative rejection of this claim in section I, supra):
forming a buffer layer on a donor substrate (6110, Fig 6H; [00110], at least one first and/or second buffer layer 6114 and 6118 with a separate layer 6116 therebetween or adjacent to may be deposited first on a donor substrate 6110; Fig.6H and Fig.6J, buffer layer 6114; donor substrate 6110);
having microdevices located on a top of the buffer layer ([00110], the active layers 6112 are subsequently deposited over the buffer layers 6114 and/or 6118);;
having a system substrate with transferred microdevices on pads; ( [00110], the active layers 6112 are subsequently deposited over the buffer layers 6114 and/or 6118); - having a system substrate with transferred microdevices on pads (D1: { [00114] and Fig.8, step 806 “transfer the micro devices aligned with the selected landing areas in the receiver substrate);
having other pads on the system substrate without microdevices (construed from Fig.8, step 808 where after transferring of the micro devices in the receiver substrate, the receiver substrate is not fully populate thus implying that the system substrate have other pads without microdevices);
bringing the donor and system substrate closer such that selected microdevices to be transferred are closer to associated pads on the system substrate ( [00114] and Fig.8, step 814 “move and align the set of existing micro devices in the cartridge to a new place in receiver substrate and the transfer step 806 is repeated); and
But Chaji does not expressly disclose “preventing the donor substrate from touching microdevices on pads on the system substrate with a buffer layer height”. However, Chaji further discloses the thickness of the buffer layers may be substantial, e.g. as thick as the donor substrate ( [00110]). Since the thickness (e.g. height) of the buffer layer is substantial).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contemplate the buffer layer with a substantial thickness (e.g. height) to prevent the donor substrate from touching microdevices on pads on the system substrate, since, this at least, will prevent damages to existing microdevices (as an example, see Fig.1B of the present application where the buffer layer 104 is as thick as the donor substrate 102).
Moreover, mere presence of donor substrate attached buffer layer between donor substrate and microdevices on pads, must prevent donor substrate from touching microdevices on pads. It is to be noted that the prior art description i.e., ipsis verbis, such as “prevent touching” is not required to understand the inherent properties of the prevent touching. (See Vas-Cath, 935 F.2d at 1563, 19 USPQ2d at 1116; Martin v. Johnson, 454 F.2d 746, 751, 172 USPQ 391, 395 (CCPA 1972). Moreover, Examiners would like to note that MPEP § 2141.02. VI “A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). Therefore, presence of donor substrate attached buffer layer between donor substrate and microdevices on pads met with sufficient specificity the claimed requirement of “preventing the donor substrate from touching microdevices on pads on the system substrate with a buffer layer height”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOAZZAM HOSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7960. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8:30AM - 6:00 PM. EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOAZZAM HOSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7960. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8:30AM - 6:00 PM. 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, Julio J. Maldonado can be reached on 571-272-1864. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR to register user only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOAZZAM HOSSAIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
March 14, 2026