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 .
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 color conversion particle layer as found in claim 4,
the conductive layer including a reflective layer as found in claim 5, and
the passivation layer including a reflective layer as found in claim 6, 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.
Furthermore, the drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “106” has been used to designate both an ohmic layer (¶20), a device layer (device layers 102 (or 106); ¶17), and a light coupling layer (¶13)); and because reference character “112” has been used to designate both a conductive layer (¶13), a reflective layer (¶13), and a generic layer (¶13). 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. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Reciting “wherein the light coupling layer comprises a dielectric layer patterned with openings sized and distributed to define a size and distribution of the color conversion particles, and the color conversion particles are formed in the openings of the dielectric layer” introduces new matter as nowhere was the light coupling layer originally described as comprising a dielectric layer patterned as claimed. Such a dielectric layer is only described as a separate element (e.g., “A dielectric layer can form on top of the device layers 102 (or 106), the dielectric is patterned to size and distribution of color conversion particles” (¶16)).
Claims 2-8 inherit this rejection for new matter.
In view of Applicant’s amendments, some of the prior 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
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.
Claims 4-7 are 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.
(Re Claim 4) As no color conversion particle layers appears to be shown in the drawings, the structural relationship between parts is unclear.
During examination, “a color conversion particle layer” was read as “the color conversion particles”.
(Re Claim 5) It is unclear whether “the conductive layer includes a reflective layer” is meant to require the presence of a reflective layer as part of the conductive layer or if this describes the conductive layer as being a reflective layer.
During examination, the quoted limitation was understood to require the conductive layer to have a reflective layer as part of the conductive layer.
(Re Claim 6) It is unclear whether “the passivation layer includes a reflective layer” is meant to require the presence of a reflective layer as part of the passivation layer or if this describes the passivation layer as being a reflective layer.
During examination, the quoted limitation was understood to require the passivation layer to have a reflective layer as part of the passivation layer.
Claim 7 inherits this indefiniteness rejection.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2007/0228935), Moon et al. (US 2011/0156088), Hsu (US 2011/0254019), Kim (US 2010/0264400) referred to as Kim400, all of record, and Samuelson et al. (US 2021/0184071) newly cited.
(Re Claim 1) Kim teaches a method of integrating color conversion material in a microdevice, the method comprising: having microdevice (every element below 101 as seen in Fig. 16) on a first substrate (101; Fig. 6); and having the microdevice comprising of device layers (150; Fig. 16).
Lee has not been shown to teach a method of integrating color conversion material in a microdevice, the method comprising having the microdevice additionally comprising of color conversion particles on at least one surface of the microdevice; and having a light coupling layer between the color conversion particles and the device layers, wherein the light coupling layer comprises a dielectric layer patterned with openings sized and distributed to define a size and distribution of the color conversion particles, and the color conversion particles are formed in the openings of the dielectric layer.
Moon teaches forming color conversion particles (140; Fig. 8) as part of a color conversion layer (130+140; Fig. 8).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to utilize the color conversion layer of Moon as discussed in place of the color conversion layer of Lee (Kim: 107; Fig. 16), as the color conversion particles of Moon may replace existing phosphors (Moon: ¶76; Kim: “the europium-silicate can be utilized as a phosphor”; ¶31), and the color conversion particles of Moon have superior efficiency compared to prior art phosphors (Moon: ¶78). See also Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270, 69 USPQ2d 1686 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Moon also teaches forming the color conversion layer (130+140; Fig. 8) as described such that it is between an electrode (160; Fig. 8) and device layers (110; Fig. 8).
Hsu teaches forming multiple color conversion layers (14 and 14’; Fig. 5), where one of the color conversion layers 14’ is formed contacting a reflective layer (19; Fig. 5) to reflect light converted from the first color to another color.
Kim teaches forming a reflective layer on a bottom surface of the p-semiconductor layer (¶51).
A PHOSITA would find it obvious to form another color conversion layer as taught by Moon, such that it is between the electrode (Kim: 106; Fig. 16) and device layers 150 of Kim, such that there are color conversion layers on either side of a layer of modified Kim that emits light in a manner similar to that of Hsu, in order to provide an additional color emitted by the microdevice, to allow for tuning of the emitted white light (Hsu: “The structure of the super-paramagnetic layer 14' is designed for modulating the first originally-emitted light into the second light, or into the lights other than the second light.” (¶42); “The red shift in respective originally-emitted lights caused by the two super-paramagnetic layers 14 and 14' are different such that a desired mixing effect could be achieved.” (¶44); Moon: “The nanoparticles may also have consistent or different compositions, in order to realize a color having a desired wavelength, i.e., a blue color, a green color, a yellow color, or a red color.” (¶19)). See also Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270, 69 USPQ2d 1686 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Additionally, a PHOSITA would find it obvious to form the reflective layer taught by Kim (¶51) on the surface of the second color conversion layer 130+140 of Moon, in the manner taught by Hsu, that is away from the device layers of modified Kim to allow for reflecting light converted into another color to be emitted from the microdevice (Hsu: Fig. 5) and tune the emission spectrum of the microdevice. See also Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270, 69 USPQ2d 1686 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
In view of Moon and Hsu, modified Kim teaches a method of integrating color conversion material in a microdevice, the method comprising: having microdevice (every element above 101 as seen in the markup based on Fig. 16 of Kim showing modified Kim) on a first substrate (101; Fig. 6); having the microdevice comprising of device layers (Kim: 150; Fig. 16);
having the microdevice additionally comprising of color conversion particles (each 140 on either side of the device layers, in view of Moon) on at least one surface of the microdevice (both top and bottom surface of the device layers seen in the modified Kim markup); and
having a light coupling layer (Modified Kim’s 131 from Moon that is closest to the reflective layer as seen in the markup for modified Kim below) between the color conversion particles and the device layers.
Samuelson teaches forming nanostructures (106; Fig. 1(f)) using a dielectric layer (103; ¶50) patterned with openings (104; ¶50) sized and distributed to define a size and distribution of the nanostructures (Fig. 1, ¶50).
Kim400 teaches forming nanostructures that are color conversion particles (150; Fig. ¶51) above device layers (120+130+140; Fig. 1) using a template layer having openings within it (¶51).
A PHOSITA would find it obvious to using a template layer with openings to form the color conversion particles of modified Kim, as taught by Kim400, as this allows for the color conversion particles to be grown on the device layers; and a PHOSITA would find it obvious to form the template layer using the dielectric layer with patterned with openings sized and distributed to define a size and distribution of the color conversion particles as taught by Samuelson, as this reduces the dislocations present within the grown color conversion particles (Samuelson: ¶51) and allows for uniform placement of color conversion particles (Moon: ¶14).
This results in each layer 131 of modified Kim (see the modified Kim markup below) comprising a dielectric layer (Samuelson: 103) patterned with openings (Samuelson: 104) as claimed along the top surface (as shown in Samuelson’s Fig. 1).
Therefore, modified Kim teaches a light coupling layer (the combination of Moon’s 131 and Samuelson’s layer 103 placed on top as seen in the modified Kim markup below) comprises a dielectric layer (Samuelson: 103) patterned with openings (Samuelson: 104) sized and distributed to define a size and distribution of the color conversion particles (Samuelson: ¶50), and the color conversion particles are formed in the openings of the dielectric layer (Samuelson: Fig. 1; Moon: the color conversion particles may be uniformly distributed; ¶14).
PNG
media_image1.png
763
770
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Re Claim 2) Modified Kim teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first substrate is on either side (bottom side as seen in the modified Kim markup) of the microdevice.
(Re Claim 3) Modified Kim teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a conductive layer (the layer 132 from Moon that is nearest the reflective layer+the reflective layer from Kim; see the modified Kim markup; Moon: 132 may be a transparent ohmic layer; ¶75) is formed on top of the color conversion particles.
(Re Claim 4) Modified Kim teaches the method of claim 1, but has not been shown to teach the method wherein a layer (Moon’s layer 132+Kim’s reflective layer) embeds the color conversion particle layer.
Modified Kim has not been shown to teach that the layer that embeds the color conversion particle layer is a passivation layer.
Moon teaches forming the layer 132 as a passivation layer (¶62).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to form the layer 132 from Moon of modified Kim as a layer with a passivation function, as taught by Moon (Moon: ¶62), to protect and support the color conversion particles 140.
(Re Claim 5) Modified Kim teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the conductive layer includes a reflective layer (as defined; see also Kim’s ¶51).
(Re Claim 6) Modified Kim teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the passivation layer includes a reflective layer (as defined; see also Kim’s ¶51).
(Re Claim 7) Modified Kim teaches the method of claim 6, but has not been explicitly shown to teach the method wherein lights generated by the microdevice move through the color conversion particles and are reflected back by the reflective layer and the reflection goes through the color conversion particles again.
However, as the prior art has been shown to be identical to the claimed structure of the invention, a PHOSITA would find it obvious for modified Kim’s microdevice to possess the claimed path for light generated and reflected within the microdevice. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." See MPEP 2112, particularly 2112.01.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2007/0228935), Moon et al. (US 2011/0156088), Hsu (US 2011/0254019), Kim (US 2010/0264400) referred to as Kim400, all of record, and Samuelson et al. (US 2021/0184071) newly cited, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Han et al. (US 2013/0134475) and Van de Walle (US 5,828,684), both of record.
(Re Claim 8) Modified Kim teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the device layers comprise one of an n-layer (102; ¶33), a quantum well (103; ¶36), and a p-layer (104; ¶33).
Modified Kim has not been explicitly shown to teach the device layers additionally comprise one of a buffer layer and blocking layers.
Han teaches forming a blocking layer (104a; Fig. 1) between a p-layer (104b; Fig. 1, ¶43) and a quantum well (103a; Fig. 1, ¶36).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to introduce a blocking layer between the p-layer and quantum well of modified Kim, as taught by Han, to increase the recombination efficiency of the region containing modified Kim’s quantum well (Han: ¶38).
Van de Walle teaches forming a buffer layer of GaN on any kind of material to ensure that a lattice constant between underlying layers and an n-layer are matched (col. 5 ln. 4-24).
A PHOSITA would find it obvious to form a buffer layer of GaN as taught by Van de Walle between the lower 130+140 stack from Moon as seen in the modified Kim markup and the n-layer of modified Kim, to provide good matching between the lattice constants of the material used for forming modified Kim’s layer 130 from Moon and the n-layer 102 of modified Kim, allowing for greater freedom when selecting the material for modified Kim’s layer 130.
The device layers of modified Kim then additionally comprise a blocking layer as taught by Han, and a buffer layer as taught by Van de Walle.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 U.S.C. 112/Drawings
Though Applicant points to the ¶3 for support (remarks, p. 5), nowhere in ¶3 is a reflecting layer described. Furthermore, reciting “the conductive layer includes a reflective layer” introduces a distinct reflective layer that must be shown; Applicant appears to have support for their argued interpretation that the conductive layer is described “as being a reflective layer”, but this is different from saying that a reflective layer is included; “as being a reflective layer” or “may act as a reflective layer” relates to a material property while “includes a reflective layer” introduces an element that must be identified.
For the same reasons, “the passivation layer includes a reflective layer” must be shown.
Therefore, the drawing objections are maintained, and the structural relationships between parts remains unclear.
The remainder of Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher A Schodde whose telephone number is (571)270-1974. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 1000-1800 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, Jessica Manno can be reached at (571)272-2339. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER A. SCHODDE/Examiner, Art Unit 2898
/JESSICA S MANNO/SPE, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights