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 .
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.
(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.
Claims 1, 4, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0111319 to Lutgen et al.
Regarding claim 1, Lutgen et al. teach a micro light emitting diode (micro-LED) device (Fig. 7B, for example) comprising a lateral dimension less than 20 microns (¶ [0063]), comprising:
a light-emitting layer (735);
an output facet (715, ¶ [0119]);
an optical interface (765) parallel to the light-emitting layer; and
a non-vertical sidewall (¶¶[0118],[0121]) forming an angle y with respect to a normal of the light-emitting layer, wherein the light-emitting layer emits light comprising a first light in a first trajectory that escapes the micro-LED through the output facet without substantially reflecting off the optical interface and a second light in a second trajectory that reflects off the optical interface and the non-vertical sidewall and escapes through the output facet (inherent in shape of the non-vertical sidewall).
Regarding claim 4, Lutgen et al. teach a micro light emitting diode device, wherein the angle y is selected to reflect the second light in a direction substantially perpendicular to the output facet. As best understood, substantially perpendicular allows for variance from actually being perpendicular.
Regarding claim 11, Lutgen et al. teach a micro light emitting diode (micro-LED) device (Fig. 7B, for example) comprising a lateral dimension less than 20 microns (¶ [0063]), comprising:
a light-emitting layer that emits light having a wavelength (735; a wavelength is an inherent property of light);
an output facet (715, ¶ [0119]);
a mirror (745, ¶[0122, 745 performs the reflective function of a mirror]) parallel to the light-emitting layer; and
a non-vertical sidewall (¶¶[0118],[0121]) wherein the light emitting layer and the mirror are jointly configured such that the light emitting layer preferentially emits light in a trajectory that reflects off the mirror and the non-vertical sidewall to escape through the output facet. (inherent in shape of the non-vertical sidewall).
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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lutgen et al.
Regarding claim 13, Lutgen et al. do not explicitly teach a micro-LED, wherein a distance between the mirror and the light emitting layer is selected to cause a constructive optical interference for the light emitted in the trajectory. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to find the optimal distance between the light-emitting layer and the mirror through routine experimentation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17 – 33 are allowed.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 12, and 14 – 16 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not teach or reasonably suggest a device as recited in claims 17 and 27, particularly including:
“a low-index epitaxial layer located in the micro-LED or in the semiconductor member”; and
“a low-index epitaxial layer located in the micro-LED or in the semiconductor member, wherein the low-index epitaxial layer and the mirror are configured such that at least 5% of the light emitted by the light-emitting region undergoes one reflection off the mirror and one total internal reflection off the low-index epitaxial layer before being extracted from the display.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0014195 to Bibl et al. teach a device including a light emitting layer, an optical interface and non-vertical sidewalls. Bibl et al. do not teach the output facet.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS W OWENS whose telephone number is (571)272-1662. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-1:30.
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, Chad Dicke can be reached at 571-270-7996. 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.
DOUGLAS W. OWENS, Esq.
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2897
/DOUGLAS W OWENS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights