DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: each claim must end with a period. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 7, 14, 15, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. PGPub 2017/0133818 by Cok.
Regarding claim 7, Cok teaches a micro-optical structure (Figs. 1-4), comprising: a micro-optical component source wafer (source wafer 20); and a micro-optical component (pixel structure 60), the micro-optical component (60) comprising a micro-optical element (micro-LED laser 40) and a component tether (12) in contact with the micro-optical element (40), wherein the micro-optical element (40) is suspended over the micro-optical component source wafer (20) such that a gap (sacrificial portion 18) is defined therebetween, and wherein the component tether is physically attached to the micro-optical component source wafer or to a structure (anchor 14) disposed on the micro-optical component source wafer.
Regarding claim 14, Cok teaches a micro-optical structure, comprising: a micro-optical component source wafer (20) comprising an anisotropically etchable crystalline material (e.g., Si (111)) having a sacrificial portion (18); a patterned protective layer (dielectric layer 42, to protect optical components during the etching of the sacrificial portion) disposed on the micro-optical component source wafer (20); and a micro-optical component (60), the micro-optical component comprising a micro-optical element (40) and a component tether (12) in contact with the micro-optical element, wherein the micro-optical element is disposed entirely and directly on the sacrificial portion (Figs. 2-4), wherein the component tether is physically attached to the patterned protective layer or the micro-optical component source wafer (via an anchor 14).
Regarding claim 15, Cok further teaches the sacrificial portion comprises a sacrificial material that is differentially etchable from the micro-optical component and the protective layer (¶[0069]).
Regarding claim 17, Cok teaches a micro-optical structure, comprising: a micro-optical component source wafer (20) comprising an anisotropically etchable crystalline material (Si (111)); a patterned protective layer (42) disposed on the micro-optical component source wafer; and a micro-optical component (60), the micro-optical component comprising a micro-optical element (40) and a component tether (12) in contact with the micro-optical element, wherein the component tether is physically attached to the patterned protective layer or the micro-optical component source wafer (via 14).
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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cok as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of U.S. PGPub 2015/0371874 A1 by Bower et al. Cok teaches using the component tether (12) for connecting the micro-optical component (60) and the source wafer (20), wherein the pixel structures 60 can then be released from the source substrate 20 by pressing a stamp against the pixel structures 60 to crack or fracture the tethers 12. Cok does not specify wherein the component tether comprises a fracture point that is narrower than or thinner than another part of the component tether, i.e., creating a point at which fracture occurs more easily or in a controlled manner. Bower also teaches using a tether (804, corresponding to tethers 110 in Fig. 1) for suspending printable micro devices above a substrate, wherein notches 802 implemented in a tether (which creates a narrower portion of the tether 804) can be used to facilitate controlling the point of fracture such that the width of the notch 802 can be used to control the force required to fracture a tether 802 when a released micro object is removed by a transfer element. It thus would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form lateral notches on the component tether in Cok’s invention to create a fracture point for the tether that is narrower than other parts of the tether, as suggested by Bower, for the same reason and advantage.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cok as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of U.S. PGPub 2015/0371874 A1 by Bower et al. Cok teaches using the component tether (12) for connecting the micro-optical component (60) and the source wafer (20), wherein the pixel structures 60 can then be released from the source substrate 20 by pressing a stamp against the pixel structures 60 to crack or fracture the tethers 12. Cok does not specify wherein the component tether comprises a fracture point that is narrower than or thinner than another part of the component tether, i.e., creating a point at which fracture occurs more easily or in a controlled manner. Bower also teaches using a tether (804, corresponding to tethers 110 in Fig. 1) for suspending printable micro devices above a substrate, wherein notches 802 implemented in a tether (which creates a narrower portion of the tether 804) can be used to facilitate controlling the point of fracture such that the width of the notch 802 can be used to control the force required to fracture a tether 802 when a released micro object is removed by a transfer element. It thus would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form lateral notches on the component tether in Cok’s invention to create a fracture point for the tether that is narrower than other parts of the tether, as suggested by Bower, for the same reason and advantage.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2 are allowed. Prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest a micro-optical structure having a structure substrate and a micro optical component including a tether both comprising aa same material, when considered in view of the rest of the limitations of the claimed invention. Cok, Bower, etc. are related inventions and closest identified prior art but each indicates the tether as a dielectric material for on the semiconductor substrate. It is thus the examiner’s position that any modification of Cok, Bower et al. to arrive at the claimed invention would have required undue experimentations and/or beyond ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US10230048 discloses a related invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLIE PENG whose telephone number is (571)272-2177. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 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, Thomas Hollweg can be reached at (571)270-1739. 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.
/CHARLIE Y PENG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights