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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 04/07/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the PCT/CN2023086882 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 limitation “wherein the top pad is provided at an edge of the top conducive layer and around the micro LED pixel” of claim 21 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to because: the object between 131 and 132 in FIG .2 and the object between 122 and 121 in FIG. 3 are not labeled; dielectric material filling a space between IC backplane 190 and top conductive layer is not labeled in FIGS. 2-3 (see paragraph [0030] of the specification of the instant application).
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.
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.
Claims 2-3 and 6-9 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the triangle of the first light emitting mesa" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the second bottom conductive structure" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the third bottom conductive structure" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2019/0198565).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses, in FIGS. 35-36 and in related text, a micro LED pixel, comprising:
a first light emitting mesa (223);
a second light emitting mesa (233) provided above the first light emitting mesa and covering a part of the first light emitting mesa; and
a third light emitting mesa (243) provided above the second light emitting mesa and covering a part of the second light emitting mesa; wherein a shape of a top surface of the first light emitting mesa is a rectangle (see Lee, [0240]-[0244]).
Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein a shape of a top surface of the first light emitting mesa is a triangle. However, the limitation is merely changes in shape and would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also, MPEP § 2144.04.
Regarding claim 24, Lee teaches the pixel of claim 1.
Lee discloses wherein the first light emitting mesa (223) is a red light emitting mesa (see Lee, [0247]).
Regarding claim 25, Lee teaches the pixel of claim 4.
Lee discloses wherein the third light emitting mesa (243) is a green light emitting mesa (see Lee, [0247]).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2019/0198565).
Regarding claim 26, Lee discloses, in FIGS. 35-36 and in related text, a micro LED panel comprising
two or more micro LED pixels (200), wherein the at least one of the micro LED pixels comprises:
a first light emitting mesa (223);
a second light emitting mesa (233) provided above the first light emitting mesa and covering a part of the first light emitting mesa; and
a third light emitting mesa (243) provided above the second light emitting mesa and covering a part of the second light emitting mesa;
wherein a shape of a top surface of the first light emitting mesa is a rectangle (see Lee, [0240]-[0244]).
Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein a shape of a top surface of the first light emitting mesa is a triangle. However, the limitation is merely changes in shape and would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also, MPEP § 2144.04.
Claims 1, 4-12, 14-16 and 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (US 2021/0384181).
Regarding claim 1, Xu discloses, in FIGS. 1A-1B and in related text, a micro LED pixel, comprising:
a first light emitting mesa (112);
a second light emitting mesa (130) provided above the first light emitting mesa and covering a part of the first light emitting mesa; and
a third light emitting mesa (136) provided above the second light emitting mesa and covering a part of the second light emitting mesa; wherein a shape of a top surface of the first light emitting mesa is a circle (see Xu, [0183]-[0184], [0188]).
Xu does not explicitly disclose wherein a shape of a top surface of the first light emitting mesa is a triangle. However, the limitation is merely changes in shape and would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also, MPEP § 2144.04.
Regarding claim 4, Xu teaches the pixel of claim 1.
Xu discloses a plurality of bottom conductive structures (108, 128, 134) configured to connect each of the first light emitting mesa (112), the second light emitting mesa (130), and the third light emitting mesa (136) to an integrated circuit (IC) backplane (104), respectively (see Xu, FIG. 1B, [0185], [0193], [0202], [0211]: 104 is integrated with circuits 106).
Regarding claim 5, Xu teaches the pixel of claim 4.
Xu discloses wherein a first one (108) of the bottom conductive structures is a bonding layer provided between the first light emitting mesa (112) and the IC backplane (104) (see Xu, FIG. 1B, [0193]).
Regarding claim 6, Xu teaches the pixel of claim 5.
Xu discloses wherein a second one (128) of the bottom conductive structures is provided at a bottom of the second light emitting mesa (130), and the second bottom conductive structure is connected to the IC backplane by a first bottom connecting structure (122) (see Xu, FIG. 1B, [0200], [0202]-[0203]).
Regarding claim 7, Xu teaches the pixel of claim 6.
Xu discloses wherein the first bottom connecting structure (122) is a through via (see Xu, [0200]).
Regarding claim 8, Xu teaches the pixel of claim 6.
Xu discloses wherein the second bottom conductive structure (128) is a conductive layer (see Xu, [0202]).
Regarding claim 9, Xu teaches the pixel of claim 6.
Xu discloses wherein a third one (134) of the bottom conductive structures is provided at a bottom of the third light emitting mesa (136), and the third bottom conductive structure is connected to the IC backplane (152) by a second bottom connecting structure (124) (see Xu, FIG. 1B, [0211]).
Regarding claim 10, Xu teaches the pixel of claim 1.
Xu discloses a top conductive layer (140) provided on a top of the micro LED pixel;
a first top conductive structure (114) configured to connect the first light emitting mesa (112) to the top conductive layer; and
a second top conductive structure (132) configured to connect the second light emitting mesa (130) to the top conductive layer (see Xu, FIG. 1B, [0186], [0194], [0203]).
Regarding claim 11, Xu teaches the pixel of claim 10.
Xu discloses wherein the first top conductive structure (114) is a transparent conductive layer, and covers the top surface of the first light emitting mesa (112) (see Xu, FIG. 1B, [0194]).
Regarding claim 12, Xu teaches the pixel of claim 10.
Xu discloses wherein the first top conductive structure (114) is a planar conductive structure (see Xu, FIG. 1B, [0194]).
Xu does not explicitly disclose a dot conductive structure. However, the limitation is merely changes in shape and would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also, MPEP § 2144.04.
Regarding claim 14, Xu teaches the pixel of claim 10.
Xu discloses wherein the first top conductive structure (114) is connected to the top conductive layer (140) by a top connecting structure (116) (see Xu, FIG. 1B, [0186], [0194]).
Regarding claim 15, Xu teaches the pixel of claim 10.
Xu discloses wherein the second top conductive structure (132) is a transparent conductive layer, and covers the top surface of the second light emitting mesa (130) (see Xu, FIG. 1B, [0203]).
Regarding claim 16, Xu teaches the pixel of claim 10.
Xu discloses wherein the second top conductive structure (132) is a planar conductive structure (see Xu, FIG. 1B).
Xu does not explicitly disclose a dot conductive structure. However, the limitation is merely changes in shape and would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also, MPEP § 2144.04.
Regarding claim 18, Xu teaches the pixel of claim 10.
Xu discloses wherein the second top conductive structure (132) is connected to the top conductive layer (140) by a top connecting structure (120) (see Xu, FIG. 1B, [0203], [0212]).
Regarding claim 19, Xu teaches the pixel of claim 10.
Xu discloses wherein the top conductive layer (140) is (electrically) directly connected to the third light emitting mesa (136) (see Xu, [0212]).
Regarding claim 20, Xu teaches the pixel of claim 10.
Xu discloses a top pad (142, 144) provided on a top surface of the top conductive layer (140) (see Xu, [0212]).
Regarding claim 21, Xu teaches the pixel of claim 20.
Xu discloses wherein the top pad (142, 144) is provided at an edge of the top conducive layer (140) and around the micro LED pixel (112, 130, 136) (see Xu, FIG. 1B).
Regarding claim 22, Xu teaches the pixel of claim 10.
Xu discloses a dielectric material filled (154, 156, 158, 160, 162) between the top conductive layer (140) and an integrated circuit (IC) backplane (104) (see Xu, FIG. 1B, [0185], [0200]-[0201]).
Regarding claim 23, Xu teaches the pixel of claim 1.
Xu discloses an optical isolation structure (706) provided at a corner of the micro LED pixel (720) (see Xu, FIG. 7, [0394]-[0395]).
Regarding claim 24, Xu teaches the pixel of claim 1.
Xu discloses wherein the first light emitting mesa (112) is a red light emitting mesa (see Xu, [0188]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 13 and 17 each 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, Lee, discloses wherein a shape of a top surface of the second light emitting mesa is an elongated strip. The prior art of records, individually or in combination, do not disclose nor teach “the second light emitting mesa is provided along a side of the triangle of the first light emitting mesa” in combination with other limitations as recited in claim 2.
The prior art of records, individually or in combination, do not disclose nor teach “wherein the dot conductive structure is formed on a portion of the top surface of the first light emitting mesa where the surface is not covered by the second light emitting mesa” in combination with other limitations as recited in claim 13.
The prior art of records, individually or in combination, do not disclose nor teach “wherein the second top conductive structure is formed on a portion of a surface of the second light emitting mesa where the surface is not covered by the third light emitting mesa” in combination with other limitations as recited in claim 17.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIH TSUN A CHOU whose telephone number is (408)918-7583. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-16:00 Arizona Time.
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, Lynne Gurley can be reached at (571) 272-1670. 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.
/SHIH TSUN A CHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811
Prosecution Insights