DETAILED ACTION
This Action is responsive to the communication filed on 05/13/2024.
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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jang (US 2019/0206849).
Regarding claim 1, Jang (see, e.g., FIG. 6D) discloses a micro-LED pixel unit, comprising:
a first color LED structure 33, formed on an IC substrate 51, wherein the first color LED structure 33 comprises a first light emitting layer 33, and a first reflective structure 37 is formed on a bottom of the first light emitting layer 33 (Para 0126-Para 0129, Para 0160);
a first bonding metal layer 55, formed at a bottom of the first color LED structure 33, and configured to bond the IC substrate 51 and the first color LED structure 33 (Para 0140, Para 0163);
a second bonding layer 57, formed on top of the first color LED structure 33 (Para 0140, Para 0167);
a second color LED structure 43, formed on the second bonding layer 57, wherein the second color LED structure 43 comprises a second light emitting layer 43, and a second reflective structure 47 is formed on a bottom of the second light emitting layer 43 (Para 0126, Para 0127, Para 0140, Para 0167);
a top electrode layer 49, covering the first color LED structure 33 and the second color LED structure 43 and electrically contacting with the first color LED structure 33 and the second color LED structure 43 (Para 0137, Para 0138, Para 0140, Para 0158);
the IC substrate 51, electrically connected with the first color LED structure 33 and the second color LED structure 43 (Para 0126, Para 0137, Para 0138); and
a reflective cup 63, surrounding the first color LED structure 33 and the second color LED structure 43 (Para 0140, Para 0169).
Regarding claim 15, Jang (see, e.g., FIG. 6D) discloses a micro-LED pixel unit, comprising:
a first color LED structure 23, formed on an IC substrate 51, wherein the first color LED structure 23 comprises a first light emitting layer 23, and a first reflective structure 25 is formed on a bottom of the first light emitting layer 23 (Para 0126, Para 0127, Para 0129, Para 0138);
a first bonding metal layer 53, formed at a bottom of the first color LED structure 23, and configured to bond the IC substrate 51 and the first color LED structure 23 (Para 0140, Para 0162);
a second bonding layer 55, formed on top of the first color LED structure 23 (Para 0140, Para 0163);
a second color LED structure 33, formed on the second bonding layer 55, wherein the second color LED structure 33 comprises a second light emitting layer 33, and a second reflective structure 37 is formed on a bottom of the second light emitting layer 33 (Para 0126-Para 0128, Para 0160, Para 0161);
a third bonding layer 57, formed on top of the second color LED structure 33 (Para 0167);
a third color LED structure 43, formed on the third bonding layer 57, wherein the third color LED structure 43 comprises a third light emitting layer 43, and a third reflective structure 47 is formed on a bottom of the third light emitting layer 43 (Para 0126-Para 0128, Para 0183, Para 0184);
a top electrode layer 49, covering the first color LED structure 23, the second color LED structure 33, and the third color LED structure 43 and electrically contacting with the first color LED structure 23, the second color LED structure 33, and the third color LED structure 43 (Para 0149, Para 0158);
the IC substrate 51, electrically connected with the first color LED structure 23, the second color LED structure 33, and the third color LED structure 43 (Para 0137, Para 0158); and
a reflective cup 63, surrounding the first color LED structure 23, the second color LED structure 33, and the third color LED structure 43 (Para 0169).
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.
Claims 2 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (US 2019/0206849).
Regarding claim 2, Jang (see, e.g., FIG. 6D) teaches the micro-LED pixel unit according to claim 1, wherein: the second color LED structure 43 is a top LED structure 43, the second light emitting layer emits blue light (Para 0128, Para 0129).
Although Jang shows substantial features of the claimed invention, Jang fails to expressly teach that the second light emitting layer emits green light.
However, regarding “the second light emitting layer emits green light,” it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to form the second light emitting layer 43 to emit green light as taught by Jang (see, e.g., Summary) who teaches that “. . . the first LED sub-unit may be configured to emit any one of red, green, and blue light, the second LED sub-unit may be configured to emit one of red, green, and blue light different from the first LED sub-unit, and the third LED sub-unit may be configured to emit one of red, green, and blue light different from the first and second LED sub-units” (Para 0024). Moreover, a rearrangement of parts by having the second light emitting layer to emit green light of Jang provides no novel or unexpected result as taught by Jang. A person within the level of ordinary skill in the art would have found to be obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular placement of the light emitting layer that emits green light was significant, and a rearrangement of parts is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553 (C.C.P.A 1975).
Regarding claim 16, Jang (see, e.g., FIG. 6D) teaches the micro-LED pixel unit according to claim 1, wherein: the third color LED structure 43 is a top LED structure 43, the third light emitting layer emits blue light (Para 0128, Para 0129).
Although Jang shows substantial features of the claimed invention, Jang fails to expressly teach that the third light emitting layer emits green light.
However, regarding “the third light emitting layer emits green light,” it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to form the third light emitting layer 43 to emit green light as taught by Jang (see, e.g., Summary) who teaches that “. . . the first LED sub-unit may be configured to emit any one of red, green, and blue light, the second LED sub-unit may be configured to emit one of red, green, and blue light different from the first LED sub-unit, and the third LED sub-unit may be configured to emit one of red, green, and blue light different from the first and second LED sub-units” (Para 0024). Moreover, a rearrangement of parts by having the third light emitting layer to emit green light of Jang provides no novel or unexpected result as taught by Jang. A person within the level of ordinary skill in the art would have found to be obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular placement of the light emitting layer that emits green light was significant, and a rearrangement of parts is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553 (C.C.P.A 1975).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (US 2019/0206849), in view of Wang (US 2021/0280743).
Regarding claim 3, Jang (see, e.g., FIG. 6D) teaches the micro-LED pixel unit according to claim 1, wherein: the first reflective structure 37 comprises a first reflective layer e.g., distributed Bragg reflector (Para 0160, Para 0161); the second reflective structure 47 comprises a second reflective layer e.g., distributed Bragg reflector (Para 0160, Para 0161, Para 0184),
Jang fails to expressly teach that a reflectivity of the first reflective layer or the second reflective layer is greater than about 60%. Jang does, however, teach that the first reflective layer 37 or the second reflective layer 47 may include a distributed Bragg reflector (Para 0161, Para 0184). Wang (see, e.g., FIG. 1), on the hand, teaches that distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) structure has a majority (at least 80%, at least 90%, or at least 99%) of light emitted from the active layer is reflected by the DBR structure (Para 0032). However, differences in reflectivity will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such reflectivity difference is critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph) of a reflectivity of the first reflective layer or the second reflective layer being greater than about 60%, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use or modify reflectivity of the first reflective layer or the second reflective layer of Jang through routine experimentation.
CRITICALITY
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed reflectivity of the first reflective layer or the second reflective layer being greater than about 60% or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 9-10, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (US 2019/0206849), in view of Iguchi (US 2019/0267357).
Regarding claim 9, although Jang shows substantial features of the claimed invention, Jang fails to expressly teach the micro-LED pixel unit according to claim 1, further comprising a micro-lens formed above the top electrode layer.
Iguchi (see, e.g., FIG. 6), on the other hand, teaches a micro-lens 25b for the purpose of converging light (Para 0070, Para 0109).
The combination of Jang (see, e.g., FIG. 6D) / Iguchi (see, e.g., FIG. 6) teaches a micro-lens 25 (as taught by Iguchi) formed above the top electrode layer 49 (as taught by Jang).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the micro-lens as described by Iguchi to be formed above the top electrode of Jang for the purpose of converging light (Para 0070).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Jang (see, e.g., FIG. 6D) / Iguchi (see, e.g., FIG. 6) teaches the micro-LED pixel unit according to claim 9, further comprising a spacer 25Rb (as taught by Iguchi) formed between the micro-lens 25b (as taught by Iguchi) and the top electrode layer 49 (as taught by Jang).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Jang (see, e.g., FIG. 6D) / Iguchi (see, e.g., FIG. 6) teaches micro-LED pixel unit according to claim 9, wherein a lateral dimension of the micro-lens 25b is larger than a lateral dimension of an active emitting area 14 (as taught by Iguchi) of each of the first color LED structure 33 (as taught by Jang) and the second color LED structure 43 (as taught by Jang) (Para 0065, Para 0070, Para 0109).
Regarding claim 19, although Jang shows substantial features of the claimed invention, Jang fails to expressly teach the micro-LED pixel unit according to claim 15, further comprising a micro-lens formed above the top electrode layer, wherein a lateral dimension of the micro-lens is larger than a lateral dimension of an active emitting area of each of the first color LED structure, the second color LED structure, and third color LED structure.
Iguchi (see, e.g., FIG. 6), on the other hand, teaches a micro-lens 25b for the purpose of converging light (Para 0070, Para 0109).
The combination of Jang (see, e.g., FIG. 6D) / Iguchi (see, e.g., FIG. 6) teaches a micro-lens 25b (as taught by Iguchi) formed above the top electrode layer 49 (as taught by Jang), wherein a lateral dimension of the micro-lens 25b (as taught by Iguchi) is larger than a lateral dimension of an active emitting area 14 (as taught by Iguchi) of each of the first color LED structure 23, the second color LED structure 33, and third color LED structure 43.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the micro-lens as described by Iguchi to be formed above the top electrode of Jang for the purpose of converging light (Para 0070).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8, 11, 13-14, 17-18, and 20 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTONIO CRITE whose telephone number is (571) 270-5267. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00 am - 6:30 pm.
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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at (571) 272-5055. 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.
/ANTONIO B CRITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights