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
The instant application claim of the priority date of 12/3/2021 of the foreign application GERMANY 10 2021 131 929.3 is noted and entered. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement IDS) was submitted on 5/30/2024. This submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 80, 91, and 94 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 80, “wherein one of the conductive layer” should be plural and read “wherein one of the conductive layers”.
Regarding claim 91, “wherein the cover portion comprises at least one of: tapered sidewalls, or a material configured to absorb the light of the first and/or second wavelength, a material configured to reflect the light of the first and/or second wavelength located on the sidewalls of the cover portion” should have appropriate commas and conjunctions and should read “wherein the cover portion comprises at least one of: tapered sidewalls, a material configured to absorb the light of the first and/or second wavelength, or a material configured to reflect the light of the first and/or second wavelength located on the sidewalls of the cover portion”.
Regarding claim 94, “plurality of conductive via” should be plural and read “plurality of conductive vias”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 75-77, 79-83, and 97 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 75 recites the limitation "the second epitaxially grown converter layer" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, claim 75 will be read as if stating “a second epitaxially grown converter layer”.
Claim 76 recites the limitation "the second epitaxially grown converter layer" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, claim 76 will be read as if stating “a second epitaxially grown converter layer”.
Claim 77 recites the limitation "the second converter layer" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, claim 77 will be read as if stating “a second converter layer”.
Claim 77 recites the limitation “the first converter layer”, and it is unclear whether it is referring to the same “first epitaxially grown converter layer” as recited in claim 70 or some other converter layer. For examination purposes, the claim limitation is interpreted in the instant Office Action as follows: “the first converter layer” in claim 77 is equivalent to “the first epitaxially grown converter layer” in claim 70. This interpretation is to be confirmed by applicant in next office action.
Claim 79 recites the limitation "the second epitaxially grown converter layer" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, claim 79 will be read as if stating “a second epitaxially grown converter layer”.
Claim 80 recites the limitation "one of the conductive layer of the layer stack" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, claim 80 will be read as if stating “a conductive layer of the layer stack”.
Claim 80 recites the limitation "the second epitaxially grown converter layer" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, claim 80 will be read as if stating “a second epitaxially grown converter layer”.
Claim 81 recites the limitation "an area of the conductive layer of the layer stack" in lines 1 and 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, claim 81 will be read as if stating “an area of a conductive layer of the layer stack”.
Claim 81 recites the limitation "the second epitaxially grown converter layer" in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, claim 81 will be read as if stating “a second epitaxially grown converter layer”.
Claim 82 recites the limitation "the second epitaxially grown converter layer" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, claim 82 will be read as if stating “a second epitaxially grown converter layer”.
Claim 83 recites the limitation "the second epitaxially grown converter layer" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, claim 83 will be read as if stating “a second epitaxially grown converter layer”.
Claim 97 recites the limitation "the first contact" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, claim 97 will be read as if stating “a first contact”.
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.
Rejection note: An italicized claim limitation indicates claim limitations that are not explicitly disclosed by the primary reference but are disclosed by the secondary reference(s).
Claims 70-72, 75, 77-80, 83-84, 87, 90-91, 93, and 97-99 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young et al, US 20190189682 A1 (Young) in view of Pust et al, US 20180358516 A1 (Pust).
Regarding claim 70; Young teaches an optoelectronic arrangement (Fig. 1B: LED array 1000) comprising:
at least one vertical optoelectronic device (Fig. 1B: pixel 1010) with a first side and a second side (See Young annotated Fig. 1B shared in this OA),
wherein at least parts of the second side form a main emission surface (See Young annotated Fig. 1B shared in this OA),
and wherein the optoelectronic device is configured to emit light of a first wavelength from the main emission surface (Fig. 1B; Para. 50: "the active region 1021 emits light beams");
an electrically conductive barrier structure (Fig. 1B: n-type contacts 1040 and separation sections 1041; Para. 51: "The separation sections 1041 may be an extension of the n-type contacts 1040, such that, separation sections 1041 are formed from the same material as the n-type contacts 1040 (e.g., copper)") at least partially surrounding the at least one vertical optoelectronic device (Fig. 1B: n-type contacts 1040 and separation sections 1041 partially surrounding epitaxial layer 1011 which is a part of pixel 1010) and comprising sidewalls with a reflective surface (Para. 51: "one or more additional layers may coat the separation sections 1041. Such a layer may be a reflective layer, a scattering layer, an absorptive layer, or any other applicable layer."),
the reflective surface electrically isolated from sidewalls of the vertical optoelectronic device (Para. 51 "One or more passivation layers 1019 may fully or partially separate the n-contact 1040 from the epitaxial layer 1011."; Since passivation layers 1019 fully separate the n-contact 1040 from the epitaxial layer 1011, the reflective layer on the separation sections 1041 are also separated from the epitaxial layer 1011.);
a layer stack (Fig. 1B: wavelength converting layer 1050 and primary optics 1022) arranged on (indirectly "on") and bonded to (indirectly "bonded") the main emission surface and comprising a first epitaxially grown converter layer (Fig. 1B: wavelength converting layer 1050) configured to convert the light of the first wavelength to light of a second wavelength (Para. 55: "The wavelength converting layer 1050 may include any luminescent material, such as, for example, phosphor particles in a transparent or translucent binder or matrix, or a ceramic phosphor element, which absorbs light of one wavelength and emits light of a different wavelength.");
and an optional conductive layer (Fig. 1B: plated metal layer 1016) arranged on (indirectly “on”) the main emission surface and electrically connecting a second contact (See Young annotated Fig. 1B shared in this OA) with the electrically conductive barrier structure.
PNG
media_image1.png
710
985
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Young fails to teach a first epitaxially grown converter layer.
However, Pust teaches a first epitaxially grown converter layer (Fig. 4: quantum structure 6, Para. 91: "epitaxial deposition of the quantum structure 6").
Young and Pust are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Young by having an epitaxially grown converter layer as disclosed in Pust in order to minimize defects in the conversion layer.
Regarding claim 71; Young in view of Pust teaches the optoelectronic arrangement according to claim 70. Further, Young teaches:
wherein the optoelectronic arrangement comprises at least two vertical optoelectronic devices (Young: pixels 1010, 1020, and 1030) spaced apart by the electrically conductive barrier structure (Young: Fig. 1B: n-type contacts 1040 and separation sections 1041),
and wherein the layer stack extends across the electrically conductive barrier structure covering the respective main emission surfaces of the at least two vertical optoelectronic devices (Young: Para. 55: "The wavelength converting layer 1050 may be provided on each individual pixel, as shown, or may be placed over an entire LED array 1000.").
Regarding claim 72; Young in view of Pust teaches the optoelectronic arrangement according to claim 70. Further, Young teaches wherein bonding of the layer stack to the main emission surface is facilitated by at least one of: direct bonding of the layer stack onto the main emission surface (Young: Fig. 1B: wavelength converting layer directly bonded to the main emission surface shown in Young annotated Fig. 1B shared in this OA); a transparent conductive oxide; or a dielectric layer between a bottom surface of the layer stack and the main emission surface.
Regarding claim 75; Young in view of Pust teaches the optoelectronic arrangement according to claim 70. Further, Young teaches wherein material of the conductive layer forms a part of the first and/or second epitaxially grown converter layer, or wherein the conductive layer forms a part of the at least one optoelectronic device (Young: Fig. 1B: plated metal layer 1016 is a part of the pixel 1010), and/or wherein the conductive layer comprises the same material as the first and/or second epitaxially grown converter layer.
Regarding claim 77; Young in view of Pust teaches the optoelectronic arrangement according to claim 70. Further, Young teaches wherein the first and/or second converter layer of the layer stack extends at least partially onto the electrically conductive barrier structure (Young: Fig. 1B; Para. 55: "The wavelength converting layer 1050 may be provided on each individual pixel, as shown, or may be placed over an entire LED array 1000."; When wavelength converting layer 1050 is placed over an entire LED array 1000, the wavelength converting layer 1050 would implicitly extend onto the electrically conductive barrier structure of n-type contacts 1040 and separation sections 1041).
Regarding claim 78; Young in view of Pust teaches the optoelectronic arrangement according to claim 70. Further, Young teaches wherein the conductive layer (Young: Fig. 1B: plated metal layer 1016) of the layer stack is structured in a region above the electrically conductive barrier structure (Young: Fig. 1B: n-type contacts 1040), and/or wherein the conductive layer of the layer stack comprises a conductive transparent material
Regarding claim 79; Young in view of Pust teaches the optoelectronic arrangement according to claim 70. Further, Young teaches wherein the first and/or second epitaxially grown converter layer is structured in a region above the electrically conductive barrier structure (Young: Fig. 1B; Para. 55: "The wavelength converting layer 1050 may be provided on each individual pixel, as shown, or may be placed over an entire LED array 1000."; When wavelength converting layer 1050 is placed over an entire LED array 1000, the wavelength converting layer 1050 would implicitly be structured in a region above the electrically conductive barrier structure of n-type contacts 1040 and separation sections 1041).
Regarding claim 80; Young in view of Pust teaches the optoelectronic arrangement according to claim 70, wherein one of the conductive layer of the layer stack (Young: Fig. 1B: plated metal layer 1016) and the first and/or second epitaxially grown converter layer (Young: Fig. 1B: converter material 1050) is structured in a region above the electrically conductive barrier structure (Young: Fig. 1B: n-type contacts 1040 of the conductive barrier structure).
Regarding claim 83; Young in view of Pust teaches the optoelectronic arrangement according to claim 70. Additionally, Pust teaches wherein the first (Pust: Fig. 4: quantum structure 6) and/or second epitaxially grown converter layer comprises InGaAlP, InGaAIN, InGaP or InGaN (Pust: quantum structure 6; Para. 49 and 62).
It would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Young by having a first epitaxially grown converter layer comprising InGaAlP, InGaAIN, InGaP or InGaN as disclosed in Pust in order to generate light in an efficient way as taught in Para. 62 of Pust.
Regarding claim 84; Young in view of Pust teaches the optoelectronic arrangement according to claim 70. Further, Young teaches wherein the first epitaxially grown converter layer comprises a thickness sufficiently large to enable full conversion (Young: Para. 55: " The thickness of a wavelength converting layer 1050 may be determined based on the material used or application/wavelength for which the LED array 1000 or individual pixels 1010, 1020, and 1030 is/are arranged. For example, a wavelength converting layer 1050 may be approximately 20 μm, 50 μm or 200 μm.”)
Regarding claim 87; Young in view of Pust teaches the optoelectronic arrangement according to claim 70. Further, Young teaches wherein the electrically conductive barrier structure comprise an internal conductive material (Young: Fig. 1B: n-type contacts 1040 and separation sections 1041; Para. 51: "separation sections 1041 are formed from the same material as the n-type contacts 1040 (e.g., copper)") and a reflective material covering sidewall surfaces (Young: Para. 51: "one or more additional layers may coat the separation sections 1041. Such a layer may be a reflective layer, a scattering layer, an absorptive layer, or any other applicable layer."), and/or wherein the electrically conductive barrier structure is a reflective metal (Young: Fig. 1B: n-type contacts 1040 and separation sections 1041; Para. 51: "separation sections 1041 are formed from the same material as the n-type contacts 1040 (e.g., copper)").
Regarding claim 90; Young in view of Pust teaches the optoelectronic arrangement according to claim 70. Further, Young teaches the optoelectronic arrangement further comprising a cover portion (Young: Fig. 1B: waveguide 1062) arranged above the layer stack (Young: Fig. 1B; waveguide 1062 above wavelength converting layer 1050 and primary optics 1022), optionally bonded thereto, and covering at least a portion of the layer stack adjacent to the electrically conductive barrier structure (Young: Fig. 1B; waveguide 1062 indirectly covering wavelength converting layer 1050 and primary optics 1022).
Regarding claim 91; Young in view of Pust teaches the optoelectronic arrangement according to claim 90. Further, Young teaches wherein the cover portion (Young: Fig. 1B: waveguide 1062) is larger than a topmost surface of the electrically conductive barrier structure (Young: Fig. 1B: waveguide 1062 is larger than separation sections 1041), thereby covering at least a portion of the second contact (Young: Fig. 1B: waveguide 1062 indirectly covers second contact of annotated Fig. 1B shared in this OA) of the at least one vertical optoelectronic device, and/or wherein the cover portion comprises at least one of: tapered sidewalls (Young: Fig. 1B: waveguide 1062), or a material configured to absorb the light of the first and/or second wavelength, a material configured to reflect the light of the first and/or second wavelength located on the sidewalls of the cover portion.
Regarding claim 93; Young in view of Pust teaches the optoelectronic arrangement according to claim 70. Further, Young teaches the optoelectronic arrangement further comprising a first contact (Young: Fig. 1B: contact 1015) comprising a highly reflective material (Young: Para. 50: "a reflective layer 1015 which may serve as a contact.") for the light of the first wavelength and optionally for the light of the second wavelength.
Regarding claim 97; Young in view of Pust teaches the optoelectronic arrangement according to claim 70. Further, Young teaches wherein at least one of the first (Young: Fig. 1B: p-contact 1017) or second contacts comprises a doped current distribution layer (Young: Para. 53: "the p-type region 1012 may include multiple layers of different composition, thickness, and dopant concentrations… An electrical current may be caused to flow through the p-n junction"; second contacts with n-type region, Para. 53: "The n-type region may be grown on a growth substrate and may include one or more layers of semiconductor material that include different compositions and dopant concentrations").
Regarding claim 98; Young in view of Pust teaches the optoelectronic arrangement according to claim 70. Further, Young teaches wherein the at least one vertical optoelectronic device (Young: Fig. 1B: pixel 1010 containing epitaxial layer 1011) is based on a ZnSe, GaN, InGaN or AlGaN material (Young: Para. 52: "The epitaxial layer 1011 may be formed from… a III-V semiconductors including, but not limited to, AlN, AlP, AlAs, AlSb, GaN, GaP, GaAs, GaSb, InN, InP, InAs, InSb, II-VI semiconductors including, but not limited to, ZnS, ZnSe, CdSe, CdTe") configured to emit light with a wavelength smaller than 6oonm (Young: Para. 52: “… typical emission wavelengths… such as GaN… at 500 nm”).
Regarding claim 99; Young in view of Pust teaches the optoelectronic arrangement according to claim 70, wherein the conductive layer (A: Fig. 1B: plated metal layer 1016) is part of the layer stack or wherein the layer stack is bonded to the conductive layer, extending over a plurality of vertical optoelectronic devices.
Claims 73 and 74 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young et al, US 20190189682 A1 (Young) in view of Pust et al, US 20180358516 A1 (Pust) as applied to claim 70 above, and further in view of Otto et al, US 20190312184 A1 (Otto).
Regarding claim 73; Young in view of Pust teaches the optoelectronic arrangement according to claim 70. Additionally, Pust teaches wherein the layer stack comprises a second epitaxially grown converter layer (Pust: Fig. 4: second conversion element 7) configured to convert the light of the first wavelength into light of a third wavelength (Pust: Para. 41: "The second conversion element may be formed with the luminescent material to generate a tertiary radiation").
It would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Young by having a second converter layer as disclosed in Pust in Para. 36 because “a large color space (gamut) can be achieved with a relatively simply constructed semiconductor component.”
The combination of Young in view of Pust fails to teach the second converter layer being epitaxially grown.
However, Otto teaches wherein the layer stack comprises a second epitaxially grown converter layer (Otto: Para. 42: "In particular, each conversion unit is epitaxially grown").
Young, Pust, and Otto are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Young in view of Pust by having a second converter layer being epitaxially grown as disclosed in Otto to minimize defects in the conversion layer.
Regarding claim 74; Young in view of Pust in further view of Otto teaches the optoelectronic arrangement according to claim 73. Additionally, Pust teaches wherein the second epitaxially grown converter layer (Pust: Fig. 4: second conversion element 7) is arranged between the first epitaxially grown converter layer (Pust: Fig. 4: quantum structure 6) and the conductive layer or the main emission surface (Pust: Fig. 4: semiconductor chip 3) or above the first epitaxially grown converter layer (Pust: Fig. 3: second conversion element 7 above quantum structure 6).
It would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Young and Otto by having the second epitaxially grown converter layer between the first epitaxially grown converter layer and the main emission surface or having the second epitaxially grown converter layer above the first epitaxially grown converter layer as disclosed in Pust because there are only a finite number of predictable arrangements and it would have been obvious to try. Furthermore, according to MPEP 2144.04 § (VI) (c), a rearrangement of parts with not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such arrangement is critical. “In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).”
Claim 76 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young et al, US 20190189682 A1 (Young) in view of Pust et al, US 20180358516 A1 (Pust) as applied to claim 70 above, and further in view of Bergbauer et al, US 20130221369 A1 (Bergbauer).
Regarding claim 76; Young in view of Pust teaches the optoelectronic arrangement according to claim 70.
Young in view of Pust fails to teach wherein the layer stack comprises an outcoupling structure arranged on the first and/or second epitaxially grown converter layer facing away from the main emission surface.
However, Bergbauer teaches wherein the layer stack comprises an outcoupling structure (Bergbauer: Fig. 5A: interlayer 7; Para. 84: "Only part of the interlayer 7, in particular an AlGaN layer, is present on the semiconductor layer stack 1. This serves as a radiation outcoupling structure") arranged on (indirectly "on") the first and/or second epitaxially grown converter layer (Bergbauer: Fig. 5A: conversion element 8) facing away from the main emission surface.
Young, Pust, and Bergbauer are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Young in view of Pust by having an outcoupling structure on an epitaxially grown converter layer as disclosed in Para. 84 of Bergbauer to improve outcoupling and thus efficiency .
Claims 85 and 86 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young et al, US 20190189682 A1 (Young) in view of Pust et al, US 20180358516 A1 (Pust) as applied to claim 70 above, and further in view of Iguchi, US 20180358339 A1.
Regarding claim 85; Young in view of Pust teach the optoelectronic arrangement according to claim 70.
Young and Pust fail to teach wherein the main emission surface is larger than the first side, or wherein the main emission surface is larger than a surface of the at least one optoelectronic device opposite the main emission surface.
However, Iguchi teaches wherein the main emission surface is larger than the first side (Iguchi: See Iguchi annotated Fig. 3 shared in this OA), or wherein the main emission surface is larger than a surface of the at least one optoelectronic device opposite the main emission surface.
PNG
media_image2.png
674
890
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Young, Pust, and Iguchi are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Young in view of Pust by having the main emission surface larger than the first side as disclosed in Iguchi Para. 98 in order to improve the emission efficiency of the main emission surface.
Regarding claim 86; Young in view of Pust teach the optoelectronic arrangement according to claim 70.
Young in view of Pust fails to teach wherein sidewalls of the barrier structure are tapered opening in a direction of the main emission surface.
However, Iguchi teaches wherein sidewalls of the barrier structure are tapered opening in a direction of the main emission surface (Iguchi: light shielding reflection layer 60).
Young, Pust, and Iguchi are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Young in view of Pust by having the sidewalls of the barrier structure tapered opening in a direction of the main emission surface as disclosed in Iguchi to improve the emission efficiency of the main emission surface.
Claim 92 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young et al, US 20190189682 A1 (Young) in view of Pust et al, US 20180358516 A1 (Pust) as applied to claim 90 above, and further in view of Katkar et al, US 20210181510 A1 (Katkar).
Regarding claim 92; Young in view of Pust teaches the optoelectronic arrangement according to claim 90, wherein the cover portion is conductive (Young: Fig. 1B: waveguide 1062; Para. 57: "The waveguide 1062 may be coated with… a metallization layer").
Young in view of Pust fails to teach wherein the cover portion is connected to the electrically conductive barrier structure.
However, Katkar teaches wherein the cover portion (Katkar: Fig. 9: waveguide 906) is connected (Katkar: Para. 58: "the bonded optical devices (e.g., the assembly 902) can be directly bonded to the waveguide 906 without an intervening adhesive") to the electrically conductive barrier structure.
Young, Pust, and Katkar are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Young in view of Pust by having a cover portion connected to a barrier structure as disclosed in Katkar to shrink the size of the device.
Claim 95 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young et al, US 20190189682 A1 (Young) in view of Pust et al, US 20180358516 A1 (Pust) as applied to claim 70 above, and further in view of Yu et al, US 20150301404 A1 (Yu).
Regarding claim 95; Young in view of Pust teaches the optoelectronic arrangement according to claim 70.
Young in view of Pust fail to teach further comprising a backplane substrate arranged on an insulating layer and comprising one of control circuitry and supply circuitry for the at least one vertical optoelectronic device.
However, Yu teaches further comprising a backplane substrate (Yu: Fig. 2: backplane 100) arranged on an insulating layer (Yu: Fig. 2: insulation layer 300) and comprising one of control circuitry and supply circuitry (Yu: Fig. 2: wiring pattern 204) for the at least one vertical optoelectronic device.
Young, Pust, and Yu are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Young in view of Pust by having a backplane substrate on an insulating layer and comprising supply circuity as disclosed in Para. 6 of Yu to simplify the manufacturing process and lower cost.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 81-82 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 88-89, 94, and 96 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:
Regarding claim 81, the primary reason for allowable subject matter in claim 81 is the inclusion of the limitation “wherein an area of the conductive layer of the layer stack is larger than the first and/or second epitaxially grown converter layer” in combination with the other limitations of the claim. For example, the prior art of record teaches a conductive layer (Young: Fig. 1B: plated metal layer 1016), but it does not teach that the area of the conductive layer is larger than the converter layer (Young: Fig. 1B: converter material 1050).
Regarding claim 82, the primary reason for allowable subject matter in claim 82 is the inclusion of the limitation “first and/or second epitaxially grown converter layer comprises at least one of: …” in combination with the other limitations in the claim. For example, prior art of record teaches an a first and/or second epitaxially grown converter layer (Pust: Fig. 4: first conversion element 4) and a quantum well (Pust: Fig. 4: quantum structure 6) but fails to teach or be reasonably combined to render obvious the claimed combination of limitations “quantum well” and “intermixed area close to an edge region” or “above the electric conductive barrier structure”.
Regarding claim 88, the primary reason for allowable subject matter in claim 88 is the inclusion of the limitation “wherein the internal conductive material is different from the reflective material” in combination with the other limitations in the claim. For example, prior art of record teaches an internal conductive material and a reflective material but fails to teach “conductive material is different from the reflective material.”
Regarding claim 89, the primary reason for allowable subject matter in claim 89 is the inclusion of the limitation “barrier structure adjacent to the layer stack comprises at least partially a material configured to absorb the light” in combination with the other limitations in the claim. For example, prior art of record teaches a barrier structure adjacent to the layer stack (Young: Fig. 1B: n-type contacts 1040 and separation sections 1041) but fails to teach “ the barrier structure comprises at least partially a material configured to absorb the light.”
Regarding claim 94, the primary reason for allowable subject matter in claim 94 is the inclusion of the limitation “the insulation layer comprises a plurality of conductive via electrically connected to a first contact” in combination with the other limitations in the claim. For example, prior art of record teaches an insulation layer (Young: Fig. 1B: SiO2 layers 1013 and 1014), but it fails to teach “comprises a plurality of conducive via” in combination with all other limitations of claim 94.
Regarding claim 96, the primary reason for allowable subject matter in claim 96 is the inclusion of the limitation “second contact comprises an n-doped material and/or connected to a n-side of the at least one vertical optoelectronic device” in combination with the other limitations in the claim. For example, prior art of record teaches a second contact (Young: Fig. 1B: SiO2 layer 1013), but it fails to teach “an n-doped material and/or connected to a n-side of the at least one vertical optoelectronic device” in combination with all other limitations of claim 96.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUBRIE I HETHERINGTON whose telephone number is (571)270-0666. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5, Fr 7:30-4.
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.
/AUBRIE IRENE HETHERINGTON/Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/Kretelia Graham/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights