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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on August 07, 2026, is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no search/examination burden since a search for the test apparatus will also result in art for the methods of using and manufacturing a test apparatus. This is not found persuasive because art for product inventions do not always include methods for use and testing of said product.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on August 07, 2026.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sheng et. al. (US 20200194624 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sheng teaches a test apparatus (Fig 17 unlabeled apparatus, [0017]) for an array of micro-light emitting diode (uLEDs) (Fig 17 unlabeled uLEDs correspond to Fig 15 LED1, [0060]), the test device comprising: a primary release layer (Fig 10 protective layer 7, [0054]) positioned on the array of uLEDs (Fig 10 layers 4xx corresponding to Fig 3 epitaxial layered structure 4, [0054]); an N-contact test pad template (Figs 10 and 15 extension electrode 511, lead wire 56, [0060]) in contact with N-contacts (Fig 10 electrode 51, [0040]) of the uLEDs and an N- contact testing bus (Figs 15 and 17 electrodes 53a, [0060]); and a P-contact test pad template (Figs 10 and 15 extension electrode 521, lead wire 57, [0060]) in contact with P-contacts (Fig 10 electrode 52, [0040]) of the uLEDs and a P- contact testing bus (Figs 15 and 17 electrodes 53b, [0060]).
Regarding claim 2, Sheng teaches the N-contacts (Fig 10 electrode 51, [0040]) of the uLEDs (Fig 17 unlabeled uLEDs correspond to Fig 15 LED1, [0060]) are connected in parallel (Fig 17, [0063]) with the N-contact testing bus (Figs 15 and 17 electrodes 53a, [0060]) and/or the P-contacts of the uLEDs (Fig 17 unlabeled uLEDs correspond to Fig 15 LED1, [0060]) are connected in parallel (Fig 17, [0063]) with the P-contact testing bus (Figs 15 and 17 electrodes 53b, [0060]).
Regarding claim 6, Sheng teaches an array support (Fig 17 not shown or labeled but there is inherently a substrate/support since the uLEDs are not floating corresponds to Figs 15 growth substrate 1, [0060]).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheng et. al. (US 20200194624 A1), in view of Song (US 20230061915 A1).
Sheng fails to teach the primary release layer comprises a photoresist material.
Regarding the choice of using a photoresist material as the primary release layer, this material would have been obvious to try. Sheng teaches a protective layer formed on and covering the semiconductor LED structure made of inorganic material (Fig 9 protective layer 7, [0054]; made of SiO2, [0044]). Song teaches a passivation layer formed on and covering a semiconductor LED structure (Fig 12a passivation layer 156, [0147] and [0213]). Further, Song teaches the passivation layer may be organic (photoresist material) or inorganic (silica) ([0147]). One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that the desired protection of uLED semiconductor materials would be achieved equally, regardless of which material is chosen. That is, "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheng et. al. (US 20200194624 A1), in view of Song (US 20230061915 A1), in further view of Chong (US 20210328121 A1).
Sheng as modified in claim 3 fails to teach the photoresist material comprises polydimethylglutarimide (PMGI) and/or (optional so not considered) a cyclopentanone-based polymer.
Regarding the choice of using polydimethylglutarimide (PMGI) as a photoresist material, this material would have been obvious to try. As stated above, Song teaches a photoresist material could be used as a passivation layer in order to protect the uLED semiconductor materials. Chong teaches PMGI was a photoresist known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention ([0028]). One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that the desired protection of uLED semiconductor materials would be achieved equally, regardless of which photoresist material is chosen. That is, "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421.
Claims 5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheng et. al. (US 20200194624 A1), in view of Tsai et. al. (US 20210249558 A1), hereinafter Tsai.
Regarding claim 5, Sheng fails to teach the uLED array comprises a device substrate comprising a material selected from the group consisting of: a sapphire, silicon carbide, and Ill-nitride.
Regarding the choice of using sapphire, silicon carbide, and Ill-nitride as a device substrate, this material would have been obvious to try. Sheng teaches uLED devices substrate is gallium arsenide (GaAs) ([0022]) for growing AlGaInP ([0032]). Tsai teaches the growth substrate for the device is based on the semiconductor material that is grown upon it ([0020]). Further, Tsai teaches GaAs for growing AlGaInP and sapphire for growing AlGaN ([0020]). One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that the semiconductor material desired for the uLED semiconductor materials would enable the fabrication of a uLED array, regardless of which substrate is chosen. That is, "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421.
Regarding claim 7, Sheng fails to teach each of the N-contact test pad template and the P-contact test pad template comprises one or more of: copper (Cu), aluminum (Al), nickel (Ni), titanium (Ti), titanium-tungsten (TiW), silver (Ag), gold (Au), platinum (Pt), and palladium (Pd).
Regarding the choice of using one or more of the metals from the list for N/P-contact test pad templates, these materials would have been obvious to try. Sheng teaches P and N contacts made of gold (Au) ([0052]). Tsai teaches a list of the materials of the testing circuit ([0045]). Further, Tsai teaches the materials used for the testing circuit would depend on the user’s requirements ([0045]). One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that the materials used for the contact test pad templates would enable the fabrication of a test circuit, regardless of which material is chosen. That is, "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421.
Regarding claims 8-10, Sheng fails to teach testing greater than or equal to a set number of uLEDs at a time.
However, Sheng teaches the distribution for test electrodes may be adjusted according to practical requirements; and micro LEDs can be tested in selected regions ([0062]). Tsai teaches a parallel testing circuit with N LEDs, K rows, and M columns, there being no apparent limit on the number of LEDs, rows, and columns (Fig 4A, [0034]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the test circuits/apparatus of Sheng and Tsai would be capable of testing the numbers of uLEDs at a time as claimed. Further, as the structure of Sheng and Tsai are substantially identical to the structure of the instant invention as claimed, the structure of Sheng or Tsai would be capable of testing the number of uLEDs as claimed. MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Examiner notes that the limitation of “at a time” is being interpreted as “at one time” or “in an instance.” It is known in the art that testing apparatuses perform continuously with minimal stoppages. The claim as written could be interpreted to mean a testing apparatus testing 50 uLEDs on wafer after wafer of uLEDs could achieve that number as well, since after 10,000 continuous wafers, the limitation of 500,000 would be reached.
Conclusion
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVIN L LEE whose telephone number is (703)756-1921. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5 pm (ET).
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, STEVEN GAUTHIER can be reached at (571)270-0373. 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.
/ALVIN L LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights