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 of Group I, Species A, figures 1-11, represented by claims 1-4 and 10-11 in the reply filed on September 1, 2026 is acknowledged. Because Applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 2-3 are withdrawn from consideration as they are not directed to Species A. Claims 2-3 require “a phosphor-dispersed resin that is filled between the micro LEDs and the reflective barrier layer.” This limitation is shown in figure 13-14, where 28R, 28G, and 29B are on the sides of 22 and below 26. In the elected Species A there is no phosphor-dispersed resin between 22, 24, and 26. Therefore, these claims are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 10-11 are withdrawn from consideration as they are dependent upon claims 2-3.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-3, and 5-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2-3, and 5-13 are using the wrong status identifiers. These claims should have the status identifier of “withdrawn”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 17, 2026; December 29, 2025; and June 17, 2024 were considered by the examiner.
Drawing Objections
The drawings are objected to because:
In figure 2A, element 22 needs to be labeled.
In figure 2A, element 20 needs to be labeled.
Applicant uses element 30 for two different structures. In ¶ 0040, Applicant uses 30 for the sapphire substrate in figure 4. Then in ¶ 0046, Applicant uses element 30 for barrier member 30. And, in ¶ 0030, Applicant uses 30 for barrier member in figure 2A. Each element must have their own element number.
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.
Specification Objections
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Element 30 in figure 2A is not discussed in the with the rest of figure 2A in ¶¶ 0026-
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iguchi et al. (US 2019/0267357 A1) (“Iguchi”).
Regarding claim 1, Iguchi teaches at least in figure 1:
a first conductive-type electrode (51);
a plurality of micro LEDs (100) that are separately formed on the first conductive-type electrode (51) and each configured to emit ultraviolet light with a wavelength of 405 nm or less (¶ 0002, where it is known to use UV leds to light up the wavelength conversion material to produce RBG light; ¶ 0060, where UV light is used. While the exact wavelength is not taught UV light is well-known to include the 405nm wavelengths);
second conductive-type electrodes (56) formed on the plurality of micro LEDs (100), respectively;
a reflective barrier member (15) erected between the plurality of micro LEDs (100) to reflect light from side surfaces (¶ 0085, where 15 can be reflective) of the micro LEDs (100);
Regarding,
a film-like wiring substrate having a wiring structure that is connected with the second conductive-type electrodes of three micro LEDs that are adjacent to each other, out of the plurality of micro LEDs, so as to constitute one pixel.
(there is no functional difference between the second conductive-type electrode and the film-like wiring substrate. Applicant uses element 20 as the second conductive-type electrode, and element 26 as the film-like wiring structure. These are two different elements. However, the function of these elements to be the n-electrode of each LED, and to tie all the n-electrodes of all the LEDs together. Under MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B), a single integral element would be a matter of obvious engineering choice versus using two elements to accomplish the same function. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1965). The Prior art here teaches an integral second conductive-type electrode which also functions as the film-like wiring substrate. The prior art shows that these individual elements can be integral together and retail the function of each of the separate elements. As such, this limitation would have been obvious as an obvious engineering choice.).
a film-like wavelength conversion layer (21-23) provided on the wiring substrate (56), and
including phosphors that perform wavelength conversion of respective light from the three micro LEDs into red, green, and blue colors (21-23 are the wavelength conversion layers),
wherein the side surfaces of the micro LEDs (sides of 100) are formed into inclined surfaces such that widths of the micro LEDs gradually decrease from the first conductive-type electrode toward the second conductive-type electrodes (this is shown in figure 1), and
wherein the reflective barrier member (15) is erected parallel to a stacking direction of the plurality of micro LEDs (100) and up to a height equal to the micro LEDs (100s).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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:
wherein the first conductive-type electrode is a conductive substrate made of tungsten copper.
The prior art, Iguchi, teaches that the substrate 50 is made of silicon, and it is not being used as the first conductive-type electrode.
The prior art, Wu et al. (US 2011/0076791 A1) (“Wu”), teaches in ¶ 0016, that the substrate for an LED can be either Si or WCu, and appears to teach a similar method of forming the device as Applicant.
However, one could not simply replace the substrate of Iguchi with Wu. This is because the second conductive-type electrode 56 of Iguchi is tied to the a drive electrode 52 which is also on the surface of the substrate 50. Therefore, the replacement of Iguchi 50 with a WCu substrate would short the top and bottom of the LED causing it to not function.
For the reason above, claim 4 is allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT WALL whose telephone number is (571)272-9567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday at 7:30am to 2:30pm PST. Interviews can be scheduled on Tuesday thru Thursday at 10am PST or 2pm PST.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
/VINCENT WALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights