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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-19 are pending in the application and are examined on merits herein.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “160” has been used to designate both – a light-emitting diode and an adhesive layer in Fig. 10. 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 11 (explained by paragraph 0033 of the published application US 2024/0413133) shows a data line 170 connected to transistors gates and a scan line 185 is connected to transistors drains, while it is common in the art to connect a scan line to a transistor gate and to connect a data line to a transistor source or to a transistor drain. 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.
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 following must be shown or the features cancelled from the claims:
“micro component” that is “attached to the transparent substrate by a plurality of transparent adhesive layers”, as Claim 1 recites.
“the circuit layer comprising at least three sets of driver circuits”, as Claim 5 recites, where Claim 5 depends on Claim 1, teaching that “a bonding pad in direct contact with the transparent adhesive layer”: currently, an embodiment of Figs. 9-11, teaching “three sets of driver circuits” has a circuit component which bonding pad has no direct contact with the adhesive layer.
No new matter should be entered.
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.
Abstract
Abstract is objected to because of the following informalities:
Abstract recites: “The micro components are each attached to the transparent substrate by a plurality of transparent adhesion layers”. The recitation is inconsistent with the specification of the application that teaches that each micro component is attached to the transparent substrate by one transparent adhesion layer.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 0033, explaining Fig. 11 directed to a driving circuit of a light emitting device, does not explain such new feature of Fig. 11 as connection of data lines to gates of transistors and scan lines to source/drain of transistors, which contradicts to driving circuits known in the art.
Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 19 are objected to due to the following informality:
Line 8 of Claim 1 recites: “on a side of the micro components”. Examiner suggests changing the limitation to: “on a side of the micro component”, since line 8 belongs to limitations describing one micro component.
Lines 8-9 of Claim 19 recite: “the four of the seven electrodes are electrically connected to the four electrodes”. Examiner suggests, for a better clarity, to change the limitation to: “the four of the seven electrodes of the micro component are electrically connected to the four electrodes of the carrier”.
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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In re Claim 1: Claim 1 recites: “a plurality of micro components, wherein the micro components are each attached to the transparent substrate by a plurality of transparent adhesive layers”. The recitation is unclear, since contradicts to the specification of the application explicitly teaching in multiple paragraphs that each micro component is attached to the substrate by one adhesive layer.
In accordance with MPEP 2173.03 Correspondence Between Specification and Claims [R-07.2022], inconsistence of the claim with the specification makes the claim indefinite, even though the terms of a claim may appear to be definite: see In re Cohn 438 F.2d 989, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971).
Appropriate correction is required to clarify the claim language.
For this Office Action, the cited limitation was interpreted in accordance with the specification of the application as: “a plurality of micro components, wherein each micro components is attached to the transparent substrate by a transparent adhesive layer”.
In re Claim 5: Claim 5 recites: “the circuit layer comprises at least three sets of driver circuits”. The recitation is directed to an embodiment of Figs. 9-11 directed to driving circuits, and it is unclear in view of dependency Claim 5 on Claim 1, where Claim 1 has a limitation: “a bonding pad in direct contact with the transparent adhesive layer”: Fig. 10 clearly shows that a bonding pad 120 is separated from transparent adhesive 160 by an etch stop layer 110 and a circuit layer 115.
Appropriate correction is required to clarify the claimed subject matter.
For this Office Action, the cited recitation of Claim 5 was omitted from consideration.
In re Claim 16: Claim 16 recites: “a thickness of the transparent adhesive layers”. In view of interpretation of Claim 1 and in view of the specification teaching a thickness of one adhesive layer and not teaching a thickness of a plurality of adhesive layers – with the uncertain number of layers claimed by Claim 16, the recitation is unclear, and for this Office Action, it was interpreted as: “a thickness of the transparent adhesive layer”.
In re Claims 2-4, 6-15 and 17-18: Claims 2-4, 6-15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to dependency on Claim 1.
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.
As far as the claims are understood, Claims 1-2, 5-6, 9-13, 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi (US 2022/0069159) in view of Holden et al. (US 9,130,056).
In re Claim 1, Takagi teaches a wafer with micro integrated circuits, comprising (Fig. 26):
a transparent substrate 214 (being a glass substrate, paragraph 0216); and
a plurality of micro components 11 (paragraph 0215), wherein the micro components 11 are each attached to the transparent substrate 214 by a plurality of transparent adhesive layers 213 (being a silicone layer, paragraph 0216, which is inherently transparent, see at least Claim 12 of the current application), wherein each of the micro components comprises:
a bonding pad 12 (paragraph 0219) in direct contact with the transparent adhesive layer 213.
Takagi does not teach an etching stop layer located on a side of the micro components opposite from the bonding pad.
Holden teaches (column 9 lines 40-42) disposing passivation layers of silicon nitride on top and bottom of a chip, where silicon nitride is also one of a well-known in the art etch stop materials (as also Claim 9 of the current application recites).
Takagi and Holden teach analogous arts directed to chips, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Takagi device in view of the Holden teaching, since they are from the same field of endeavor, and Holden created a successfully operated and used device.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application to modify the Takagi micro components by disposing an etching stop layer of silicon nitride on a side of the micro component opposite from the bonding pad, when it is desirable protecting close-located parts of the component by this layer.
In re Claim 2, Takagi/Holden teaches the wafer with micro integrated circuits as claimed in Claim 1, wherein the micro components (being a LED, in the Takagi device) further comprise: a circuit layer – as a stack of an n-type semiconductor and a p-type semiconductor, as appropriate for an LED - between the etching stop layer and the bonding pad.
In re Claim 5, Takagi/Holden teaches the wafer with micro integrated circuits as claimed in Claim 2, wherein the circuit layer comprises at least three sets of driver circuits (e.g., in accordance with the claim interpretation).
In re Claim 6, Takagi/Holden teaches the wafer with micro integrated circuits as claimed in Claim 2, wherein the circuit layer comprises an active circuit element or a passive circuit element – the circuit layer comprises an n-p diode.
In re Claim 9, Takagi/Holden teaches the wafer with micro integrated circuits as claimed in Claim 1, wherein, as shown for Claim 9, a material of the etching stop layer comprises silicon nitride.
In re Claim 10, Takagi/Holden teaches the wafer with micro integrated circuits as claimed in Claim 1, wherein a material of the transparent substrate comprises glass, aluminum oxide, or a sapphire substrate – Takagi teaches substrate 214 (Fig. 6), comprising glass (paragraph 0216).
In re Claim 11, Takagi/Holden teaches the wafer with micro integrated circuits as claimed in Claim 1 as cited above.
Takagi further teaches that the transparent adhesive layer 213 (Fig. 26, paragraph 0216) comprises a laser dissociative material PDMS – a property of being a laser dissociative material is inherent for PDMS (see paragraph 0027 of the published current application for inherency).
In re Claim 12, Takagi/Holden teaches the wafer with micro integrated circuits of Claim 1 as cited above.
Takagi further teaches that a material of the transparent adhesive layer 213 (Fig. 26, paragraph 0216) comprises polyimide (PI), epoxy, silicone, polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), or polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA).
In re Claim 13, Takagi/Holden teaches the wafer with micro integrated circuits of Claim 1 as cited above.
Takagi further teaches (Figs. 1-2, paragraph 0082) that distance between the two adjacent micro components is from 0.5 µm to 100 µm, Takagi teaches a distance being 5 µm.
In re Claim 15, Takagi/Holden teaches the wafer with micro integrated circuits of Claim 1 as cited above.
Takagi further teaches that a material of the bonding pad 2 (Fig. 26) comprises Al, Cu, Au, TiN, Ti, Pt, Cr, Ni, Pd, or a combination thereof (paragraph 0081)
In re Claim 16, Takagi/Holden teaches the wafer with micro integrated circuits of Claim 1 as cited above.
Takagi further teaches that a thickness of the transparent adhesive layers 213 (Fig. 26) is from 0.5 µm to 50 µm – Takagi teaches 10 µm (paragraph 0263).
In re Claim 17, Takagi/Holden teaches the wafer with micro integrated circuits of Claim 1 as cited above.
Takagi further teaches (Figs. 26-28, paragraphs 0216-0219) that the micro components 11 are transferred to a carrier 14 by laser dissociation of the transparent adhesive layers 213.
In re Claim 18, Takagi/Holden teaches the wafer with micro integrated circuits of Claim 17 as cited above.
Takagi further teaches (Fig. 28, paragraphs 0217-0218), wherein the micro components 11 are secured to the carrier 14 by an adhesive layer 13 on the carrier 14 (paragraph 0088).
As far as the claims are understood, Claims 3 and 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi/Holden in view of Iyer et al. (US 2023/0238476)
In re Claim 3, Takagi/Holden teaches the wafer with micro integrated circuit as claimed by Claim 2, wherein the wafer comprises a plurality of micro components each being an LED and each having (as shown for Claim 2) a circuit layer being a stack of p-type and n-type layers emitting a light, the circuit layer between the etching stop layer and the bonding pad.
Takagi/Holden does not teach that in a cross-sectional view, the circuit layer is a tapered structure with a long side and a short side opposite to each other, and wherein the short side of the tapered structure corresponds to a side of the circuit layer near the bonding pad, and the long side of the tapered structure corresponds to a side of the circuit layer near the etching stop layer.
Iyer teaches a micro component (being a micro-LED) 210 (Fig. 2A, paragraph 0088) with a tapered shape, a short top side near a bonding pad (e.g., an electrode of the LED) and a longer bottom side, the top side being opposite to a bottom side, and obviously having a circuit layer (as a stack of an n-type and p-type semiconductors parallel to the top and bottom surfaces of the LED, as it is common in the art – see for example, Fig. 11 of Akaike, US 2004/0026700, on the common knowledge in the art) with a short side near the bonding pad..
Takagi/Holden and Iyer teach analogous arts directed to a micro component being a micro-LED, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Takagi/Holden device in view of the Iyer device, since they are from the same field of endeavor, and Iyer created a successfully operated device.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application to modify the Takagi/Holden device by substituting its micro components having a rectangular shape and a corresponding rectangular shape of the circuit layer, - with micro-LEDs of Iyer having a tapered shape and a tapered shape of the circuit layer, with the short side being near the bonding pad and a long side being closer to the etch stop layer than the short side, when such shapes of the micro components are preferred for the manufacturer. Please, note that in accordance with MPEP 2144.04. I.B, referencing In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), the court held that changes in shape is not patentable since this is a matter of choice of a person of ordinary skill in the art in absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant.
In re Claim 8, Takagi/Holden teaches the wafer with micro integrated circuits of Claim 1 as cited above, but does not teach that thickness of one of the micro components (being micro-LEDs) is less than 30 µm.
Iyer teaches (paragraphs 0003-0004) that a thickness of a micro-LED is in sub-10 µm, which includes thicknesses in a range from 10 µm to 30 µm.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application to create the Takagi micro components with a thickness in a range from 10 µm to 30 µm, wherein it is desirable to enable such parameter of the micro components as their thickness.
As far as the claims are understood, Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi/Holden/Iyer in view of Akaike et al. (US 2004/0026700).
In re Claim 4, Takagi/Holden/Iyer teaches the wafer with micro integrated circuits of Claim 3, as cited above, including the tapered structure of the circuit layer of the micro component, per Iyer, (the micro component being an LED), but Iyer does not explicitly state that an angle between the long side of the tapered structure and a sidewall of the tapered structure between the long side and the short side is from 45 degrees to 90 degrees.
Akaike teaches an LED 48 (Fig. 3D, paragraph 0042), comprised portions 42/41, with a circuit, being a stack of n-type and p-type semiconductor layers within portion 42 (see Fig. 11 and corresponding paragraphs on the circuit), in a tapered shape, wherein an angle between a long side of the tapered structure and a sidewall of the tapered structure being 60 degrees (paragraphs 0032-0033).
Takagi/Holden/Iyer and Akaike teach analogous arts directed to a component being an LED in a tapered shape and having a circuit in a tapered shape, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Takagi/Holden/Iyer device in view of the Akaike device, since they are from the same field of endeavor, and Akaike created a successfully operated device.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application to modify the Takagi/Holden/Iyer device by creating sidewall of the tapered structure between the long side and the short side is from 45 degrees to 90 degrees (e.g., being 60 degrees), when it is desirable to create micro components with a high repeatability of its shape.
As far as the claims are understood, Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi/Holden in view of Akaike.
In re Claim 7, Takagi/Holden teaches the wafer with micro integrated circuits of Claim 2 as cited above, but does not teach that a material of the circuit layer (being a light-emitting layer) comprises silicon, gallium arsenide, or a combination thereof – Takagi teaches GaN (paragraph 0080).
Akaike teaches that various materials can be used for a light emitting layers, including materials incorporating GaN (as InGaN), as well as GaAs (paragraph 0037).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application to substitute in the structure of Claim 2 micro components with the circuit layer being GaN – with micro component having a circuit layer comprised gallium arsenide (per Akaike), if micro components comprised emission radiated from layer GaAs is more preferred for the manufacturer. See MPEP 2144.05 and MPEP 2143 on a Conclusion of Obviousness: KSR Rational (B): Simple Substitution of One Known Element for Another to Obtain Predictable Results.
As far as the claims are understood, Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi/Holden in view of Phillips (US 6,132,909).
In re Claim 14, Takagi/Holden teaches the wafer with micro integrated circuits of Claim 1, as cited above, including the transparent substrate (that would be further used in a process of a laser transfer), but does not teach that a thickness of the transparent substrate is from 50 µm to 2 mm.
Phillips teaches (Fig. 2) that a thickness of a transparent substrate 56 used in a process of a laser transfer is in a range from 12 µm to 250 µm (column 10, lines 31-32).
Takagi/Holden and Philips teach analogous arts directed to transparent substrates used in a process of laser transfer of micron-sized components, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application would have had a reasonable expectation of success in considering the Phillips teaching for constructure the (intermedium) Takagi/Holden device, since they are from the same field of endeavor, and Phillips method was successfully used for the micro components transfer.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application to use for the structure of Claim 1 the transparent substrate with a thickness in the range from 12 µm to 250 µm, in order to further successfully conducting laser transfer of micro components (as shown in figs. 26-28 of Takagi).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo et al. (US 2023/0131636) in view of Iyer.
In re Claim 19, Kuo teaches a semiconductor device with micro integrated circuit, comprising (Figs. 14-15 and Annotated Fig. 15, paragraphs 0051-0053):
Annotated Fig. 15
PNG
media_image1.png
361
495
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a carrier (as an element on which an entire structure of Fig. 14 is disposed) with four electrodes 1 through IV (as in Annotated Fig. 15);
three light-emitting diodes 405 disposed on the carrier;
a micro component 412 disposed on the carrier,
a dielectric layer 440 (paragraphs 0052 and 0034) encapsulating a side surface of the micro component 412; wherein
the micro component 412 has seven electrodes 1 through 7 - as in Annotated Fig. 15 – each electrode connected to a corresponding portion of a redistribute layer 420 connecting this electrode by wires/traces shown in Fig. 15, wherein
four of the seven electrodes - e.g., 1 through 4, as in Annotated Fig. 15 - are input terminals, and the four of the seven electrodes are electrically connected to the four electrodes I through IV respectively, and wherein
the other three of the seven electrodes – such as 5 through 7 – as in Annotated Fig. 15 - are output terminals, and the other three of the seven electrodes are electrically connected to the three light-emitting diodes 405, respectively.
Kuo does not teach that the micro component has a trapezoidal shape in a cross-sectional view.
Iyer teaches a micro component 210 (Fig. 2A, paragraph 0088) with a trapezoidal shape in a cross-sectional view.
Kuo and Iyer teach analogous arts directed to an electrical component, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Kuo device in view of the Iyer device, since they are from the same field of endeavor, and Iyer created a successfully operated device.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application to modify the Kuo device by substituting its micro components 412 having a rectangular shape in a cross-sectional view - with micro component having a trapezoidal shape when such shapes of the micro components are preferred for the manufacturer. Please, note that in accordance with MPEP 2144.04. I.B, referencing In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), the court held that changes in shape is not patentable since this is a matter of choice of a person of ordinary skill in the art in absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Castel (US 2019/0366115) teaches a micro-LED with a thickness in a range (10-30) µm.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to GALINA G YUSHINA whose telephone number is 571-270-7440. The Examiner can normally be reached between 8 AM - 7 PM Pacific Time (Flexible).
Examiner interviews are available. 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 on 571-272-1670.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300; a fax phone number of Galina Yushina is 571-270-8440.
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 visit 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.
/GALINA G YUSHINA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2811, TC 2800,
United States Patent and Trademark Office
E-mail: galina.yushina@USPTO.gov
Phone: 571-270-7440
Date: 07/14/26
Prosecution Insights