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 without traverse of Species 3 in the reply filed on 8/13/2026 is acknowledged.
Prior Art of Record
The applicant's attention is directed to additional pertinent prior art cited in the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited, which, however, may not be currently applied as a basis for the following rejections. While these references were considered during the examination of this application and are deemed relevant to the claimed subject matter, they are not presently being applied as a basis for rejection in this Office action. The pertinence of these documents, however, may be revisited, and they may be applied in subsequent Office actions, particularly in light of any amendments or further clarification of the claimed invention.
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(s) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (GaInN light-emitting diode with conductive omnidirectional reflector having a low-refractive-index indium-tin oxide layer, Appl. Phys. Lett. 88, 013501 (2006)) in view of Schubert, E. F. (Light-Emitting Diodes, 2nd Ed., Cambridge University Press (2006))
CLAIM 1. Kim teaches a light emitting diode (LED) package structure (Kim, p. 013501-3, Fig. 4(b)) comprising:
a light-emitting layer (Kim, p. 013501-3, Fig. 4(b), "Active layer");
a first medium layer arranged on a side of the light-emitting layer, wherein a first surface is provided on a side of the first medium layer close to the light-emitting layer, the first surface is attached to the light-emitting layer (Kim, p. 013501-3, Fig. 4(b), Kim discloses a first medium layer (p-type GaN cladding/semiconductor layer) arranged directly on the active layer.);
a second medium layer arranged on a side of the first medium layer away from the light-emitting layer, wherein a second surface is provided on a side of the first medium layer away from the light-emitting layer, a third surface is provided on a side of the second medium layer close to the first medium layer, the second surface is attached to the third surface, a refractive index of the second surface is larger than a refractive index of the third surface (Kim, p. 013501-3, Fig. 4(b), low-index layer ("Low-n ITO") positioned above the p-type GaN).
Kim discloses a low-index layer ("Low-n ITO") positioned above the p-type GaN layer (np-GaN ≈ 2.5 > nlow-n ITO = 1.34), but fails to explicitly disclose a three-medium step-down refractive index stack. However, Schubert discloses modifying an optical interface in an LED by incorporating a multi-layer step-down gradient stack comprising a second medium layer sequentially arranged over a first medium layer where the refractive index of the second surface is larger than the refractive index of the third surface (n2 > n3) (Schubert, Chapter 9).
A third medium layer arranged on a side of the second medium layer away from the first medium layer, wherein a fourth surface is provided on the side of the second medium layer away from the first medium layer, a fifth surface is provided on a side of the third medium layer close to the second medium layer, the fourth surface is attached to the fifth surface, a refractive index of the fourth surface is larger than a refractive index of the fifth surface (Schubert, Chapter 9. Schubert discloses arranging a third medium layer over the second medium layer to continue the step-down refractive index gradient where nsurface4 > nsurface5); and
a reflective layer arranged on a side of the third medium layer away from the second medium layer (Kim, p. 013501-3, Fig. 4(b), "Ag" silver reflector layer - Kim discloses a metal reflective layer arranged over the dielectric stack away from the active region. Schubert explicitly teaches omnidirectional reflector stacks comprising intermediate low-index dielectric layers positioned beneath a metallic reflective boundary (Schubert, Chapter 10).).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) at the time of the invention to modify the device of Kim by substituting the single low-index ITO layer with the multi-layer, step-down refractive index stack taught by Schubert (Chapters 9 and 10). Kim discloses a configuration optimized for light extraction but limited by the single-step refractive index transition between the p-GaN layer and the low-index ITO layer. Schubert explicitly teaches that incorporating a multi-layer gradient stack progressively bridges large refractive index mismatches at optical boundaries. A PHOSITA would have been motivated to implement Schubert's step-down gradient configuration in the LED interface of Kim to minimize destructive internal Fresnel reflections across the intermediate boundaries, thereby maximizing forward light extraction toward the metallic reflector layer.
This proposed modification is nothing more than the predictable combination of known prior art elements according to their established functions thought in text books. Applying the known step-down index matching technique of Schubert to the known LED device of Kim yields the predictable result of enhanced extraction efficiency via suppressed interface reflections. Modifying Kim's design in this manner represents a predictable implementation of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to achieve predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
CLAIM 2. Kim in view of Schubert teaches the LED package structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first medium layer comprises a first refractor layer and a second refractor layer, the first refractor layer is close to the light-emitting layer, the second refractor layer is close to the second medium layer, the first surface is provided on a side of the first refractor layer away from the second refractor layer (Kim, p. 013501-3, Fig. 4(b) & Schubert, Chapter 9);
the second medium layer comprises a third refractor layer and a fourth refractor layer, the third refractor layer is close to the first medium layer, the fourth refractor layer is close to the third medium layer, the third surface is provided on a side of the third refractor layer away from the fourth refractor layer, the fourth surface is provided on a side of the fourth refractor layer away from the third refractor layer; a refractive index of the second refractor layer is larger than a refractive index of the third refractor layer layer (Kim, p. 013501-3, Fig. 4(b) & Schubert, Chapter 9 - Schubert further discloses configuring the medium layers as distinct refractor sub-layers (a first refractor layer and a second refractor layer within the first medium layer; a third refractor layer and a fourth refractor layer within the second medium layer) with stepped intermediate refractive indices, providing a step-down profile between adjacent internal sub-layers such that the refractive index of the second refractor layer is larger than the refractive index of the third refractor layer).
CLAIM 3. Kim in view of Schubert teaches the LED package structure as claimed in claim 2, wherein the refractive index of the second refractor layer is larger than a refractive index of the first refractor layer (Kim, p. 013501-3, Fig. 4(b) & Schubert, Chapter 9).
CLAIM 4. Kim in view of Schubert teaches the LED package structure as claimed in claim 3, wherein a refractive index of the fourth refractor layer is larger than the refractive index of the third refractor layer (Kim, p. 013501-3, Fig. 4(b) & Schubert, Chapter 9 - Schubert further discloses multi-layer refractor configurations wherein the refractive index of the fourth refractor layer is larger than the refractive index of the third refractor layer).
CLAIM 5. Kim in view of Schubert teaches the LED package structure as claimed in claim 3, wherein a refractive index of the fourth refractor layer is less than the refractive index of the third refractor layer (Kim, p. 013501-3, Fig. 4(b) & Schubert, Chapter 9 - Schubert further discloses step-down refractor configurations wherein the refractive index of the fourth refractor layer is less than the refractive index of the third refractor layer to maintain a monotonic step-down optical profile toward the reflector).
CLAIM 6. Kim in view of Schubert teaches the LED package structure as claimed in claim 2, wherein a refractive index of the first refractor layer is larger than the refractive index of the second refractor layer, a refractive index of the fourth refractor layer is larger than the refractive index of the third refractor layer (Kim, p. 013501-3, Fig. 4(b) & Schubert, Chapter 9 - Schubert further discloses tailoring multi-layer thin-film profiles where the refractive index of the first refractor layer is larger than the second refractor layer, and the refractive index of the fourth refractor layer is larger than the third refractor layer).
CLAIM 7. Kim in view of Schubert teaches the LED package structure as claimed in claim 2, wherein the first medium layer further comprises a fifth refractor layer, the fifth refractor layer is arranged between the second refractor layer and the third refractor layer, the second surface is provided on a side of the fifth refractor layer away from the first refractor layer; a refractive index of the first refractor layer is larger than the refractive index of the second refractor layer, the refractive index of the second refractor layer is less than a refractive index of the fifth refractor layer, the refractive index of the fifth refractor layer is larger than the refractive index of the third refractor layer (Kim, p. 013501-3, Fig. 4(b) & Schubert, Chapter 9 - Schubert further discloses multi-layer optical stacks incorporating an intermediate fifth refractor layer arranged between sub-layers, providing modified intermediate refractive index distributions where nrefractor1 > nrefractor2, nrefractor2 < n nrefractor5, and n nrefractor5 > n nrefractor3 to alter destructive phase interference conditions. ). Selecting relative index distributions across internal sub-layers represents routine optimization of multi-layer optical coatings.).
8. Kim in view of Schubert teaches the LED package structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein the light-emitting layer comprises one or more LED chip, the LED chip emits light to the first medium layer, the second medium layer, the third medium layer and the reflective layer (Kim, p. 013501-3, Fig. 4(b)).
CLAIM 9. A display device comprising:
a light-emitting layer (Kim, p. 013501-3, Fig. 4(b));
a first medium layer arranged on a side of the light-emitting layer, wherein a first surface is provided on a side of the first medium layer close to the light-emitting layer, the first surface is attached to the light-emitting layer (Kim, p. 013501-3, Fig. 4(b), Kim discloses a first medium layer (p-type GaN cladding/semiconductor layer) arranged directly on the active layer.);
a second medium layer arranged on a side of the first medium layer away from the light-emitting layer, wherein a second surface is provided on a side of the first medium layer away from the light-emitting layer, a third surface is provided on a side of the second medium layer close to the first medium layer, the second surface is attached to the third surface, a refractive index of the second surface is larger than a refractive index of the third surface (Kim, p. 013501-3, Fig. 4(b), low-index layer ("Low-n ITO") positioned above the p-type GaN).
Kim discloses a low-index layer ("Low-n ITO") positioned above the p-type GaN layer (np-GaN ≈ 2.5 > nlow-n ITO = 1.34), but fails to explicitly disclose a three-medium step-down refractive index stack. However, Schubert discloses modifying an optical interface in an LED by incorporating a multi-layer step-down gradient stack comprising a second medium layer sequentially arranged over a first medium layer where the refractive index of the second surface is larger than the refractive index of the third surface (n2 > n3) (Schubert, Chapter 9);
A third medium layer arranged on a side of the second medium layer away from the first medium layer, wherein a fourth surface is provided on the side of the second medium layer away from the first medium layer, a fifth surface is provided on a side of the third medium layer close to the second medium layer, the fourth surface is attached to the fifth surface, a refractive index of the fourth surface is larger than a refractive index of the fifth surface (Schubert, Chapter 9. Schubert discloses arranging a third medium layer over the second medium layer to continue the step-down refractive index gradient where nsurface4 > nsurface5); and
a reflective layer arranged on a side of the third medium layer away from the second medium layer (Kim, p. 013501-3, Fig. 4(b), "Ag" silver reflector layer - Kim discloses a metal reflective layer arranged over the dielectric stack away from the active region. Schubert explicitly teaches omnidirectional reflector stacks comprising intermediate low-index dielectric layers positioned beneath a metallic reflective boundary (Schubert, Chapter 10).).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) at the time of the invention to modify the device of Kim by substituting the single low-index ITO layer with the multi-layer, step-down refractive index stack taught by Schubert (Chapters 9 and 10). Kim discloses a configuration optimized for light extraction but limited by the single-step refractive index transition between the p-GaN layer and the low-index ITO layer. Schubert explicitly teaches that incorporating a multi-layer gradient stack progressively bridges large refractive index mismatches at optical boundaries. A PHOSITA would have been motivated to implement Schubert's step-down gradient configuration in the LED interface of Kim to minimize destructive internal Fresnel reflections across the intermediate boundaries, thereby maximizing forward light extraction toward the metallic reflector layer.
This proposed modification is nothing more than the predictable combination of known prior art elements according to their established functions thought in text books. Applying the known step-down index matching technique of Schubert to the known LED device of Kim yields the predictable result of enhanced extraction efficiency via suppressed interface reflections. Modifying Kim's design in this manner represents a predictable implementation of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to achieve predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
CLAIM 10. The display device as claimed in claim 9, wherein the first medium layer comprises a first refractor layer and a second refractor layer, the first refractor layer is close to the light-emitting layer, the second refractor layer is close to the second medium layer, the first surface is provided on a side of the first refractor layer away from the second refractor layer(Kim, p. 013501-3, Fig. 4(b) & Schubert, Chapter 9);
the second medium layer comprises a third refractor layer and a fourth refractor layer, the third refractor layer is close to the first medium layer, the fourth refractor layer is close to the third medium layer, the third surface is provided on a side of the third refractor layer away from the fourth refractor layer, the fourth surface is provided on a side of the fourth refractor layer away from the third refractor layer; a refractive index of the second refractor layer is larger than a refractive index of the third refractor layer (Kim, p. 013501-3, Fig. 4(b) & Schubert, Chapter 9 - Schubert further discloses configuring the medium layers as distinct refractor sub-layers (a first refractor layer and a second refractor layer within the first medium layer; a third refractor layer and a fourth refractor layer within the second medium layer) with stepped intermediate refractive indices, providing a step-down profile between adjacent internal sub-layers such that the refractive index of the second refractor layer is larger than the refractive index of the third refractor layer).
CLAIM 11. The display device as claimed in claim 10, wherein the refractive index of the second refractor layer is larger than a refractive index of the first refractor layer (Kim, p. 013501-3, Fig. 4(b) & Schubert, Chapter 9).
CLAIM 12. The display device as claimed in claim 11, wherein a refractive index of the fourth refractor layer is larger than the refractive index of the third refractor layer (Kim, p. 013501-3, Fig. 4(b) & Schubert, Chapter 9 - Schubert further discloses multi-layer refractor configurations wherein the refractive index of the fourth refractor layer is larger than the refractive index of the third refractor layer).
CLAIM 13. The display device as claimed in claim 11, wherein a refractive index of the fourth refractor layer is less than the refractive index of the third refractor layer (Kim, p. 013501-3, Fig. 4(b) & Schubert, Chapter 9 - Schubert further discloses step-down refractor configurations wherein the refractive index of the fourth refractor layer is less than the refractive index of the third refractor layer to maintain a monotonic step-down optical profile toward the reflector).
CLAIM 14. The display device as claimed in claim 10, wherein a refractive index of the first refractor layer is larger than the refractive index of the second refractor layer, a refractive index of the fourth refractor layer is larger than the refractive index of the third refractor layer (Kim, p. 013501-3, Fig. 4(b) & Schubert, Chapter 9 - Schubert further discloses tailoring multi-layer thin-film profiles where the refractive index of the first refractor layer is larger than the second refractor layer, and the refractive index of the fourth refractor layer is larger than the third refractor layer).
CLAIM 15. The display device as claimed in claim 10, wherein the first medium layer further comprises a fifth refractor layer, the fifth refractor layer is arranged between the second refractor layer and the third refractor layer, the second surface is provided on a side of the fifth refractor layer away from the first refractor layer; a refractive index of the first refractor layer is larger than the refractive index of the second refractor layer, the refractive index of the second refractor layer is less than a refractive index of the fifth refractor layer, the refractive index of the fifth refractor layer is larger than the refractive index of the third refractor layer (Kim, p. 013501-3, Fig. 4(b) & Schubert, Chapter 9 - Schubert further discloses multi-layer optical stacks incorporating an intermediate fifth refractor layer arranged between sub-layers, providing modified intermediate refractive index distributions where nrefractor1 > nrefractor2, nrefractor2 < n nrefractor5, and n nrefractor5 > n nrefractor3 to alter destructive phase interference conditions. ). Selecting relative index distributions across internal sub-layers represents routine optimization of multi-layer optical coatings.).
CLAIM 16. The display device as claimed in claim 9, wherein the light-emitting layer comprises one or more LED chip, the one or more LED chip emits light to the first medium layer, the second medium layer, the third medium layer and the reflective layer (Kim, p. 013501-3, Fig. 4(b)).
CLAIM 17. The display device as claimed in claim 9, wherein the display device further comprises a drive circuit and a diffusion plate, the drive circuit is coupled with the LED package structure, the drive circuit is configured to drive the LED package structure to emit light, the diffusion plate is arranged on a side of the LED package structure, the diffusion plate is configured to adjust propagation direction of the light (Kim, p. 013501-3, Fig. 4(b) - . Kim further discloses utilizing the LED package within display and illumination modules (Kim, p. 013501-1). Incorporating a conventional drive circuit coupled to the LED package to drive light emission, along with a standard diffusion plate arranged on a side of the package to adjust the light propagation direction, represents the standard integration of well-known auxiliary display components.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARRETT J STARK whose telephone number is (571)272-6005. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4 M-F.
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.
JARRETT J. STARK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2822
9/3/2026
/JARRETT J STARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights