DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-8 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/30/2024 was filed after the mailing date of the application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 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, 5, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoo, U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0164947.
Regarding claim 1, Yoo discloses (See Fig. 8):
A hybrid element (assembly of CMOS and micro-LED 100) (Fig. 8), [0031] comprising:
a first element (CMOS cells on silicon 200, substrate 201; [0031], [0049], [0051]) formed on a first substrate, and
a second element (micro-LED 100 mounted on 200; [0032], [0059]-[0062]) formed on the first substrate and different from the first element (LED vs CMOS),
wherein the second element comprises:
a shuttle layer (layer GaN buffer/undoped layer 131a; [0069]-[0071]) configured to be grown on a second substrate (layer 131a grown on sapphire 131; Figs. 2a-2e) formed of a material different from a material of the first substrate (sapphire 131 vs silicon 201; [0049], [0059], [0069]),
an element layer which is provided on the shuttle layer and is configured to be grown on the shuttle layer (grown stack 132/133/134 above layer 131a; [0028], [0042]-[--43], Fig. 2a), and
an electrode layer provided on a surface of the element layer (electrode pad 150 on p-type layer 134).
Regarding claim 5, Yoo discloses:
wherein the first element comprises at least one of a CMOS, a memory, an IC, an optical sensor solar cell (CMOS cells, [0031]), and
wherein the second element comprises at least one of a light-emitting diode, a laser, a detector, electronic element (micro-LED 100, [0028]).
Regarding claim 7, Yoo discloses wherein the electrode layer comprises a plurality of electrodes provided on a same plane and are symmetrical with respect to a center of the electrode layer (Figs. 2, 8; pads 140/150 have coplanar end surfaces, [0044]; the three interior electrode pads 150 arranged with one in the middle and corresponding pads on either side and the outer common pad portion 140 on both side to provide the symmetry arrangement).
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 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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo, U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0164947, in view of Wei et al., U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0285092.
Regarding claim 4, Yoo fails to disclose the two-dimensional material comprises at least one of graphene, a carbon nanotube, hBN, MoS2, WSe2, TMDs).
Wei discloses the two-dimensional graphene layer 110 comprising a layer of carbon atoms ([0038]; [0145], [0149], [0151], Fig. 16; layer 120 is grown in two stages to enclose graphene 110).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Yoo in view of Wei to use graphene as two-dimensional material in order to improve light extraction [0125].
Claims 2-3, 6, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo, U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0164947.
Regarding claim 2, Yoo discloses:
wherein the first substrate comprises group IV material (Silicon 201, [0049]),
second substrate comprises III-V material or sapphire (Sapphire 131, [0069]).
Yoo fails to disclose wherein the second substrate is smaller than the first substrate.
However, the selection of such parameters such as energy, concentration, temperature, time, molar fraction, depth, thickness, etc., would have been obvious and involve routine optimization which has been held to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. "Normally, it is to be expected that a change in energy, concentration, temperature, time, molar fraction, depth, thickness, etc., or in conbination of the parameters would be an unpatentable modification. Under some circumstances, however, changes such as these may impart patentability to a process if the particular ranges claimed produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely degree from the results of the prior art ... such ranges are termed "critical ranges and the applicant has the burden of proving such criticality.... More particularly, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller 105 USPQ233, 255 (CCPA 1955). See also In re Waite 77 USPQ 586 (CCPA 1948); In re Scherl 70 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1946); In re Irmscher 66 USPQ 314 (CCPA 1945); In re Norman 66 USPQ 308 (CCPA 1945); In re Swenson 56 USPQ 372 (CCPA 1942); In re Sola 25 USPQ 433 (CCPA 1935); In re Dreyfus 24 USPQ 52 (CCPA 1934).
Regarding claim 3, Yoo discloses:
Wherein the shuttle layer comprises III-V material (GaN 131a, [0069]),
Wherein the element layer comprises a group III-V material or a two-dimensional material (GaN-based LED semiconductor stack).
Yoo fails to mention that the shuttle layer is thicker than element layer.
However, the selection of such parameters such as energy, concentration, temperature, time, molar fraction, depth, thickness, etc., would have been obvious and involve routine optimization which has been held to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. "Normally, it is to be expected that a change in energy, concentration, temperature, time, molar fraction, depth, thickness, etc., or in conbination of the parameters would be an unpatentable modification. Under some circumstances, however, changes such as these may impart patentability to a process if the particular ranges claimed produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely degree from the results of the prior art ... such ranges are termed "critical ranges and the applicant has the burden of proving such criticality.... More particularly, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller 105 USPQ233, 255 (CCPA 1955). See also In re Waite 77 USPQ 586 (CCPA 1948); In re Scherl 70 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1946); In re Irmscher 66 USPQ 314 (CCPA 1945); In re Norman 66 USPQ 308 (CCPA 1945); In re Swenson 56 USPQ 372 (CCPA 1942); In re Sola 25 USPQ 433 (CCPA 1935); In re Dreyfus 24 USPQ 52 (CCPA 1934).
Regarding claims 6 and 8, Yoo fails to disclose wherein a size of the second element is smaller than a size of the first element (claim 6), nor element layer has an asymmetrical structure and electrode provided in parallel although Yoo discloses the electrodes are in the same plane. However, the selection of such parameters such as energy, concentration, temperature, time, molar fraction, depth, thickness, etc., would have been obvious and involve routine optimization which has been held to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. "Normally, it is to be expected that a change in energy, concentration, temperature, time, molar fraction, depth, thickness, etc., or in conbination of the parameters would be an unpatentable modification. Under some circumstances, however, changes such as these may impart patentability to a process if the particular ranges claimed produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely degree from the results of the prior art ... such ranges are termed "critical ranges and the applicant has the burden of proving such criticality.... More particularly, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller 105 USPQ233, 255 (CCPA 1955). See also In re Waite 77 USPQ 586 (CCPA 1948); In re Scherl 70 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1946); In re Irmscher 66 USPQ 314 (CCPA 1945); In re Norman 66 USPQ 308 (CCPA 1945); In re Swenson 56 USPQ 372 (CCPA 1942); In re Sola 25 USPQ 433 (CCPA 1935); In re Dreyfus 24 USPQ 52 (CCPA 1934).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAO P LE whose telephone number is (571)272-1785. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeff Natalini can be reached on 571-272-2266. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-872-9306.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/THAO P LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
