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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is written in legal terminology which is too similar to claim language. In particular, legal phraseology such as the term “comprising”, “said” and “wherein” which are commonly used to define the limitations and scope pf patent claims, should generally be avoided in U.S. patent abstracts because the purpose of the abstract is not to define the patent claims, but to provide the reader with a clear and concise summary. The abstract should use plain language to describe the invention's technical problem, solution, and principal use. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” etc. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Specification Objection
The specification is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) because the reference numerals used in the description are inconsistent with those previously defined in the specification and the drawings. Correction is required to ensure that the reference numerals consistently correspond to the same elements throughout the application. See MPEP §608.01(o).
Objection 1
Paragraph [0151] identifies the second-type epitaxial layer as reference numeral 02. Paragraph [0152] identifies the light-emitting layer as reference numeral 03. However, paragraph [0165] states that the mesa structure comprises "a first-type epitaxial layer 01, a light-emitting layer 02, and a second-type epitaxial layer 03," thereby reversing the reference numerals assigned to the light-emitting layer and the second-type epitaxial layer. Appropriate correction is required so that the reference numerals are used consistently throughout the specification.
Objection 2
Paragraph [0164] states that the mesa structure comprises "01, 02 and 03." In view of the definitions established in paragraphs [0151]–[0152], the description of the mesa structure in paragraph [0164] is inconsistent with the subsequently identified components in paragraph [0165], resulting in ambiguity as to whether reference numeral 02 corresponds to the second-type epitaxial layer or the light-emitting layer, and whether reference numeral 03 corresponds to the light-emitting layer or the second-type epitaxial layer. Appropriate correction is required.
Objection 3
Applicant is required to review the specification to ensure that reference numerals 02 and 03 are used consistently for the second-type epitaxial layer and the light-emitting layer, respectively, throughout the entire specification and in conformity with the drawings. Any additional inconsistencies should be corrected by appropriate amendment.
Claim Interpretation – Product-by-Process Limitations
The pending apparatus claims recite, inter alia, "a re-growth layer grown at least on a sidewall of the light-emitting layer," "epitaxially regrown," and "epitaxial layer." These recitations define the claimed apparatus in terms of the process by which certain structural features are formed and are therefore interpreted as product-by-process limitations. During examination, the claimed apparatus is evaluated based on its structural characteristics, not on the manufacturing process recited in the claims. Accordingly, the prior art need only disclose the same or substantially the same structure, regardless of whether the prior art employs the identical epitaxial regrowth process. See MPEP §2113.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bour (US 20170170360).
Regarding claim 1. Bour (US 2017/0170360 A1) discloses a micro LED panel having a micro LED array (Fig. 10D; Fig. 25A; [0109], [0166]), comprising a plurality of micro LED structures (Fig. 10D; Fig. 10E; [0109]). Each of the plurality of micro LED structures comprises:
a mesa structure (Fig. 10E), comprising a first-type epitaxial layer 112 (n-doped) [0082], a light-emitting layer 108 [0108], and a second-type epitaxial layer 104 (p-doped) [0082] from bottom to top; and
a re-growth layer 1002 grown at least on a sidewall of the light-emitting layer (Fig. 10E; [0109]).
Regarding claim 2. Bour discloses the micro LED panel of claim 1, wherein the re-growth layer 1002 is grown on substantially the whole sidewall of the light-emitting layer 108 and extends onto a part of the second-type epitaxial layer 104, as illustrated in Fig. 10E.
Regarding claim 3. Bour discloses the micro LED panel of claim 1, wherein the re-growth layer 1002 is not parallel to an extending direction of the light-emitting layer 108, as illustrated in Fig. 10E. Specifically, the light-emitting layer 108 extends generally in a horizontal direction, whereas the re-growth layer 1002 extends obliquely along the sidewall of the mesa structure and is therefore not parallel to the extending direction of the light-emitting layer.
Regarding claim 6. Bour discloses the micro LED panel according to claim 1, wherein the re-growth layer 1002 is grown only on the sidewall of the light-emitting layer 108 and is not grown on the top surface or the bottom surface of the light-emitting layer, as illustrated in Fig. 10E. Specifically, the upper end of the re-growth layer 1002 terminates substantially coplanar with the top surface of the second-type epitaxial layer 104, and the lower end of the re-growth layer terminates substantially coplanar with the bottom surface of the first-type epitaxial layer 112, such that the re-growth layer covers only the edge surface of the light-emitting layer 108 and does not extend onto its top or bottom surfaces.
Regarding claim 7. Bour discloses the micro LED panel according to claim 1, wherein the light-emitting layer 108 comprises a plurality of quantum wells. Specifically, Bour teaches that the active layer 108 may be a multiple quantum well (MQW) layer [0082]. Further, as illustrated in Fig. 10E, the re-growth layer 1002 extends obliquely along the sidewall of the mesa structure, while the multiple quantum wells of the light-emitting layer extend generally horizontally. Accordingly, the re-growth layer 1002 is not parallel to the surface of each of the plurality of quantum wells.
Regarding claim 8. Bour discloses the micro LED panel according to claim 6, wherein the cross section of the light-emitting layer 108 has a straight-line shape without any bending, as illustrated in Fig. 10E. Specifically, the light-emitting layer 108 is depicted as a planar layer extending laterally across the mesa structure with substantially straight top and bottom surfaces and without any bends or curvature in cross section. Accordingly, Bour teaches the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 9. Bour discloses the micro LED panel according to claim 1, wherein the re-growth layer 1002 comprises a material having the same base semiconductor material as one of the epitaxial layers. Specifically, Bour teaches that the passivation layer 1002 may comprise GaN and may be insulating or p-type [0109]. Bour further teaches that the p-n diode layer 115 is formed of Group III-nitride materials including GaN [0083]-[0084]. Thus, the re-growth layer and the epitaxial layer may comprise the same semiconductor material, namely GaN. Furthermore, Bour teaches that the passivation layer 1002 may be insulating, indicating the absence of extrinsic doping ions. Accordingly, Bour teaches a re-growth layer having the same material as the epitaxial layer and not including extrinsic doping ions.
Regarding claim 10. Bour discloses the micro LED panel according to claim 1, wherein the re-growth layer 1002 comprises GaN [0109]. Since GaN is one of the materials recited in the claimed group consisting of GaP, AlP, GaAs, InP, AlInP, GaInP, AlN, GaN, and InN, Bour teaches the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 11. Bour discloses the micro LED panel according to claim 1, wherein the re-growth layer, the first-type epitaxial layer, and the second-type epitaxial layer are monocrystals. Specifically, Bour teaches that the mesa structure comprises epitaxially grown semiconductor layers [0082]-[0084] and that the sidewall passivation layer 902/1002 is grown epitaxially on the crystal sidewalls of the mesa structure [0107], [0109]. Bour further teaches that the LEDs are formed from Group III-V semiconductor materials, including GaN, AlGaN, InGaN, and AlInP, by epitaxial growth. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that epitaxial growth produces a monocrystalline layer having the crystallographic orientation of the underlying seed crystal. Accordingly, Bour teaches that the re-growth layer, the first-type epitaxial layer, and the second-type epitaxial layer are monocrystalline.
Regarding claim 12. Bour discloses the micro LED panel according to claim 1, wherein the re-growth layer 1002 comprises GaN [0109], while the light-emitting layer 108 comprises InGaN [0084]. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that GaN has a larger band gap than InGaN, since incorporation of indium into GaN reduces the band gap to enable light emission at longer wavelengths. Accordingly, Bour teaches that the band gap of the re-growth layer is greater than the band gap of the light-emitting layer.
Regarding claim 13. Bour discloses the micro LED panel according to claim 1, wherein the thickness of the re-growth layer is less than the thickness of the light-emitting layer. Specifically, Bour teaches that the active region 108 is formed from one or more quantum well layers 107 and quantum barrier layers 109 positioned between the cladding layers [0130], whereas the sidewall passivation (re-growth) layer is a relatively thin layer formed on the sidewall. Bour further teaches that the sidewall passivation layer may have a thickness of 1–100 nm [0127], while the active region comprises multiple quantum well and quantum barrier layers and is correspondingly thicker than the passivation layer. Accordingly, Bour teaches that the thickness of the re-growth layer is less than the thickness of the light-emitting layer.
Regarding claim 14. Bour discloses the micro LED panel according to claim 13, wherein the thickness of the re-growth layer is less than or equal to about 100 nm. Specifically, Bour teaches that the sidewall passivation layer 170 may have a thickness between 0 and 1,000 nm, such as 1 to 100 nm (Fig. 17C; [0127]). The sidewall passivation layer corresponds to the claimed re-growth layer. Accordingly, Bour teaches the claimed thickness of the re-growth layer being less than or equal to about 100 nm.
Regarding claim 15. Bour discloses the micro LED panel according to claim 1, wherein the resistance of the re-growth layer is higher than the resistance of the light-emitting layer. Specifically, Bour teaches that the passivation (re-growth) layer 1002 may comprise GaN, which can be insulating relative to the p-n diode layer [0109]. Since an insulating material has a substantially higher electrical resistance than the semiconductor light-emitting layer, Bour teaches the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 16. Bour discloses the micro LED panel according to claim 15, wherein the re-growth layer is not electrically conductive. Specifically, Bour teaches that the passivation (re-growth) layer 1002 may comprise GaN, which can be insulating relative to the p-n diode layer [0109]. An insulating material is not electrically conductive. Accordingly, Bour teaches the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 17. Bour discloses the micro LED panel according to claim 1, wherein a dielectric layer is formed between adjacent mesa structures and on the surface of the re-growth layer. Specifically, Bour teaches that, following formation of the mesa structures, a sacrificial release layer 122 is formed over the patterned p-n diode layer and between adjacent mesa structures (Fig. 10D; [0086]). Bour further teaches that the sacrificial release layer 122 may comprise an oxide, such as SiO₂, or a nitride, such as SiNₓ, both of which are dielectric materials. As illustrated in Fig. 10D, the sacrificial release layer 122 covers the exposed surface of the re-growth layer 1002 and fills the regions between adjacent mesa structures. Accordingly, Bour teaches the claimed dielectric layer formed between adjacent mesa structures and on the surface of the re-growth layer.
Regarding claim 18. Bour discloses the micro LED panel according to claim 17, wherein a bottom-connected structure is formed at a bottom of the mesa structure and electrically connected to the first-type epitaxial layer, and a top conductive layer is formed on the second-type epitaxial layer and electrically connected to the second-type epitaxial layer. Specifically, Bour teaches the formation of conductive contacts 116 on the exposed p-doped current spreading layer 112 prior to formation of the mesa structures (Fig. 4C; [0086]). Following transfer of the mesa structures to a carrier substrate, Bour further teaches formation of a top conductive contact 142 (Fig. 4D), as described with respect to Figs. 1B–1F. Thus, conductive contact 116 functions as the bottom-connected structure electrically connected to the first-type epitaxial layer after transfer of the mesa structure, while conductive contact 142 functions as the top conductive layer electrically connected to the second-type epitaxial layer. Accordingly, Bour teaches the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 19. Bour discloses the micro LED panel according to claim 17, wherein the dielectric layer comprises one or more of the claimed materials. Specifically, Bour teaches that the sacrificial release layer 122 may be formed of an oxide, such as SiO₂, or a nitride, such as SiNₓ (Fig. 10D; [0086]). Since SiO₂ and SiNₓ are expressly recited among the claimed dielectric materials, Bour teaches the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 20. Bour discloses the micro LED panel according to claim 1, wherein the first-type epitaxial layer and the second-type epitaxial layer comprise one or more of the claimed semiconductor materials. Specifically, Bour teaches that the p-n diode layer 115 includes epitaxial layers formed of GaAs, AlGaAs, AlInP, AlGaInP, GaN, AlGaN, and InGaN ([0083]-[0084], [0130]). Bour further teaches that the epitaxial layers are doped with p-type or n-type dopants to form the corresponding p-type and n-type semiconductor layers. Accordingly, Bour teaches the claimed first-type and second-type epitaxial layer materials.
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.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Bour (US 20170170360).
Regarding claim 4. Bour discloses The micro LED panel according to claim 3. But Bour does not expressly disclose that the inclined angle of the re-growth layer relative to the extending direction of the light-emitting layer is about 30 degrees to about 90 degrees.
However, Bour illustrates the re-growth layer 1002 extending along the mesa sidewall at a substantial acute angle relative to the generally horizontal light-emitting layer 108 (Fig. 10E).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select an inclined angle of the re-growth layer within the claimed range of about 30 degrees to about 90 degrees, since the illustrated sidewall geometry is consistent with an acute angle within the claimed range. Further, the instant specification does not disclose that the claimed angle range is critical or yields any unexpected results relative to other acute angles. Accordingly, selecting an angle within the claimed range would have constituted no more than routine optimization of a result-effective variable to obtain the desired sidewall re-growth geometry.
Regarding claim 5. Bour discloses a micro LED panel according to claim 1, wherein the mesa structure has a diameter of about 1 μm to about 20 μm [0135].
But Bour does not expressly disclose a mesa structure having a diameter less than or equal to about 3 μm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a mesa diameter less than or equal to about 3 μm, since the claimed diameter falls within the range disclosed by Bour. Furthermore, the instant specification does not disclose that the claimed upper limit of about 3 μm is critical or that it achieves any unexpected results over other diameters within the range disclosed by Bour. Accordingly, the claimed diameter represents no more than an optimization of a result-effective variable, the selection of which would have been within the ordinary skill of the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Changhyun Yi whose telephone number is (571)270-7799. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8A-4P.
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, Davienne Monbleau can be reached on 571-272-1945. 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.
/Changhyun Yi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights