DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-18, drawn to a LED chip, classified in H10H 20/841.
II. Claims 19-26, drawn to a method for producing a LED chip, classified in H10H 20/034.
3. The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions II and I are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case the LED chip of Invention I (claims 1-1.
4. Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
Invention I would not be searched in Invention II and would require a search in at least CPC H10H 20/841 along with a unique text search. Invention II would not be searched as Invention I and would require a search in at least CPC H10H 20/034 along with a unique text search.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
5. The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
6. During a telephone conversation with Robert Pyles on September 24, 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of I, claims 1-18. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 19-26 withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Information Disclosure Statement
7. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on October 14, 2024; November 17, 2025; January 26, 2026; and August 3, 2026 were filed on September 2. 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
8. 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 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.
9. Claims 11-14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maute et al (US 2013/0146910 A1, hereafter Maute).
Regarding claim 11, Maute discloses a light-emitting diode (LED) chip (Fig. 1 1; [0038]) comprising:
an active LED structure (Fig. 1 2; [0042]) comprising an n-type layer (Fig. 1 2a; [0042]), a p-type layer (Fig. 1 2b; [0042]), and an active layer (Fig. 1 3; [0042]) between (Fig. 1) the n-type layer (2a) and the p-type layer (2b); and
a reflective structure on the active LED structure (Fig. 1 A+B), the reflective structure (A+B) comprising:
a first metal reflective layer (Fig. 2 5; [0045]) on the active LED structure (2), the first metal reflective layer (5) formed of a first metal ([0049], contains silver); and
a capping layer (Fig. 2 9; [0053]) on the first metal reflective layer (5), the capping layer (9) comprising a noble metal ([0053], gold is known in the art to be a noble metal) that is different than the first metal ([0049]).
Regarding claim 12, Maute discloses the LED chip of claim 11, wherein the noble metal comprises gold ([0053]).
Regarding claim 13, Maute discloses the LED chip of claim 12, wherein the first metal comprises silver ([0049]).
Regarding claim 14, Maute discloses the LED chip of claim 11, wherein the reflective structure (A+B) further comprises a second metal reflective layer (Fig. 3 15; [0058]) formed of the first metal ([0058]), and the capping layer (9) is between (Figs. 1-3) the first metal reflective layer (5) and the second metal reflective layer (15).
Regarding claim 17, Maute discloses the LED chip of claim 14, further comprising a nucleation layer (Fig. 3 14; [0060]) between (Figs. 2+3) the second metal reflective layer (15) and the capping layer (9).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
10. Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maute in view of Cich (US 2015/0155439 A1, hereafter Cich).
Regarding claim 1, Maute discloses a light-emitting diode (LED) chip (Fig. 1 1; [0038]) comprising:
an active LED structure (Fig. 1 2; [0042]) comprising an n-type layer (Fig. 1 2a; [0042]) , a p-type layer (Fig. 1 2b; [0042]), and an active layer (Fig. 1 3; [0038]) between (Fig. 1) the n-type layer (2a) and the p-type layer (2b); and
a reflective structure (Fig. 1 A+B; [0045], [0059]) on the active LED structure (2), the reflective structure (A+B) comprising:
a first metal reflective layer (Fig. 2 5; [0045]) on the active LED structure (2); and
a second metal reflective layer (Fig. 3 15; [0058]) on the active LED structure (2), the second metal reflective layer (15) comprising a same metal ([0045], [0058], both layers contain silver) as the first metal reflective layer (5).
Maute fails to disclose the first metal reflective layer comprising a first morphology, and the second metal reflective layer comprising a second morphology that is different than the first morphology.
Cich discloses different morphologies can affect reflectivity via grain size and arrangement ([0507]), and grain structure can be controlled by selecting deposition parameters and post processing ([0508]). Cich is analogous to Maute in the field of LEDs.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the deposition parameters for the reflective layers in the device of Maute, as taught by Cich ([0507]-[0508]), to achieve a predictable result of having the morphologies of the two layers that are different from each other, to improve device performance by controlling the reflectivity of the two layers.
Regarding claim 2, Maute and Cich disclose the LED chip of claim 1
Maute and Cich fail to explicitly disclose the first morphology comprises a larger grain size than the second morphology.
However, Cich discloses being able to control grain size and structure of the reflective layers ([0507]-[0508]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the modify the grain size of each of the layers via routine experimentation to achieve a predictable result of a grain size of the first morphology larger than the second morphology as claimed to improve device performance by improving reflectivity, as discussed by Cich ([0507], Cich discloses minimizing surface roughness, i.e. grain size, improves reflectivity).
Regarding claim 3, Maute and Cich disclose the LED chip of claim 1, further comprising a capping layer (Maute Fig. 2 9; [0053]) between (Fig. 1) the first metal layer (5) and the second metal layer (15), the capping layer (9) comprising a different metal than the metal of the first and second metal reflective layers (5 and 15) (Maute [0053]).
Regarding claim 4, Maute and Cich disclose the LED chip of claim 3, wherein the metal of the first and second metal reflective layers (5 and 15) comprises silver (Maute [0045], [0058]), and the metal of the capping layer (9) comprises gold (Maute [0053]).
Regarding claim 5, Maute and Cich disclose the LED chip of claim 3, wherein the metal of the first and second metal reflective layers (5 and 15) comprises silver (Maute [0045], [0058]), and the metal of the capping layer (9) comprises nickel (Maute [0053]).
Regarding claim 6, Maute and Cich disclose the LED chip of claim 3, further comprising a nucleation layer (Maute Fig. 3 14; [0060]) between (Figs. 2+3) the second metal reflective layer (15) and the capping layer (9).
Regarding claim 7, Maute and Cich disclose the LED chip of claim 1, wherein the first metal reflective layer (5) comprises a sputtered metal layer (Cich [0507] discloses reflective layer can be formed via sputtering).
11. Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maute and Cich as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhu et al (US 2023/0024651 A1, hereafter Zhu).
Regarding claim 8, Maute and Cich disclose the LED chip of claim 1.
Maute and Cich fail to disclose the first metal reflective layer comprises a physical vapor deposited layer.
Zhu discloses that a metal reflective layer can be formed by physical vapor deposition ([0021]). Zhu is analogous to Maute and Cich in the field of LEDs.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the first metal reflective layer of Maute and Cich via a physical vapor deposition process, as disclosed by Zhu, to control the morphology of the reflective layer for desired device performance.
12. Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maute and Cich as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al (US 2022/0146738 A1, hereafter Lee).
Regarding claim 9, Maute and Cich disclose the LED chip of claim 1.
Maute and Cich fail to explicitly disclose the second metal reflective layer is thicker than first metal reflective layer.
Lee discloses the second metal reflective layer (Fig. 5 240; [0040]) is thicker ([0040]) than first metal reflective layer (Fig. 5 230; [0039]-[0040]). Lee is analogous to Maute and Cich in the field of LEDs.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the thickness of the second reflective layer to be greater than the thickness of the first reflective layer, as disclosed by Lee, to improve device performance by reducing light transmission loss.
13. Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maute and Cich as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chien et al (US 2022/0254955 A1, hereafter Chien) and Check et al (US 2021/0050485 A1, hereafter Check).
Regarding claim 10, Maute and Cich disclose the LED chip of claim 1.
Maute and Cich fail to disclose a dielectric reflective layer between the first metal reflective layer and the active LED structure, wherein a lateral edge of the second metal reflective layer is inset relative to a lateral edge of the first metal reflective layer on the dielectric reflective layer.
Chien discloses a dielectric layer (Fig. 1 110; [0021]) between the first metal reflective layer (Fig. 1 108; [0021]) and the active LED structure (Fig. 1 114+116+118; [0021]), wherein a lateral edge of the second metal reflective layer (vertical edge of 108 bordering 106a or 106b) is inset relative (vertical edges of 108 are within borders of 106a) to a lateral edge of the first metal reflective layer (vertical edge of 106a) on the dielectric layer (110). Chien is analogous to Maute and Cich in the field of LEDs.
Chien fails to explicitly disclose the dielectric layer being a dielectric reflective layer.
Check discloses a dielectric layer that is a reflective layer (Fig. 5A 56; [0078]). Check is analogous to Maute, Cich, and Chien in the field of LEDs.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the structure and configuration of Chien into the device of Maute and Cich and to use a material for the dielectric material disclosed by Check to improve device performance by improving light reflectivity.
11. Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maute as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Cich.
Regarding claim 15, Maute discloses LED chip of claim 14.
Maute fails to disclose the first metal reflective layer comprises a different morphology than the second metal reflective layer.
Cich discloses different morphologies can affect reflectivity via grain size and arrangement ([0507]), and grain structure can be controlled by selecting deposition parameters and post processing ([0508]). Cich is analogous to Maute in the field of LEDs.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the deposition parameters for the reflective layers in the device of Maute, as taught by Cich ([0507]-[0508]), to achieve a predictable result of having the morphologies of the two layers that are different from each other, to improve device performance by controlling the reflectivity of the two layers.
Regarding claim 16, Maute and Cich disclose the LED chip of claim 15, wherein the first metal comprises silver (Maute [0045], [0058]), and the noble metal comprises gold (Maute [0053]).
12. Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maute as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Lee.
Regarding claim 18, Maute discloses the LED chip of claim 14,
Maute fails to explicitly disclose the second metal reflective layer is at least the same thickness as the first metal reflective layer and up to ten times thicker than first metal reflective layer.
Lee discloses the thickness of the second metal reflective layer (Fig. 5 240; [0040]) is equal to or greater than ([0040]) the thickness of the first metal reflective layer (Fig. 5 230; [0039]-[0040]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the thickness of the second reflective layer to be greater than the thickness of the first reflective layer, as disclosed by Lee, to improve device performance by reducing light transmission loss.
Conclusion
13. The following art made of record and not relied upon is pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Zhang et al (US 2023/0008993 A1) discloses a second metal reflective layer thicker than a first metal reflective layer
Hsu et al (US 2016/0111602 A1) discloses a reflective layer with adjustable grain size and reflectivity
Breva et al (US 2021/0050482 A1) discloses a second metal reflective layer inset from a first metal reflective layer
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL B SUN whose telephone number is (571)699-0231. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, N. Drew Richards can be reached at (571) 272-1736. 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.
/MICHAEL B SUN/Examiner, Art Unit 2892
/KHIEM D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2892
Prosecution Insights