DETAILED ACTION
The preliminary amendment filed November 6, 2024, amending the claims, has been entered.
Claims 1–32 are pending and have been examined on the merits below.
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.
Domestic Benefit
This application, filed October 10, 2024, is an original United States nonprovisional application. No benefit of a prior-filed United States application is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c). This application is not a national stage application under 35 U.S.C. 371.
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China (PCT/CN2023/124487) on October 13, 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the PCT/CN2023/124487 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
An attempt by the Office to electronically retrieve the foreign application under the Priority Document Exchange program failed on March 13, 2025 (Document indicating retrieval request was unsuccessful). A certified copy of the foreign application is therefore required. Applicants continue to bear the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that the priority document is filed during the pendency of the application and before the patent is issued. Accordingly, applicant is required to furnish a certified copy of PCT/CN2023/124487 and is encouraged to check as necessary to confirm receipt by the Office. See 37 CFR 1.55 and MPEP 215.02(a).1
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed October 10, 2024, has been considered. The information disclosure statement was filed before the mailing of a first Office action on the merits and complies with 37 CFR 1.97(b) and 1.98. The information disclosure statement is considered signed by the “Transmittal of New Application” received October 10, 2024 that mentions the aforementioned information disclosure statement.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. See 37 CFR 1.72(a) and MPEP 606.01. The following title is suggested: “Micro LED display panel having an integral epitaxial micro-lens.”
Claim Interpretation
The claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111. The specification is used to understand the claim terms. The prior art is then measured against the claim language at that breadth, not against the preferred embodiment. “Micro lens structure” is a lens-shaped portion of the second-type epitaxial layer. “Bottom structure” is the portion of that same second-type epitaxial layer that remains under the lens and on the light-emitting layer. “Integrated structure” means those two portions are one piece of the same layer. The claim does not require the reference numerals, heights, or two-part drawing of the specification. Product-by-process language such as “formed on” is given weight only to the extent it defines structure. See MPEP 2113.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC 102 and 103
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.
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.
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 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.
A. Prior Art Rejections Based on Primary Reference Lutgen
Claims 1, 3, and 24–26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lutgen et al. (US 2022/0271207 A1, published August 25, 2022; “Lutgen”).
Regarding independent claim 1,
Lutgen teaches a micro LED display panel (display system comprising an array of micro-LEDs; Abstract; FIGS. 19B, 21C, 26A, 39E), comprising a micro LED array area including a plurality of micro LED structures (micro-LEDs 1920, 2150, 2600), wherein each of the micro LED structures comprises:
Lutgen teaches a first type epitaxial layer (p-side semiconductor of mesa 2152 / 2610; FIGS. 21C, 26A).
Lutgen teaches a light emitting layer (MQW of micro-LED 2600; FIG. 26A) formed on the first type epitaxial layer (MQW in the mesa stack on the p-side semiconductor; FIG. 26A).
Lutgen teaches a second type epitaxial layer (n-type semiconductor layer 2720 / 2830, into which lens 3960 is etched; FIGS. 27A, 28, 39E) formed on the light emitting layer (n-type layer on the MQW; FIG. 26A), wherein the second type epitaxial layer comprises a micro lens structure (native micro-lens 1924 / 2154 / 2650 / 3960 etched in the n-type layer; FIGS. 19B, 21C, 26A, 39E) and a bottom structure (portion of that same n-type layer still present under the lens and on the MQW; FIGS. 19B, 21C, 26A), the micro lens structure and the bottom structure being an integrated structure (lens and remaining n-type layer are one continuous piece of the second-type epi; FIGS. 19B, 21C, 26A, 39E).
PNG
media_image1.png
1164
927
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Exemplary Figure 21C from Lutgen (native micro-lens 2154 on mesa 2152)
Regarding claim 24,
Lutgen teaches the first type epitaxial layer (III-V p-side of the mesa; FIGS. 21C, 26A) and the second type epitaxial layer (GaN or AlGaAs n-type layer 2830; FIG. 28) as III-V semiconductor, and the light emitting layer (MQW; FIG. 26A).
Regarding claim 25,
Lutgen teaches the micro lens structure and the bottom structure are made of a same material (both are the n-type semiconductor layer, e.g. GaN; FIGS. 19B, 26A, 39E).
Regarding claim 26,
Lutgen teaches the micro lens structure is semi-spherical, conical, pyramidal, cylindrical, or circular truncated conical (spherical, aspherical, or toroidal native micro-lens; Abstract; FIG. 21C).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lutgen.
Regarding claim 27,
Lutgen teaches a native micro-lens on an about 1.6 μm pixel (FIG. 21C). Lutgen does not expressly number a height of the micro lens structure of 0.05 μm to 10 μm or a diameter of a bottom cross section of the micro lens structure of 0.5 μm to 10 μm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the claimed ranges (the claimed height and bottom-cross-section diameter at issue appear to be a [i] result-effective variable2 that may be [ii] optimized3 given the general conditions of the claim. Lutgen teaches that the native micro-lens in the n-type layer is shaped to improve extraction and control the emission profile (Abstract; FIGS. 21C, 26A, 39E). Height and base diameter of that lens are therefore result-effective variables adjusted to set extraction and beam angle. The general condition of the claim structure — a native micro-lens integral with the remaining second-type epitaxial layer on the emitter — is taught by Lutgen, which also teaches a lens on a pixel of the same order of magnitude as the claimed ranges (about 1.6 μm pixel; FIG. 21C). See MPEP 2144.05(II).)
Zhu et al. (WO 2023/142135 A1, published August 3, 2023, cited on the IDS; “Zhu”) is applied below as a secondary reference for panel-level features that Lutgen does not expressly show.
Zhu teaches a micro LED display panel (Abstract; FIG. 1) comprising a micro LED array on an IC backplane (00), each structure including a first type epitaxial layer (01), a light emitting layer (03), and a second type epitaxial layer (02), a mesa, a dielectric layer (05) between adjacent mesas, a bottom contact (06) bonded toward the IC backplane, a top contact (09) and top conductive layer (08) of ITO on the second type epitaxial layer, and inclined sidewall structure associated with the mesa / re-growth layer (04).
PNG
media_image2.png
975
1792
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Exemplary Figure 1 from Zhu (mesa 01/03, continuous second-type layer 02, dielectric 05, IC backplane 00, ITO 08)
Claims 2–23, and 28–32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lutgen in view of Zhu.
Regarding claim 2,
Zhu teaches a mesa structure (mesa of first type epitaxial layer 01 and light emitting layer 03; FIG. 1) comprises the first type epitaxial layer (01), the light emitting layer (03), and the bottom structure of the second type epitaxial layer (continuous second type epitaxial layer 02 on 03; FIG. 1), and a dielectric layer (05) formed between adjacent mesa structures (05 between adjacent mesas; FIG. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form Lutgen’s native-lens micro-LED array with Zhu’s mesa isolation dielectric and IC-backplane panel layout. Both references are in the same field of inorganic micro-LED arrays for displays. Lutgen supplies the integral n-type lens. Zhu supplies the standard JBD panel architecture (dielectric between mesas, backplane bonding). Combining them is KSR rationale (A): combining prior art elements (native epi lens + isolated mesa panel) according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a driveable display panel with improved extraction. Finding 1: the prior art included the native-lens emitter (Lutgen) and the isolated-mesa backplane panel (Zhu). Finding 2: one of ordinary skill could have combined those elements by placing Lutgen’s n-type lens on Zhu’s second-type cladding of each mesa. Finding 3: the results were predictable—an addressable micro-LED panel with an integral epi lens.
Regarding claim 3,
Lutgen teaches a sidewall of the mesa structure is inclined (sidewalls vertical or inwardly tilted; parabolic mesa 2610; FIGS. 26A, 27A).
Regarding claim 4,
Zhu teaches a passivation layer (dielectric 05 and re-growth layer 04 on the mesa sidewall; FIG. 1) covering a sidewall of the mesa. Combining Lutgen’s mesa with that sidewall dielectric would have been obvious for the same KSR (A) reasons.
Regarding claim 5,
Zhu teaches the passivation / dielectric also on a top surface of the dielectric layer (05 filling between mesas and presenting a top surface; FIG. 1). Extending that coverage onto the top of 05 is a routine layout choice.
Regarding claims 6, 12, and 13,
Zhu teaches an IC backplane (00), a bottom contact (06 on first type epitaxial layer 01) bonded toward a pad of the backplane, and a top contact (09 on second type epitaxial layer 02). IO vias through dielectric 05 to the backplane pads are the ordinary path through 05. Combining those interconnects with Lutgen’s native-lens die would have been obvious under KSR (A).
Regarding claims 7–11,
Lutgen teaches a reflective layer (mesa reflector 1314; backside reflector 1312; FIG. 13A) on the mesa. Zhu teaches reflective mirror layers (011 in first type epitaxial layer 01; FIG. 1). Selecting Al, Ag, Ti, Pt, Au, Ni, Cr, or Sn, and selecting SiO2, Si3N4, or Al2O3 for the passivation, is use of a known material for its known purpose (KSR (D); MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claims 14–18,
Zhu teaches a top transparent conductive layer (top conductive layer 08 of ITO or FTO on second type epitaxial layer 02; FIG. 1), continuous across the panel. Placing that ITO on Lutgen’s native-lens surface, including a thickness of 5 nm to 500 nm, would have been obvious to spread current on the n-side (KSR (A)). Claim 17’s top contact between adjacent lenses is Zhu’s top contact (09 on 02).
Regarding claims 19–22,
Zhu teaches an electrode pad (top contact 09 at the panel / second type layer 02; FIG. 1) at the array edge. The TCO meeting the pad sidewall or riding onto the pad top, with the pad standing above of the TCO, is routine contact geometry once 09 is used at the array edge. Combining that pad with Lutgen’s lens array would have been obvious under KSR (A).
Regarding claim 23,
Zhu teaches a signal source (drive of IC backplane 00) electrically connected to the IC backplane and to the top transparent conductive layer (08). Combining that drive with Lutgen’s array would have been obvious under KSR (A).
Regarding claims 28–32,
Zhu teaches an extrusion portion (second type epitaxial layer 02 continuously formed across the panel between adjacent mesas; FIG. 1) of the second type epitaxial layer. Lutgen teaches the native lens in that n-type layer (1924 / 2650 / 3960). Forming Lutgen’s lens on Zhu’s continuous layer 02, leaving the horizontal web between mesas, with dielectric 05 and mirror 011 under the web, would have been obvious under KSR (A). Claim 32’s TCO on the lens and on the extrusion is Zhu’s continuous top conductive layer (08).
B. Prior Art Rejections Based on Primary Reference Zhu
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Lutgen.
Zhu is a 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) reference (WO published August 3, 2023). Zhu teaches every panel limitation of claims 2–13 and 14–24 except the integral micro-lens / bottom structure in the second-type epitaxial layer. Zhu’s second type epitaxial layer (02) is a continuous cladding on the light-emitting layer (03), not shaped as a lens.
Lutgen teaches that missing limitation: a native micro-lens etched in the n-type semiconductor layer of the micro-LED so that the lens and the remaining n-type cladding on the MQW are an integrated structure (native lens 1924 / 2154 / 2650 / 3960; FIGS. 19B, 21C, 26A, 39E).
Regarding independent claim 1,
Zhu teaches a micro LED display panel (Abstract; FIG. 1) comprising a micro LED array area including a plurality of micro LED structures (FIG. 1), each comprising a first type epitaxial layer (01), a light emitting layer (03) formed on the first type epitaxial layer, and a second type epitaxial layer (02) formed on the light emitting layer. Lutgen teaches the second type epitaxial layer comprising a micro lens structure (native lens 1924 / 2154 / 2650 / 3960; FIGS. 19B, 21C, 26A, 39E) and a bottom structure (portion of the same n-type layer under the lens and on the MQW; FIGS. 19B, 21C, 26A) being an integrated structure (lens and remaining n-type layer are one piece; FIGS. 19B, 21C, 26A, 39E).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to etch Zhu’s second-type cladding (02) into a native micro-lens plus residual bottom as taught by Lutgen. Both references concern III-V micro-LED arrays. Lutgen states that a native lens etched in the n-type layer reduces Fresnel loss and improves light extraction. Combining them is KSR rationale (B): simple substitution of Lutgen’s shaped n-cladding for Zhu’s flat n-cladding to obtain the known improvement in extraction. Finding 1: Zhu had a flat second-type layer on the QW; Lutgen had a native n-lens. Finding 2: one of ordinary skill could have etched Zhu’s layer 02 with Lutgen’s ICP lens transfer (FIGS. 39A–39E). Finding 3: improved extraction without a separate polymer lens plate was the predictable result.
Claims 2–32 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Lutgen.
The dependent claims follow Zhu as mapped in Section A for the panel features (mesa, dielectric 05, contacts 06/09, ITO 08, backplane 00, continuous second-type web 02) and Lutgen for the lens in the second-type layer. The same KSR (B) rationale applies: substitute Lutgen’s shaped n-cladding for Zhu’s flat layer 02. Claims 25–26 are the same-material native lens of Lutgen applied to Zhu’s layer 02. Claim 27 is the ordinary lens-geometry range applied to that lens. Claims 28–32 are Zhu’s already-continuous second-type layer 02 plus Lutgen’s lens in that layer.
C. Additional prior art — Zhang
Zhang et al. (US 2017/0069612 A1, published March 9, 2017, cited on the IDS; “Zhang”) is applied as additional evidence and is not required to sustain the rejections above. Figure 23 and the accompanying process describe forming the LED dies, an optical spacer, and a micro-lens array from the same semiconductor epitaxial wafer after growth-substrate removal, including processing the backside of the epitaxial layer to form micro-lenses (2306-2) and spacer units (2304-2) from that same epi. Zhang is analogous art for an integral semiconductor lens and residual epi under the lens. The International Searching Authority combined Zhang with Zhu. That combination is not adopted as the primary rejection because Lutgen more clearly etches the n-cladding of the mesa itself. Zhang remains available if Applicant distinguishes Lutgen on array or display-panel grounds.
Conclusion
A shortened statutory period for reply is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN P DULKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm, EST.
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, ELISEO RAMOS-FELICIANO can be reached at (571)272-7925. 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.
22 September 2026
/John P. Dulka/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
1 A certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action if the foreign application is not in English and applicant relies on that text to overcome a rejection or to perfect the priority claim. 37 CFR 1.55. Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
2 In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977) (A particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable before determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation).
3 In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (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).
Prosecution Insights