DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites “the ceramic layer comprises a ceramic powder with a binder”
The Examiner notes that originally filed specifications defines binder as silicone or epoxy. Applicant’s arguments filed 03/05/2026 state that silicone is organic material since it contains carbon in side groups. The Examiner further notes that epoxy is also defined as organic compound. However, claim 1 from which Claim 7 is dependent from, explicitly claims that the ceramic layer being devoid of organic material.
It is not clear how can the ceramic layer comprises a ceramic powder with a binder and also being devoid of organic material at the same time.
For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will treat Claim limitation mat as long as the ceramic layer comprises a ceramic powder.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrews et al. (US 2020/0203419 A1) in view of Hin et al. (US 2020/0312904 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Andrews (Fig. 6I, H) discloses a light emitting diode (LED) chip, comprising:
an epitaxial layer (82) comprising a first side and a second side (top and bottom as depicted on Fig. 6i) (“LED structure 82 may include a plurality of epitaxial layers deposited by metal organic chemical vapor deposition MOCVD”) [0069];
a first type contact (an anode 90 and electrode 96) proximate the second side of the epitaxial layer (82) (Fig. 6i); and
a ceramic layer (108 between and on a sides of 90 and 92) bonded to the second side of the epitaxial layer (82) and positioned horizontally adjacent to the first type contact (an anode 90 and electrode 96), the ceramic layer material, (“The underfill material 108 may comprise TiO.sub.2 particles suspended in a silicone binder. In certain embodiments, a weight ratio of TiO.sub.2 to silicone is in a range of 50% to 150%. In certain embodiments, the weight ratio of TiO.sub.2 to silicone is about 100%, or about 1:1.”) [0075], the ceramic layer (108 between and on a sides of 90 and 92) forming a continuous ceramic bond between the ceramic layer (108) and the second side of the epitaxial layer (bottom as depicted on Fig. 6i),
and a bottommost surface of the ceramic layer (108 between and on a sides of 90 and 92) is coplanar with a bottommost surface the first type contact (an anode 90 and electrode 96). (See Fig. 6H-6I bottommost surface of 90,96 and 108 are coplanar at interface with 95).
The Examiner notes that limitation “forming a continuous ceramic bond between the ceramic layer and the second side of the epitaxial layer” is interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the originally filed specifications (See [0211-2017] and Fig. 7E] and is considered to be met as long as there are no gaps between ceramic layer (108) and the second side of the epitaxial layer (bottom of 82). (See Fig. 6H, 6i of Andrews).
Andrews does not explicitly disclose that the ceramic layer being devoid of organic material.
Hin (Fig. 2, 3) discloses a ceramic layer (244) being devoid of organic material. (“Inorganic binders may include sol-gel (e.g., a sol-gel of TEOS or MTMS) or liquid glass (e.g., sodium silicate or potassium silicate), also known as water glass. In embodiments, binders may include fillers that adjust physical properties. Fillers may include inorganic nanoparticles, silica, glass particles or fibers or other materials capable of improving optical or thermal performance.”) [0031]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a light emitting diode (LED) chip in Andrews in view of Hin and select material for the binder such that the ceramic layer being devoid of organic material in order to improving optical or thermal performance of the LED [0031] and since the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (See MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 2, Andrews in view of Hin discloses the LED chip of claim 1, wherein
the LED chip (pixelated portion 104a) forms a portion of a wafer comprising a plurality of integrally coupled LED chips (104a, 104b,104c).
The Examiner noted that limitation “integrally coupled” is considered to be met as long as LEDs are attached to the same submount 95 (See Fig. 9H)
Regarding Claim 3, Andrews in view of Hin discloses the LED chip of claim 1, wherein
the LED chip (104a) forms a portion of a wafer comprising a plurality of LED chips (104a, 104b, 104c) integrally coupled and separated by ceramic sidewalls (see 108 between 104a, 104b, 104c) bounding the epitaxial layer (82) of each of the plurality of LED chips (104a, 104b, 104c).
The Examiner noted that limitation “integrally coupled” is considered to be met as long as LEDs are attached to the same submount 95 (See Fig. 9H)
Regarding Claim 4, Andrews in view of Hin discloses the LED chip of claim 1, further comprising
a second type contact (cathode 92, 98) proximate the second side of the epitaxial layer (82) (See Fig. 6H).
Regarding Claim 5, Andrews in view of Hin discloses the LED chip of claim 4, wherein
the bottommost surface of the ceramic layer (108) is coplanar with a bottommost surface of the second type contact (cathode 92, 98)
(See Fig. 6H-6I bottommost surface of 92, 98 and 108 are coplanar at interface with 95)
Regarding Claim 7, Andrews in view of Hin discloses the LED chip of claim 1, wherein
the ceramic layer (108 between and on a sides of 90 and 92) (244 Hin) comprises a ceramic powder with a binder. (“as light-altering particles suspended in an insulating binder or a matrix.” “TiO.sub.2 particles suspended in a silicone binder.”) [0075] [244; 0031 Hin]
Regarding Claim 8, Andrews in view of Hin discloses the LED chip of claim 1, wherein
the ceramic layer (108 between and on a sides of 90 and 92) comprises at least one of sapphire, silicon dioxide, titanium dioxide (“TiO2”), aluminum oxide, zirconium, magnesium oxide, graphite, silicon carbide, or boron nitride. (“The underfill material 108 may comprise TiO.sub.2 particles suspended in a silicone binder. In certain embodiments, a weight ratio of TiO.sub.2 to silicone is in a range of 50% to 150%. In certain embodiments, the weight ratio of TiO.sub.2 to silicone is about 100%, or about 1:1.”) [0075] [244; 0031 Hin]
Regarding Claim 9, Andrews in view of Hin discloses the LED chip of claim 1, further comprising
a ceramic sidewall (See 108 on sides of 82 in Fig. 6H) bounding the epitaxial layer (82), the ceramic sidewall comprising at least 50% inorganic material. (“The underfill material 108 may comprise TiO.sub.2 particles suspended in a silicone binder. In certain embodiments, a weight ratio of TiO.sub.2 to silicone is in a range of 50% to 150%. In certain embodiments, the weight ratio of TiO.sub.2 to silicone is about 100%, or about 1:1.”) [0075]
Regarding Claim 10, Andrews in view of Hin discloses the LED chip of claim 9, wherein
the ceramic layer (108 between and on a sides of 90 and 92) (244, Hin) and the ceramic sidewall (108 on sidewall of 82) comprise at least one of:
a white light reflecting material;
a black light absorbing material; or
a phosphor light converting material.
(“such as light-altering particles suspended in an insulating binder or a matrix. The light-altering material may include a material or particles that are configured to reflect, refract, or otherwise redirect light, or even absorb light generated from the active layer portions 84-1 to 84-3.” [0075] [0031 Hin]
Claim(s) 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrews et al. (US 2020/0203419 A1) in view of in view of Hin et al. (US 2020/0312904 A1) and further in view of Yao et al. (US 2011/0266560 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Andrews in view of Hin discloses the LED chip of claim 1, further comprising:
a wavelength conversion element comprising at least one lumiphore, (“the pixelated-LED chip may include lumiphoric materials, including phosphors or other conversion materials, and other physical optical structures that are integral with the pixelated-LED chip.”) [0036]
Andrews does not explicitly disclose the wavelength conversion element proximate the first side of the epitaxial layer; and a transparent bonding layer between the wavelength conversion element and the epitaxial layer.
Yao (Fig. 6) discloses a wavelength conversion element comprising at least one lumiphore (“coating 30 may preferably comprise a phosphor-loaded silicone”) [0058], the wavelength conversion element (30) proximate a first side (top as depicted in Fig. 6) of an epitaxial layer (16, 14); and a transparent bonding layer (“ a thin, transparent adhesive layer 38”) [0062] between the wavelength conversion element (38) and the epitaxial layer (16, 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the LED chip in Andrews in view of Hin and Yao such that the wavelength conversion element proximate the first side of the epitaxial layer; and a transparent bonding layer between the wavelength conversion element and the epitaxial layer in order to have an LED can then emit a white light combination of blue and yellow light [0058, 0062]
Regarding Claim 12, Andrews in view of Hin and Yao discloses the LED chip of claim 11, wherein
the wavelength conversion element (30, Yao) is attached to the epitaxial layer (16, 14 Yao) via direct or indirect wafer bonding. (See Fig. 6 of Yao)
Examiner notes that “via direct or indirect wafer bonding” is a functional language.
While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claim directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429,1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959).
Regarding Claim 13, Andrews in view of Hin and Yao discloses the LED chip of claim 11, wherein
the wavelength conversion element (30, Yao) comprises phosphor [0058]
Andrews in view of Hin and Yao does not explicitly disclose at least one of a ceramic material or phosphor in glass.
However, Yao discloses the wavelength conversion element (30, Yao) includes phosphor and glass, inorganic glass, spin-on glass among limited amount of other materials. [0057, 0058, 0062]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the LED chip in Andrews in view of Yao such that the wavelength conversion element (30, Yao) comprises at least one of a ceramic material or phosphor in glass since the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (See MPEP 2144.07) and to have material that exhibits excitation in the blue and/or UV emission spectrum, provides a desirable peak emission, has efficient light conversion, and has acceptable Stokes shift [0058]
Regarding Claim 14, Andrews in view of Hin and Yao discloses the LED chip of claim 11, wherein
the transparent bonding layer (38, Yao) comprises an inorganic material. (“a thin, transparent adhesive layer 38 with a desired refractive index is used, with one possible suitable material being silicone.”) [0062]
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5 and 7-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Asahara et al. (US 2006/0273335 A1) discloses ceramic layer (5) being devoid of organic material.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DMITRIY YEMELYANOV whose telephone number is (571)270-7920. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a.m.-6p.m.
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, Matthew Landau can be reached at (571) 272-1731. 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.
/DMITRIY YEMELYANOV/Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights