Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/571,543

LIGHT-EMITTING DIODE PACKAGE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Jan 10, 2022
Examiner
CHOI, CALVIN Y
Art Unit
2812
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
UNIMICRON TECHNOLOGY CORP.
OA Round
4 (Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
686 granted / 842 resolved
+13.5% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+17.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
872
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
65.1%
+25.1% vs TC avg
§102
23.8%
-16.2% vs TC avg
§112
5.6%
-34.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 842 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION This Office Action is in response to the Remarks and Amendments filed on 23 May 2025. 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 § 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. Claim(s) 1-3, 6, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herner (US 11,004,895 B1; hereinafter Herner), in view of Yeon et al. (US 2017/0250316 A1; hereinafter Yeon), in view of Gomes et al. (US 12,170,273 B2 hereinafter Gomes). In regards to claim 1, Herner teaches a light-emitting diode package (fig. 3), comprising: a redistribution layer (the layers below (270) containing (40)); a light-emitting diode (20) disposed on the redistribution layer and electrically connected to the redistribution layer, wherein the light-emitting diode comprises a first light-emitting diode (rightmost LED in fig. 3), a second light-emitting diode (middle LED in fig. 3), a third light-emitting diode (leftmost LED in fig. 3), and electrodes (230); a first dielectric layer ((240) in fig. 7B) disposed on the redistribution layer and covering the light-emitting diode; a plurality of wavelength conversion structures (80a, 80b) disposed on the second light- emitting diode and the third light-emitting; and a transparent encapsulant ((600); fig. 10F) disposed on the first dielectric layer and covering the plurality of wavelength conversion structures, wherein the electrodes of the light-emitting diode are not disposed on a surface of the light-emitting diode facing the plurality of wavelength conversion structures (fig. 3 shows the electrodes 230 on a surface of the LEDs not facing the wavelength conversion structures); a circuit board ((540); fig. 10D; backboard (540) may comprise a printed circuit board (PCB)) (col. 20/ln. 2)) having a first surface (bottom of (540)) and a second surface (top of (540)) opposite to the first surface, and the redistribution layer is disposed on the second surface of the circuit board; a conductive terminal (60) disposed on the second surface of the circuit board and connected to the circuit board and the redistribution layer; and an electronic element (data lines (60), select lines (70), and power lines (72) (col. 19/ln. 67, col. 20/ln. 1) disposed on the first surface of the circuit board (540) and electrically connected to the light-emitting diode (22). Herner appears to be silent as to, but does not preclude, the limitations of the wavelength structures are respectively in contact with the second light-emitting diode and the third light-emitting diode. Yeon teaches, e.g. in figs. 1-3, that it was known and predictably effective to use wavelength structures ([0049]: (128), (130), (132)) that contact light emitters ([0050]: (110)). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application at hand was filed to substitute the Yeon contacting configuration of an LED package for the analogous Herner configuration as a substitution of one known element for another that yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art would have been obvious. MPEP §2143 I (B). The combination of Herner and Yeon appears to be silent as to, but does not preclude the limitations wherein the electronic element and the redistribution layer are located on opposite sides of the circuit board. Gomes teaches the limitations wherein the electronic element (112) (col. 7/lns. 16-21) and the redistribution layer (140) (col. 6/lns. 50-55) are located on opposite sides of the circuit board (110) (col. 7/lns. 14-16). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application at hand was filed to modify the device taught by the combination of Herner and Yeon with the aforementioned limitations taught by Gomes to have the layout taught by Gomes to have optimized IC dies with smaller package sizes (Gomes col. 1/lns. 30-35). In regards to claim 2, the combination of Herner, Yeon, and Gomes teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 1. Herner further teaches the limitations wherein the light-emitting diode package does not have a native epitaxy substrate (col. 10/lns 29-31: “LED fabrication will occur on an LED substrate, although the LED substrate will be removed in a subsequent step”). In regards to claim 3, the combination of Herner, Yeon, and Gomes teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 1. Herner further teaches the limitations further comprising: a first conductive through hole (the hole containing (270)) penetrating a surface of the first dielectric layer (240) facing the redistribution layer and connected to the redistribution layer and the light-emitting diode (22). In regards to claim 6, the combination of Herner, Yeon, and Gomes teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 1. Herner further teaches the limitations wherein the circuit board comprises a core layer, a first build-up circuit structure, a second build-up circuit structure, and a second conductive through hole (col. 20/lns. 17-22: “backboard interconnects may be fabricated as multiple layers separated by dielectric layers and connected by vertical interconnects (not shown)…backboard 540 may comprise a printed circuit board (PCB) with the backboard substrate 550 comprising FR-4 material and backboard interconnects comprising copper”), the first build-up line structure and the second build-up line structure are respectively disposed at two opposite sides of the core layer, the second conductive through hole penetrates the core layer, and the second conductive through hole is electrically connected to the first build-up circuit structure and the second build-up circuit structure (col. 20/lns. 17-22: “backboard interconnects may be fabricated as multiple layers separated by dielectric layers and connected by vertical interconnects (not shown)…backboard 540 may comprise a printed circuit board (PCB) with the backboard substrate 550 comprising FR-4 material and backboard interconnects comprising copper”). In regards to claim 7, the combination of Herner, Yeon, and Gomes teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 1. Herner further teaches the limitations wherein the redistribution layer comprises at least one conductive layer, at least one second dielectric layer, and at least one conductive hole (col. 20/lns. 17-22: “backboard interconnects may be fabricated as multiple layers separated by dielectric layers and connected by vertical interconnects (not shown)…backboard 540 may comprise a printed circuit board (PCB) with the backboard substrate 550 comprising FR-4 material and backboard interconnects comprising copper”), the at least one conductive layer and the at least one second dielectric layer are sequentially stacked on the first dielectric layer, the at least one conductive hole penetrates the second dielectric layer, and the at least one conductive hole is electrically connected to the at least one conductive layer (col. 20/lns. 17-22: “backboard interconnects may be fabricated as multiple layers separated by dielectric layers and connected by vertical interconnects (not shown)…backboard 540 may comprise a printed circuit board (PCB) with the backboard substrate 550 comprising FR-4 material and backboard interconnects comprising copper”). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 6, and 7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the references as applied in the prior rejection of record. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CALVIN Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)270-7882. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 (Pacific Time). 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, William (Blake) Partridge can be reached at (571) 270-1402. 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. CALVIN CHOI Patent Examiner Art Unit 2812 /CALVIN Y CHOI/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 10, 2022
Application Filed
Sep 17, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Nov 07, 2024
Response Filed
Nov 21, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Feb 07, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 11, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 27, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
May 23, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 15, 2025
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12581636
STRESS ABSORBING TRENCH CAPACITOR AND METHOD FOR FORMING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12560761
PHOTODETECTOR AND PHOTONIC INTEGRATED DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12150360
PIXEL ARRAY AND DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 19, 2024
Patent 12148782
COMPOSITE BSI STRUCTURE AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 19, 2024
Patent 12142641
METHOD FOR MAKING GATE-ALL-AROUND (GAA) DEVICE INCLUDING A SUPERLATTICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 12, 2024
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
82%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+17.5%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 842 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month