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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 (and by dependency claims 3-11, 15, and 21-22) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Applicant claims that “said periphery area includes implanted ions…said ohmic contact region is free of said implanted ions.” Applicant’s specification discloses a process step where the periphery area 104A (fig. 1) undergoes ion implantation while the ohmic area 104B (fig. 1) does not because of photoresist 108. This does not ensure that the ions implanted into the periphery area do not migrate to the ohmic area (for example by diffusion which is quite common during the processing steps of the LED). Therefore, applicant does not have support for the ions implanted into the periphery area not being present in the ohmic area (e.g. by diffusion migration). Rather applicant only has support for a lack of a ion implantation process in the ohmic area.
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) 23 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 2018/0219131).
[claim 23] Park discloses a micro light-emitting device (fig. 3), comprising :an epitaxial unit (112, fig. 3, [0081) having a top portion that includes an ohmic contact region (portion of 112 under 171, fig. 3, [0059]) and a non- ohmic contact region (portion of 112 under 174, fig. 3, [0059]) said top portion having a periphery area (periphery area is the lateral side portions of 110 as a whole which comprises 112/114/116), the top portion has the periphery area since the top portion has/contains/includes a part of the periphery area, see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/have) which forms at least a part of said non-ohmic contact region (fig. 3), said periphery area having a reduced conductivity compared with the remainder of said top portion [0059]; and a current-spreading layer (171 and/or 172, fig. 3) disposed on said ohmic contact region. Park in the embodiment of fig. 3 does not expressly disclose the process by which the second semiconductor layer 116 in fig. 3 is formed.
Park in alternate embodiment discloses a micro light emitting device wherein the second semiconductor layer (416, fig. 14) is produced by a sputtering process.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to have used a sputtering process to form Park’s second semiconductor layer (116, fig. 3) in a sputtering process since sputtering offers good adhesion and higher production scalability.
With this modification Park discloses
[claim 23] said periphery area has a structure looser than that of said ohmic contact region (since a sputtering process is used for 116 which is part of the periphery area, sputtered periphery would have looser/disorganized structure compared to the crystalline structure formed by the epitaxy of 112).
[claim 24] The micro light-emitting device according to claim 23, wherein said periphery area has a (bottom) surface lower than a (top) surface of said ohmic contact portion (fig. 3).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 2018/0219131).
Park discloses the device of claim 23 but does not expressly disclose a distance between said surface of said periphery area and said surface of said ohmic contact portion ranges from 400 to 1000A.
Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the time of filing to have made the distance between said surface of said periphery area and said surface of said ohmic contact portion range from 400 to 1000A, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It also been held that the normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The claimed range is a result-effective variable since the distance between the periphery side and the ohmic area effects how much space the overall LED takes up..
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 2018/0219131).
Park in the cited embodiment of fig. 3 discloses the device of claim 23 that periphery area has surface roughness [0099] but does not expressly disclose that the periphery area has a roughness greater than the ohmic contact region.
Park in different embodiment discloses a light emitting device (fig. 18) wherein a central ohmic region (region under electrode 470, fig. 18, [0190]) has less surface roughness that surface roughness in the periphery area (fig. 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to have made a central ohmic region have less surface roughness that surface roughness in the periphery area in Park’s fig. 3 device in order to allow control/more of scattering in the lateral sides while allowing focused light in the center upward direction. Moreover, having a smooth center region allows for the ohmic electrode to better contact the semiconductor layer allowing for better conductivity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any interpretation applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 AMAR MOVVA whose telephone number is (571)272-9009. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, Julio Maldonado can be reached at 571-272-1864. 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.
/AMAR MOVVA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898