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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 17, 2025 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings were received on November 17, 2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claims 13-18 are objected to because of the following informalities: “of” should be inserted between “surface” and “package” (lines 8-9). Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 and 12-20 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. There is no support in the original specification for the claim limitations of “a semiconductor ultraviolet light emitting device comprising a first active surface …, and a second active surface …”, and “a reflector disposed directly on the first surface of the package substrate”, as recited in claim 1 (note: specification discloses in [0028] that the package substrate 100 may include a package body 110, a first electrode structure120, and a second electrode structure 130” and Fig. 2 shows that reflector 200 (or reflector body 200A) are directly to an upper surface 110U of the package body 110); and “a semiconductor ultraviolet light emitting device comprising a active surface …”, as recited in claims 13 and 19.
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.
Claims 1-10 and 12-20 are 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.
The claimed limitation of "an upper surface of the semiconductor ultraviolet light emitting device", as recited in claim 1, line 25, is unclear as to whether said limitation is the same as or different from "a first active surface" and/or “a second active surface”, as recited in claim 1, lines 5-6.
The term "a lower level" in claims 1, 13 and 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "lower level" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted this limitation to mean that “a level lower”. Clarification is requested.
The claimed limitation of "a lower surface of the semiconductor ultraviolet light emitting device", as recited in claim 2, is unclear as to whether said limitation is the same as or different from "a first active surface" and/or “a second active surface”, as recited in claim 1.
The claimed limitation of "an upper surface of the semiconductor ultraviolet light emitting device", as recited in claim 13, line 21, is unclear as to whether said limitation is the same as or different from "a active surface", as recited in claim 13, line 10.
The claimed limitation of "a reflector disposed in contact with an upper surface of the package substrate", as recited in claim 19, is unclear as to which element that a reflector disposed on applicant refers.
The claimed limitation of "a surface of the package substrate", as recited in claim 19, line 6, is unclear as to whether said limitation is the same as or different from "an upper surface of the package substrate", as recited in claim 19, line 4.
The claimed limitation of "the upper surface", as recited in claim 19, line 14, is unclear as to the upper surface of which element applicant refers: “an upper surface of the package substrate” and/or “an upper surface”, as recited in claim 19, lines 4 and/or 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-10, 11-14 and 16-20, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toita et al. (2018/0219124) supported by Schowalter et al. (7,638,346) in view of Reith et al. (2023/0378398) and Maruyama (2020/0124770).
Toita et al. show in Fig. 10D and related text:
As for claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 18 and 19, a semiconductor ultraviolet light emitting device package, comprising:
a package substrate 120/115 comprising a first surface and a second surface, opposite to the first surface;
a semiconductor ultraviolet light emitting device 105 comprising a first active surface on which electrode pads 56/58 are disposed (Toita: not shown, [0053]; Schowalter: Fig. 6), and a second active surface facing away from the first active surface, the second active surface configured to emit deep ultraviolet light including a wavelength in a range of 250 nm to 285 nm ([0004], [0006]), the semiconductor ultraviolet light emitting device being mounted on the first surface of the package substrate, with the first active surface facing the first surface of the package substrate;
a reflector 1040 disposed directly (in contact with) on the first surface of the package substrate and surrounds the semiconductor ultraviolet light emitting device, and comprising an inclined sidewall that defines an opening 1020 of the reflector, the semiconductor ultraviolet light emitting device disposed within the opening, the reflector comprising:
a reflector body in which the opening is disposed, the reflector body comprising the inclined sidewall; and
a reflective layer on the inclined sidewall ([0071], lines 10-17);
a protective layer (not shown) on the reflective layer ([0071], lines 22-23); and
a light transmitting cover 145 comprising a lower surface covering the opening and an upper surface opposite to the lower surface, and
wherein a lower surface of the reflector body is at a lower level than the first active surface of the semiconductor ultraviolet light emitting device.
As for claim 2, the package substrate further comprises:
a package body 120; and
at least one upper electrode 115 between an upper surface of the package body and a lower surface of the semiconductor ultraviolet light emitting device (Fig. 10D).
As for claim 13, a semiconductor ultraviolet light emitting device package, comprising:
a body 1040/115/120 having a cavity 1020, wherein the body comprises:
a package substrate 120/115 that comprises a surface that defines a bottom of the cavity; and
a reflector body 1040 on the package substrate and comprising an inclined sidewall that defines sides of the cavity,
a protective layer (not shown) on the inclined sidewall of the reflector body and contacting the surface the package substrate ([0071], lines 22-23);
a semiconductor ultraviolet light emitting device 105 comprising an active surface on which electrode pads are disposed, the semiconductor ultraviolet light emitting device being mounted on the surface of the package substrate, with the active surface facing the surface of the package substrate;
a light transmitting cover 145 comprising a light transmitting substrate 145 covering the cavity; and
Toita et al. do not disclose an antireflective layer is disposed on at least one of the lower surface and the upper surface (of the light transmitting substrate), the inclined sidewall has an inclination angle (that is) greater than 55º and less than 75º with respect to the first (upper) surface (of the package substrate that defines the bottom of the cavity), wherein a refractive index of the antireflective layer is in a range of 1.3 to 2.5 (claims 1, 13 and 19); a distance between an upper surface of the semiconductor ultraviolet light emitting device and the lower surface of the light transmitting cover is 100 µm to 2000 µm (claims 1 and 13); the protective layer is spaced apart from the at least one upper electrode (claim 2); the antireflective layer comprises at least one first refractive layer, having a first refractive index, and at least one second refractive layer, having a second refractive index that is higher than the first refractive index, wherein the at least one first refractive layer and the at least one second refractive layer are alternately stacked (claim 7); the antireflective layer comprises at least one of MgF2, SiO2, Al2O3, and HfO2 (claim 8); and the light transmitting substrate comprises at least one of soft glass, fused silica, and fused quartz (claim 18).
Reith et al. teach in Figs. 2, 6A, 15E and related text:
As for claims 1, 13, and 19, an antireflective layer 151 is disposed on at least one of the lower surface and the upper surface (of the light transmitting substrate),
wherein the inclined sidewall has an inclination angle (that is) greater than 55º and less than 75º with respect to the first (upper) surface (of the package substrate that defines the bottom of the cavity).
As for claim 2, the protective layer is spaced apart from the at least one upper electrode (Fig. 2).
Maruyama teaches in Figs. 9-10 and related text:
As for claims 1, 13 and 19, a refractive index of the antireflective layer is in a range of 1.3 to 2.5 ([0150]).
As for claim 7, the antireflective layer comprises at least one first refractive layer 420/440, having a first refractive index, and at least one second refractive layer 410/430, having a second refractive index that is higher than the first refractive index, wherein the at least one first refractive layer and the at least one second refractive layer are alternately stacked (Fig. 9; [0150]).
As for claim 8, the antireflective layer comprises at least one from among MgF2, SiO2, Al2O3, and HfO2 ([0153]).
As for claim 18, the light transmitting substrate W comprises at least one from among soft glass, fused silica, and fused quartz ([0107]).
Toita et al., Schowalter et al., Reith et al. and Maruyama are analogous art because they are directed to a light emitting device package and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Toita et al. and Schowalter et al. with the specified feature(s) of Reith et al. and Maruyama because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an antireflective layer being disposed on at least one of the lower surface and the upper surface (of the light transmitting substrate), wherein the inclined sidewall having an inclination angle (that is) greater than 55º and less than 75º with respect to the first (upper) surface (of the package substrate that defines the bottom of the cavity; the protective layer being spaced apart from the at least one upper electrode a refractive index of the antireflective layer being in a range of 1.3 to 2.5, as taught by Reith et al.; the antireflective layer comprising at least one first refractive layer, having a first refractive index, and at least one second refractive layer, having a second refractive index that being higher than the first refractive index, wherein the at least one first refractive layer and the at least one second refractive layer being alternately stacked; the antireflective layer comprising at least one of MgF2, SiO2, Al2O3, and HfO2; and the light transmitting substrate comprising at least one of soft glass, fused silica, and fused quartz, as taught by Maruyama, and a distance between an upper surface of the semiconductor ultraviolet light emitting device and the lower surface of the light transmitting cover being 100 µm to 2000 µm, in Toita et al. and Schowalter et al.'s device, in order to obtain high light output power from deep UV LED device.
Furthermore, it has been held that where then general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Furthermore, it has been held in that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
Moreover, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
As for claim 3, the combined device shows the reflector body is formed of a material comprising at least one of ceramic, metal, and silicon (Toita: [0071], lines 10-21),
wherein the reflective layer is formed of a material comprising aluminum (Al) ([0071], line 15).
As for claim 4, the combined device shows the reflective layer of the reflector, and the protective layer are in contact with the first surface of the package substrate (Toita: Fig. 10D; [0071]).
As for claim 5, the combined device shows the protective layer is formed of a material comprising at least one of SiO2, Al2O3, AlN, and Si3N4 (Toita: [0071], lines 15 and 22-23).
As for claims 6, 12, and 20, Toita et al., Schowalter et al., Reith et al. and Maruyama disclosed substantially the entire claimed invention, as applied to claims 5, 1, and 19, respectively, above, except a thickness of the protective layer is in a range of 5 nm to 50 nm (claim 6); the opening has a height of 300 µm to 2200 µm with respect to the first surface of the package substrate (claim 12); and a thickness of the antireflective layer is in a range of 25 nm to 400 nm (claim 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to include a thickness of the protective layer being in a range of 5 nm to 50 nm; the opening having a height of 300 µm to 2200 µm with respect to the first surface of the package substrate; and a thickness of the antireflective layer being in a range of 25 nm to 400 nm, in order to optimize the performance of the device. Furthermore, it has been held that where then general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Furthermore, it has been held in that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
As for claim 9, the combined device shows the package substrate is formed of a material comprising ceramic (Toita: [0071], lines 18-21).
As for claim 10, the combined device shows the inclined sidewall that defines the opening is planar (Toita: Fig. 10D).
As for claim 14, the combined device shows a reflective layer between the reflector body and the protective layer (Toita: not shown; [0071], lines 10-23),
wherein the reflector body is formed of a material comprising at least one from among ceramic, metal, and silicon ([0071], lines 18-21),
wherein the reflective layer comprises aluminum (Al) and is disposed on the inclined sidewall of the reflector body ([0071], lines 10-17), and
wherein the protective layer is formed of a material comprising at least one of SiO2, Al2O3, AlN, and Si3N4 ([0071], lines 15 and 22-23).
As for claim 17, the combined device shows the semiconductor ultraviolet light emitting device is configured to emit light of a first orientation angle, wherein the light of the first orientation angle emitted from the semiconductor ultraviolet light emitting device passes through the light transmitting cover and is refracted at a second orientation angle, narrower than the first orientation angle, wherein the second orientation angle is an angle that is less than 100º (Toita: Fig. 6A; note: a refractive angle is always less than 90º).
Claim(s) 15, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toita et al. (2018/0219124), Schowalter et al. (7,638,346), Reith et al. (2023/0378398) and Maruyama (2020/0124770) in view of Yamanoi et al. (2017/0288096).
Toita et al., Schowalter et al., Reith et al. and Maruyama disclosed substantially the entire claimed invention, as applied to claim 14 above, except the material of the reflector body comprises aluminum (Al).
Yamanoi et al. teach in Figs. 1-4 and related text the material of the reflector body 6 comprises aluminum (Al) ([0063]; [0065]).
Toita et al., Schowalter et al., Reith et al., Maruyama and Yamanoi et al. are analogous art because they are directed to a light emitting device package and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Toita et al., Schowalter et al., Reith et al. and Maruyama with the specified feature(s) of Yamanoi et al. because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the material of the reflector body comprising aluminum, as taught by Yamanoi et al., in Toita et al., Schowalter et al., Reith et al. and Maruyama’s device, in order to reflect heat efficiently from the light emitting device toward the light transmissive member (Yamanoi: [0065]).
Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 and 12-20 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEIYA LI whose telephone number is (571)270-1572. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-3PM.
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, LYNNE GURLEY can be reached at (571)272-1670. 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.
/MEIYA LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811