DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to amendment filed 11/25/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 2, 10, 15 and 18-20 have been withdrawn. Claims 1-19 have been amended.
Claim Interpretation
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “connecting means” in claim 13. Claim 13 recite recites the connecting means “comprises a solder” which act to entirely perform the recited function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-14, 16 and 17 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The claim(s) are replete with indefinite language and idiomatic errors. Below is a list of identified indefinite language present in the claims. Applicant should review all the claims carefully and revise all claims in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112.
Claim 1 reciting “the electrical conductor structures” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what is referred to by “the electrical conductor structures” and how is it related to the “at least two conductor structures” recited previously in the claim.
Claim 1 reciting “the at least two electrical conductor structures … form electrical contact pads for at least one optoelectronic semiconductor chip” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if the “at least one optoelectronic semiconductor chip” is a structurally required feature of the “housing” claimed. The reference to “at least one optoelectronic semiconductor chip” appear to be an intended use or functional limitation and would not structurally limit the “housing”.
Claim 1 reciting “at least one of the plurality of drainage structures is configured to guide a liquid encapsulation material to the electrical contact pads” renders the claim indefinite. The limitation is written as intended function/configuration. It is unclear if the “liquid encapsulation material” is a require structural part of the claimed housing or is merely intended to be functional in nature. As such, the metes and bound of the intended scope of the claim is unclear. Furthermore, “at least one of the plurality of drainage structures” has a scope of referencing only one drainage structure. As such, it is unclear how does a single one drainage structure guide a liquid encapsulation material to the plurality of electrical contact pads. Applicant’s disclosure does not clarify.
Claim 1 reciting “each of the plurality of drainage structures is defined by at least a strip” renders the claim indefinite. The scope of the limitation encompasses a singular strip defining each of the plurality of drainage structures. It is unclear how does one strip define each of the plurality of drainage structures. It is also unclear how does one strip define any one of the plurality of the drainage structures.
Claim 3 reciting “at least one of the plurality of drainage structures” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if this is referring the same “at least one of the plurality of drainage structures” previously recited in claim 1 or is referring to another one of the “at least one of the plurality of drainage structures”.
Claim 3 reciting “at least one of the drainage structures is formed by at least one edge on the strips” renders the claim indefinite. Firstly, it is unclear if “the strips” are intended to refer to the “at least a strip” defining each of the plurality drainage structures or refer to strips defining different ones of the plurality of drainage structures. As previously recited in claim 1, “each of the plurality of drainage structures is defined by at least a strip”. It is unclear if claim 3 now requires plural strips for defining one of the plurality of drainage structures. Furthermore, it is unclear how is “at least one of the plurality of drainage structures” formed by “at least one edge on the strips”. How would a single edge form the “at least one of the plurality of drainage structures”?
Claim 4 reciting “at least one of the plurality of drainage structures” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if this is referring the same “at least one of the plurality of drainage structures” previously recited in claim 1 or is referring to another one of the “at least one of the plurality of drainage structures”.
Claim 4 reciting “at least one of the plurality of drainage structures is formed by at least two of the strips and these strips define a channel” render the claim indefinite. As best understood, the scope of the limitation encompasses more than one “drainage structures” formed by more than two strips. It is unclear if only one channel is defined by the collection of all drainage structures and strips. Or is the claim intended to recite pairs of strips each pair defining a channel that forms one of the plurality of drainage structures?
Claim 4 reciting “the strips extend parallel to one another with a tolerance of at most 10° within a respective drainage structure” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what aspect of the strips is “a tolerance of at most 10°” intended. A tolerance in the linearity of the strips? Tolerance of thickness? Tolerance of planarity?
Claim 5 reciting “at least one of the strips is rectangular or trapezoidal or dome-shaped, or a mixture thereof” render the claim indefinite. The scope of limitation encompasses a single one of the strips having a “mixture” of rectangular, trapezoidal or dome-shaped. However, it is unclear how can a single one strip be a “mixture” of rectangular, trapezoidal or dome-shaped.
Claim 6 reciting “the reflector trough is formed all around by side walls of the housing base body and the side walls enclose the housing base body on the chip mounting side” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how does the side walls of the housing base body which forms the reflector trough also “encloses the housing base body” itself?
Claim 7 reciting “the side walls merge continuously into the chip mounting side” renders the claim indefinite. The “chip mounting side” refers to a directional side of the house base body. The side wall are also parts of the same house base body. Therefore, it is unclear how does the side walls of the house base body merges into a side of the house base body.
Claim 8 reciting “two shorter drainage structures of the plurality of drainage structures” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear relative to what are the “two shorter drainage structures” in comparison too. Shorter than what?
Claim 9 reciting “the two shorter drainage structures of the plurality of drainage structures … are configured to guide the liquid encapsulation material” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if the “liquid encapsulation material” is a require structural part of the claimed housing or is merely intended to be functional in nature, rendering the metes and bound of the intended claim scope unclear.
Claim 9 reciting “longer side walls of a cavity” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear relative to what are the “longer side walls” in comparison too. Longer than what?
Claim 11 reciting a reflective encapsulation produced from “the liquid encapsulation material” renders the claim indefinite. The limitation appear to be reciting both the final product and the intermediate product. It is unclear what is required to be present in the claimed device structure, the final structure of “a reflective encapsulation” or the presence of “the liquid encapsulation material”.
Claim 14 reciting “the reflective encapsulation is composed of a matrix material and of reflective particles and is white” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear which of the encapsulation, the matrix material or the reflective particles is white. Furthermore, it is unclear what is meant by a “white matrix material”.
Other claims are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park US 2015/0001573 A1.
PNG
media_image1.png
642
798
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re claim 1, as best understood, Park discloses (e.g. FIGs. 3-5 & 9) a housing for 100 an optoelectronic semiconductor component, comprising:
- a housing base body 110, which has a chip mounting side (top side of 110),
- at least two electrical conductor structures 110A,110B in and/or on the housing base body 110, and
- a plurality of drainage structures 118 on the chip mounting side (top of 110),
wherein
- the at least two electrical conductor structures 110A,110B (top portions thereof) on the chip mounting side (top of 110) form electrical contact pads for at least one optoelectronic semiconductor chip 130 (¶ 77), and
-at least one of the plurality of drainage structures 118 is configured to guide a liquid encapsulation material to the electrical contact pads 110A,110B (encapsulation material 150 enters 118 and is guided to reach parts of 110A under 140, ¶ 109),
- the plurality of drainage structures” 118 are integral with the housing base body 110 (118 is formed into body 110), and
- each of the plurality of drainage structures 118 is defined by at least a strip (strips of body 110 between two adjacent recesses 118), and the strips of the plurality of drainage structures rise above a surface (surface at the bottom of recess 118) of the housing base body 110 on the chip mounting (top) side (see FIGs. 3 & 9, strips of body 110 between two adjacent recesses 118 rise above the bottom surface of recesses 118, where the bottom surface of the recesses is a surface of the housing base body 110).
In re claim 3, as best understood, Park discloses (e.g. FIG. 4) wherein at least one of the plurality of drainage structures 118 is formed by at least one edge on the strips (each 118 defined by edges of adjacent strips of body 110).
In re claim 4, as best understood, Park discloses (e.g. FIG. 9) wherein “at least one of the plurality of drainage structures” 118 is formed by at least two of the strips (strips of body 110 adjacent each 118) and these strips define a channel 118A,118B,118C, and “the strips extend parallel to one another with a tolerance of at most 10° within a respective drainage structure (118A,118B,118C are parallel as shown).
In re claim 5, as best understood, Park discloses (e.g. FIG. 4) wherein “at least one of the strips” is rectangular or trapezoidal or dome-shaped, or “a mixture thereof” (rectangular cross-sectional shape of the strips defining each 118).
In re claim 6, as best understood, Park discloses (e.g. FIG. 4) wherein the housing base body 110 comprises a cavity 112 which forms a reflector trough, wherein the reflector trough is formed all around by side walls 112B of the housing base body 110 and “the side walls 112B enclose the housing base body on the chip mounting side” 112A.
In re claim 8, as best understood, Park discloses wherein the housing is rectangular in a plan view of the chip mounting side (see FIG. 3), wherein (FIG. 9, number of recesses 118 can be greater than three and can have different depths d and widths W2, ¶ 108) two of the plurality of drainage structures (e.g. two of 118 having larger W2 when there are four recesses) extend along a longitudinal axis (A) (x-axis) of the housing base body and “two shorter drainage structures of the plurality of drainage structures” (as best understood, two additional 118 having smaller W2 when there are four recesses) are oriented transversely (each 118 having orientation in both x-axis and y-axis) with respect to the longitudinal axis (A), as seen in a plan view of the chip mounting side.
In re claim 9, as best understood, Park discloses (e.g. FIG. 3) wherein the two “shorter drainage structures” of the plurality of drainage structures being oriented transversely with respect to the longitudinal axis (A) (the two additional 118 having smaller W2 when there are four recesses) are configured to guide the liquid encapsulation material (encapsulation material 150 enter 118, ¶ 109) from “longer side walls” of a cavity (as best understood, side walls 112B of cavity 112 being longer than sidewall of 118) to an intermediate space between the electrical contact pads (recesses 118 are between a region 116A of electrical contact pad 110A and electrical contact pad 110B).
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Kim et al. US 2007/0267637 A1 (Kim).
In re claim 7, as best understood, Park discloses (e.g. FIG. 4) wherein “the side walls 112B merge continuously into the chip mounting side 112A” so that the side walls 112B and the housing base body 110 on the chip mounting side 112A meet at an angle between 30° to 60° (¶ 56) as seen in a cross section perpendicular to at least one of the electrical contact pads 110A,110B.
Park does not explicitly disclose the side walls 112B and the chip mounting side 112A form a rounding locally or all around with a radius of curvature of at least 1 mm as seen in a cross section perpendicular to at least one of the electrical contact pads.
However, Kim discloses a housing for an optoelectronic semiconductor component, wherein the housing comprises a reflective cavity 150 (¶ 51) having rounded side surface 140 with a curvature radius that improve collection of light within a desired angle and extract light for desired viewing angle (¶ 51-52).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form Park’s cavity 112 with rounded side wall with a radius of curvature that optimize light extraction for desired viewing angle as taught by Kim. Forming the radius of curvature to be at least 1 mm is an obvious result of routine optimization to improve light extraction for desired viewing angle as taught by Kim. “[W]here 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.” See MPEP 2144.05 II. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382; In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Claims 11-14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shin et al. US 2008/0035948 A1 (Shin).
In re claim 11, Park discloses (e.g. FIG. 3) the optoelectronic semiconductor component, comprising:
- the housing as claimed in claim 1,
- the at least one optoelectronic semiconductor chip 130 on the electrical contact pads or 110A,110B.
Park discloses the recesses 118 are formed in the package body to reduce stress caused by CTE mismatch and improve heat transfer (¶ 106). Park does not explicitly disclose a reflective encapsulation, produced from the liquid encapsulation material, wherein “the encapsulation material reaches under the at least one optoelectronic semiconductor chip and leaves side faces of the at least one semiconductor chip free.
However, Shin discloses (e.g. FIG. 3) an optoelectronic semiconductor component having an optoelectronic semiconductor chip 120’ mounted on a housing body 110’ that include recesses 113’ and wherein a reflective encapsulation 130’ (Ag epoxy resin, ¶ 40) is provided under the optoelectronic semiconductor chip 120’ and leaves side faces of the at least one semiconductor chip 120’ free. Shin discloses the provision of the reflective encapsulation 130’ having excellent heat conductivity further improve heat transfer (¶ 40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a reflective encapsulation 130’ into Park’s recesses 118 under the optoelectronic semiconductor chip to further improve heat transfer as taught by Shin.
In re claim 12, Park discloses (e.g. FIGs. 3-4) wherein the at least one optoelectronic semiconductor chip (130+140) bears on (understood to mean being arranged on) at least three of the plurality of drainage structures 118 (¶ 108).
In re claim 13, Park discloses (e.g. FIGs. 4-5) wherein a lower side (bottom of 130), facing toward the chip mounting side, of the at least one optoelectronic semiconductor chip 130 is entirely covered (covered from bottom side) by the reflective encapsulation 150 (Ag epoxy resin in recess 118 as taught by Shin) together with a connecting means 146A,146B and together with the plurality of drainage structures 118, wherein a connecting means 146A,146B is comprises a solder (obvious to form bumps 146A,146B using solder as conventional conductive bump material), or wherein a connecting means 146A,146B is covered (covered from bottom side) by the reflective encapsulation 150 (Ag epoxy resin in recess 118 as taught by Shin) in a direction parallel to the chip mounting side.
In re claim 14, as best understood, Shin discloses (e.g. FIG. 3) the reflective encapsulation 130’ is composed of a matrix material and of reflective particles and “is white” (Ag epoxy resin, ¶ 14).
Park discloses (e.g. FIGs. 4-5) wherein the at least one optoelectronic semiconductor chip 130 is a sapphire flip-chip (¶ 63), so that electrical connection faces 136A,136B of the at least one optoelectronic semiconductor chip 130 are uniquely assigned to the electrical contact pads 110A,110B, wherein a sapphire substrate 131 (¶ 63) of the at least one optoelectronic semiconductor chip 130 faces away from the chip mounting side (top of body 110).
Park discloses (e.g. FIG. 4) the plurality of drainage structures 118 have a height d above the chip mounting side. Park discloses the depth d of the recesses 118 affect the stress and heat transfer ability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the height of the plurality of drainage structures 118 to be between 30 µm and 100 µm inclusive to obtain desired stress and heat transfer properties as the height is a known result effective variable.
In re claim 16, Park discloses (e.g. FIG. 5) wherein the at least one optoelectronic semiconductor chip 130 comprises a mirror 136A,136B (¶ 69-71) on a lower side facing toward the chip mounting side (top of 110), wherein the mirror 136A,136B is at a distance from an edge of the lower side (portion of lower surface of the LED 130 is not covered by 136A,136B) and a region of the lower side (portion of lower surface of 130 exposed by 136A,136B is covered (covered from bottom side) by the reflective encapsulation 150 (Ag epoxy resin in recess 118 as taught by Shin).
In re claim 17, Park discloses (e.g. FIG. 4) furthermore comprising a filling 150 which covers the at least one optoelectronic semiconductor chip 130 and touches the reflective encapsulation (Ag epoxy resin in recess 118 as taught by Shin) and encloses the at least one optoelectronic semiconductor chip 130 in a plan view of the chip mounting side, wherein the filling 150 contains one or more phosphors (¶ 80), so that the semiconductor chip 130 generates blue light (¶ 60) and the semiconductor component is configured for the emission of white light (¶ 122-123).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Re § 112(b) rejections
Various claims remain rejected over § 112(b) as detailed in the rejections above. The scope of these claims remain indefinite for the particular reason as detailed above.
Rejection over Park
Applicant argues the recesses 118 are not configured to guide a liquid encapsulation material to the electrical contact pads and do not rise above a surface of the housing base body on the chip mounting side (Remark, pages 9-10).
This is not persuasive. The drainage structures is taught by Park’s recesses 118 which is configured to guide a liquid encapsulation material 150 to reach of the electrical contact pads 110A under 140 (¶ 109). Since only one of the plurality of drainage structures is specifically recited to guide the liquid encapsulation, the one drainage structure, as best understood, is only required to guide the liquid encapsulation to one of the electrical contact pads. Such interpretation is consistent with Applicant’s own disclosure.
Furthermore, the drainage structures 118 are defined by the strips the housing base body 110 adjacent the recesses 118. The strips of the housing base body having a height d above a surface of the housing base body 110 at the bottom of the recess 118 (see FIGs. 3, 4 & 9).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2017/0162755 A1
US 2008/0029775 A1
US 2009/0152691 A1
US 2014/0231858 A1
US 8575646 B1
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 YU CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7881. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9AM-5PM ET.
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 KRAIG can be reached at 5712728660. 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.
/YU CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
YU CHEN
Examiner
Art Unit 2896