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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, in the reply filed on 7/15/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the cited prior art does not disclose the new limitation “depositing an underfill material in the cavity, wherein the underfill material does not contact sidewalls of the transparent substrate” of amended claims 1, 7 and 11. Applicant’s argument is misplaced. The limitation is not a common technical feature among claims of the instant application originally filed on 08/05/2022 under 38 CFR 1.475(a) as a national stage application. Furthermore, Applicant’s argument is moot since the limitation is obvious; see prior art rejection of amended claim 1 below for details.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 7-11 and 13-22 are withdrawn from further consideration. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 07/15/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The preamble is suggested to be changed to “A method of manufacturing a light emitting diode (LED) device, comprising:” for clarity.
The text “the trenched metal is arranged to define a trenched grid” in lines 6-7 is suggested to be changed to “wherein the trenched metal is arranged to define a trenched grid” for clarity.
An abbreviation “CMOS” is recited in line 8 without further description.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (US 2019/0123033) in view of Onuma (US 2021/0134773) and Hsieh (US 2019/0392751).
Regarding claim 1, Martin discloses, in FIG. 3 and in related text, a method of manufacturing a light emitting diode (LED) device comprising:
forming an LED structure by depositing a plurality of semiconductor layers (60, 62, 30, 28, 26) on a sapphire substrate (58) (see Martin, FIG. 3, [0063]-[0064]);
placing trenched metal (54) in the plurality of semiconductor layers, with the trenched metal contacting the sapphire substrate, the trenched metal is arranged to define a trenched grid (see Martin, FIGS. 5, 6 and 7A-7B, [0067]-[0070]; note that the trench is etched down to substrate 58);
attaching the LED structure to a driver structure (46) with electrical interconnects (66, 68) that define a cavity therebetween;
directing laser light to provide laser lift-off of the sapphire substrate from the plurality of semiconductor layers (see Martin, FIGS. 9 and 11A, [0074], [0076], [0080]).
Martin does not explicitly disclose that the sapphire substrate is a transparent substrate. Martin does not explicitly disclose a transparent substrate. Martin does not explicitly disclose depositing an underfill material in the cavity, wherein the underfill material does not contact sidewalls of the transparent substrate.
Onuma teaches that the sapphire substrate (18) is a transparent substrate (see Onuma, [0074]). Onuma teaches a transparent substrate.
Onuma teaches depositing an underfill material (16) in the cavity, wherein the underfill material does not contact sidewalls of the transparent substrate (18) (see Onuma, FIG. 2(f), [0072]).
Martin and Onuma are analogous art because they both are directed to light-emitting semiconductor devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Martin with the features of Onuma 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 modify Martin to include a transparent substrate, depositing an underfill material in the cavity, wherein the underfill material does not contact sidewalls of the transparent substrate, as taught by Onuma, in order to reduce damage on the interface between growth substrate and crystal growth layer and protect electrode, from laser light for separation of growth substrate (see Onuma, [0073], [0097]).
Martin does not explicitly disclose that the driver structure is a CMOS structure. Martin does not explicitly disclose a CMOS structure.
Hsieh teaches that the driver structure (21) is a CMOS structure (see Hsieh, FIG. 3B, [0028]). Hsieh teaches a CMOS structure.
Martin and Hsieh are analogous art because they both are directed to light-emitting semiconductor devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Martin with the features of Hsieh 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 modify Martin to include a CMOS structure, as taught by Hsieh, in order to provide a control circuit for controlling electric current driving each pixel (see Hsieh, [0028], [0037]).
Regarding claim 3, Martin in view of Onuma and Hsieh teaches the method of claim 1.
Martin in view of Onuma teaches wherein the transparent substrate is sapphire (see Martin, [0063], Onuma, [0074], and discussion on claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 4, Martin in view of Onuma and Hsieh teaches the method of claim 1.
Martin discloses wherein the electrical interconnects (metal bumps 66, 68) are electrically conductive pillars (see Martin, FIG. 9, [0074]).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin in view of Onuma and Hsieh, and further in view of Aslan (US 2006/0159909).
Regarding claim 5, Martin in view of Onuma and Hsieh teaches the method of claim 1.
Martin in view of Onuma teaches the transparent substrate.
Martin and Onuma do not explicitly disclose or teach coating a sidewall of the transparent substrate with anti-stick coating.
Aslan teaches coating a substrate with anti-stick coating (see Aslan, [0007]). Thus Aslan teaches coating a sidewall of the transparent substrate with anti-stick coating.
Martin and Aslan are analogous art because they both are directed to semiconductor devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Martin with the features of Aslan 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 modify Martin to include coating a sidewall of the transparent substrate with anti-stick coating, as taught by Aslan, in order to provide for industrial applications (see Aslan, [0005]).
Regarding claim 6, Martin in view of Onuma and Hsieh, and further in view of Aslan teaches the method of claim 5.
Aslan teaches coating the substrate by dipping (see Aslan, [0090]), thus Aslan together with Martin teaches wherein the transparent substrate is dipped into anti-stick material to coat the sidewall, with the same analogous prior art and field of endeavor statement and the same motivation as provided for in claim 5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIH TSUN A CHOU whose telephone number is (408)918-7583. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-16:00 Arizona 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, 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.
/SHIH TSUN A CHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811