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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/27/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Application
Acknowledgement is made of the amendment received on 1/20/2026. Claims 1-14 and 16-20 are pending in this application. Claims 1 and 17-18 are amended.
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 1-14 and 16-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the second layer is disposed to avoid non-flat areas of both the upper surface and the lower surface of the first layer, thereby the electrode structure having a concave-convex shape” in lines 17-19. However, this limitation is indefinite because it fails to clearly define the structural relationship between the second layer and the first layer.
Specifically, the phrase “disposed to avoid” describes an intended result or function rather than a definite structural arrangement, and the claim does not recite how the second layer is physically configured or positioned to “avoid” the non-flat areas of the first layer. As such, it is unclear whether “avoid” refers to a lack of overlap, a spacing relationship, a particular placement on selected portions of the first layer, or some other undefined configuration.
Additionally, the claim fails to specify which portions of the first layer constitute the “non-flat areas”, or how such areas are determined, thereby leaving the scope of the claim open to subjective interpretation.
Furthermore, the clause “thereby the electrode structure having a concave-convex shape” does not clearly identify which component of the electrode structure is concave or convex, nor does it provide an objective reference or structural criterion for determining the concave-convex shape. As a result, it is unclear whether the concave-convex shape refers to the first layer, the second layer, or the electrode structure as a whole.
For best understand and examination purpose, the claim will be best considered based on drawings, disclosure, and/or any applicable prior arts; and the claim limitation “the second layer is disposed to avoid non-flat areas of both the upper surface and the lower surface of the first layer, thereby the electrode structure having a concave-convex shape” will be interpreted as “the second layer being positioned only on flat portion of the upper surface of the first layer such that the second layer does not overlap non-flat portions of the first layer in a vertical direction, and wherein the concave-convex shape corresponds to thickness variations of the first layer in the vertical direction” in the instant Office Action.
Claims 2-14 and 16-17 are rejected due to their dependency.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the second layer is disposed to avoid non-flat areas of both the upper surface and the lower surface of the first layer, thereby the electrode structure having a concave-convex shape” in lines 18-20. However, this limitation is indefinite because it fails to clearly define the structural relationship between the second layer and the first layer, as discussed above with respect to the corresponding limitation of claim 1.
Claims 19-20 are rejected due to their dependency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 and 16-20, under BRI, would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The applied prior art neither anticipates nor renders the claimed subject matter obvious because it fails to teach the claimed a light emitting device,
“an electrode structure over the insulating, wherein the electrode structure comprises a first layer and a second layer from bottom up in a vertical direction and in contact with each other, and includes a first-type electrode region and a second-type electrode region in a horizontal direction;
wherein an upper surface and a lower surface of the first layer are not flat, and the second layer is disposed to avoid non-flat areas of both the upper surface and the lower surface of the first layer, thereby the electrode structure having a concave-convex shape;
wherein the first layer comprises a first eutectic layer, and the second layer comprises a second eutectic layer” in combination with all other limitations, as recited in claim 1 and
“the conductive feature of the first redistribution circuit structure is continuously extended on and in contact with the electrically conductive structure disposed on the bottom of the recess” in combination with all other limitations, as recited in claim 1 and
“an electrode structure over the insulating, wherein the electrode structure comprises a first layer and a second layer from bottom up in a vertical direction and in contact with each other, and includes a first-type electrode region and a second-type electrode region in a horizontal direction;
wherein an upper surface and a lower surface of the first layer are not flat, and the second layer is disposed to avoid non-flat areas of both the upper surface and the lower surface of the first layer, thereby the electrode structure having a concave-convex shape;
wherein the first layer comprises a first eutectic layer, and the second layer comprises a second eutectic layer” in combination with all other limitations, as recited in claim 18.
“the conductive feature of the first redistribution circuit structure is continuously extended on and in contact with the electrically conductive structure disposed on the bottom of the recess” in combination with all other limitations, as recited in claim 1 and
Claims 2-14 and 16-17 are rejected as being dependent from claim 1 and claims 19-20 are rejected as being dependent from claim 18.
The first prior art is Jeon et al. (US 2017/0170364) discloses electrodes including soldering layers and diffusion barrier layers. However, Jeon does not teach or suggest an electrode structure comprising a first eutectic layer having non-flat upper and lower surfaces and a second eutectic layer disposed in a contact with the first eutectic layer while avoiding the non-flat areas so as to form a concave-convex electrode structure.
The second prior art is Shoji (JP 4699811B2) discloses eutectic bonding of an LED chip to submount substrate using a eutectic electrode layer such as Au-Sn. However, Shoji does not teach or suggest an electrode structure comprising a first eutectic layer having non-flat upper and lower surfaces and a second eutectic layer disposed in contact with the first eutectic layer while avoiding non-flat areas so as to form a concave-convex electrode structure.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection. Response to arguments on newly added limitations are responded to in the above rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIYOUNG OH whose telephone number is (703)756-5687. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM-5PM EST.
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, Eva Montalvo can be reached on (571) 270-3829. 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.
/JIYOUNG OH/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/DUY T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818 2/20/26