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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5 November 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Office acknowledges receipt on 5 November 2025 of Applicants’ amendments in which claims 1 and 7 are amended and claims 15-20 are newly added. The Office withdraws the section 112(b) rejection applied in the Office Communication dated 9 July 2025 in view of the amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 5 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argue in the paragraph bridging pages 6 and 7 and with respect to claim 1 that Oh and Wang do not teach a substrate having a thickness ranging from 300 μm to 900 μm because modifying Oh’s device to have such thickness “would require … [Wang’s] laser scribing process to be performed with increased power and increased number of times, which might result in … [Oh’s] n-type semiconductor layer 23 and the active layer 25 of the light emitting diodes being prone to damage.” More specifically, Applicants argue that Oh teaches topside scribing followed by cracking to achieve a dicing of semiconductor dies whereas Wang teaches multiple iterations of bottom-side laser-stealth dicing to separate semiconductor dies. Claim 1 is rejected over the combined teachings of Oh, Jeon, and Wang and recites, in relevant part, “said substrate having a thickness ranging from 300 μm to 900 μm.” Obviousness can be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. MPEP §2143.01. As this principle applies to the present circumstance, Wang teaches topside scribing {Figs. 3, 4; [0030]} followed by bottom-side stealth dicing (Fig. 5; [0032]}. Therefore, Wang teaches the same operation of topside scribing taught by Oh followed by an operation of bottom-side laser cutting focused at different depths of a semiconductor’s substrate. Wang further teaches in paragraph [0032] an overlapping range of substrate thickness to that recited in claim 1. In summary, Wang teaches laser cutting a substrate having an overlapping range of thicknesses to that recited in claim 1 such that laser-induced defects are created at different depths within the substrate in a manner similar to that taught by the instant application and recited in claim 1 {see, e.g., Applicants’ Fig. 3 and its accompanying description in the specification and Wang’s disclosures in Fig. 5 and paragraph [0032]}. And Applicants cite no finding of fact to support their contention that Wang’s multiple iterations of laser cutting, which is similar to Applicants’, would be so much more damaging to Oh’s semiconductor device than the cracking operation disclosed by Oh as to discourage applying Wang’s teachings to those of Oh; instead, Applicants merely argue such is the case. Arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. MPEP 2145(I).
Applicants argue in the paragraph of page 8 and with respect to claim 1 that Jeon does not motivate a skilled artisan to “increase the distance between … [Jeon’s] dicing line (SD) on the other surface 13 (or the opposite surface 16) and the active layer 40 to be greater than 25 μm, much less to range from 30 μm to 100 μm as recited in claim 1” because Jeon teaches that such distance may be considerably less than (e.g., about half of) 25 μm. Claim 1 recites, in relevant part, “said active layer and said at least one of said plurality of surface portions which is laser cut are spaced apart by a minimum distance ranging from 30 μm to 100 μm.” Obviousness can be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. MPEP §2143.01. As this principle applies to the present circumstance, the putative fact that Jeon teaches an ability to achieve a smaller margin of tolerance in the spacing of two features does not discourage a skilled artisan from using a greater margin of tolerance for a circumstance not requiring such restrictive margin of tolerance or, e.g., to increase a yield of non-defective devices through use of the greater margin of tolerance. [T]he prior art’s … disclosure … does not constitute a teaching away … [where] such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed … . MPEP §2145(X)(D)(1), 2nd paragraph.
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) 1-4, 7, 8, 10, 13-16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (US20210257528A1) in view of Jeon (KR20160027588A) (English translation enclosed) and Wang et al. (CN110998872A) using Wang et al. (US20210336080A1) as the English translation.
Regarding claim 1, Oh teaches in Figs. 1-4 an ultraviolet light-emitting device, comprising:
a substrate (21) having a top surface, a bottom surface that is opposite to said top surface and is for light emission, and a surrounding surface that interconnects said top surface to said bottom surface and that includes a plurality of surface portions {¶0061, 0127};
a light-emitting structure (23, 25, 27 of cells C1, C2) including a first semiconductor layer (23) that is disposed on said top surface of said substrate (21), and an active layer (25) including aluminum and a second semiconductor layer (27) that are disposed on said first semiconductor layer (23) in such order {¶0130}; and
a first metallic contact electrode (35b) and a second metallic contact electrode (35a) that are disposed on said light-emitting structure (23, 25, 27 of cells C1, C2) opposite to said substrate (21), and that are electrically connected (e.g., directly or indirectly) to said first semiconductor layer (23) and said second semiconductor layer (27), respectively {¶0147, 0148},
wherein at least one of said plurality of surface portions of said surrounding surface of said substrate is laser cut {see Examiner’s Note; Figs. 1, 2; ¶0128, [a] side surface of the substrate 21 may be formed by laser scribing and cracking using the laser scribing; Fig. 6; ¶0161, laser scribing lines SC1 and SC2 are for dividing the light emitting diodes into individual units},
wherein said first metallic contact electrode (35b) has at least one outer electrode section (outer section of 35b) that is positioned between (e.g., in an interval separating) said active layer (25) and said at least one of said plurality of surface portions which is laser cut {Figs. 1, 2}, and
wherein at least one of said top surface and said bottom surface of said substrate (21) is rectangular and has a length in a longitudinal direction (horizontal in Fig. 1) and a width in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction (horizontal in Fig. 1) {Fig. 1}, and
wherein said at least one outer electrode section (outer section of 35b) of said first metallic contact electrode (35b) extends in the longitudinal direction (horizontal in Fig. 1) {Fig. 1}.
Oh does not teach wherein said active layer and said at least one of said plurality of surface portions which is laser cut are spaced apart by a minimum distance ranging from 30 μm to 100 μm.
In an analogous art, Jeon teaches in paragraph [0032] that increasing the distance between a side surface of semiconductor layers of a light-emitting device and a side surface of a substrate, which is to be cut by a laser, reduces the likelihood of laser-induced cracks from propagating to and damaging the semiconductor layers during the laser cutting operation. Jeon further teaches in paragraph [0049] that a suitable distance may be about 25 μm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oh’s ultraviolet light-emitting device based on the teachings of Jeon – such that said active layer and said at least one of said plurality of surface portions which is laser cut are spaced apart by a minimum distance ranging from 30 μm to 100 μm – because: (1) where 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, (2) Jeon teaches a distance value that is less than the claimed range, and (3) Jeon further teaches that increased distance is a result-effective parameter for decreasing the likelihood of damaging the light-emitting device. MPEP §2144.05(II)(A).
Oh as modified by Jeon does not teach;
wherein said at least one of said plurality of surface portions has a plurality of crack spots that are formed in rows, a number of said rows of said plurality of crack spots being at least three, and
wherein each of said rows of said plurality of crack spots is parallel to said top surface of said substrate, is proximate to a peripheral region of said active layer, and is spaced apart from said peripheral region of said active layer by a distance not greater than 150 μm.
In an analogous art, Wang teaches:
wherein at least one of a plurality of surface portions (four side surfaces S13 beneath each 200) has a plurality of crack spots (crack spots of 101) that are formed in rows (101), a number of said rows (101) of said plurality of crack spots (crack spots of 101) being at least three {Figs. 5, 6; ¶0032},
wherein each of said rows (101) of said plurality of crack spots (crack spots of 101) is parallel to a top surface (S11) of a substrate (100), is proximate to a peripheral region of said active layer, and is spaced apart from said peripheral region (peripheral region of active layer of 130) of an active layer (active layer of 130) by a distance not greater than 150 μm {Figs. 5, 6; ¶0032; the scans of the second laser beam are scanned at least three times to obtain at least 3 inscribed features 101 at different depths of the substrate 100, one of the inscribed features 101 that is most adjacent to the upper surface S11 of the substrate 100 may be spaced apart therefrom by a distance less than 20 μm (e.g., 1 μm to 10 μm), or even less than 5 nm, [e]ach of the immediately adjacent inscribed features 101 may be spaced part from each other by 10 μm to 30 μm}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oh’s ultraviolet light-emitting device as modified by Jeon based on the teachings of Wang to achieve the above-identified features through Wang’s teaching of stealth dicing … because of its high productivity, high yield, easily automated operation and low cost.
Oh as modified by Jeon and Wang does not teach said substrate having a thickness ranging from 300 μm to 900 μm.
Wang further teaches in paragraph [0032] the substrate having a thickness greater than 200 μm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oh’s ultraviolet light-emitting device as modified by Jeon and Wang based on the further teachings of Wang – such that said substrate has a thickness ranging from 300 μm to 900 μm – because [i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP §2144.05(I).
Examiner’s Note: the recitations of “laser cut” are product-by-process limitations which require no showing by the Office beyond a teaching, by the applied art, of the product.
Regarding claim 2, Oh as modified by Jeon and Wang teaches the ultraviolet light-emitting device as claimed in claim 1, and Oh further teaches wherein said first metallic contact electrode (35b) surrounds said active layer (25) {Figs. 1, 3, 4}.
Regarding claim 3, Oh as modified by Jeon and Wang teaches the ultraviolet light-emitting device as claimed in claim 1, and Oh further teaches wherein said first metallic contact electrode (35b) is in one of a continuous form and a non-continuous form {continuous and non-continuous constitute all possibilities}.
Regarding claim 4, Oh as modified by Jeon and Wang teaches the ultraviolet light-emitting device as claimed in claim 1, and Oh further teaches wherein said at least one outer electrode section (outer section of 35b) of said first metallic contact electrode (35b) is disposed on a peripheral region of said first semiconductor layer (23) {Figs. 1, 3, 4}.
Regarding claim 7, Oh as modified by Jeon and Wang teaches the ultraviolet light-emitting device as claimed in claim 1, and Oh further teaches wherein said active layer (25) and said at least one outer electrode section (outer section of 35b) of said first metallic contact electrode (35b) each have a length in the longitudinal direction (horizontal in Fig. 1), said length of said active layer (25) being smaller than that of said at least one outer electrode section (outer section of 35b) of said first metallic contact electrode (35b) {Figs. 1, 3, 4}.
Regarding claim 8, Oh as modified by Jeon and Wang teaches the ultraviolet light-emitting device as claimed in claim 1, and Oh further teaches wherein said first metallic contact electrode (35b) has two of said at least one outer electrode section (outer section of 35b) that are disposed in parallel on two sides of said active layer (25) {Figs. 1, 3, 4}.
Regarding claim 10, Oh as modified by Jeon and Wang teaches the ultraviolet light-emitting device as claimed in claim 1, and Oh further teaches wherein a ratio of said length to said width, in decimal form, of said at least one of said top surface or said bottom surface of said substrate (21) ranges ranging from 2 to 8 {Fig. 1}.
Examiner’s Note: “The Examiner is authorized to make a finding of relative dimensions that are, as here, clearly depicted in a drawing.” Ex parte Wright, 091818 USPTAB, 2017-001093 (Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decisions, 2018).
Regarding claim 13, Oh as modified by Jeon and Wang teaches the ultraviolet light-emitting device as claimed in claim 1, and Oh further teaches further comprising an insulating layer (37) that covers said first semiconductor layer (23) and said second semiconductor layer (27), a first pad electrode (39a) that is disposed on said insulating layer (37) opposite to said first semiconductor layer (23), and a second pad electrode (39b) that is disposed on said insulating layer (37) opposite to said second semiconductor layer (27) {¶0151, 0153}.
Regarding claim 14, Oh as modified by Jeon and Wang teaches the ultraviolet light-emitting device as claimed in claim 13, and Oh further teaches wherein said insulating layer (37) is formed with at least one opening (37a, 37b) to expose at least one of said first metallic contact electrode (35b) and said second metallic contact electrode (35a) {¶0151}.
Regarding claim 15, Oh as modified by Jeon and Wang teaches the ultraviolet light-emitting device as claimed in claim 1, and Oh further teaches in Fig. 3 wherein said at least one outer electrode section (outer section of 35b) includes two outer electrode sections (left-side outer section of 35b, right-side section of 35b) which are disposed in parallel on two sides of said active layer (25).
Regarding claim 16, Oh as modified by Jeon and Wang teaches the ultraviolet light-emitting device as claimed in claim 15, and Oh further teaches in Fig. 3 wherein said two of said outer electrode sections (left-side outer section of 35b, right-side section of 35b) are in a non-continuous form {left-side and right-side outer sections of 35b (identified as 35 in Fig. 3) are non-continuous along horizontal axis of Fig. 3}.
Regarding claim 20, Oh as modified by Jeon and Wang teaches the ultraviolet light-emitting device as claimed in claim 15, and Oh further teaches in Fig. 3 wherein said first metallic contact electrode (35b) further includes an inner electrode section (central portion of 35b along horizontal axis; Fig. 3) which is disposed in a central region of said light-emitting structure (23, 25, 27 of cells C1, C2), and which is separated from said two outer electrode sections (two sections of 35b respectively disposed on left and right sides of central portion of 35b; Fig. 3).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh in view of Jeon and Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Baur et al. (US20060124945A1).
Regarding claim 6, Oh as modified by Jeon and Wang teaches the ultraviolet light-emitting device as claimed in claim 1, and Oh further teaches wherein said at least one of said plurality of surface portions of said surrounding surface of said substrate (21) has a top side and a bottom side that are respectively proximate to and distal from said light-emitting structure (23, 25, 27 of cells C1, C2), and said at least one outer electrode section (outer section of 35b) of said first metallic contact electrode (35b) is disposed adjacent to said top side of said at least one of said plurality of surface portions {Figs. 1, 3, 4}.
Oh does not teach opposite oblique lateral sides each interconnecting said top side and said bottom side [of a substrate].
In an analogous art, Baur teaches in Fig. 1 and paragraph [0049] opposite oblique lateral sides (3) each interconnecting a top side and a bottom side of a substrate (1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oh’s ultraviolet light-emitting device as modified by Jeon and Wang based on the teachings of Baur – to have opposite oblique lateral sides each interconnecting said top side and said bottom side [of Wang’s substrate] -- because the oblique side areas are required for optimally coupling out the light from the interior of the substrate. Baur ¶0012.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh in view of Jeon and Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jang et al. (US20180261723A1).
Regarding claim 12, Oh as modified by Jeon and Wang teaches the ultraviolet light-emitting device as claimed in claim 1, but Oh does not teach which is configured to emit a light having a wavelength ranging from 210 nm to 340 nm.
In an analogous art, Jang teaches in paragraph [0003] a deep UV light emitting device emits UV light having a peak wavelength of about 340 nm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oh’s ultraviolet light-emitting device as modified by Jeon and Wang based on the teachings of Jang – such that the ultraviolet light-emitting device is configured to emit a light having a wavelength ranging from 210 nm to 340 nm – for applicability to UV curing, sterilization, white light sources, medical equipment, equipment components, and so on. Jang ¶0003.
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh in view of Jeon and Wang as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Goto et al. (US20170294559A1).
Regarding claim 17, Oh as modified by Jeon and Wang teaches the ultraviolet light-emitting device as claimed in claim 16, but Oh does not teach wherein each of said two of said outer electrode sections is separated into two outer electrode portions having different lengths in the longitudinal direction so as to form four outer electrode portions.
In an analogous art, Goto teaches in Fig. 2 and paragraph [0068] that each of two outer electrode sections (e.g., left-side 18 sections) is separated into two outer electrode portions (bottom-two 18 portions, top-two 18 portions) having different lengths in a longitudinal direction (e.g., horizontal) so as to form four outer electrode portions (four 18 portions) {see annotated copy of Goto’s Fig. 2, below}. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oh’s ultraviolet light-emitting device as modified by Jeon and Wang based on the teachings of Goto – such that each of said two of said outer electrode sections is separated into two outer electrode portions having different lengths in the longitudinal direction so as to form four outer electrode portions – so each of the four outer electrode portions may be individually electrically connected with a different external device. Goto ¶0068. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., outer electrode sections, outer electrode portions, different lengths) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Goto) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07. Still further, a change of shape is a matter of design choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B).
PNG
media_image1.png
542
449
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, Oh as modified by Jeon, Wang, and Goto teaches the ultraviolet light-emitting device as claimed in claim 17, but Oh does not teach wherein said four outer electrode portions are electrically connected to each other by a first pad electrode.
Goto teaches in Fig. 2 and paragraph [0068] that four outer electrode portions (four 18 portions) are electrically connected to each other by a pad electrode (8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oh’s ultraviolet light-emitting device as modified by Jeon, Wang, and Goto based on the further teachings of Goto – such that said four outer electrode portions are electrically connected to each other by a first pad electrode – so a single first pad electrode may be individually electrically connected with a different external device through a different outer electrode portion. Goto ¶0068. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., outer electrode sections, outer electrode portions, different lengths) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Goto) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 19, Oh as modified by Jeon, Wang, and Goto teaches the ultraviolet light-emitting device as claimed in claim 18, but Oh does not teach wherein two of said four outer electrode portions which are proximate to a second pad electrode each has a length greater than a length of other two of said four outer electrode portions which are proximate to said first pad electrode.
Goto teaches in Fig. 2 two (two left-side 18 portions) of four outer electrode portions (four 18 portions) which are proximate to a second pad electrode (9) each has a length greater than a length of other two (two right-side 18 portions) of said four outer electrode portions (four 18 portions) which are proximate to a first pad electrode (8) {see annotated copy of Goto’s Fig. 2, below}. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oh’s ultraviolet light-emitting device as modified by Jeon, Wang, and Goto based on the further teachings of Goto – such that two of said four outer electrode portions which are proximate to a second pad electrode each has a length greater than a length of other two of said four outer electrode portions which are proximate to said first pad electrode – because all the claimed elements (e.g., outer electrode sections, outer electrode portions, different lengths, first and second pad electrodes) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Goto) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Moreover, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07. Furthermore, a change of shape is a matter of design choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B).
PNG
media_image1.png
542
449
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Oh et al. (US20140353692A1) teaches a light emitting diode includes light emitting cells disposed on a substrate and interconnections connecting the light emitting cells to each other. Each of the light emitting cells includes a first semiconductor layer, a second semiconductor layer, an active layer disposed between the first semiconductor layer and the second semiconductor layer, and a transparent electrode layer disposed on the second semiconductor layer, wherein the first and second semiconductor layers have different conductivity types. The interconnections include a common cathode commonly connecting first and second light emitting cells of the light emitting cells, the first and second light emitting cells share the first semiconductor layer, the transparent electrode layer is continuously disposed between the first and second light emitting cells, and the common cathode is electrically connected to the first and second light emitting cells through the transparent electrode layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID WARD whose telephone number is (703)756-1382. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30-3:30 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, Matthew Landau can be reached at (571)-272-1731. 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.
/D.W.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2891
/MATTHEW C LANDAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2891