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 .
Response to Amendment/Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 03/25/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 4-21 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The slight misalignment depicted in Figure 15C of third reference Ozeki is trivial with respect to the claimed limitation of “an entire area of the thermal pad is vertically registered with the LED chip”. In the vertical direction, the outer boundaries of thermal pad 5 and LED 20 are close enough to be interpreted as exactly aligned (neither larger nor smaller than one another) and able to read upon the claimed limitation. While the rejection of record is not being withdrawn, three additional references are cited which can each be used to read upon the claimed limitation of “an entire area of the thermal pad is vertically registered with the LED chip”.
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, 4, 9-11 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suich et al. (US-20210159368-A1 – hereinafter Suich) in view of Ikeda (US-20220165927-A1 – hereinafter Ikeda), and further in view of Ozeki et al. (US-20230005895-A1 – hereinafter Ozeki).
Regarding claim 1, Suich teaches a light-emitting diode (LED) package (Fig.11C 76; ¶0075) comprising:
a submount (Fig.11C 26; ¶0075) comprising a first side (top side of 26) and a second side (bottom side of 26) that opposes the first side (top side);
an LED chip (Fig.11C 12-2; ¶0075) on the first side (top side) of the submount (26);
an anode mounting pad (Fig.11C 52-1; ¶0067 and ¶0075) and a cathode mounting pad (Fig.11C 52-2; ¶0067 and ¶0075) on the second side (bottom side) of the submount (26), the anode mounting pad (52-1) and the cathode mounting pad (52-2) being electrically coupled to the LED chip (12-2), the anode mounting pad (52-1) comprising a first anode pad (inherent feature of 52-1) proximate a first corner (Fig.11B top right corner) of the submount (26); and
a thermal pad (Fig.11C 80; ¶0076) on the second side (bottom side) of the submount (26), the thermal pad (80) arranged between the anode mounting pad (52-1) and the cathode mounting pad (52-2) on the second side (bottom side) (see Fig.11B).
Suich also teaches an anode mounting pad (52-1) occupying both a first (top right corner) and second (Fig.11B bottom right corner) corner of the submount (26).
Suich does not teach a second anode pad proximate a second corner of the submount, and an anode extension that electrically couples the first anode pad to the second anode pad, a width of the anode extension being narrower than widths of the first anode pad and the second anode pad; and
wherein the thermal pad is arranged such that a shortest distance between the thermal pad and the anode mounting pad or the cathode mounting pad is in a range from 125 microns (μm) to 325 μm; and
wherein an entire area of the thermal pad is vertically registered with the LED chip.
Applicant’s disclosure indicates the first (Fig.1B 22-1 of application) and second (Fig.1B 22-2 of application) anode pads and the anode pad extension (Fig.1B 22-3 of application) are terms used to specify the shape of the anode mounting pad (Fig.1B 22 of application). Applicant’s anode mounting pad (22 of application) is a single continuous component, like the anode mounting pad taught by Suich (52-1 of Suich). In light of this, both components are equivalent and the sub-components of the applicant’s anode mounting pad serve no purpose other than specifying the shape.
Ikeda teaches an LED having an anode electrode (Fig.1D 14A; ¶0043 of Ikeda) having a first anode pad (upper end of 14A of Ikeda) proximate a first corner of the submount (upper right corner of Fig.1D of Ikeda), a second anode pad (lower end of 14A of Ikeda) proximate a second corner of the submount (lower right corner of Fig.1D of Ikeda), and an anode extension (middle area of 14A of Ikeda) that electrically couples the first anode pad to the second anode pad, wherein a width of the anode extension is narrower than widths of the first anode pad and the second anode pad (Fig.1D 14A; ¶0043 of Ikeda the center area is narrower then the upper and lower areas).
Shape differences are considered obvious design choices and are not patentable unless unobvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. Additionally, the Applicant has presented no discussion in the specification which convinces the Examiner that the particular shape of the anode mounting pad is anything more than one of numerous shapes a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of carrying an electric current (In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976)). It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious.
Suich also does not explicitly teach wherein the thermal pad is arranged such that a shortest distance between the thermal pad and the anode mounting pad or the cathode mounting pad is in a range from 125 microns (μm) to 325 μm.
However, it would have been obvious to form the thermal pad, anode mounting pad and cathode mounting pad arrangement such that a shortest distance between the thermal pad and the anode mounting pad or the cathode mounting pad is within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Suich in view of Ikeda does not teach wherein an entire area of the thermal pad is vertically registered with the LED chip.
Ozeki teaches an LED package (Fig.15C 100J; ¶0292 of Ozeki) wherein a thermal pad (Fig.15C 5; ¶0292 of Ozeki) is fully overlapped by an LED chip (Fig.15C 20; ¶0093 of Ozeki) in the vertical direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the thermal pad to be fully overlapped by the LED chip (as shown in Fig.15C of Ozeki) either by shrinking the thermal pad or by having a larger LED chip. The claimed language is broad enough so these differences are a matter of design choice and do not render claim 1 patentable over the cited references.
Regarding claim 4, the aforementioned combination of Suich in view of Ikeda, and further in view of Ozeki from claim 1 teaches the LED package of claim 1, wherein the cathode mounting pad (52-2) comprises a first cathode pad (inherent feature of 52-2) proximate a third corner (Fig.11B top left corner) of the submount (26).
Regarding claim 9, the aforementioned combination of Suich in view of Ikeda, and further in view of Ozeki from claim 1 teaches the LED package of claim 1.
Also, Suich does teach wherein the submount comprises a length and width.
Suich does not teach wherein the length and the width are both less than 2 millimeters (mm).
However, it would have been obvious to form the submount wherein the length and the width are both less than 2 millimeters (mm), since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 10, the aforementioned combination of Suich in view of Ikeda, and further in view of Ozeki from claim 9 teaches the LED package of claim 9.
Suich does not teach wherein the length and the width are in a range from 1 mm to less than 2 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to form the submount wherein the length and the width are both in a range from 1 mm to less than 2 mm, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 11, the aforementioned combination of Suich in view of Ikeda, and further in view of Ozeki from claim 1 teaches the LED package of claim 1, further comprising:
an anode metal trace (Fig.11C 56-1; ¶0010 and ¶0069) and a cathode metal trace (Fig.11C 56-4; ¶0010 and ¶0069) on the first side (top side) of the submount (26) that are electrically coupled with the LED chip (12-2);
a first via (Fig.11C 78 right; ¶0077) that extends through the submount (26) to electrically couple the anode metal trace (56-2) to the anode mounting pad (52-1); and
a second via (Fig.11C 78 left; ¶0077) that extends through the submount (26) to electrically couple the cathode metal trace (56-1) to the cathode mounting pad (52-2);
wherein the first via (78 right) and the second via (78 left) extend through portions of the submount (26) that are outside peripheral edges of the LED chip (see Fig.11A-C).
Regarding claim 15, the aforementioned combination of Suich in view of Ikeda, and further in view of Ozeki from claim 1 teaches the LED package of claim 1.
Suich does not teach wherein the shortest distance between the thermal pad and the anode mounting pad or the cathode mounting pad is in a range from 175 μm to 275 μm.
However, it would have been obvious to form the thermal pad, anode mounting pad and cathode mounting pad so the shortest distance between the thermal pad and the anode mounting pad or the cathode mounting pad is in a range from 175 μm to 275 μm, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 16, Suich teaches a light-emitting diode (LED) package (Fig.11C 76; ¶0075) comprising:
a submount (Fig.11C 26 ¶0075) comprising a first side (top side) and a second side (bottom side) that opposes the first side (top side);
an LED chip (Fig.11C 12-2; ¶0075) on the first side (top side) of the submount (26);
an anode mounting pad (Fig.11C 52-1; ¶0067 and ¶0075) and a cathode mounting pad (Fig.11C 52-2; ¶0067 and ¶0075) on the second side (bottom side) of the submount (26), the anode mounting pad (52-1) and the cathode mounting pad (52-2) being electrically coupled to the LED chip (12-2), the anode mounting pad (52-1) comprising a first anode pad (inherent feature of 52-1) proximate a first corner (Fig.11B top right corner) of the submount (26); and
a thermal pad (Fig.11C 80; ¶0076) on the second side (bottom side) of the submount (26).
Suich also teaches wherein the submount comprises a length and a width; and
an anode mounting pad (52-1) occupying both a first (top right corner) and second (Fig.11B bottom right corner) corner of the submount (26).
Suich does not teach a second anode pad proximate a second corner of the submount, and an anode extension that electrically couples the first anode pad to the second anode pad, a width of the anode extension being narrower than widths of the first anode pad and the second anode pad.
Applicant’s disclosure indicates the first (Fig.1B 22-1 of application) and second (Fig.1B 22-2 of application) anode pads and the anode pad extension (Fig.1B 22-3 of application) are terms used to specify the shape of the anode mounting pad (Fig.1B 22 of application). Applicant’s anode mounting pad (22 of application) is a single continuous component, like the anode mounting pad taught by Suich (52-1 of Suich). In light of this, both components are equivalent and the sub-components of the applicant’s anode mounting pad serve no purpose other than specifying the shape.
Ikeda teaches an LED having an anode electrode (Fig.1D 14A; ¶0043 of Ikeda) having a first anode pad (upper end of 14A of Ikeda) proximate a first corner of the submount (upper right corner of Fig.1D of Ikeda), a second anode pad (lower end of 14A of Ikeda) proximate a second corner of the submount (lower right corner of Fig.1D of Ikeda), and an anode extension (middle area of 14A of Ikeda) that electrically couples the first anode pad to the second anode pad, wherein a width of the anode extension is narrower than widths of the first anode pad and the second anode pad (Fig.1D 14A; ¶0043 of Ikeda the center area is narrower then the upper and lower areas).
Shape differences are considered obvious design choices and are not patentable unless unobvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. Additionally, the Applicant has presented no discussion in the specification which convinces the Examiner that the particular shape of the anode mounting pad is anything more than one of numerous shapes a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of carrying an electric current (In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976)). It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious.
Suich also does not teach wherein the length and the width are both less than 2 millimeters (mm).
However, it would have been obvious to form the submount wherein the length and the width are both less than 2 millimeters (mm), since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Suich also does not teach wherein a shortest distance between the thermal pad and the anode mounting pad is in a range from 125 microns (μm) to 325 μm and a shortest distance between the thermal pad and the cathode mounting pad is in a range from 125 μm to 325 μm.
However, it would have been obvious to form the thermal pad, anode mounting pad and cathode mounting pad so the shortest distance between the thermal pad and the anode mounting pad or the cathode mounting pad is in a range from 125 μm to 325 μm, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Suich in view of Ikeda does not teach wherein an entire area of the thermal pad is vertically registered with the LED chip.
Ozeki teaches an LED package (Fig.15C 100J; ¶0292 of Ozeki) wherein a thermal pad (Fig.15C 5; ¶0292 of Ozeki) is fully overlapped by an LED chip (Fig.15C 20; ¶0093 of Ozeki) in the vertical direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the thermal pad to be fully overlapped by the LED chip (as shown in Fig.15C of Ozeki) either by shrinking the thermal pad or by having a larger LED chip. The claimed language is broad enough so these differences are a matter of design choice and do not render claim 16 patentable over the cited references.
Claim(s) 5-8 and 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suich in view of Ikeda, and further in view of Ozeki, and further in view of Sato.
Regarding claim 5, the aforementioned combination of Suich in view of Ikeda, and further in view of Ozeki from claim 4 teaches the LED package of claim 4.
The aforementioned combination does not teach wherein the thermal pad comprises a first protrusion that extends on the second side in a first direction toward the anode extension and a second protrusion that extends on the second side in a second direction toward a gap formed between the first anode pad and the first cathode pad.
Sato teaches a die pad (Fig.1 11; ¶0023 of Sato) located between electrode (anode/cathode) portions (Fig.1 12 and 13; ¶0023 of Sato) (these electrode portions have a similar shape to applicant’s disclosure where a wider top and bottom are joined by a narrower middle section), the die pad (11 of Sato) having a first protrusion (Fig.1 of Sato 11 has a round center portion that can be interpreted as having a narrow center with the same width as 14 and 15 from Fig.1, where the round edges that extend toward 12 and 13 are both protrusions) that extends in a first direction toward an anode extension (12 or 13 of Sato) and a second protrusion (Fig.1 14 and 15; ¶0023 of Sato) that extends in a second direction toward a gap (Fig.1 of Sato depicts a narrow gap between 12 and 13 at the ends of the embodiment) between both electrode portions (12 and 13 of Sato).
Shape differences are considered obvious design choices and are not patentable unless unobvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. Additionally, the Applicant has presented no discussion in the specification which convinces the Examiner that the particular shape of the thermal pad is anything more than one of numerous shapes a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of dissipating heat (In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976)). It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 6, the aforementioned combination of Suich in view of Ikeda, and further in view of Ozeki, and further in view of Sato from claim 5 teaches the LED package of claim 5, wherein a portion of the second protrusion is arranged between the first anode pad and the first cathode pad (Fig.1 14 and 15 of Sato).
Regarding claim 7, the aforementioned combination of Suich in view of Ikeda, and further in view of Ozeki from claim 4 teaches the LED package of claim 4.
The aforementioned combination does not teach wherein the thermal pad forms a circular shape on the second side and the shortest distance is formed between the thermal pad and the first and second anode pads or between the thermal pad and the first and second cathode pads.
Sato teaches a die pad (Fig.1 11; ¶0023 of Sato) located between electrode (anode/cathode) portions (Fig.1 12 and 13; ¶0023 of Sato) (these electrode portions have a similar shape to applicant’s disclosure where a wider top and bottom are joined by a narrower middle section), the die pad (11 of Sato) having a circular shape (11 of Sato is clearly circular) with an equal distance to all parts of the electrode and anode pads (12 and 13 of Sato).
Shape differences are considered obvious design choices and are not patentable unless unobvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. Additionally, the Applicant has presented no discussion in the specification which convinces the Examiner that the particular shape of the thermal pad is anything more than one of numerous shapes a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of dissipating heat (In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976)). It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 8, the aforementioned combination of Suich in view of Ikeda, and further in view of Ozeki from claim 4 teaches the LED package of claim 4.
The aforementioned combination does not teach wherein the thermal pad forms a circular shape on the second side and the shortest distance is formed between the thermal pad and anode extension or between the thermal pad and the cathode extension.
Sato teaches a die pad (Fig.1 11; ¶0023 of Sato) located between electrode (anode/cathode) portions (Fig.1 12 and 13; ¶0023 of Sato) (these electrode portions have a similar shape to applicant’s disclosure where a wider top and bottom are joined by a narrower middle section), the die pad (11 of Sato) having a circular shape (11 of Sato is clearly circular) with an equal distance to all parts of the electrode and anode pads (12 and 13 of Sato).
Shape differences are considered obvious design choices and are not patentable unless unobvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. Additionally, the Applicant has presented no discussion in the specification which convinces the Examiner that the particular shape of the thermal pad is anything more than one of numerous shapes a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of dissipating heat (In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976)). It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 18, the aforementioned combination of Suich in view of Ikeda, and further in view of Ozeki from claim 16 teaches the LED package of claim 16.
Suich does not teach wherein:
the thermal pad forms a circular shape on the second side of the submount;
the shortest distance between the thermal pad and the anode mounting pad is formed between the thermal pad and a corner of the anode mounting pad; and
the shortest distance between the thermal pad and the cathode mounting pad is formed between the thermal pad and a corner of the cathode mounting pad.
Sato teaches a die pad (Fig.1 11; ¶0023 of Sato) located between electrode (anode/cathode) portions (Fig.1 12 and 13; ¶0023 of Sato) (these electrode portions have a similar shape to applicant’s disclosure where a wider top and bottom are joined by a narrower middle section), the die pad (11 of Sato) having a circular shape (11 of Sato is clearly circular). Sato does not clearly disclose which edge of 12 and 13 is closest to 11, however 12 and 13 of Sato clearly have corners at both ends of the embodiment of Fig.1 of Sato.
It would have been obvious to form the thermal pad, anode mounting pad and cathode mounting pad arrangement such that a shortest distance between the thermal pad and the anode mounting pad is formed between the thermal pad and a corner of the anode mounting pad and a shortest distance between the thermal pad and the cathode mounting pad is formed between the thermal pad and a corner of the cathode mounting pad, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Additionally, shape differences are considered obvious design choices and are not patentable unless unobvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. Additionally, the Applicant has presented no discussion in the specification which convinces the Examiner that the particular shape of the thermal pad is anything more than one of numerous shapes a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of dissipating heat (In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976)). It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 19, the aforementioned combination of Suich in view of Ikeda, and further in view of Ozeki from claim 16 teaches the LED package of claim 16.
Suich does not teach wherein the thermal pad comprises a protrusion that extends on the second side in a second direction toward a gap formed between the anode mounting pad and the cathode mounting pad.
Sato teaches a die pad (Fig.1 11; ¶0023 of Sato) located between electrode (anode/cathode) portions (Fig.1 12 and 13; ¶0023 of Sato) (these electrode portions have a similar shape to applicant’s disclosure where a wider top and bottom are joined by a narrower middle section), the die pad (11 of Sato) having a first protrusion (Fig.1 of Sato 11 has a round center portion that can be interpreted as having a narrow center with the same width as 14 and 15 from Fig.1, where the round edges that extend toward 12 and 13 are both protrusions) that extends in a first direction toward an anode extension (12 or 13 of Sato) and a second protrusion (Fig.1 14 and 15; ¶0023 of Sato) that extends in a second direction toward a gap (Fig.1 of Sato depicts a narrow gap between 12 and 13 at the ends of the embodiment) between both electrode portions (12 and 13 of Sato).
Shape differences are considered obvious design choices and are not patentable unless unobvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. Additionally, the Applicant has presented no discussion in the specification which convinces the Examiner that the particular shape of the thermal pad is anything more than one of numerous shapes a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of dissipating heat (In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976)). It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 20, the aforementioned combination of Suich in view of Ikeda, and further in view of Ozeki, and further in view of of Sato from claim 19 teaches the LED package of claim 19, wherein at least one edge of the anode mounting pad (12 of Sato) is parallel to an edge of the protrusion (14 of Sato) and at least one edge of the cathode mounting pad (13 of Sato) is parallel to another edge of the protrusion (14 of Sato).
Regarding claim 21, the aforementioned combination of Suich in view of Ikeda, and further in view of Ozeki, and further in view of Sato from claim 19 teaches the LED package of claim 19.
Suich does not teach wherein:
the shortest distance between the thermal pad and the anode mounting pad is formed between an edge of the protrusion and the anode mounting pad; and
the shortest distance between the thermal pad and the cathode mounting pad is formed between another edge of the protrusion and the cathode mounting pad.
However, it would have been obvious to form the thermal pad, anode mounting pad and cathode mounting pad arrangement such that a shortest distance between the thermal pad and the anode mounting pad is formed between an edge of the protrusion and the anode mounting pad and a shortest distance between the thermal pad and the cathode mounting pad is formed between another edge of the protrusion and the cathode mounting pad, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suich in view of Ikeda, and further in view of Ozeki, and further in view of Hussell et al. (US-20110260182-A1 – hereinafter Hussell).
Regarding claim 12, the aforementioned combination of Suich in view of Ikeda, and further in view of Ozeki from claim 11 teaches the LED package of claim 11.
Suich does not teach wherein the LED package is further comprising a third via that extends through the submount between the thermal pad and the LED chip.
Hussell teaches a light emitting device comprising multiple vias (Fig.5 50; ¶0041) that extend through a submount (Fig.5 42; ¶0041) and a thermal pad (Fig.5 58; ¶0041).
It would have been obvious to a practitioner of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have added a conductive via (50 of Hussell) similar to those taught by Hussell to the device taught by Suich between the thermal pad (80 of Suich) and the LED chip (12-2 of Suich) through the submount (26 of Suich). A practitioner would be motivated to make this modification because adding conductive vias assists in heat dissipation (¶0041 of Hussell).
Regarding claim 13, the aforementioned combination of Suich in view of Ikeda, and further in view of Ozeki, and further in view of Hussel from claim 12 teaches the LED package of claim 12, wherein the third via extends through an entire thickness of the submount (Fig.5 of Hussel teaches vias 50 that extend through an entire thickness of submount 42).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suich in view of Ikeda, and further in view of Ozeki, and further in view of Luxeon (see attached PDF file).
Regarding claim 17, the aforementioned combination of Suich in view of Ikeda, and further in view of Ozeki from claim 16 teaches the LED package of claim 16, wherein:
the submount (26) forms a rectangular shape such that a length of the submount (26) is greater than a width of the submount (See Fig.11A and Fig.11B).
Suich does not teach wherein the thermal pad extends on the second side from a center location toward a first edge of the submount; and the anode mounting pad and the cathode mounting pad are proximate a second edge of the submount that is opposite the first edge.
This claimed configuration is depicted throughout Luxeon where two electrodes (cathode/anode) are arranged on a short side of a submount with a thermal pad arranged on an opposite side from the cathode/anode (see Fig.1 of Luxeon). This configuration of electrodes and a thermal pad is well known in the art and renders claim 17 unpatentable over Suich, as proven by Luxeon.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suich in view of Ikeda, and further in view of Ozeki, and further in view of Hussell, and further in view of Kim (US-20230073345-A1 – hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 14, the aforementioned combination of Suich in view of Ikeda, and further in view of Ozeki, and further in view of Hussel from claim 12 teaches the LED package of claim 12.
The aforementioned combination does not teach wherein the third via extends through less than an entire thickness of the submount.
Kim teaches an LED package having a via hole (Fig.1 130; ¶0043 of Kim) with a filling member (Fig.1 140; ¶0045 of Kim) that extends partially through a base member (Fig.1 102; ¶0043 of Kim).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the vias of Suich in view of Hussel (50 of Hussel) to only extend partially through the submount (26 of Suich) to increase the number of heat dissipation paths to and increase the overall heat dissipation effect (¶0043 of Kim).
Claim(s) 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suich in view of Ikeda, and further in view of Ozeki, and further in view of Chu (US-20180212104-A1 – hereinafter Chu).
Regarding claim 22, the aforementioned combination of Suich in view of Ikeda, and further in view of Ozeki from claim 1 teaches the LED package of claim 1.
The aforementioned combination does not teach wherein the entire area of the thermal pad is vertically registered and centered with respect to the LED chip.
Chu teaches an LED package (Fig.3 300; ¶0032 of Chu) comprising an LED chip (Fig.3 310; ¶0033 of Chu) and a thermal pad (Fig.3 400; ¶0032 of Chu), the thermal pad (400 of Chu) being completely vertically registered and centered (in Fig.3 of Chu 400 is centered and presumed to be fully registered) with respect to the LED chip (310 of Chu).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to center the thermal pad (80 of Suich) of the device taught by Suich in view of Ikeda, and further in view of Ozeki as taught by Chu (400 of Chu) to arrive at the claimed invention. A practitioner would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of uniform heat distribution from the bottom of the LED (310 of Chu) to the thermal pad (400 of Chu).
Regarding claim 23, the aforementioned combination of Suich in view of Ikeda, and further in view of Ozeki from claim 16 teaches the LED package of claim 16.
The aforementioned combination does not teach wherein the entire area of the thermal pad is vertically registered and centered with respect to the LED chip.
Chu teaches an LED package (Fig.3 300; ¶0032 of Chu) comprising an LED chip (Fig.3 310; ¶0033 of Chu) and a thermal pad (Fig.3 400; ¶0032 of Chu), the thermal pad (400 of Chu) being completely vertically registered and centered (in Fig.3 of Chu 400 is centered and presumed to be fully registered) with respect to the LED chip (310 of Chu).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to center the thermal pad (80 of Suich) of the device taught by Suich in view of Ikeda, and further in view of Ozeki as taught by Chu (400 of Chu) to arrive at the claimed invention. A practitioner would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of uniform heat distribution from the bottom of the LED (310 of Chu) to the thermal pad (400 of Chu).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 THADDEUS J KOLB whose telephone number is (571)272-0276. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached at (571) 272-7925. 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.
/T.J.K./ Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/ELISEO RAMOS FELICIANO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817