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 .
This Office action is in response to arguments filed 7/28/2025.
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) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN109841707A; a copy of which was already provided, using attached translation for reference) in view of Wang et al. (US 2023/0178689 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a method for fabricating a vertical light-emitting diode comprising (Figs. 3a-3f):
providing a growth substrate (20 in Fig. 3a), wherein an epitaxial layer (22) is formed on the growth substrate;
bonding a metal combined substrate (12) on the epitaxial layer, wherein the metal combined substrate comprises two first metal layers and a second metal layer therebetween, one of the first metal layers is close to the epitaxial layer, and another of the first metal layers is far away from the epitaxial layer;
removing the growth substrate (see Fig. 3d); and
forming a contact metal layer (18) on the epitaxial layer.
Chen does not disclose removing the second metal layer and the first metal layer far away from the epitaxial layer and leaving the first metal layer close to the epitaxial layer.
Wang, in the same field of endeavor, discloses thinning substrates underlying active layers (¶ 0052). There was a benefit to thinning substrates in that it reduces the size of the resulting device. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to thin the metal combined substrate after bonding with the epitaxial layer for this benefit. Wang does not limit a specific amount of material removed from the substrate, as such there is a range of how much substrate material to remove and removing an amount such that the second metal layer and the first metal layer far away from the epitaxial layer is removed and the first metal layer close to the epitaxial layer remains falls within the possible range and, as such, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 2, Chen further discloses etching the epitaxial layer to define a plurality of epitaxial structures and dividing the first metal layers and the second metal layer according to locations of intervals among the plurality of epitaxial structures (see Fig. 3f).
Chen does not disclose that this step occurs before the step of forming the contact metal layer on the epitaxial layer. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to reverse etching the epitaxial layer before forming the contact layer as selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946)).
Regarding claim 3, Chen further discloses forming the first metal layers from copper and the second metal layer from Invar (¶ 0066) which have the claimed relative coefficients of thermal expansion. Chen further discloses the thickness of the first and second metal layers within the claimed range (¶ 0066).
Regarding claim 4, Chen further discloses wherein a ratio of the first metal layer to the second metal layer to the first metal layer in thickness is 1: 2.5 : 1 (¶ 0066).
Regarding claim 5, Chen further discloses wherein the first metal layer comprises copper and the second metal layer comprises Invar (¶ 0066).
Regarding claim 6, Chen further discloses providing a protection layer (14) that covers the first metal layer close to the epitaxial layer before the step of removing the second metal layer and the first metal layer far away from the epitaxial layer in the method of the combination (as it is provided before the growth substrate is removed).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN109841707A) and Wang et al. (US 2023/0178689 A1) as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 9,444,019 B1).
Regarding claim 7, Chen in view of Wang does disclose forming a passivation layer as claimed.
Lee, in the same field of endeavor, discloses forming a passivation layer (150 in Fig. 4) after forming a contact metal layer (90) wherein the contact metal layer emerges from the passivation layer.
There was a benefit to forming passivation layers in that it provides protection to the underlying structure. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to form a passivation layer on the epitaxial layer after the step of forming the contact metal layer on the epitaxial layer, wherein the contact metal layer emerges from the passivation layer for this benefit.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN109841707A) and Wang et al. (US 2023/0178689 A1) as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Wann et al. (US 2015/0035017 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Chen in view of Wang does not disclose the specific method in which the second metal layer and the first metal layer far away from the epitaxial layer would be removed.
Wann discloses that metal layers may be removed using an etching solution that includes NH4OH and H202 (¶ 0039). There was a benefit to using such an etching solution in that it can remove the metals with minimal physical force to reduce the likelihood of breaking the device. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to use NH4OH and H202 to etch the metal layers for this benefit.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the teaching of Wang that a substrate may be thinned cannot be combined with the disclosure of Chen for different reasons. Initially, Applicant argues that the substrate of Wang is a native substrate and the substrate of claim 1 is not a native substrate. This argument is not persuasive as Applicant has not presented any argument or evidence that the either ability or motivation to thin a substrate is dependent upon whether that substrate is native or not native.
Applicant additionally argues that the substrate of Wang cannot be a metal combined substrate. This argument is not persuasive as Wang is not relied upon for disclosing a metal combined substrate. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As discussed in the rejection, Chen discloses a metal combined substrate and Wang is, instead, relied upon for disclosing that substrates can be thinned.
Applicant additional argues that Wang does not teach or suggest removing at least two metal layers within a substrate. This argument is not persuasive as Wang is not relied upon for disclosing metal layers within a substrate. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As discussed in the rejection, Chen discloses metal layers within a substrate and Wang is, instead, relied upon for disclosing that substrates can be thinned.
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 CHRISTOPHER A CULBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-4893. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at (571) 270-1435. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER A CULBERT/ Examiner, Art Unit 2815