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 .
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.
Claim 2 is 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. Regarding claim 2, it is not clear whether Applicants claim that the light is 100% reflected for the first incidence angle and no light is reflected for the second incidence angle, because according to Snell's law, some portion of light would be transmitted for the first incidence angle unless the first incidence angle is 90 degrees, and some portion of light would be reflected for the second incidence angle unless the second incidence angle is zero.
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-AlA) 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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Chuang et al. (WO 2020015437 A1) in view of Qin et al. (US 10276753 B2) further in view of 加藤 達也 et al. (JP 6381327 B2).
Regarding Claim 1, Chuang discloses a flip-chip light-emitting diode (LED) comprising:
A substrate (10) having a first surface (S101) and second surface (S102) opposite to the first surface;
A semiconductor stacking layer (20, 21, 22) formed on the second surface;
An optical thin film stacking layer comprising a first reflective film group (50) and the first reflective film group comprises a first material layer and a second material layer repeatedly stacked (“In order to further adjust the reflectivity of the first reflective layer 50, the first reflective layer 50 has a multilayer structure, and the reflectance of the first reflective layer 50 can be adjusted by adjusting the layer structure of the first reflective layer 50.”);
Wherein the optical thin film stacking layer is configured to reflect light with a wavelength in a range of 400 to 500 nm (“Since the chip of the present invention is applied to an LED backlight source, the reflectance of the first reflective layer 50 to light of 400-500 nm is less than or equal to 80%.”) emitted from the semiconductor stacking layer and an incident angle being a first angle, and partially transmit light at an incident angle being a second angle, with the first angle being smaller than the second angle, which is also directed to an intended use of the optical thin film stacking layer.
加藤 達也 teaches a first material having a titanium dioxide (66) layer and second material consisting of a silicon oxide layer (65);
“The LED light-emitting device according to claim 3, wherein the silicon dioxide layer and the titanium oxide layer of the first multilayer film are alternately stacked a plurality of times.”
It would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date to utilize alternating stacks of titanium oxide (high refractive index) and silicon dioxide (low refractive index) taught by 加藤 達也 to form a distributed bragg reflector which is commonly utilized in LED design for the purpose of increasing constructive interference to produce a strong, broadband reflection of light with a targeted wavelength. By using materials with widely separated refractive indices, such as TiO2 and SiO2, the layered stack is better able to suppress reflections over a broader range of wavelengths or fine-tune performance at a specific wavelength and is well-known in the art.
It would be obvious to utilize quarter-wave optical thickness (QWOT) given its standard for single-layer antireflection coating and a foundational element for multilayer designs.
“The thickness of the mono-layered optical anti-reflective film is ¼ of a wavelength of the corresponding wave band (λ/4).” The quarter wave optical thickness also mathematically requires that the first material (TiO2) is geometrically smaller due to the higher refractive index based on d1=wavelength/4n1, which means a material with a higher refractive index will be geometrically smaller than a material with a lower refractive index.
PNG
media_image1.png
167
256
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
304
489
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Chuang discloses a flip-chip light-emitting diode (LED) wherein a reflectivity of the first reflective film group to the light at the first angle with the wavelength in the range of 400 to 500 nm is greater than that of the first reflective film group to the light second angle with the wavelength in the range of 400 to 500 nm:
“Since the chip of the present invention is applied to an LED backlight source, the reflectance of the first reflective layer 50 to light of 400-500 nm is less than or equal to 80%. Preferably, the reflectance of the first reflective layer 50 to light of 400-500 nm is less than or equal to 80%. After the two reflection layers 60 reflect, 20 to 40% of the light is emitted from the back of the chip, and 60 to 80% of the light is emitted from the side of the chip.”
It would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date to utilize alternating stacks of titanium oxide (high refractive index) and silicon dioxide (low refractive index) to further refine wavelength transmission between 420 and 480 nm from the disclosed 400 to 500 nm taught by Chuang to increase constructive interference to produce a stronger, broadband reflection of light with a targeted wavelength. By using materials with widely separated refractive indices, such as TiO2 and SiO2, the layered stack is better able to suppress reflections over a broader range of wavelengths or fine-tune performance at a specific wavelength and is well-known in the art.
Regarding Claim 4, Chuang discloses a flip-chip light-emitting diode (LED) wherein the first angle is smaller than the second angle (Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image3.png
243
391
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the angle of incidence of the flip-chip LED to specific ranges (0-20, 20-40 degrees) in order to maximize reflectance and transmittance as a function of the wavelength of light emitted.
Regarding Claim 3, Chuang discloses a flip-chip light-emitting diode (LED) wherein a first reflective film group is configured to reflect a light with a wavelength in a range of 400 nm to 500 nm at the first angle, and partially transmit a light with a wavelength in the range of 400 nm to 500 nm at the second angle.
It would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date to utilize alternating stacks of titanium oxide (high refractive index) and silicon dioxide (low refractive index) to further refine wavelength transmission between 440 and 455 nm from the disclosed 400 to 500 nm taught by Chuang to increase constructive interference to produce a stronger, broadband reflection of light with a targeted wavelength.
Regarding Claim 5, Chuang discloses a flip-chip light-emitting diode (LED) wherein a reflectivity of the first reflective film group to the light at the first angle with a wavelength in the range of 400 nm to 500 nm is less than or equal to 80%, and a reflectivity of the first reflective film group to at least part of the light at the second angle with the wavelength in the range of 400 nm to 500 nm is less than 90%.
Qin discloses a flip-chip light-emitting diode (LED) wherein a reflectivity of the first reflective film group to the light at the first angle with a wavelength in the range of 400 nm to 500 nm is greater than or equal to 95%, and a reflectivity of the first reflective film group to at least part of the light at the second angle with the wavelength in the range of 400 nm to 500 nm is less than 90%.
“A reflective layer 106a with high reflectivity in the UV wave band is formed on a surface of a side of the optical anti-reflective film 105a facing away from the support plate 101a by such as evaporation or sputtering, which is preferably an aluminum (Al) layer. The metal Al has quite high reflectivity (over 95%) in the wave band from deep UV to infrared.”
It would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the reflectivity values disclosed by Chuang and Qin to improve display resolution and decrease bright spots as expected.
Regarding Claim 9, Chuang discloses a flip-chip light-emitting diode (LED) wherein a geometric thickness of the first material layer is not explicitly defined.
Qin discloses a flip-chip light-emitting diode (LED) wherein an optical thickness of the first material layer is dependent on the corresponding wave band:
“The thickness of the monolayer structure is ¼ of a wavelength of the corresponding wave band (λ/4). If it is a multilayered structure, thicknesses of each layer are a combination of ¼ (λ/4) and ½ (λ/2) of the wavelength of the corresponding wave band.”
It would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the application to take the material layers disclosed by Chuang and Qin and limit the geometric thickness to a specific range dependent on the space and visual properties desired.
Regarding Claim 10, Chuang discloses a flip-chip light-emitting diode (LED) wherein a geometric thickness of the second material layer is not explicitly defined.
Qin discloses a flip-chip light-emitting diode (LED) wherein an optical thickness of the second material layer is dependent on the corresponding wave band:
“The thickness of the monolayer structure is ¼ of a wavelength of the corresponding wave band (λ/4). If it is a multilayered structure, thicknesses of each layer are a combination of ¼ (λ/4) and ½ (λ/2) of the wavelength of the corresponding wave band.”
It would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the application to take the material layers disclosed by Chuang and Qin and limit the geometric thickness to a specific range dependent on the space and visual properties desired.
Regarding Claim 11, Chuang discloses a material layer and second material layer in the reflective film but does not limit the quantity used depending on application and needs.
Qin discloses a material layer and second material layer in the reflective film but states that a monolayer or multilayer configuration be used depending on the reflective properties needed:
“…the optical anti-reflective film is a monolayer structure or a multilayer structure, and a thickness of the monolayer structure is ¼ of a wavelength of a corresponding wave band, and thicknesses of layers in the multilayer structure are a combination of ¼ and ½ of the wavelength of the corresponding wave band.”
It would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the application to take the reflective layers disclosed by Chuang and Qin and limit the total to an odd amount while keeping the total layer number less than 15 based on the material of the film, to decrease mechanical space, and optimize visual performance.
Regarding Claim 21, Chuang discloses a flip-chip light-emitting diode (LED) comprising:
A substrate (10) having a first surface (S101) and second surface (S102) opposite to the first surface;
A semiconductor stacking layer (20, 21, 22) formed on the second surface;
An optical thin film stacking layer comprising a first reflective film group (50) and the first reflective film group comprises a first material layer and a second material layer repeatedly stacked (“In order to further adjust the reflectivity of the first reflective layer 50, the first reflective layer 50 has a multilayer structure, and the reflectance of the first reflective layer 50 can be adjusted by adjusting the layer structure of the first reflective layer 50.”);
Wherein the optical thin film stacking layer is configured to reflect light with a wavelength in a range of 400 to 500 nm (“Since the chip of the present invention is applied to an LED backlight source, the reflectance of the first reflective layer 50 to light of 400-500 nm is less than or equal to 80%.”) emitted from the semiconductor stacking layer and an incident angle being a first angle, and partially transmit light at an incident angle being a second angle, with the first angle being smaller than the second angle, which is also directed to an intended use of the optical thin film stacking layer.
加藤 達也 teaches a first material having a titanium dioxide (66) layer and second material consisting of a silicon oxide layer (65);
“The LED light-emitting device according to claim 3, wherein the silicon dioxide layer and the titanium oxide layer of the first multilayer film are alternately stacked a plurality of times.”
It would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date to utilize alternating stacks of titanium oxide (high refractive index) and silicon dioxide (low refractive index) to form a distributed bragg reflector which is commonly utilized in LED design for the purpose of increasing constructive interference to produce a strong, broadband reflection of light with a targeted wavelength.
Regarding Claim 22, Chuang discloses a material layer and second material layer in the reflective film but does not limit the quantity used depending on application and needs.
Qin discloses a material layer and second material layer in the reflective film but states that a monolayer or multilayer configuration be used depending on the reflective properties needed:
“…the optical anti-reflective film is a monolayer structure or a multilayer structure, and a thickness of the monolayer structure is ¼ of a wavelength of a corresponding wave band, and thicknesses of layers in the multilayer structure are a combination of ¼ and ½ of the wavelength of the corresponding wave band.”
It would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the application to take the reflective layers disclosed by Chuang and Qin and limit the total to an odd amount while keeping the total layer number less than 15 based on the material of the film, to decrease mechanical space, and optimize visual performance.
Regarding claim 23, 加藤 達也 discloses a first material layer consisting of titanium dioxide (66) which has a higher refractive index than that of the second material layer consisting of silicon dioxide (65).
Regarding claim 24, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to deposit a stoichiometric titanium oxide layer (J. R. Devore. Refractive indices of rutile and sphalerite. J. Opt. Soc. Am. 41, 416-419 (1951)) and a stoichiometric silicon oxide layer (I. H. Malitson. Interspecimen comparison of the refractive index of fused silica. J. Opt. Soc. Am. 55, 1205-1208 (1965)) due to their well-known insulating characteristics and dielectric constants, and ease and low cost of manufacturing processes of depositing the stoichiometric titanium oxide and silicon oxide; in this case, the stoichiometric titanium oxide and silicon oxide would have the claimed indices of refraction.
Regarding Claim 25, Chuang discloses a flip-chip light-emitting diode (LED) wherein a total geometric thickness of the reflective film group is not explicitly defined.
It would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the application to take the reflective film groups disclosed by Chuang and Qin and limit the geometric thickness to a specific range dependent on the space and visual properties desired.
Regarding Claim 26, Chuang discloses a flip-chip light-emitting diode (LED) wherein a geometric thickness of the second material layer is not explicitly defined.
Qin discloses a flip-chip light-emitting diode (LED) wherein an optical thickness of the second material layer is dependent on the corresponding wave band:
“The thickness of the monolayer structure is ¼ of a wavelength of the corresponding wave band (λ/4). If it is a multilayered structure, thicknesses of each layer are a combination of ¼ (λ/4) and ½ (λ/2) of the wavelength of the corresponding wave band.”
It would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the application to take the material layers disclosed by Chuang and Qin and limit the geometric thickness to a specific range dependent on the space and visual properties desired.
Regarding Claim 27, Chuang discloses a flip-chip light-emitting diode (LED) wherein a geometric thickness of the second material layer is not explicitly defined.
Qin discloses a flip-chip light-emitting diode (LED) wherein an optical thickness of the second material layer is dependent on the corresponding wave band:
“The thickness of the monolayer structure is ¼ of a wavelength of the corresponding wave band (λ/4). If it is a multilayered structure, thicknesses of each layer are a combination of ¼ (λ/4) and ½ (λ/2) of the wavelength of the corresponding wave band.”
It would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the application to take the material layers disclosed by Chuang and Qin and limit the geometric thickness to a specific range dependent on the space and visual properties desired.
Response to Arguments
Applicants' arguments filed June 13, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants amendment with regards to Claim 2 " the optical thicknesses of the first material layer and the second material layer make the following situations occur: the optical thin film stacking layer is configured to reflect a light with a wavelength in a range of 420 nm to 480 nm emitted from the semiconductor stacking layer and at an incident angle being a first angle, and partially transmit the light at an incident angle being a second angle, and the first angle being smaller than the second angle" has been acknowledged.
It is not clear whether Applicants claim that the light is 100% reflected for the first incidence angle and no light is reflected for the second incidence angle, because according to Snell's law, some portion of light would be transmitted for the first incidence angle unless the first incidence angle is 90 degrees, and some portion of light would be reflected for the second incidence angle unless the second incidence angle is zero.
However, Chuang teaches an optical thin film stacking layer which is configured to reflect light with a wavelength in a range of 400 to 500 nm (“Since the chip of the present invention is applied to an LED backlight source, the reflectance of the first reflective layer 50 to light of 400-500 nm is less than or equal to 80%.”) emitted from the semiconductor stacking layer and an incident angle being a first angle, and partially transmit light at an incident angle being a second angle, with the first angle being smaller than the second angle, which is also directed to an intended use of the optical thin film stacking layer.
加藤 達也 teaches a first material having a titanium dioxide (66) layer and second material consisting of a silicon oxide layer (65); it would therefore be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date to utilize alternating stacks of titanium oxide (high refractive index) and silicon dioxide (low refractive index) to form a distributed bragg reflector reflecting light between 420 and 480 nm which is commonly utilized in LED design for the purpose of increasing constructive interference to produce a strong, broadband reflection of light with a targeted wavelength. Refining and optimizing wavelength reflectance with commonly known material layers is held to be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the application.
Applicant argues that Chuang fails to disclose "the first material layer is a titanium oxide layer, the second material layer is a silicon oxide layer, a geometric thickness of the first material layer is smaller than that of the second material layer, and a refractive index of the first material layer is higher than a refractive index of the second material layer" as recited in the currently amended claim 1. Examiner agrees with this and has added 加藤 達也 who teaches a first material having a titanium dioxide (66) layer and second material consisting of a silicon oxide layer (65); wherein the first material layer refractive index is higher than the second material layer refractive index:
“The LED light-emitting device according to claim 3, wherein the silicon dioxide layer and the titanium oxide layer of the first multilayer film are alternately stacked a plurality of times.”
Applicant further argues that “none of the cited references including Chuang and Qin discloses, teaches or suggests the feature A "optical thicknesses of the first material layer and the second material layer are Ai 4 and X2 4, respectively, where 300mn^aK4and350mn<' 520nm" and the feature B "the first material layer is a titanium oxide layer, the second material layer is a silicon oxide layer, a geometric thickness of the first material layer is smaller than that of the second material layer, and a refractive index of the first material layer is higher than a refractive index of the second material layer" of the currently amended claim 1.” While 加藤 達也 does in fact disclose a titanium dioxide and silicon dioxide first and second layer (see above) while Chuang discloses a flip-chip light-emitting diode (LED) wherein a reflectivity of the first reflective film group to the light at the first angle with the wavelength in the range of 400 to 500 nm is greater than that of the first reflective film group to the light second angle with the wavelength in the range of 400 to 500 nm:
“Since the chip of the present invention is applied to an LED backlight source, the reflectance of the first reflective layer 50 to light of 400-500 nm is less than or equal to 80%. Preferably, the reflectance of the first reflective layer 50 to light of 400-500 nm is less than or equal to 80%. After the two reflection layers 60 reflect, 20 to 40% of the light is emitted from the back of the chip, and 60 to 80% of the light is emitted from the side of the chip.”
It would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date to utilize alternating stacks of titanium oxide (high refractive index) and silicon dioxide (low refractive index) disclosed by 加藤 達也 to further refine wavelength transmission between 420 and 480 nm from the disclosed 400 to 500 nm taught by Chuang to increase constructive interference to produce a stronger, broadband reflection of light with a targeted wavelength.
Conclusion
Applicants' amendment necessitated a new grounds of rejection in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicants are 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joshua S Wyatt whose telephone number is (703) 756-1937. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, Joshua Benitez can be reached on (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.
/JOSHUA SCOTT WYATT/Examiner, Art Unit 2815
/JAY C KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815