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 .
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-AIA ) 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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.551. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 3-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a peripheral end of said extending portion of said insulating reflective layer has an inclined lateral surface, and an included angle defined between said inclined lateral surface and said upper surface of said substrate is not less than 60o.” The claim is indefinite, because it is unclear if applicant’s claimed range “not less than 60o” includes 90o. The plain language of the claim allows for a vertical lateral surface and a horizontal lateral surface, because the claim range includes 90o and 180o. However, the typical meaning of “inclined” is deviating in direction from the horizontal or vertical or having a slope. Accordingly, the claim is indefinite, because it is unclear if applicant intends to include angles that would not traditionally be understood to be inclined or if applicant intends to exclude those angles. For the purpose of this Office Action, the Office will interpret “incline” to include all angles in applicant’s claimed range.
Claims 3-202 are indefinite based on their dependence from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (US20210343913A1), hereafter Wang.
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a light-emitting device (Figs. 2A-3B; Title), comprising: a substrate that has an upper surface and a lower surface opposite to said upper surface (Figs. 2A-3B element 10); a semiconductor structure that is disposed on said upper surface of said substrate (Figs. 2A and 3A element 20), and that includes a first semiconductor layer (Figs 2A and 3A element 211), a second semiconductor layer (Figs 2A and 3A element 213), and a light-emitting layer disposed between said first semiconductor layer and said second semiconductor layer (Figs 2A and 3A element 212; [0016]), a projection of said semiconductor structure on said upper surface of said substrate having an outer periphery spaced apart a distance (D2) from an outer periphery of said upper surface of said substrate (Figs. 2A and 3A element 10d); an insulating reflective layer that covers at least a part of said semiconductor structure and that has an extending portion extending outwardly from an outer periphery of said semiconductor structure and covering a part of said upper surface of said substrate (Figs. 2A-3B element 51; [0028]; [0039]); wherein a peripheral end of said extending portion of said insulating reflective layer has an inclined lateral surface (Figs. 2A-3B element 51S), and an included angle defined between said inclined lateral surface and said upper surface of said substrate is not less than 60o (Figs. 2A-3B show element 51S being parallel to element 20S; [0042]).
Regarding claim 5, Wang further discloses at least a portion of said upper surface of said substrate is formed with an uneven structure that includes structured elements having at least one of a trapezoid-shape, a circular cone-shape, a triangular cone-shape, a hexagonal cone-shape, a circle-like cone-shape, a triangle-like cone-shape, and a hexagon-like cone- shape (Figs. 2A-3B elements 11; [0019]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-4, 6-8, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang.
Regarding claim 2, Wang does not explicitly disclose said included angle defined between said inclined lateral surface and said upper surface of said substrate is greater than 70o and less than 90o. However, Wang discloses said included angle defined between said inclined lateral surface and said upper surface of said substrate is greater than 70o to 95o ([0042]) and discusses controlling the incline of the lateral surface to balance competing factors such as space for the electrode and film quality ([0042]-[0043]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary prior to the effective filing date to modify Wang with said included angle defined between said inclined lateral surface and said upper surface of said substrate is greater than 70o and less than 90o, since Wang discloses an overlapping range in order to control competing factors such as space for the electrode and film quality and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 3, Wang further discloses a distance (D1) between said outer periphery of said projection of said semiconductor structure on said upper surface of said substrate and an outer periphery of a projection of an upper surface of said extending portion of said insulating reflective layer on said upper surface of said substrate (Figs. 2A element D1). Wang does not explicitly disclose D1 ranges from 2 µm to 10 µm. However, Wang discloses optimizing a distance between said outer periphery of said projection of said semiconductor structure on said upper surface of said substrate and an outer periphery of a projection of an upper surface of said extending portion of said insulating reflective layer on said upper surface of said substrate ([0040]-[0041]) in order to ensure that the light emitting device is not damaged during separation but reserving sufficient light-emitting areas ([0040]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang with disclose D1 ranges from 2 µm to 10 µm, since Wang discloses optimizing a distance between said outer periphery of said projection of said semiconductor structure on said upper surface of said substrate and an outer periphery of a projection of an upper surface of said extending portion of said insulating reflective layer on said upper surface of said substrate in order to ensure that the light emitting device is not damaged during separation but reserving sufficient light-emitting areas and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 4, Wang further discloses a distance (D2) between said outer periphery of said projection of said semiconductor structure on said upper surface of said substrate and said outer periphery of said upper surface of said substrate (Fig. 2A element D2). Wang does not explicitly disclose D2 ranges from 5 µm to 30 µm. However, Wang discloses optimizing a distance between said outer periphery of said projection of said semiconductor structure on said upper surface of said substrate and said outer periphery of said upper surface of said substrate ([0040]-[0041]) in order to ensure that the light emitting device is not damaged during separation but reserving sufficient light-emitting areas ([0040]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang with disclose D2 ranges from 5 µm to 30 µm, since Wang discloses optimizing a distance (D2) between said outer periphery of said projection of said semiconductor structure on said upper surface of said substrate and said outer periphery of said upper surface of said substrate in order to ensure that the light emitting device is not damaged during separation but reserving sufficient light-emitting areas and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 6, Wang further discloses at least a portion of said upper surface of said substrate is formed with an uneven structure (Figs. 2A-3B elements 11) that has at least one layer having a refractive index different than that of said substrate ([0019]). Wang does not explicitly disclose the refractive index of the at least one layer is lower than that of said substrate. However, Wang discloses optimizing the refractive index of the layer of the at least one layer in order to increase the light-emitting efficiency of the device ([0019]) 3. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang with the refractive index of the at least one layer is lower than that of said substrate, since Wang discloses optimizing the refractive index of the layer of the at least one layer in order to increase the light-emitting efficiency of the device and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice4. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 7, Wang does not explicitly disclose said insulating reflective layer has a thickness ranging from 1 µm to 10 µm. However, Wang discloses that the insulating reflective layer is formed of a plurality of layers where each layer is an integral multiple of a quarter of the wavelength ([0039]) and controlling the number of layers to control the reflectivity ([0039]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang with said insulating reflective layer has a thickness ranging from 1 µm to 10 µm since Wang discloses that the insulating reflective layer is formed of a plurality of layers where each layer is an integral multiple of a quarter of the wavelength and controlling the number of layers to control the reflectivity and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 8, Wang further discloses a transparent conductive layer that is disposed between said semiconductor structure and said insulating reflective layer (Figs. 2A-3B element 30 is between elements 20 and 51); [0026]), a projection of said transparent conductive layer on an upper surface of said second semiconductor layer of said semiconductor structure having an outer periphery spaced apart a distance (D5) from an edge of said upper surface of said second semiconductor layer of said semiconductor structure (Figs. 2A-3B show element 30 being spaced apart from the edge of element 213). Wang does not explicitly disclose distance (D5) being greater than 1 µm and less than 10 µm. However, the Office takes Official Notice that optimizing the size of conductive layers relative to the size of the semiconductor layer to balance cost, current injection, and area for additional layers is well known in the art. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang with distance (D5) being greater than 1 µm and less than 10 µm, since it is known in the art to optimize the size of the semiconductor layer to balance cost, current injection, and area for additional layers is well known in the art and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 20, Wang further discloses the light-emitting device as claimed in claim 1 (See the rejection of claim 1 above). Wang does not explicitly disclose a display device comprising a mounting element and the LED is mounted on said mounting element. However, the Office takes Official Notice that displays with a mounting element and an LED mounted to the mounting element are well known, e.g. the typical consumer LED tv. An advantage is to provide greater marketability for the LED. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang with disclose a display device comprising a mounting element and the LED is mounted on said mounting element as is known in the art in order to provide greater marketability for the LED of Wang.
Claims 9-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Lee et al. (WO2020111429A1), hereafter Lee.
Regarding claim 9, Wang further discloses a first contact electrode that is disposed on said first semiconductor layer of said semiconductor structure (Figs. 2A and 3A element 41 is on element 211); and a second contact electrode that is disposed on and electrically connected to said transparent conductive layer (Fig. 2A and 3A element 42 is on element 30). Wang does not explicitly disclose the second contact electrode includes a main part and an extending part extending from said main part. However, Lee discloses the second contact electrode (Fig. 1a element CP2) includes a main part (Fig. 1a element PT1) and an extending part extending from said main part (Fig. 1a element PT2). An advantage is to improve the current spreading of the light emitting device ([0070]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Wang with the second contact electrode includes a main part and an extending part extending from said main part as disclosed by Lee in order to improve the current spreading in the device.
Regarding claim 10, Wang further discloses a current block layer that is interposed between said transparent conductive layer and said semiconductor structure ([0027]), that is aligned under said second contact electrode ([0027]). Wang does not explicitly disclose the current block layer that has an upper surface having a width at least 1 µm greater than that of a lower surface of said second contact electrode. However, the Office takes Official Notice that optimizing the size of a current blocking layer relative to the size of an electrode is well known in the art in order to optimize the flow of current through the device. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Wang in view of Lee with the current block layer that has an upper surface having a width at least 1 µm greater than that of a lower surface of said second contact electrode, since it is known in the art to optimize the size of a current blocking layer relative to the size of an electrode is well known in the art in order to optimize the flow of current through the device and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 11, Wang in view of Lee do not explicitly disclose said main part of said second contact electrode has an upper surface having a width ranging from 15 µm to 50 µm. However, the Office takes Official Notice that optimizing the size of an electrode is well known in the art in order to balance competing factors including ease of connection to the electrode, the area available to place the electrode, the cost of the material to make the electrode, and the electrical properties of the electrode. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Wang in view of Lee with said main part of said second contact electrode has an upper surface having a width ranging from 15 µm to 50 µm, since it is known in the art to optimize the size of an electrode in order to balance competing factors including ease of connection to the electrode, the area available to place the electrode, the cost of the material to make the electrode, and the electrical properties of the electrode and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 12, Wang further discloses said insulating reflective layer further has a first through hole (Figs. 2A and 3A element 501) exposing said first contact electrode (Figs. 2A and 3A element 41) and a second through hole (Figs. 2A and 3A element 502) exposing said second contact electrode (Figs. 2A and 3A element 42), and said light-emitting device further includes: a first electrode pad that is disposed on said insulating reflective layer and that extends into said first through hole to be electrically connected to said first contact electrode (Figs. 2A and 3A element 61); and a second electrode pad that is disposed on said insulating reflective layer and that extends into said second through hole to be electrically connected to said second contact electrode (Figs. 2A and 3A element 62).
Regarding claim 13, Wang in view of Lee do not explicitly disclose a distance (D4) between said first and second electrode pads ranges from 50 µm to 100 µm. However, the Office takes Official Notice that optimizing the distance between electrodes is well known in the art in order to balance competing factors like limiting short circuiting, the size of the LED, and the electrical properties of the LED. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Wang in view of Lee with a distance (D4) between said first and second electrode pads ranges from 50 µm to 100 µm, since it is known in the art to optimize the distance between electrodes is well known in the art in order to balance competing factors like limiting short circuiting, the size of the LED, and the electrical properties of the LED and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 14, Wang further discloses said second through hole of said insulating reflective layer has a bottom opening (Figs. 2A and 3A element 502 has an opening exposing element 42), a projection of said bottom opening of said second through hole on an upper surface of said main part of said second contact electrode falling within said upper surface of said main part of said second contact electrode (Figs. 2A and 3A element 502 does not expose the entire upper surface of element 42), said upper surface of said main part of said second contact electrode having a width (K6) greater than a width (K4) of said bottom opening of said second through hole (Figs. 2A and 3A element 502 results in a portion of 51S being formed on element 42). Wang in view of Lee do not explicitly disclose the width K6 is at least 5 µm greater than the width K4. However, the Office takes Official Notice that optimizing through-hole width to balance competing factors like space required for the through hole and ease of filing the through hole. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Wang in view of Lee with the width K6 is at least 5 µm greater than the width K4, since it is known in the art to optimize the width of a through-hole to balance competing factors like space required for the through hole and ease of filing the through hole and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 15, Wang further discloses said first through hole of said insulating reflective layer has a bottom opening (Figs. 2A and 3A element 501 has an opening exposing element 41), a projection of said bottom opening of said first through hole on an upper surface of said first contact electrode falling within said upper surface of said first contact electrode (Figs. 2A and 3A element 501 does not expose the entire upper surface of element 41), said upper surface of said first contact electrode having a width (K5) greater than a width (K3) of said bottom opening of said first through hole (Figs. 2A and 3A element 501 results in a portion of 51S being formed on element 41). Wang in view of Lee do not explicitly disclose the width K5 is at least 5 µm greater than the width K3. However, the Office takes Official Notice that optimizing through-hole width to balance competing factors like space required for the through hole and ease of filing the through hole. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Wang in view of Lee with the width K5 is at least 5 µm greater than the width K3, since it is known in the art to optimize the width of a through-hole to balance competing factors like space required for the through hole and ease of filing the through hole and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 16, Wang in view of Lee do not explicitly disclose said first through hole of said insulating reflective layer has a top opening having a width (K1) greater than 10 µm. However, the Office takes Official Notice that optimizing through-hole width to balance competing factors like space required for the through hole and ease of filing the through hole. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Wang in view of Lee with said first through hole of said insulating reflective layer has a top opening having a width (K1) greater than 10 µm, since it is known in the art to optimize the width of a through-hole to balance competing factors like space required for the through hole and ease of filing the through hole and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 17, Wang in view of Lee do not explicitly disclose said second through hole of said insulating reflective layer has a top opening having a width (K2) greater than 10 µm. However, the Office takes Official Notice that optimizing through-hole width to balance competing factors like space required for the through hole and ease of filing the through hole. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Wang in view of Lee with said second through hole of said insulating reflective layer has a top opening having a width (K2) greater than 10 µm, since it is known in the art to optimize the width of a through-hole to balance competing factors like space required for the through hole and ease of filing the through hole and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 18, Wang further discloses there is a distance between an outer periphery of a projection of an upper surface of said first electrode pad on said upper surface of said substrate and an outer periphery of a projection of an upper surface of said first contact electrode on said upper surface of said substrate (Figs. 1, 2A, and 3A element 61 extends past the edges of element 41). Wang in view of Lee do not explicitly disclose the distance is greater than 2 µm. However, the Office takes Official Notice that optimizing the size of the pad electrode to the contact electrode is well known in the art in order to balance competing factors such as ease of connection to the pad electrodes while ensuring the desired electrical properties and overall device size are achieved. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang in view of lee with the distance is greater than 2 µm, since it is known in the art to optimize the size of the pad electrode to the contact electrode is well known in the art in order to balance competing factors such as ease of connection to the pad electrodes while ensuring the desired electrical properties and overall device size are achieved and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 19, Wang further discloses the distance between an outer periphery of a projection of an upper surface of said second electrode pad on said upper surface of said substrate is greater than an outer periphery of a projection of an upper surface of said main part of said second contact electrode on said upper surface of said substrate (Figs. 1, 2A and 3A element 62 extends beyon the edges of element 42). Wang in view of Lee do not explicitly disclose the distance is greater than 2 µm. However, the Office takes Official Notice that optimizing the size of the pad electrode to the contact electrode is well known in the art in order to balance competing factors such as ease of connection to the pad electrodes while ensuring the desired electrical properties and overall device size are achieved. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang in view of lee with the distance is greater than 2 µm, since it is known in the art to optimize the size of the pad electrode to the contact electrode is well known in the art in order to balance competing factors such as ease of connection to the pad electrodes while ensuring the desired electrical properties and overall device size are achieved and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Notice of References Cited. See, e.g., 20170108173 (Fig. 42 and 46A).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA KING whose telephone number is (571)270-1441. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 10am-5pm MT.
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, Min Sun Harvey can be reached at (571) 272-1835. 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 King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828 11/13/2025
1 The Office notes that applicant may overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) with a certified translation. However, this translation will not overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
2 Claim 2 is not considered indefinite, because the range claimed in claim 2 resolves the inconsistency with “inclined”.
3 The Office notes that most combinations of the listed materials for the other layer and the substrate will naturally result in the refractive index of the layer being lower than that of the substrate. For instance, the refractive index of silicon oxide is ~1.46 and the refractive index of SiN is 2.03, while the refractive index of GaAs is ~3.94, the refractive index of sapphire is ~1.77, the refractive index of GaN is ~2.4, the refractive index of SiC is ~2.64, and the refractive index of AlN is ~2.15.
4 The Office notes that refractive index is determined by the material.