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 § 103
Claim(s) 1-6, 10, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei (PGPub No. 20190273184) in further view of Tsai (PGPub No. 20140091351).
Regarding claim 1, Wei teaches a light-emitting device comprising: a semiconductor structure having a first semiconductor layer, an active layer, and a second semiconductor layer that are stacked sequentially, said second semiconductor layer and said active layer being formed on a top surface of said first semiconductor layer and exposing a portion of said top surface that constitutes a mesa structure (Fig. 1 and [0004] point to an LED chip (light-emitting device) comprising an N-type gallium nitride 2 (first semiconductor layer), a quantum well layer 3 (active layer), and a P-type gallium nitride 4 (second semiconductor layer), where said layers 3 and 4 formed such that they leave an exposed portion of layer 2 (mesa structure).); a first contact electrode located on top of said mesa structure and electrically connected to said first semiconductor layer (Fig. 1, [0004], and [0007] point to a second contact electrode 7 (first contact electrode).); and a second contact electrode located on top of and electrically connected to said second semiconductor layer (Id. points to a first contact electrode 6 (second contact electrode).); and wherein said first contact electrode and said second contact electrode are strip electrodes (Fig. 16 and [0163] point to an alternative embodiment where the first contact electrode 706 or the second contact electrode 707 may be a strip electrode.).
Wei fails to teach wherein, when said first and second semiconductor layer, said first contact electrode, and said second contact electrode are projected on an imaginary plane below said semiconductor structure and viewed from above, two parallel first lines, that respectively contact two opposite first ends of said first contact electrode and that perpendicularly intersect a straight second line connecting between two opposite second ends of said second contact electrode, define on the straight second line a length which does not extend beyond a distance between said two opposite second ends of said second contact electrode, and a ratio of the length to the distance ranges from 0.5 to 1.
Tsai teaches wherein, when said first and second semiconductor layer, said first contact electrode, and said second contact electrode are projected on an imaginary plane below said semiconductor structure and viewed from above, two parallel first lines, that respectively contact two opposite first ends of said first contact electrode and that perpendicularly intersect a straight second line connecting between two opposite second ends of said second contact electrode, define on the straight second line a length which does not extend beyond a distance between said two opposite second ends of said second contact electrode, and a ratio of the length to the distance ranges from 0.5 to 1 (Examiner interprets this element as disclosing that the length of the first contact electrode ranges from being half the length of the first contact electrode to being the same length as the second contact electrode. Fig. 1 points to two electrode patterns 500 (first contact electrode; second contact electrode) with an elongated strip electrode pattern 504 and arranged such that they have the same length.). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wei and Tsai, such that the first and second contact electrodes are the same length in order to simplify the manufacturing process and by extension reduce costs related to complexity.
Regarding claim 2, Tsai teaches wherein said two first lines intersect said straight second line of said second contact electrode at two points that are respectively a distance and a distance away from corresponding nearest ones of said two opposite second ends of said second contact electrode, and said distances each ranges from 0µm to 30µm (Examiner interprets this element as disclosing that each end of the second contact electrode extends 0µm – 30µm farther in a lengthwise direction than a corresponding end of the first contact electrode. Fig. 1 points to two electrode patterns 500 (first contact electrode; second contact electrode) with an elongated strip electrode pattern 504 and arranged such that they have the same length.). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wei and Tsai, such that each end of the second contact electrode extends 0µm farther than a corresponding end of the first contact electrode in order to simplify the manufacturing process and by extension reduce costs related to complexity.
Regarding claim 3, Tsai teaches wherein said first contact electrode and said second contact electrode are straight (Fig. 1 points to two electrode patterns 500 (first contact electrode; second contact electrode) with an elongated strip electrode pattern 504.). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wei and Tsai, such that both the first and second contact electrodes are straight in order to simplify the manufacturing process and/or reduce series resistance.
Regarding claim 4, Tsai teaches wherein said first contact electrode and said second contact electrode are parallel to each other (Fig. 1 points to two electrode patterns 500 (first contact electrode; second contact electrode) with an elongated strip electrode pattern 504.). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wei and Tsai, such that the contact electrodes are parallel to each other in order to simplify the manufacturing process and/or apply a uniform current across the active region(s).
Regarding claim 5, Tsai teaches wherein a minimum distance between said first contact electrode and said second contact electrode ranges from 20µm to 100µm (Fig. 1 points to two electrode patterns 500 (first contact electrode; second contact electrode), with a distance between each pattern as established by the enclosed circuit patterns 600. The disclosure does not appear to lend any criticality or significance to the distance between the first and second contact electrodes specifically ranging from 20µm to 100µm and, as such, is deemed a matter of choice that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious. Absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant, said configuration is deemed a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); see also MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wei and Tsai, such that the contact electrodes are separated by a distance in order to apply a uniform current without interfering with each other.
Regarding claim 6, Tsai teaches a minimum distance between a boundary edge of said first semiconductor layer and said first contact electrode ranges from 3µm to 8µm; and a minimum distance between a boundary edge of said second semiconductor layer and said second contact electrode ranges from 5µm to 10µm (Fig. 1 and [0024] point to two electrode patterns 500 (first contact electrode; second contact electrode) each surrounded by an enclosed circuit pattern 600, which is positioned on a semiconductor layer 20 (first semiconductor layer; second semiconductor layer), such that there is a small distance between each electrode and the boundary edge of the corresponding pattern. The disclosure does not appear to lend any criticality or significance to the specific distance between each contact electrode and a corresponding boundary edge and, as such, is deemed a matter of choice that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious. Absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant, said configuration is deemed a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); see also MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wei and Tsai, such that the contact electrodes are positioned far enough away from the edges of the underlying semiconductor layer in order to prevent edge leakage currents and ensure a uniform current.
Regarding claim 10, Tsai teaches wherein: said first contact electrode includes a first dot-like starting section and a first extension section; said second contact electrode includes a second dot-like starting section and a second extension section (Fig. 1 points to two electrode patterns 500 (first contact electrode; second contact electrode), each comprising an electrode layer 50 (first dot-like starting section; second dot-like starting section) and an elongated strip electrode pattern 504 (first extension section; second extension section).); a widthwise cross section of at least one of said first extension section and said second extension section has a bottom width that ranges from 5µm to 15µm (The disclosure does not appear to lend any criticality or significance to the width of each extension section specifically ranging from 5µm to 15µm and, as such, is deemed a matter of choice that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious. Absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant, said configuration is deemed a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); see also MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).); and a widthwise cross section of at least one of said first dot-like starting section and said second dot-like starting section has a bottom width that ranges from 10µm to 20µm (The disclosure does not appear to lend any criticality or significance to the width of each dot-like starting section specifically ranging from 10µm to 20µm and, as such, is deemed a matter of choice that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious. Absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant, said configuration is deemed a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); see also MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wei and Tsai, such that both contact electrodes comprise a dot-like starting section and an extension section in order to create a low-resistance external connection while still being able to apply a uniform current.
Regarding claim 13, Wei teaches wherein said light-emitting device is less than 300µm in length (Fig. 1 and [0004] point to an LED chip (light-emitting device) comprising an N-type gallium nitride 2 (first semiconductor layer), a quantum well layer 3 (active layer), and a P-type gallium nitride 4 (second semiconductor layer), where said layers 3 and 4 formed such that they leave an exposed portion of layer 2 (mesa structure). The disclosure does not appear to lend any criticality or significance to the light-emitting device specifically having a length less than 300µm and, as such, is deemed a matter of choice that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious. Absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant, said configuration is deemed a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); see also MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).).
Regarding claim 20, Wei teaches a display device using the light-emitting device as claimed in claim 1 ([0037] points to a display panel (display device) comprising a plurality of LED chips (light-emitting device).).
Claim(s) 7-9, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. in further view of Choi (PGPub No. 20130113007).
Regarding claim 7, Choi teaches wherein said projections of said first contact electrode and said second contact electrode on said imaginary plane are curved (Fig. 1 and [0033] point to two contact electrodes 211 (first contact electrode; second contact electrode) which have at least one of a radial pattern, a cross-shaped pattern, a linear pattern, a curved pattern, a roof pattern and a ring pattern.). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wei et al. and Choi, such that both contact electrodes are curved in order to minimize dark spots and/or optimize light extraction.
Regarding claim 8, Choi teaches wherein a curvature of said first contact electrode is concentric with that of said second contact electrode on said imaginary plane (Fig. 1 and [0033] point to two contact electrodes 211 (first contact electrode; second contact electrode) which have at least one of a radial pattern, a cross-shaped pattern, a linear pattern, a curved pattern, a roof pattern and a ring pattern. In light of this, it is considered obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art could form two contact electrodes such that each has a curved pattern that faces away from the other in order to form a circle.). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wei et al. and Choi, such that both contact electrodes form a concentric shape in order to provide symmetry in terms of current flow, light output, and/or field distribution.
Regarding claim 9, Choi teaches wherein a difference between radiuses of curvatures of said first and second contact electrodes is 20µm to 100µm (Fig. 1 and [0033] point to two contact electrodes 211 (first contact electrode; second contact electrode) which have at least one of a radial pattern, a cross-shaped pattern, a linear pattern, a curved pattern, a roof pattern and a ring pattern. The disclosure does not appear to lend any criticality or significance to the difference between radiuses of curvatures of said first and second contact electrodes specifically ranging from 20µm to 100µm and, as such, is deemed a matter of choice that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious. Absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant, said configuration is deemed a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); see also MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wei et al. and Choi, such that the curve of each contact electrode is far enough away from the other in order to provide symmetry in terms of current flow, light output, and/or field distribution without interfering with each other.
Regarding claim 11, Choi teaches wherein at least one of said first extension section and said second extension section has a tip with a curved end face (Fig. 1 and [0033] point to two contact electrodes 211 (first contact electrode; second contact electrode) which have at least one of a radial pattern, a cross-shaped pattern, a linear pattern, a curved pattern, a roof pattern and a ring pattern. In light of this, it is considered obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art would at least attempt to form a contact electrode comprising both an extending linear pattern and a curve pattern at the end/tip of the extension.). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wei et al. and Choi, such that at least one of the contact electrodes comprises an extension section with a curved end face at the tip in order to smooth current spreading at the end and/or reduce electric field concentration.
Regarding claim 12, Choi teaches wherein said first contact electrode is straight, and said second contact electrode is curved (Fig. 1 and [0033] point to two contact electrodes 211 (first contact electrode; second contact electrode) which have at least one of a radial pattern, a cross-shaped pattern, a linear pattern, a curved pattern, a roof pattern and a ring pattern.). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wei et al. and Choi, such that the first contact electrode is straight and the second contact electrode is curved in order to compromise between electrical efficiency and optical uniformity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that 1) Wei et al. does not recognize that there is concern for preventing current crowding and balancing current spreading characteristics of the first and second contact electrodes and 2) that the two electrode patterns 500 of Tsai cannot be equated to the first and second contact electrodes (31, 32) of the present application.
Regarding the first argument, Examiner argues that Applicant is relying on an intended use of the claimed invention rather than any structural difference. In response to applicant's argument that Wei et al. does not recognize that there is concern for preventing current crowding and balancing current spreading characteristics of the first and second contact electrodes, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Thus, Applicant’s argument is considered unpersuasive and fails to overcome the previous rejection(s).
Regarding the second argument, Examiner argues that Applicant is providing a piecemeal analysis that ignores the combination of Wei in further view of Tsai. 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). In this case, Applicant argues that the electrode patterns 500 of Tsai cannot be equated to the first and second contact electrodes (31, 32) of the present application due to said patterns being connected to the same N-type semiconductor layer 20. However, it was Wei that was used to teach the relationship between the contact electrodes and the semiconductor layer(s), while Tsai was used to further teach the relationship between the length of each contact electrode (i.e., the ratio ranging from 0.5 to 1). Thus, Applicant’s argument is considered unpersuasive and fails to overcome the previous rejection(s).
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 Patrick L Cullen whose telephone number is (703)756-1221. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30AM - 5PM 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, Dale Page can be reached at (571)270-7877. 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.
/PATRICK CULLEN/Assistant Examiner, Art Unit 2899 /DALE E PAGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899