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
Claim 1 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. Specifically, it appears that the newly amended claim 1 contains contradictory subject matter regarding the geometry of the first and second contact electrodes, in that they are simultaneously curved on an imaginary plane along a same direction (e.g., they both curve to the left/right) while also having a curvature that is concentric with each other (i.e., each electrode curves toward the other in opposing directions) on said plane. For the sake of further analysis, it is interpreted that the curvature(s) of the first and second contact electrodes are either curved along a same direction or are concentric with each other.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 9-11, 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) and Choi (PGPub No. 20130113007).
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; wherein said projections of said first contact electrode and said second contact electrode on said imaginary plane are curved along a same direction; and wherein a curvature of said first contact electrode is concentric with that of said second contact electrode on said imaginary plane.
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.
Wei et al. still fails to teach wherein said projections of said first contact electrode and said second contact electrode on said imaginary plane are curved along a same direction; and wherein a curvature of said first contact electrode is concentric with that of said second contact electrode on said imaginary plane.
Choi teaches wherein said projections of said first contact electrode and said second contact electrode on said imaginary plane are curved along a same direction; and wherein a curvature of said first contact electrode is concentric with that of said second contact electrode on said imaginary plane (Examiner interprets this element as disclosing either two curves along a same direction or a concentric structure (see section 1. above). 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 court has held that mere duplication and/or rearrangement of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960); In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).). 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 and second contact electrodes are curved in order to better simplify the fabrication process by reusing the same pattern(s) and/or create a complementary structure that can establish a controlled spacing or surround an enclosed area with an electric field depending on the exact arrangement used.
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 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. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the minimum distance between electrodes to be a result effective variable affecting the level of communication/electrical isolation between the first and second contact electrodes. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Tsai to have the minimum distance set within the claimed range in order to prevent the contact electrodes from interfering with one another, and since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. Furthermore, it has also been held that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936, (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.). 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. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the minimum distance between each electrode and a respective boundary edge to be a result effective variable affecting the electrical isolation of the first and second contact electrodes and/or the critical dimensions of the overall structure. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Tsai to have the minimum distances set within the claimed range in order to prevent any external interference with the first and second contact electrodes, and since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. Furthermore, it has also been held that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936, (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.). 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 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. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the difference between radiuses of curvatures to be a result effective variable affecting the level of communication/electrical isolation between the first and second contact electrodes. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Choi to have the difference between radiuses of curvatures set within the claimed range in order to prevent the contact electrodes from interfering with one another, and since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. Furthermore, it has also been held that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936, (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.). 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 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 (One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the widths of the first and second extension sections to be a result effective variable affecting properties such as electrical resistance and current capacity. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Tsai to have the widths set within the claimed range in order to refine the respective characteristics of the first and second contact electrodes as a whole, and since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(B) and 2143. Furthermore, it has also been held that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936, (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.); 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 (One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the widths of the first and second dot-like starting sections to be a result effective variable affecting properties such as electrical resistance and current capacity. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Tsai to have the widths set within the claimed range in order to refine the respective characteristics of the first and second contact electrodes as a whole, and since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(B) and 2143. Furthermore, it has also been held that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936, (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.). 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 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 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). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the length of the overall device to be a result effective variable affecting its critical dimensions as well as its ability to be used in/with larger systems. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Wei to have the length within the claimed range in order to create a light-emitting device that may easily work in conjunction with other components of a larger system without causing undue interference, and since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(B) and 2143. Furthermore, it has also been held that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936, (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.).
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).).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 07/16/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 (and by extension any dependent claims) under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Wei (PGPub No. 20190273184) in further view of Tsai (PGPub No. 20140091351) and Choi (PGPub No. 20130113007).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights