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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the
“a number of sub-color portions in the first color portion is 2 to 7 a number of sub-color portions in the second color portion.” of Claims 1 and 21
“a number of sub-color portions in the first color portion is 4 to 7 a number of sub-color portions in the second color portion.” of Claims 4 and 23
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim(s) 21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2018/0351039 A1) in view of Tadatomo et al. (US 2004/0056258 A1).
Regarding Claim 21, Kim (Fig. 1-6) discloses a di-chromic device, comprising:
a first conductivity type semiconductor region (first conductive semiconductor layer 130);
a color region (active layer 140) disposed on the first conductivity type semiconductor region (130); and
a second conductivity type semiconductor region (second conductive semiconductor layer 160) disposed on the color region (140), wherein:
the color region (170) includes a first color portion (the light emitted by the second well layer Q2 is defined as blue light) and a second color portion (the first well layer Q1 is defined as green light) [0068], the first color portion is configured to generate blue light, the second color portion is configured to generate green or yellow light, each of the first color portion and the second color portion includes a plurality of sub-color portions (B, Q1 and Q2), and a number of sub-color portions in the first color portion and a number of sub-color portions in the second color portion. (See Fig. 3, 5)
Kim does not explicitly disclose a number of sub-color portions in the first color portion is 2 to 7 a number of sub-color portions in the second color portion.
Tadatomo (Fig. 3) discloses a number of sub-color portions (33a) in a first color portion (3a) is 2 to 7 a number of sub-color portions (33b) in a second color portion (3b). (See Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a di-chromic device in Kim in view of Tadatomo such that a number of sub-color portions in the first color portion is 2 to 7 a number of sub-color portions in the second color portion in order to balance of wavelengths of the emitting lights [0023]
Regarding Claim 23, Kim in view of Tadatomo discloses the di-chromic device of claim 21, wherein:
the second color portion generates green light (“second group 3b comprising one well layer 31b emitting green at about 535 nm”), and the number of sub-color portions in the first color portion is number of times of the number of sub-color portions in the second color portion.(Fig. 3 Tadatomo).
Kim in view of Tadatomo does not explicitly disclose the number of sub-color portions in the first color portion is 4 to 7 times of the number of sub-color portions in the second color portion.
However, Tadatomo discloses adjusting numbers of well layers for in sub-color portions depending of spectral luminous efficacy of light and positive hole density. [0020] and to balance of wavelengths of the emitting lights [0023]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a di-chromic device in Kim in view of Tadatomo and adjust the number of sub-color portions in the first color portion and the number of sub-color portions in the second color portion and to have the number of sub-color portions in the first color portion is 4 to 7 a number of sub-color portions in the second color portion in order to balance of wavelengths of the emitting lights [0023].
The specific claimed relative numbers of sub-color portions, absent any criticality, are only considered to be the "optimum" number that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine using routine experimentation based, among other things, on the desired adhesive strength, manufacturing costs, etc. (see Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and since neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e., results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained.
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed relative numbers (4-7) or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen relative numbers of sub-color portions (4-7) are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9, 10, 14 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2018/0351039 A1) in view of Tadatomo et al. (US 2004/0056258 A1) and Park et al. (US 2018/0261724 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim (Fig. 1-6) discloses a di-chromic device, comprising:
a base (120 buffer);
a first conductivity type semiconductor region (first conductive semiconductor layer 130) disposed on the base (120);
a control portion (a trigger layer 180) disposed on the first conductivity type semiconductor region (130) [0104-0106];
a color region (active layer 140) formed on the control portion (180); and
a second conductivity type semiconductor region (second conductive semiconductor layer 160) disposed on the base (120), wherein:
the color region (140) includes a first color portion (the light emitted by the second well layer Q2 is defined as blue light) and a second color portion (he first well layer Q1 is defined as green light) [0068], and the first color portion includes a color material having a different composition than that of the second color portion, [See content of indium in Q1 and Q2; 0072-0074]
the first color portion generates blue light (“the light emitted by the second well layer Q2 is defined as blue light”), [0068]
the second color portion generates green or yellow light (“the light emitted by the first well layer Q1 is defined as green light”) [0068],
each of the first color portion and the second color portion includes a plurality of sub-color portions (a plurality of sub-color portions Q1 and Q2 in Fig. 3) , and
a number of sub-color portions in the first color portion is greater than a number of sub-color portions in the second color portion. (See Fig.3).
Kim does not explicitly disclose that the control portion is configured to relieve strain in the color region and number of sub-color portions in the first color portion is 2 to 7 a number of sub-color portions in the second color portion.
Tadatomo (Fig. 3) discloses a number of sub-color portions (33a) in a first color portion (3a) is 2 to 7 a number of sub-color portions (33b) in a second color portion (3b). (See Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a di-chromic device in Kim in view of Tadatomo such that a number of sub-color portions in the first color portion is 2 to 7 a number of sub-color portions in the second color portion in order to balance of wavelengths of the emitting lights [0023]
Kim does not explicitly disclose that the control portion is configured to relieve strain in the color region.
Park (Fig. 6, 7) discloses a control portion (300) is configured to relieve strain in a color region (410) (super-lattice layer 300 can prevent propagation of defects such as dislocation by relieving stress and strain applied to the active layer”) [0032].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a di-chromic device in Kim in view of Tadamoto and further in view of Park such that the control portion is configured to relieve strain in the color region in order to can prevent propagation of defects such as dislocation by relieving stress and strain applied to the active layer [0032].
Regarding Claim 2, Kim in view of Tadamoto and Park discloses the di-chromic device of claim 1, wherein:
the di-chromic device implements white light by a combination of blue light from the first color portion and green or yellow light from the second color portion. [Kim 0075]
Regarding Claim 3, Kim in view of Tadamoto and Park discloses the di-chromic device of claim 1, wherein:
the second color portion generates green light, (“the light emitted by the first well layer Q1 is defined as green light”) [Kim 0068].
Regarding Claim 4, Kim in view of Tadamoto and Park discloses the di-chromic device of claim 1, wherein
the number of sub-color portions in the first color portion is number of times of the number of sub-color portions in the second color portion (See Q1=1 and Q2=3 in Fig. 1 Kim)
Kim in view of Tadamoto and Park does not explicitly disclose the number of sub-color portions in the first color portion is 4 to 7 times of the number of sub-color portions in the second color portion.
However, Tadatomo discloses adjusting numbers of well layers for in sub-color portions depending of spectral luminous efficacy of light and positive hole density. [0020] and to balance of wavelengths of the emitting lights [0023]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a di-chromic device in Kim in view of Tadamoto and Park and adjust the number of sub-color portions in the first color portion and the number of sub-color portions in the second color portion and to have the number of sub-color portions in the first color portion is 4 to 7 a number of sub-color portions in the second color portion in order to balance of wavelengths of the emitting lights [0023].
The specific claimed relative numbers of sub-color portions, absent any criticality, are only considered to be the "optimum" number that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine using routine experimentation based, among other things, on the desired adhesive strength, manufacturing costs, etc. (see Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and since neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e., results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained.
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed relative numbers (4-7) or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen relative numbers of sub-color portions (4-7) are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claim 9, Kim in view of Tadamoto and Park discloses the di-chromic device of claim 1, further comprising:
pad electrodes (171, 172 Kim) electrically connected to the first conductivity type semiconductor region (130 Kim) and the second conductivity type semiconductor region (160), respectively. [0062 Kim]
Regarding Claim 10, Kim in view of Tadamoto and Park discloses the di-chromic device of claim 9, wherein
the color region is formed of a nitride semiconductor, and emits light having a number of peak wavelengths equal to or greater than the number of the pad electrodes. (See Fig. 4 of Kim)
Regarding Claim 14, Kim in view of Tadamoto and Park discloses the di-chromic device of claim 1, wherein:
each of the first and second color portions (Q1 and Q2) includes a plurality of barrier layers (B) and a plurality of well layers (Q1, Q2) disposed between the barrier layers (b), the well layers of the first color portion have a band gap wider (“An energy band gap of the well layer Q may decrease as a content of indium (In) increases, and conversely, the energy band gap thereof may increase as the content thereof decreases. Accordingly, the content of In of the first well layer Q1 may be higher than that of the second well layer Q2. That is, the energy band gap of the first well layer Q1 may be less than that of the second well layer Q2.” [0072]] than the well layers of the second color portion, and the first color portion (Q1) is closer to the first conductivity type semiconductor region (130) than the second color portion (Q2).
Regarding Claim 22, Kim in view of Tadamoto discloses a di-chromic device of claim 21, further comprising a control portion (a trigger layer 180) located between the first conductivity type semiconductor region (130) and the color region (140).
Kim does not explicitly disclose that the control portion is configured to relieve strain in the color region.
Park (Fig.6, 7) discloses a control portion (300) is configured to relieve strain in a color region. (410) (super-lattice layer 300 can prevent propagation of defects such as dislocation by relieving stress and strain applied to the active layer”) [0032].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a di-chromic device in Kim in view of Tadamoto and Park such that the control portion is configured to relieve strain in the color region in order to can prevent propagation of defects such as dislocation by relieving stress and strain applied to the active layer [0032].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2018/0351039 A1) in view of Tadatomo et al. (US 2004/0056258 A1) and Park et al. (US 2018/0261724 A1) and further in view of Kurihara et al. (US 2015/0125980A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Kim in view of Tadamoto and Park discloses the di-chromic device of claim 1, discloses the di-chromic device emits white light under a current density. [0063]
Kim in view of Tadamoto and Park does not explicitly disclose that the di-chromic device emits white light under a current density within a range of 1.75 Å/cm.sup.2 or more and less than 35 Å/cm.sup.2.
Kurihara (Fig. 8 and 9) discloses device emits white light under a current density within a range of 1.75 Å/cm.sup.2 or more and less than 35 Å/cm.sup.2. [0176, 0177].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a di-chromic device in Kim in view of Tadamoto, Park and Kurihara such that t di-chromic device emits white light under a current density within a range of 1.75 Å/cm.sup.2 or more and less than 35 Å/cm.sup.2. in order to e luminescent spectrum and output of the device [0177]
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2018/0351039 A1) in view of Tadatomo et al. (US 2004/0056258 A1) and Park et al. (US 2018/0261724 A1) and further in view of Jean et al. (US 2016/0043279 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Kim in view of Tadamoto and Park discloses the di-chromic device of claim 9,
Kim in view of Tadamoto and Park does not explicitly disclose that bump electrodes electrically connected to the pad electrodes, respectively.
Jean (Fig. 12) discloses bump electrodes (1152b, 1152a) electrically connected to pad electrodes (1151b, 1151a), respectively.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a di-chromic device in Kim in view of Tadamoto, Park and Jean such that that bump electrodes electrically connected to the pad electrodes, respectively in order to be electrically connect the device in a wire bonding scheme or a flip-chip bonding scheme [0133-0135]
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 5, 11, 21 and 22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DMITRIY YEMELYANOV whose telephone number is (571)270-7920. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a.m.-6p.m.
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, Matthew Landau can be reached at (571) 272-1731. 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.
/DMITRIY YEMELYANOV/Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights