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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 13-17 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/27/2026.
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 18 (and claims 2-12 via dependency) 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.
Claims 1 and 18 refer to “both sides” at lines 12 and 5, respectively. Neither claim define what sides “both sides” is referring to.
For purposes of examination, “both sides” is understood to mean upper and lower sides.
Claim 18 depends from claim 1. Claim 18 appears to reintroduce elements which are already established in claim 1, such as “a baseplate”, “at least one optoelectronic semiconductor chip”, “metallic electrical connection regions”, “a gas exchange channel”, etc. This is confusing as it appears as though the claim is adding additional elements of these types, which does not match with the description found in the original specification. This makes the scope of the claim unclear. See MPEP 2173.03.
For purposes of examination, claim 18 is understood to be only re-referencing these items and their descriptions, rather than introducing additional chips, baseplates, metallizations, etc.
Claim 18 at line 16 refers to “has a fraction of at most 1%” without describing what the fraction is related to, making the scope of the claim unclear.
For purposes of examination, the limitation will be understood to be referring to a fill rate of the seal on the bottom side of the channel being at least 1% full.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 11 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsieh et al. (US 2018/0248082) in view of Hanada et al. (US 2021/0193539).
With respect to claim 1, Hsieh teaches an optoelectronic semiconductor component (fig.1 abstract) comprising: at least one optoelectronic semiconductor chip (fig.1 #130, [0031]) for generating a radiation (fig.1 L1), and a housing (fig.1 #110+120) in which the at least one optoelectronic semiconductor chip is hermetically encapsulated ([0036] necessarily hermetically sealed to maintain internal atmosphere), wherein - the housing comprises a housing cover (fig.1 #121) which is secured on a main housing body (fig.1 #110+122) using a connecting means ([0034]), the housing comprises a gas exchange channel (fig.1 #111h), the gas exchange channel is hermetically sealed with a seal (fig.1 #113, [0036]), the main housing body comprises a baseplate (fig.1 #111) which is opaque for the radiation ([0030], based on using ceramic or circuit board), as a carrier for the at least one optoelectronic semiconductor chip (baseplate under chip), and the baseplate bears metallic electrical connection regions (fig.1 #114a on left/right) on both sides, and the housing cover is configured as a radiation exit window for the radiation (fig.1 see L1), the gas exchange channel is electrically and optically function-free (fig.1 no function other than gas control), and the gas exchange channel is located in the baseplate (see fig.1) and comprises a metallization (fig.1 #112) which extends onto a bottom housing side of the baseplate (as seen in fig.1). Hsieh does not teach the metallization, at least on the bottom housing side, is thinner than the electrical connection regions, so that the electrical connection regions on the bottom housing side protrude beyond the gas exchange channel and the seal in a direction away from the main housing body. Hanada teaches a related housing for a chip (fig.6) which includes a gas exchange channel (fig.6 #38), a metal layer (fig.6 #31), a seal (fig.6 #19), electrical connections (fig.6 #111, 1112) on either side of the chip and under a baseplate (fig.6 #11), and further teaches the metallization and electrical connections have a range of thicknesses ([0026, 54]) and that the metallization does not extend as low as the electrical connections on the bottom of the baseplate (fig.6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the metallization of Hsieh to be thinner than the electrical connections under the baseplate such that the metallization, at least on the bottom housing side, is thinner than the electrical connection regions, so that the electrical connection regions on the bottom housing side protrude beyond the gas exchange channel and the seal in a direction away from the main housing body as Hanada has demonstrated the metallization can be thinner based on the taught ranges and has further taught the metallization/seal do not extend as far down as the electrical connections which would be useful in order to protect the metallization/seal during mounting and ensure the environment in the housing is maintained when mounted.
With respect to claim 2, Hsieh, as modified, teaches the housing comprises exactly one gas exchange channel (fig.1 #111h).
With respect to claim 3, Hsieh, as modified, teaches the gas exchange channel, viewed in plan view onto a mounting side of the main housing body, is located adjacent to the at least one optoelectronic semiconductor chip (fig.1; necessarily being true as the cross-section shows the two as being adjacent which would not change when rotating the view 90 degrees).
With respect to claim 4, Hsieh, as modified, teaches the main housing body comprises a carrier ring (fig.1 #122) on a side facing the housing cover.
With respect to claim 6, Hsieh, further teaches the seal to be metal, similar to solder, ([0033] tin paste), but does not teach the seal comprises gold, gallium and/or indium or is composed of gold, gallium and/or indium. Hanada further teaches the seal can comprise gold ([0037]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Hsieh to make use of a gold sealing material in place of the tin paste as Hanada has demonstrated such a material advantageously seal such a gas exchange port (see also, MPEP 2144.07).
With respect to claim 7, Hsieh, further teaches the seal to be metal, similar to solder, ([0033] tin paste), but does not the seal (7) comprises or consists of a metallic solder. Hanada further teaches the seal can comprise metallic solder ([0037]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Hsieh to make use of a metallic solder sealing material in place of the tin paste as Hanada has demonstrated such a material advantageously seal such a gas exchange port (see also, MPEP 2144.07).
With respect to claim 11, Hsieh, as modified, further teaches the gas exchange channel has the shape of a cylinder (see cross-section in fig.1, [0033]), a conical frustum or a double cone.
With respect to claim 18, Hsieh, as modified, teaches a baseplate for an optoelectronic semiconductor component according to claim 1 wherein - the baseplate is configured as a carrier for at least one optoelectronic semiconductor chip - the baseplate bears metallic electrical connection regions on both sides, for the electrical interconnection of the at least one optoelectronic semiconductor chip a gas exchange channel is located in the baseplate and comprises a metallization, the metallization at least on a bottom side of the baseplate, which lies opposite a mounting side for the at least one optoelectronic semiconductor chip, is thinner than the electrical connection regions, the electrical connection regions on the bottom side protrude beyond the gas exchange channel in a direction away from the baseplate (see claim 1 rejection), the gas exchange channel, seen in plan view onto the mounting side, is located adjacent to a region intended for the at least one optoelectronic semiconductor chip (see claim 3 rejection) and is electrically insulated from the electrical connection regions (via use of ceramic baseplate material), the gas exchange channel on the bottom side has a fraction of at most 1% (#113 fills H2, [0033], more than 1% of channel), the baseplate is opaque for visible light, and the gas exchange channel is electrically and optically function-free (see claim 1 rejection).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsieh and Hamada in view of Miyokawa et al. (US 2019/03723030.
With respect to claim 5, Hsieh, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, including the use of a seal with a melting point lower than 500C ([0033]) but does not teach the seal comprises or is a low-melting glass and the low-melting glass has a melting point of at most 500°C. Miyokawa teaches a related package (fig.1) as well as the use of low melting point glass (under 500C) to provide hermetic seals ([0006]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Hsieh to make use of a low melting point glass such as that taught by Miyokawa for the seal in order to make use of a material demonstrated to provide hermetic seals and allow for manufacturing flexibilities (e.g. use of non-conductive materials). See also MPEP 2144.07.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsieh and Hamada in view of Morita et al. (US 10177528).
With respect to claim 8, Hsieh, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach the seal comprises a carrier plate and a sealing layer, with the sealing layer being located between the carrier plate and the metallization. Morita teaches a related package for a light emitter (fig.5) which includes a carrier plate (fig.4 #12) and a sealing layer (fig.4 #16), with the sealing layer being located between the carrier plate and a metallization (fig.5 #28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the seal type of Hsieh to make use of a carrier plate and a sealing layer, with the sealing layer being located between the carrier plate and the metallization as demonstrated by Morita in order to use a seal type with a rigid structure to provide stability.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsieh and Hamada in view of Yamazaki et al. (US 2012/0106085).
With respect to claim 9, Hsieh, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, including a thickness of the housing directly at the gas exchange channel exceeds the mean diameter of the gas exchange channel by a factor of at least two (as can be seen in fig.1, the thickness is easily more than 2x as much), and wherein the gas exchange channel is filled only partially or completely with the seal ([0033]). Hsieh does not teach a mean diameter of the gas exchange channel is at least 10 um and at most 0.2 mm. Yamazaki teaches a related housing with port in the baseplate (fig.19-20) as well as further teaching the size of the through hole is a result effective variable affecting sealing time/amount as well as the ability to provide a desired atmosphere ([0158]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to optimize the hole size of Hsieh to 10um-0.2mm in order to select a desired sealing time/amount and ability to control the atmosphere as demonstrated by Yamazaki (see MPEP 2144.05 II A/B).
Claim(s) 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsieh and Hanada in view of Pierer et al. (US 2019/0196201).
With respect to claim 10, Hsieh, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, including the ability to surface mount (based on bottom contacts in fig.1), but does not teach the component is a laser module for generating red, green, and blue. Pierer teaches a related device (fig.1-2) which makes use of red, green and blue lasers ([0012]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to make use of red, green and blue lasers in place of the LED of Pierer in order to output more power and various frequencies of light for display usage.
With respect to claim 12, Hsieh, as modified, further teaches the housing cover is composed of a glass ([0035]) and the main housing body is based on at least one ceramic ([0030]), but does not teach at least one optical unit for the radiation is located in the housing. Pierer further teaches use of optical units in the housing (fig.1 #118). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Hsieh to make use of an optical unit in the housing as demonstrated by Pierer in order to redirect the light in a desired direction.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see the included pto892 form for a list of related art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOD THOMAS VAN ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-8447. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8AM-430PM.
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, MinSun 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.
/TOD T VAN ROY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828