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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment of claims 1-2 and 5-12, and cancellation of claims 3-4, in “Claims - 01/07/2026” is acknowledged.
This office action considers claims 1-2 and 5-21 are pending for prosecution, of which, claims 13-21 had been withdrawn, and claims 1-2 and 5-12 are presented for further examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 recites the limitation “Method for treating a region of an optoelectronic device comprising” in line 1, and it appears as if Applicant’s representative meant to write “– A-- method for treating a region of an optoelectronic device comprising”. This left unaddressed from “Claim Objection” in section I of “Non-Final Rejection - 10/07/2025”. Appropriate correction is required. For the prosecution on merit, examiner assumes the phrase as appeared. Claimed 1 further recites “ the method comprising exposure of at least”, in line 4, which is referred back subsequently by a) “ the method comprising the exposure” in line 8; by (b) “ the method comprising the exposure” in line 11, by (c ) “the exposure” ineach of claims 8-11. It further appears as if Applicant’s representative, in line 4, meant to write “– an—exposure” or “exposure—s--". Appropriate correction is required. For the prosecution on merit, examiner assumes the phrase as appeared.
Withdrawn of Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
Applicant’s argument and clarification, in the “Remarks - 01/07/2026 - Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment“, with respect to claim 1 are persuasive, specifically, amendments to the claim 1 remove the claims indefiniteness. In view of above, the rejection, in the “Non-Final Rejection - 10/07/2025 “, under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), for the claims 1-2 and 5-13 have been withdrawn and found moot for cancelled claims 3-4.
Withdrawn of Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (d)
Applicant’s argument and clarification, in the “Remarks - 01/07/2026 - Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment“, with respect to claims 3-5 are persuasive, specifically, cancelation of claims 3-4 and “redirection of claim 5 to claim 1” remove the claims indefiniteness. In view of above, the rejection, in the “Non-Final Rejection - 10/07/2025 “, under 35 U.S.C 112(d) have been withdrawn.
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.
Notes: when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as (1; Fig 1; [0049]) = (element 11; Figure No. 1; Paragraph No. [0049]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. These conventions are used throughout this document.
Claims 1-2, 6-8 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by SONG; Young Hee et al. (US 20120235142 A1) hereinafter Song
Regarding claim 1, Song teaches –a-- method ([149+]) for treating a region (region of plurality of fuse signature circuit (S1-S5) [0049++]) of an optoelectronic device (LED product labelled as LED chip [0048] further detailed as15; comprising D1-D5; Fig 4; [0056] light emitting diode LD) comprising (see the entire document; Figs 1-14; specifically, as cited below; see also section III, infra, for an alternative rejection of claim 1):
a substrate (11,Fig 1-4; [0049] or in other instances 61/71/81/91) adjacent to the region to be treated, the optoelectronic device comprising, in the region to be treated, programmable elements (fuses 16) configured to be modified ([0063]: configuration of the circuit unit 16 may be altered by the selective cutting of the fuses 16A to thereby cause changes in the electrical characteristic value measured in the electrode pad 17) when they are exposed to a laser beam, the method comprising exposure of at least one of the programmable elements (fuse 16) to the laser beam () being focused through the substrate, the optoelectronic device further comprising at least one of :
a one-time programmable memory (fuse 16) comprising the programmable elements (LD; (D1-D5; Fig 4) , the method comprising the exposure of a portion of said programmable elements to the focused laser beam ([0063]: of applying a laser beam);
Regarding Claim 2. Song as applied to the method according to claim 1, further teaches, wherein each programmable element comprises a conductive track (16b; Fig 5A; [0066] labelled as Circuit line), the method comprising the interruption (by selective cutting of the fuses 16B indicated as "C") of the conductive track of at least one of the programmable elements (16a) by the focused laser beam ([0063]: of applying a laser beam) .
Regarding Claim 6. Song as applied to the method according to claim 2, further teaches, wherein the conductive tracks (16b; Fig 5A; [0066] labelled as Circuit line; conducted) are metallic or made of a non-metallic electrically conductive material ([0065]), in particular monocrystalline or polycrystalline doped silicon.
Regarding Claim 7. Song as applied to the method according to claim 1, further teaches, wherein the optoelectronic device (LED product labelled as LED chip [0048] further detailed as 15; comprising D1-D5; Fig 4; [0056] light emitting diode LD) comprises light-emitting diodes (LD) and/or photodiodes.
Regarding Claim 11. Song as applied to the method according to claim 1, further teaches wherein the material forming the substrate (61/71/81/91) is semiconductor (construed from [0069]: wafer based process information of the semiconductor chip 10; further detailed in [0088] the semiconductor chip 60 is implemented as a nitride semiconductor device, the first semiconductor layer 65A may be an un-doped GaN layer, and the second semiconductor layer 65B may be an AlGaN layer),
Regarding Claim 12. Song as applied to the method according to claim 11, further teaches, wherein the substrate () is made of silicon, of germanium ([0088] as construed from the semiconductor light emitting diode chip 60 is implemented as a nitride semiconductor device, the first semiconductor layer 65A may be an un-doped GaN layer, and the second semiconductor layer 65B may be an AlGaN layer)), or of a mixture or alloy of these compounds.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SONG; Young Hee et al. (US 20120235142 A1) hereinafter Song; in view of ALON; Dan et al (US 20130193851 A1) hereinafter Alon.
Regarding claim 1, Song teaches –a-- method ([149+]) for treating a region (region of plurality of fuse signature circuit (S1-S5) [0049++]) of an optoelectronic device (LED product labelled as LED chip [0048] further detailed as15; comprising D1-D5; Fig 4; [0056] light emitting diode LD) comprising (see the entire document; Figs 1-14; specifically, as cited below; see also section II, supra, for an alternative rejection of claim 1):
a substrate (11,Fig 1-4; [0049] or in other instances 61/71/81/91) adjacent to the region to be treated, the optoelectronic device comprising, in the region to be treated, programmable elements (fuses 16) configured to be modified ([0063]: configuration of the circuit unit 16 may be altered by the selective cutting of the fuses 16A to thereby cause changes in the electrical characteristic value measured in the electrode pad 17) when they are exposed to a laser beam, the method comprising exposure of at least one of the programmable elements (fuse 16) to the laser beam () being focused through the substrate, the optoelectronic device further comprising at least one of :
a one-time programmable memory (fuse 16) comprising the programmable elements (LD; (D1-D5; Fig 4), the method comprising the exposure of a portion of said programmable elements to the focused laser beam ([0063]: of applying a laser beam); and
the programmable elements (LD; (D1-D5; Fig 4), the method comprising the exposure of all the programmable elements to the focused laser beam” ([0063]: of applying a laser beam);
But Song does not expressly disclose “a system of protection against electrostatic discharges” that comprises the limitations taught by Song in preceding paragraph.
However, in the analogous art, Alon teaches a circuit element for light emitting diode (LED) applications ([0002]). Wherein (Figs 8A-8B; [0054]) an ESD protection diode 365 comprises LED die 360 and used laser beam ([0052]) for cutting metallic materials.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate teaching of Alon into Song and thereafter the combination of (Song and Alon ) comprises a system of protection against electrostatic discharges as claimed, since this inclusion, at least protects the optoelectronic device.
Regarding Claim 5. the combination of (Song and Alon ) as applied to the method according to claim 1, further teaches, wherein the protection system (in view of Alon Fig 8; [0054]) comprises a circuit of interconnection of electronic components (LED die[] labelled as 15 in Fig 16) and of optoelectronic components (LD) via the programmable elements (15).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SONG; Young Hee et al. (US 20120235142 A1) hereinafter Song in view of Christiansen; Jens et al (US 6795462 B1) hereinafter Christiansen.
Regarding Claim 8-10. Song as applied to the method according to claim 1, further teaches, comprising the exposure of the optoelectronic device (15) to at least one pulse of the focused laser beam ([0063]: of applying a laser beam),
But Song is silent on
For claim 8:“of said at least one pulse being in the range from 0.1 μs to 1,000 μs.
For claim 9:“ with a peak power in the range from 300 kW to 100 MW..
For claim 10: “with a wavelength in the range from 1.2 μm to 4 2 μm”
However, in the analogous art, Christiansen teaches rare-gas lasers, for example helium-neon lasers, ion lasers, especially argon ion lasers, and molecular lasers, especially CO.sub.2 lasers (Col 1, Lines 12-15), wherein (Col 11,Lines 10-20) laser pulse duration is range from 0.1 μs to 1,000 μs, wavelength falls with the duration, and peak power up to 500 kW, some of these value falls with the claim ranges.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the laser pulse of Christiansen with the teaching of Song such that, the laser pulse of combination of (Song and Christiansen) comprises features of duration, wavelength and peak power as claimed, in claims 8-10, (in pursuant to MPEP 2144.05, I), since this permits the production of Ar lasers that can be frequency-doubled or frequency-multiplied by means of the known methods of non-linear optics so that basically new and advantageous lasers and laser applications can be opened up with respect to both the power range of the lasers and the range of applications of UV lasers and roentgen lasers. (Christiansen , (Col 11,Lines20-25).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments “Remarks - 01/07/2026 - Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive because of the following:
Applicant’s amendment of claims 1-2 and 5-12, and cancellation of claims 3-4, in “Claims - 01/07/2026” changed scope of the inventions significantly, and necessitated the shift in new grounds of rejection detailed in sections i-iii, supra. The shift in grounds of rejection renders Applicant’s arguments moot.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Moazzam Hossain whose telephone number is (571)270-7960. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon to Friday 8.30 A.M -5.00 P.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, Julio J. Maldonado can be reached on 571-272-1864. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR to register user only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOAZZAM HOSSAIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
March 12, 2026