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 .
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, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 2016/0172558) in view of Wierer (US 6514782).
Regarding claim 1.
Liu teaches an electronic device, comprising: a substrate (120) ; a first bonding pad (122) and a second bonding pad (121) disposed on the substrate (120); an electronic assembly (300) on the substrate and having a third bonding pad (202) and a fourth bonding pad (201), wherein the third bonding pad (202) has an outer side and an inner side opposite the outer side; a first conductive structure (111) electrically connecting the first bonding pad (122) to the third bonding pad (202); a second conductive structure (111) electrically connecting the second bonding pad (121) to the fourth bonding pad (201) (fig 3) (paragraph 29); wherein a first position of the first conductive structure has a first external thickness, a second position of the first conductive structure (111) has a first internal thickness, a distance between the first position and the outer side of the third bonding pad (202) is the same as a distance between the second position and the inner side of the third bonding pad (202), and the first external thickness is different from the first internal thickness.
PNG
media_image1.png
604
888
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
719
1165
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Liu does not teach a metal layer between the substrate and the first and second bonding pads.
Wierer teaches an electronic device, comprising: a metal layer (52) (column 7 lines 40-45) between the substrate (50) and the first bonding pad (54) and between the substrate (50) and the second bonding pad (54), wherein the metal layer (52) comprises an opening, and the opening exposes a portion of an insulating layer (51) (fig 6b) (column 7 lines 43-58), wherein a thickness of the first conductive structure (60) and a thickness of the second conductive structure (60) are greater than or equal to 10 um and less than or equal to 30 um (column 10 lines 65-67).
PNG
media_image3.png
512
1076
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a metal layer between the substrate and the bonding pad in order to provide an electrode sub-mount which can act as conductive pathways on the substrate thereby enabling the energization of the electronic assembly.
Regarding claim 2.
Liu in view of Wierer teaches the electronic device of claim 1.
Wierer further teaches an area of the third bonding pad (41) of the electronic assembly is greater than an area of the fourth bonding pad (41) (fig 6b,7) of the electronic assembly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the bonding pad, which in Liu is the p bonding pad (paragraph 24), to have an area greater than the fourth bonding pad, which in Liu is the n bonding pad (paragraph 24), as is taught in Wierer in order to accommodate design flexibility and increase current spreading (Wierer column 3 lines 10-15).
Regarding claim 3
Liu in view of Wierer teaches the electronic device of claim 1.
Wierer teaches the thickness of the first conductive structure (60) or the thickness of the second conductive structure (60) is greater than or equal to 15 um and less than or equal to 30 um (column 10 lines 65-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide sufficient thickness of solder to make a conductive bond without significantly increasing the resistance of the circuit.
Regarding claim 4.
Liu in view of Wierer teaches the electronic device of claim 1.
Wierer teaches the thickness of the first conductive structure (60) is greater than or equal to 20 um and less than or equal to 30 um (column 10 lines 65-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide sufficient thickness of solder to make a conductive bond without significantly increasing the resistance of the circuit.
Regarding claim 5.
Liu in view of Wierer teaches the electronic device of claim 1.
Liu teaches a difference between the thickness of the first conductive structure (111) and the thickness of the second conductive structure (111) is less than or equal to 20 um (paragraph 28) (fig 3).
PNG
media_image4.png
265
928
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6.
Liu in view of Wierer teaches the electronic device of claim 1.
Liu teaches materials (solder) of the first conductive structure (111) and the second conductive structure (111) are different from materials (n-metal,p-metal) of the first bonding pad (122) and the second bonding pad (121) (paragraph 22, note heat does not cause the pads to reflow).
Regarding claim 7.
Liu in view of Wierer teaches the electronic device of claim 1.
Liu teaches materials (solder) of the first conductive structure (111) and the second conductive structure (111) are different from materials (silver) of the third bonding pad (202) and the fourth bonding pad (201) (paragraph 24, note heat does not cause the pads to reflow).
Regarding claim 8.
Liu in view of Wierer teaches the electronic device of claim 1.
Liu teaches the first conductive structure (111) and the second conductive (111) structure comprise [solder] (paragraph 24)
Liu further teaches solder comprises tin (paragraph 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the solder to comprise tin in order to form a low metal point material with good wetting ability.
Regarding claim 10.
Liu in view of Wierer teaches the electronic device of claim 1.
Liu teaches a difference between the first external thickness and the first internal thickness.
Given the teaching of the references, it would have been obvious to determine the optimum thickness difference of the conductive structure internal and external side regions thicknesses, since the thickness difference comprises overflow during reflow of the conductive structure and Liu teaches the deleterious effects of excess overflow (paragraph 22), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to minimize overflow in order reduce excess solder and potential shorts. See In re Aller, Lacey and Hall (10 USPQ 233-237) It is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ranges 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 dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575,1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 11.
Liu in view of Wierer teaches the electronic device of claim 1.
Liu teaches the second conductive structure (111) has a second external thickness and a second internal thickness, wherein the second external thickness is different from the second internal thickness (fig 3).
PNG
media_image5.png
402
672
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12.
Liu in view of Wierer teaches the electronic device of claim 11
Given the teaching of the references, it would have been obvious to determine the optimum thickness difference of the conductive structure internal and external side regions thicknesses, since the thickness difference comprises overflow during reflow of the conductive structure and Liu teaches the deleterious effects of excess overflow (paragraph 22), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to minimize overflow in order reduce excess solder and potential shorts. See In re Aller, Lacey and Hall (10 USPQ 233-237) It is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ranges 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 dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575,1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 13.
Liu in view of Wierer teaches the electronic device of claim 1.
Liu teaches the electronic assembly (300) is a light-emitting unit (paragraph 30) (fig 3).
Claim(s) 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 2016/0172558) in view of Wierer (US 6514782) as applied to claim 13 and further in view of Chan (US 2009/0283781)
Regarding claim 14.
Liu in view of Wierer teaches elements of claim 13 above.
Liu in view of Wierer does not teach a wire frame.
Chan teaches the light-emitting unit comprises: a light-emitting portion disposed on the third bonding pad and the fourth bonding pad; and a wire frame disposed between the light-emitting portion and the third bonding pad and between the light-emitting portion and the fourth bonding pad (fig 9,10) (paragraph 48-51)
PNG
media_image6.png
455
990
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a wire frame in order to distribute the conductive connections across the substrate and protect the LED device during processing.
Regarding claim 15.
Liu iv view of Wierer in view of Chan teaches the electronic device of claim 14.
Chan teaches the third bonding pad protrudes beyond the wire frame by a first distance (fig 9).
Regarding claim 16
Liu iv view of Wierer in view of Chan teaches the electronic device of claim 15.
Chan teaches the first distance is in a range of 10 to 300 μm (fig 13,15) (paragraph 52).
PNG
media_image7.png
380
989
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17.
Liu iv view of Wierer in view of Chan teaches the electronic device of claim 14.
Chan teaches the fourth bonding pad protrudes beyond the wire frame by a second distance (fig 13,15).
Regarding claim 18
Liu iv view of Wierer in view of Chan teaches the electronic device of claim 17.
Chan teaches the second distance is in a range of 10 to 300 μm (fig 13,15) (paragraph 52).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 2016/0172558) in view of Wierer (US 6514782) in view of Chan (US 2009/0283781) as applied to claim 14 and further Kim (US 2024/0088329)
Regarding claim 19.
Liu in view of Wierer in view of Chan teaches elements the electronic device of claim 14 above.
Liu in view of Wierer in view of Chan does not teach the pad composition
Kim teaches the third bonding pad (27a) and the fourth bonding pad (29a) comprise copper (paragraph 86).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the bond pad from copper to reduce contact resistance and enhance adhesion.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference combination applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The applicant argues that Wierer (US 6514782) does not teach the amended structure.
However, Liu (US 2016/0172558) in view of Wierer (US 6514782) teaches the elements of the amended claims above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J GOODWIN whose telephone number is (571)272-8451. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 11:00 - 19:00.
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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at (571)272-5055. 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.
/D.J.G/Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/Kretelia Graham/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817 January 16, 2026