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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 11/12/2025, with respect to claims 1 and 9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous grounds of rejection have been withdrawn.
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, 4-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al (CN112840467; hereinafter Lin).
Regarding claim 1, Figs 1-5 of Lin discloses a light-emitting device comprising:
a substrate (10; Fig 4);
a plurality of light-emitting diode (LED) dies (20; Fig 1) on the substrate;
a first reflection layer (24; Fig 4; Page 6; ¶ 1) on the LED dies to reflect a wavelength of light emitted from the LED dies (Fig 4; Page 6; ¶ 1); and
a second reflection layer (23; Fig 4; Page 5) on the first reflection layer to reflect a laser waveband (Page 5; Paragraph 3).
Lin does not expressly disclose a wavelength of the laser waveband is less than 420 nm.
Lin discloses that the second reflection layer is for laser reflection only for laser wavelength and the second reflection layer is made of alternating layers of first material and second material such as SiO2 and TiO2 (Page 6; Paragraph 5).
Also Applicant’s own disclosure discloses that the second reflection layer is formed of alternating layers of materials such as SiO2 and TiO2 (¶ [0027]) such that the second reflection layer may reflect the laser used in the subsequent selective LLO technique, to prevent the laser-induced thermal damage to the LED dies. (¶ [0027])
Therefore Examiner wants to point out that if the materials of the second reflection layer (23) in Lin is same as the materials of the second reflection layers of the applicant’s disclosure, then the second reflection layer of Lin will also reflect the light of laser waveband whose wavelength is less than 420nm.
Accordingly it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention such that Lin will teach that the second reflection layer reflects a laser waveband and a wavelength of the laser waveband is less than 420 nm because of the similar materials of the second reflection layer in Lin as disclosed by the applicant’s own disclosure.
Regarding claim 2, Figs 1-5 of Lin discloses the second reflection layer (23; Fig 4; Page 5) is a distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) layer (Page 6; Paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 4, Figs 1-5 of Lin discloses the second reflection layer (23; Fig 4; Page 5) covers an upper surface and parts of sidewalls of the LED dies (Page 5; paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 5, Figs 1-5 of Lin discloses the second reflection layer is aligned with exposed sidewalls of the LED dies (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 7, Figs 1-5 of Lin discloses a barrier film (First or Last layer of second reflection layer; Fig 4) on the second reflection layer (23; Fig 4; Page 5) above and/or below the first reflection layer. (Since Lin teaches the second reflection layer comprises multiple layers; Therefore first or last layer of the second reflection layer can be used to read on barrier film).
Claim(s) 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al (CN112840467; hereinafter Lin) and further in view of Kim et al (US 2011/0233589; hereinafter Kim3).
Regarding claim 3, Figs 1-5 of Lin discloses the first reflection layer (24; Fig 4; Page 6; ¶ 1) is a metal reflection layer, a distributed Bragg reflector or a combination thereof.
In the same field of endeavor, Kim discloses a first reflection layer (161; Fig 3; Bottom 4 layers) is a Bragg reflector layer (¶ [0084]).
Accordingly it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention such that a first reflection layer is a DBR in order to obtain high light reflectivity (¶ [0088]).
Regarding claim 8, Figs 1-5 of Lin disclose each of the LED dies comprises:
a light-emitting unit (20; Fig 2), wherein the first reflection layer and the second reflection layer are disposed on the light-emitting unit; and
a pair of electrodes (22; Fig 4) connected to the light-emitting unit.
However Lin does not expressly disclose a pair of electrodes penetrating the second reflection layer.
In the same field of endeavor, Figs 2C and 3 of Kim discloses a first reflective layer (161; Fig 3; Bottom 4 layers) and a second reflective layer (161; Fig 3; Remaining top layers) and electrode penetrating (142; Fig 3) the second reflection layer.
Accordingly it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention such that a pair of electrodes formed is penetrating the second reflection layer in order to establish the electrical connection with the light emitting unit (Fig 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10, 13-15 are allowed.
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination of limitations including “a plurality of light-emitting diode (LED) dies on the carrier and spaced apart from each other, wherein each of the LED dies comprises a pair of electrodes facing toward the carrier; and
a plurality of glues between the carrier and the LED dies and wrapping the electrodes wherein upper surfaces of the carrier are exposed between the LED dies”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RATISHA MEHTA whose telephone number is (571)270-7473. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:00am - 5:00 pm.
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, Eliseo Ramos Feliciano can be reached at 571-272-7925. 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.
/RATISHA MEHTA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817