DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/8/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1 and 13 have been amended.
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 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 reciting “a first insulating structure … has a first opening and a second opening, the first opening is disposed on the first connecting electrode, and the second opening is disposed on the second contact electrode” renders the claim indefinite. As best understood in light of Applicant’s disclosure, see FIG. 13, the first contact electrode 54, the first protective electrode 72, and the first connecting electrode 58 are covered by the first insulating layer 62 with a first opening 621 on the first connecting electrode 58; the second contact electrode 56 and the second connecting electrode 60 are covered by the first insulating layer 62 with a second opening 622 on the second connecting electrode 60. However, the first insulating layer 62 is not disposed on the second contact electrode 56 as claimed. Therefore, it is unclear what is meant by the recitation to the insulating layer having a second opening that is disposed on the second contact electrode.
Claim 1 reciting “an orthographic projection of the second semiconductor layer on the epitaxial structure” renders the claim indefinite. The second semiconductor layer is a part of the epitaxial structure. Therefore, it is unclear what would constitutes and orthographic projection of the second semiconductor layer on the epitaxial structure.
Claim 19 reciting “Ti/Al/Au alloy structure”, “Ti/Al/Ni/Au alloy structure”, “Cr/Al/Ti/Au alloy structure”, and “Ti/Al/Au/Pt alloy structure” render the claim indefinite. The recitation appear to be directed to multilayer structure having separate distinct metal layers. It is unclear how do these constitute “alloy structure”.
Other claims are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. US 2017/0365745 A1 (Yang’745) in view of Yang et al. US 2021/0336090 A1 (Yang’090).
PNG
media_image1.png
494
708
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re claim 1, as best understood, Yang’745 discloses (e.g. FIG. 1-5) an light emitting diode 100, comprising:
a substrate 101;
an epitaxial structure 103, disposed on the substrate 101 and comprising a first semiconductor layer 103A, a light emitting layer 103B and a second semiconductor layer 103C stacked in sequence;
a first contact electrode (e.g. a lower layer of metal stack 115, e.g. Al of Al/Ti/Pt stack, ¶ 57), disposed on the epitaxial structure 103 and electrically connected to the first semiconductor layer 103A;
a second contact electrode 107 disposed on the epitaxial structure 103 and electrically connected to the second semiconductor layer 103C (¶ 48);
a first connecting electrode (e.g. upper layer of metal stack 115, e.g. Pt of Al/Ti/Pt stack, ¶ 57), disposed on the first contact electrode (lower layer of 115);
a first insulating structure 117, “disposed on the first connecting electrode (upper layer of 115) and the second contact electrode 107”, wherein the first insulating structure 117 covers the epitaxial structure 103, the first connecting electrode (upper layer of 115) and the second contact electrode 107 and has a first opening (opening in layer 117 above 115) and a second opening (opening in layer 117 above 107), the first opening (opening in layer 117 above 115) is disposed on the first connecting electrode (upper layer of 115), and “the second opening (opening in layer 117 above 107) is disposed on the second contact electrode 107”; and
a first protecting electrode (middle layer of metal stack 115, e.g. Ti of Al/Ti/Pt stack, ¶ 57), disposed between the first contact electrode (e.g. Al of Al/Ti/Pt stack, ¶ 57), and the first connecting electrode (e.g. Pt of Al/Ti/Pt stack, ¶ 57),
wherein the first connecting electrode (upper layer of 115) is disposed between the first opening (opening in layer 117 above 115) and the first contact electrode (lower layer of 115), an orthographic projection of the second contact electrode 107 on the substrate 101 is outside an orthographic projection of the first contact electrode (lower layer of 115) on the substrate 101 (see FIGs. 9A & 11A, 107 and 115 do not overlap), and an orthographic projection of all of the first contact electrode (lower layer of 115), the first connecting electrode (upper layer of 115) and the first protecting electrode (middle layer of 115) on the epitaxial structure 103 is entirely outside “an orthographic projection of the second semiconductor layer 103C on the epitaxial structure 103” (115 do not overlap 103C).
Yang’745 discloses the light emitting diode comprise semiconductor stack 103 formed of material for emitting desired wavelength (¶ 36). Yang’745 does not explicitly disclose the light emitting diode emit ultraviolet light. However, Yang’090 teaches an ultraviolet light emitting diode (FIG. 1-2) formed of material that emits UV light in a wavelength between 250 nm and 400 nm (¶ 28). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form Yang’745’s light emitting semiconductor stack using material that emit UV light as desired for its suitable use as is taught by Yang’090.
In re claim 2, Yang’745 discloses (e.g. FIG. 1-5) wherein the ultraviolet light emitting diode further comprises a second connecting electrode 113, the second connecting electrode 113 is disposed on the second contact electrode 107, the first insulating structure 117 covers the second connecting electrode 113, and the second opening (opening in layer 117 above 113) is disposed on the second connecting electrode 113.
In re claim 3, Yang’745 discloses (e.g. FIGs. 1C & 13) wherein the ultraviolet light emitting diode further comprises a third connecting electrode 119B, a second insulating structure 123, a first pad 121B, and a second pad 121A; the third connecting electrode 119B is disposed on the first insulating structure 117 and electrically connected to the first connecting electrode (upper layer of 115) through the first opening (opening in layer 117); the second insulating structure 123 covers the third connecting electrode 119B and the first insulating structure 117; the second insulating structure 123 (FIG. 13) has a third opening (opening exposing 119B) and a fourth opening (opening exposing 119A); the third opening (opening exposing 119B) is disposed on the third connecting electrode 119B; the first pad 121B is disposed on the second insulating structure 123 and connected to the third connecting electrode 119B through the third opening (opening exposing 119B); and the second pad 121A is disposed on the second insulating structure 123 and connected to the second connecting electrode 113 through the fourth opening (opening exposing 119A).
Yang’745 does not explicitly disclose the third connecting electrode 119B has a fifth opening; the fifth opening is configured for exposing part of the second connecting electrode 113, and the second insulating structure 123 has a fourth opening that is disposed inside the fifth opening.
Yang’090 discloses light-emitting diode (FIG. 1-2) comprising a n-side connecting electrode 20 (corresponding to third connecting electrode), a second insulating structure 25, first pad 80a, second pad 80b; the third connecting electrode 20 is disposed on the first insulating structure 23b; the third connecting electrode 20 has a fifth opening (Yang’090 FIG. 2F, opening of electrode 20 cutout for arranging 30 inside); the fifth opening is configured for exposing part of the second connecting electrode 36 (see Yang’090 FIG. 1C, part of 36 is exposed through cutout of electrode 20); the second insulating structure 25 covers the third connecting electrode 20 and the first insulating structure 23b; the second insulating structure 25 (FIG. 2G) has a third opening 251 and a fourth opening 252, the third opening 251 is disposed on the third connecting electrode 20; the fourth opening 252 is disposed inside the fifth opening (252 is inside cutout of electrode 20, see FIGs. 2F & 2G); the first pad 81a is connected to the third connecting electrode 20 through the third opening 251; and the second pad 81b is connected to the second connecting electrode 36 through the fourth opening 252.
Yang’090 teaches a light emitting diode having such a structure results in improved light extraction and increased brightness.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yang’745’s third connecting electrode 119B and second insulating structure 123 according to the pattern of Yang’090’s connecting electrode 20 and insulating structure 25 so as to obtain a light-emitting device with enhanced performance.
In re claim 5, Yang’745 discloses (e.g. FIGs. 4A-4B) wherein the first insulating structure (including 105P, 209 and 117) comprises a first stacked insulating layer 105P, a second stacked insulating layer 117 and a reflector 209 (DBR, ¶ 74) sandwiched between the first stacked insulating layer 105P and the second stacked insulating layer 117.
In re claim 6, Yang’745 discloses (e.g. FIGs. 1C & 4A-4B) wherein the ultraviolet light emitting diode further comprises an insulating dimming structure 109 disposed on the epitaxial structure 103 and covering the second contact electrode 107, wherein a refractive index of the insulating dimming structure 109,209 (e.g. silicon oxide, ¶ 43-44,76) is less than a refractive index of the second contact electrode 107 (e.g. ITO, ¶ 48) for modulating light emitted by the light emitting layer. Index of refraction of silicon oxide being less than the index of refraction of ITO at a given wavelength, e.g. UV.
In re claim 7, Yang’745 discloses (e.g. FIGs. 4A-4B) wherein the insulating dimming structure 209 (may also include 105P) comprises a first insulating layer (105P or bottommost 209A, ¶ 76), a reflecting layer (middle 209A/209B DBR, ¶ 76) and a second insulating layer (topmost 209A, ¶ 76), wherein the first insulating layer (bottommost 209A, ¶ 76) is disposed on the second contact electrode 107, and the reflecting layer (middle 209A/209B DBR, ¶ 76) is disposed between the first insulating layer (bottommost 209A) and the second insulating layer (topmost 209A).
In re claim 8, Yang’745 discloses (e.g. FIGs. 4A-4B) wherein a refractive index of a dielectric material of the first insulating layer (e.g. 105P, ¶ 44) is less than the refractive index of the second contact electrode 107 (ITO, ¶ 48). Index of refraction of silicon oxide being less than the index of refraction of ITO at a given wavelength, e.g. UV.
In re claim 9, Yang’745 discloses the thickness of sublayers 209A,209B are selected to achieve high reflectance at wavelength of light generated (¶ 76).
Yang’090 further discloses forming a bottom compact layer before forming the DBR structure to fill the detect and prevent moisture (¶ 38). Yang’090 discloses a thickness of the first insulating layer (compact layer, ¶ 38) is between 50 Å to 2000 Å which overlaps the claimed range of 1200 to 5000 Å. Optimizing the thickness of the compact layer has the known effect of providing barrier and prevent defects as taught by Yang’090 (¶ 38). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a bottom compact layer below Yang’745’s DBR 209, having a thickness within the claimed range through routine optimization.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP 2144.05 II. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382; In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
In re claim 10, Yang’745 discloses (e.g. FIGs. 1 & 4) wherein a reflectivity of the reflecting layer (DBR, ¶ 76) is greater than a reflectivity of the second contact electrode 107 (transparent conductive layer, ¶ 48).
In re claim 11, Yang’745 discloses (e.g. FIGs. 1 & 4) wherein the second contact electrode 107 is made of a transparent conductive material (¶ 48), and a material of the insulating dimming structure 109 (also include 105P) comprises a dielectric material (e.g. silicon oxide, ¶ 44) with a refractive index less than the refractive index of the second contact electrode 107 (e.g. ITO, ¶ 32). Index of refraction of silicon oxide being less than the index of refraction of ITO at a given wavelength, e.g. UV.
In re claim 12, Yang’745 discloses the second contact electrode 107 is made of transparent conductive oxide material having high transparency (¶ 48). Although Yang’745 does not explicitly disclose the light transmittance of the second contact electrode 107 is greater than 40%, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a high transparency conductive oxide material such as ITO with a light transmittance of greater than 40%. Furthermore, the light transmittance is not specified with particular wavelength. Yang’745’s transparent conductive oxide material is greater than 40% light transmittance at a long wavelength, e.g. infrared.
In re claim 13, Yang’745 discloses (e.g. FIGs. 1 & 4) the first protecting electrode (e.g. middle layer of stack 115, ¶ 57) completely covers (from a top surface) the first contact electrode (lower layer of stack 115, ¶ 57).
In re claim 14, the sequence of forming the first protecting electrode before the insulating dimming structure pertains to a product by process limitation. No specific structural difference is directly recited or implied from the process. In regard to the product by process language, since a "product by process" claim is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made, In re Hirao and Sato et al., 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (CCPA 1976) (footnote 3). “[T]he lack of physical description in a product-by-process claim makes determination of the patentability of the claim more difficult, since in spite of the fact that the claim may recite only process limitations, it is the patentability of the product claimed and not of the recited process steps which must be established. We are therefore of the opinion that when the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either section 102 or section 103 of the statute is eminently fair and acceptable. As a practical matter, the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith.” In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972). See also In re Luck and Gainer, 177 USPQ 523 (CCPA 1973); In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324 (CCPA 1974); and In re Marosi et al., 218 USPQ 289 (CAFC 1983). It is the final product per se which must be determined for patentability in a "product by, all of" claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that an old or obvious product, whether claimed in "product by process" claims or not, is not patentable. Note that Applicant has the burden of proof in such cases, as the above case law makes clear. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based upon the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product is made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In re claim 15, Yang’745 discloses (e.g. FIG. 1C) wherein the first connecting electrode (upper layer of stack 115, ¶ 57) completely covers the first contact electrode (lower layer of stack 115), and an orthogonal projection of the first opening (opening in layer 117 above 115) on the epitaxial structure 103 is completely overlapped with an orthogonal projection of the first connecting electrode (upper layer of stack 115) on the epitaxial structure 103.
In re claim 16, Yang’745 discloses (e.g. FIG. 1C) wherein the second connecting electrode 113 is disposed between the second contact electrode 107 and the second opening (opening in layer 117 above 113).
In re claim 17, Yang’745 discloses (e.g. FIG. 1C) wherein an orthogonal projection of the second connecting electrode 113 on the epitaxial structure 103 (FIG. 11A) is completely overlapped with an orthogonal projection of the second contact electrode 107 on the epitaxial structure 103 (FIG. 9A), and an orthogonal projection of the second opening (opening in layer 117 above 113) on the epitaxial structure 103 is completely overlapped with an orthogonal projection of the second connecting electrode 107 on the epitaxial structure 103.
In re claim 18, Yang’745 discloses (e.g. FIG. 9C) wherein the epitaxial structure 103 has a plurality of conductive holes TR, the plurality of conductive holes TR penetrate from the second semiconductor layer 103C down to the first semiconductor layer 103A, and a sum of areas of the plurality of conductive holes TR is less than or equal to 50% of an area of the epitaxial structure 103 (less than 50% of the epitaxial structure 103 is etched, as shown in FIG. 9A).
In re claim 20, Yang’745 discloses (e.g. FIGs. 13-14) a light emitting device 600,1100,1200 comprising the ultraviolet light emitting diode 100 according to claim 1.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang’745 and Yang’090 as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Chae et al. US 2018/0076360 A1 (Chae).
In re claim 4, Yang’745 discloses (e.g. FIG. 1-5) wherein a metal surface layer of the second connecting electrode 113 in contact with the first insulating structure 117 (see FIG. 1C) is a second Ti metal layer or a second Cr metal layer (¶ 55-56).
Yang’745 further teaches the first connecting electrode corresponding to the upper layer of the multilayer stack structure 115 (¶ 57). Yang’745 does not explicitly disclose a metal surface layer of the first connecting electrode (upper layer of 115) in contact with the first insulating structure 117 is a first Ti metal layer or a first Cr metal layer.
However, Chae discloses a multilayer electrode structure comprising a top protective layer composed of Cr (¶ 81).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a protective Cr top layer in forming Yang’745’s multilayer stack electrode 115. As such, the Cr surface layer forms the first connecting electrode that is in contact with the overlying first insulating layer 117.
It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang’745 and Yang’090 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Totani US 2019/0067511 and Chae.
In re claim 19, Yang’745 discloses the claimed invention including the first contact electrode corresponding to a lower layers of the multilayer stack 115 (¶ 57). Yang’745 does not explicitly disclose the first contact electrode is a Ti/Al/Au alloy structure, a Ti/Al/Ni/Au alloy structure, a Cr/Al/Ti/Au alloy structure or a Ti/Al/Au/Pt alloy structure (as best understood).
However, Totani discloses a light emitting diode (e.g. FIG. 1) comprising a contact electrode 15 between the n-type layer 11 and the n-wiring electrode 20, wherein the contact electrode 15 has a Ti/Al/Ti/Au/Al structure as suitably material for making contact with n-type layer 11 (¶ 30).
Chae further discloses a multilayer electrode structure comprising a top protective layer composed of a single layer or combination layer of Ni, Cr, Au (¶ 81).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further provide a Cr protective top layer over the Ti/Al/Ti/Au/Al multilayer structure as taught by the combination of Totani and Chae. As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form Yang’745’s electrode 115 as a the multilayer electrode structure having Ti/Al/Ti/Au/Al/Cr as taught by Totani and Chae so as to provide reliable electrical contact and provide desired reflective property. As such, the Ti/Al/Ti/Au/Al/Cr structure comprises lower layers of Ti/Al/Ti/Au that teaches the claimed Ti/Al/Au alloy structure, as best understood. Furthermore, the Al of Ti/Al/Ti/Au/Al/Cr teaches the claimed first protecting electrode, and the Cr of Ti/Al/Ti/Au/Al/Cr teaches the claimed first connecting electrode.
It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/8/2026 with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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 YU CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7881. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9AM-5PM ET.
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, WILLIAM KRAIG can be reached at 5712728660. 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.
/YU CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
YU CHEN
Examiner
Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights