DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to amendment filed 11/12/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claim 1 has been amended.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-11, 13-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang et al. US 2021/0336090 A1 (Yang).
PNG
media_image1.png
344
1120
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re claim 1, Yang discloses (e.g. FIGs. 1-2) an ultraviolet light emitting diode 1 (¶ 28), comprising:
a substrate 10;
an epitaxial structure 12, disposed on the substrate 10 and comprising a first semiconductor layer 121, a light emitting layer 123 and a second semiconductor layer 122 stacked in sequence;
a first contact electrode (e.g. a lower portion of metal stack 20, ¶ 44, FIG. 2F), disposed on the epitaxial structure 12 and electrically connected to the first semiconductor layer 121;
a second contact electrode 18 (FIG. 2B) disposed on the epitaxial structure 12 and electrically connected to the second semiconductor layer 122 (¶ 32);
a first connecting electrode (e.g. upper portion of metal stack 20, ¶ 44, FIG. 2F), disposed on the first contact electrode (lower portion of 20);
a first insulating structure 25 (FIG. 2G), disposed on the first connecting electrode (upper portion of 20) and the second contact electrode 18, wherein the first insulating structure 25 covers the epitaxial structure 12, the first connecting electrode (upper portion of 20) and the second contact electrode 18 and has a first opening 251 and a second opening 252 (FIG. 2G), the first opening 251 is disposed on the first connecting electrode (upper portion of 20), and the second opening 252 is disposed on the second contact electrode 18,
wherein the first connecting electrode (upper portion of 20) is disposed between the first opening 251 and the first contact electrode (lower portion of 20), and an orthographic projection of the second contact electrode 18 on the substrate 10 is outside an orthographic projection of the first contact electrode (lower portion of 20) on the substrate 10 (the orthographic projection of 18 as shown in FIG. 2B has a portion that is not covered by the orthographic projection of 20 in a cutout region where 30 is located as shown in FIG. 2F; thus the orthographic projection of 18 is situated beyond the boundaries (or has portion “outside”) the orthographic projection of 20).
In an alternative interpretation, the second contact electrode may correspond to Yang’s electrode 30 which is completely non-overlapped with electrode 20 as shown in FIG. 1C and 2F. In this interpretation, the orthographic projection of the second contact electrode 30 on the substrate is (entirely) outside the orthographic projection of the first contact electrode (lower portion of 20) on the substrate.
In re claim 2, Yang discloses (e.g. FIGs. 1-2) wherein the ultraviolet light emitting diode further comprises a second connecting electrode 36,30, the second connecting electrode 36,30 is disposed on the second contact electrode 18, the first insulating structure 25 covers the second connecting electrode 36, and the second opening 252 is disposed on the second connecting electrode 36.
In the alternative interpretation, the second connecting electrode correspond to the upper portion of metal stack 30 which is disposed on the second contact electrode corresponding to the lower portion of the metal stack 30.
In re claim 4, Yang discloses (e.g. FIG. 1-2) wherein a metal surface layer of the first connecting electrode (upper portion of 20) in contact with the first insulating structure 25 is a first Ti metal layer (when 20 is Ti layer, ¶ 44), and a metal surface layer 30 of the second connecting electrode in contact with the first insulating structure 25 (see FIG. 1C) is a second Ti metal layer (¶ 44).
In re claim 5, Yang discloses (e.g. FIGs. 1-2) wherein the first insulating structure 25 comprises (¶ 46, DBR with a further bottom layer and an upper layer) a first stacked insulating layer (bottom layer), a second stacked insulating layer (upper layer) and a reflector (DBR) sandwiched between the first stacked insulating layer (bottom layer) and the second stacked insulating layer (top layer).
In re claim 6, Yang discloses (e.g. FIGs. 1-2) wherein the ultraviolet light emitting diode 1 further comprises an insulating dimming structure 50 disposed on the epitaxial structure 12 and covering the second contact electrode 18, wherein a refractive index of the insulating dimming structure 50 (e.g. silicon oxide, ¶ 34) is less than a refractive index of the second contact electrode 18 (e.g. ITO, ¶ 32) 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 discloses (e.g. FIGs. 1-2) wherein the insulating dimming structure 50 comprises a first insulating layer (bottom layer or compact layer; ¶ 35,38), a reflecting layer (DBR, ¶ 34,36) and a second insulating layer (¶ 37), wherein the first insulating layer (bottom layer) is disposed on the second contact electrode 18, and the reflecting layer (¶ 35-37) is disposed between the first insulating layer (bottom layer) and the second insulating layer (top layer).
In re claim 8, Yang discloses wherein a refractive index of a dielectric material of the first insulating layer (silicon oxide compact layer, ¶ 38) is less than the refractive index of the second contact electrode 18 (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 10, Yang discloses (e.g. FIGs. 1-2) wherein a reflectivity of the reflecting layer (DBR, ¶ 34,36) is greater than a reflectivity of the second contact electrode 18 (transparent conductive layer, ¶ 32).
In re claim 11, Yang discloses (e.g. FIGs. 1-2) wherein the second contact electrode 18 is made of a transparent conductive material (¶ 32), and a material of the insulating dimming structure 50 comprises a dielectric material (e.g. silicon oxide, ¶ 34) with a refractive index less than the refractive index of the second contact electrode (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 13, Yang discloses (e.g. FIG. 1B) wherein the ultraviolet light emitting diode 1 further comprises a first protecting electrode (e.g. middle portion of metal stack 20, ¶ 44), and the first protecting electrode (middle portion of metal stack 20) is disposed between the first contact electrode (lower portion of metal stack 20) and the first connecting electrode (upper portion of metal stack 20) and covers the first contact electrode (lower portion of metal stack 20).
In re claim 14, in an alternative interpretation, the insulating dimming structure may correspond to one of the multiple stacks of multiple pairs of sublayers of the DBR of the protective layer 25 (¶ 46), or a bottom layer of the protective layer 25 (¶ 46). Whereas, the “first insulating structure” corresponds to another one of the multiple stacks of the DBR or an upper layer of the protective layer 25. In this case, the silicon oxide layer of the DBR (¶ 34) having a refractive index lower than the ITO of the second contact layer 18. As such, Yang teaches wherein the first protecting electrode (middle portion of metal stack 20) is formed on the epitaxial structure 12 before the insulating dimming structure (one of the stack of DBR of 25 or bottom layer of 25). Furthermore, 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 discloses (e.g. FIGs. 1-2) wherein the first connecting electrode (upper portion of metal stack 20) completely covers the first contact electrode (lower portion of metal stack 20), and an orthogonal projection of the first opening 251 (FIG. 2G) on the epitaxial structure 12 is completely overlapped with an orthogonal projection of the first connecting electrode (upper portion of 20, FIG. 2F) on the epitaxial structure 12.
In re claim 16, Yang discloses (e.g. FIG. 1C) wherein the second connecting electrode 36,30 is disposed between the second contact electrode 18 and the second opening 252.
In re claim 17, Yang discloses (e.g. FIG. 2B-2G) wherein an orthogonal projection of the second connecting electrode 30,36 on the epitaxial structure 12 (FIGs. 2D & 2F) is completely overlapped with an orthogonal projection of the second contact electrode 18 on the epitaxial structure 12 (FIG. 2B), and an orthogonal projection of the second opening 252 (FIG. 2G) on the epitaxial structure 12 is completely overlapped with an orthogonal projection of the second connecting electrode 30,36 on the epitaxial structure 12.
In re claim 18, Yang discloses (e.g. FIGs. 1B & 2A) wherein the epitaxial structure 12 has a plurality of conductive holes 28 (six holes shown in FIG. 2A), the plurality of conductive holes 28 penetrate from the second semiconductor layer 122 down to the first semiconductor layer 121, and a sum of areas of the plurality of conductive holes (surface area 121a exposed by the 6 holes) is less than or equal to 50% of an area of the epitaxial structure 12 (less than 50% of the epitaxial structure is exposed, as shown in FIG. 2A).
In re claim 20, Yang discloses (e.g. FIGs. 11-12) a light emitting device 3,4 comprising the ultraviolet light emitting diode 1 according to claim 1.
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 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang as applied to claim 1, 6, 7, and 11 above.
In re claim 9, Yang discloses wherein a thickness of the first insulating layer (compact layer, ¶ 38) is between 50 Å to 2000 Å (¶ 38) 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 (¶ 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 Yang’s compact layer to have thickness within the claimed range through routine optimization. Alternatively, Yang further teaches a bottom layer (¶ 35) which may also considered to be a portion of the “first insulating layer” and contribute to the total thickness of the layer.
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 12, Yang discloses the second contact electrode 18 is made of transparent conductive oxide material having high transparency (¶ 32). Although Yang does not explicitly disclose the light transmittance of the second contact electrode 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’s transparent conductive oxide material is greater than 40% light transmittance at a long wavelength, e.g. infrared.
Claims 3 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Totani US 2019/0067511.
In re claim 19, Yang discloses the claimed invention including the first contact electrode corresponding to a lower portion of metal stack 20 (¶ 44). Yang does not explicitly disclose the first contact electrode 20 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.
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). 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 contact electrode having Ti/Al/Ti/Au/Al structure between Yang’s n-side wiring 20 and the n-type semiconductor layer 121 as taught by Totani so as to improve electrical contact. As such, the Ti/Al/Ti/Au/Al structure comprises and teaches the claimed Ti/Al/Au structure.
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).
In re claim 3, Yang discloses the claimed invention including the electrode 20 contacting the n-type semiconductor layer 121. Yang does not explicitly discloses the additional structure recited in claim 3.
However, Totani discloses a light emitting diode (e.g. FIG. 1) comprising a contact electrode 15 having Ti/Al/Ti/Au/Al structure between the n-type layer 11 and the n-wiring electrode 20 (¶ 30). 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 contact electrode 15 between Yang’s n-side wiring 20 and the n-type semiconductor layer 121 as taught by Totani so as to improve electrical contact.
As such, the combination of Yang and Totani teaches a light emitting diode structure as depicted in the drawing below showing Yang’s FIG. 1C modified to include the contact electrode 15 under the n-side wiring 20 as taught by Totani.
PNG
media_image2.png
565
1118
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The combination of Yang and Totani teaches an ultraviolet light emitting diode 1 (¶ 28), comprising:
a substrate 10;
an epitaxial structure 12, disposed on the substrate 10 and comprising a first semiconductor layer 121, a light emitting layer 123 and a second semiconductor layer 122 stacked in sequence;
a first contact electrode (e.g. a lower layer of Ti/Al/Ti/Au/Al structure 15, Totani, ¶ 30), disposed on the epitaxial structure 12 and electrically connected to the first semiconductor layer 121;
a second contact electrode 18 disposed on the epitaxial structure 12 and electrically connected to the second semiconductor layer 122 (¶ 32);
a first connecting electrode (e.g. upper layer of Ti/Al/Ti/Au/Al structure 15), disposed on the first contact electrode (lower layer Ti/Al/Ti/Au/Al structure 15);
a first insulating structure 23b (see Yang FIG. 2E), disposed on the first connecting electrode (upper layer of 15) and the second contact electrode 18, wherein the first insulating structure 23b covers the epitaxial structure 12, the first connecting electrode (upper layer of 15) and the second contact electrode 18 and has a first opening 231 and a second opening 232 (see Yang FIG. 2E), the first opening 231 is disposed on the first connecting electrode (upper layer of 15), and the second opening 232 is disposed on the second contact electrode 18,
wherein the first connecting electrode (upper layer of 15) is disposed between the first opening 231 and the first contact electrode (lower layer of 15), and an orthographic projection of the second contact electrode 18 on the substrate 10 is outside an orthographic projection of the first contact electrode (lower layer of 15) on the substrate 10 (15 as taught by Totani is only formed in the openings of the epitaxial structure),
wherein the ultraviolet light emitting diode further comprises a second connecting electrode 36, the second connecting electrode 36 is disposed on the second contact electrode 18, the first insulating structure 23b covers the second connecting electrode 36, and the second opening 232 is disposed on the second connecting electrode 36,
wherein the ultraviolet light emitting diode further comprises a third connecting electrode 20, a second insulating structure 25, a first pad 80a, and a second pad 80b; the third connecting electrode 20 is disposed on the first insulating structure 23b and electrically connected to the first connecting electrode (upper layer of 15) through the first opening 231; the third connecting electrode 20 has a fifth opening (Yang 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 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 has (Yang FIG. 2G) 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 disposed on the second insulating structure 25 (81a is on the side and have a portion above 25, alternatively pad 512 shown in FIG. 11 is on the insulating structure 25) and connected to the third connecting electrode 20 through the third opening 251; and the second pad 81b is disposed on the second insulating structure 25 (81b is on the side and have a portion above 25, alternatively pad 511 shown in FIG. 11 is on the insulating structure 25) and connected to the second connecting electrode 36 through the fourth opening 252.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Yang, Applicant argues the orthographic projections of 18 and 20 overlaps each other (Remark, pages 8-9).
This is not persuasive. The orthographic projection of 18 as shown in FIG. 2B of Yang has a portion that is not covered by the orthographic projection of 20 in a cutout region where 30 is located as shown in FIG. 2F. Therefore, the orthographic projection of 18 is situated beyond the boundaries (or has portion “outside”) the orthographic projection of 20.
In an alternative interpretation, the second contact electrode may correspond to Yang’s electrode 30 which is completely non-overlapped with electrode 20 as shown in FIG. 1C and 2F. In this interpretation, the orthographic projection of the second contact electrode 30 on the substrate is (entirely) outside the orthographic projection of the first contact electrode (lower portion of 20) on the substrate.
Furthermore, Yang in view of Totani teaches it would be obvious to form electrode 15 in the openings of the epitaxial structure as detailed in the § 103 rejection of claim 3 above. In this case, an orthographic projection of the second contact electrode 18 on the substrate 10 is (entirely) outside an orthographic projection of the first contact electrode (lower layer of 15) on the substrate 10 since layer 15 as taught by Totani is only formed in the openings of the epitaxial structure.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
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