DETAILED ACTION
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, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto et al. (US Pub. 2004/0012958) in view of Liu et al. (US Pub. 2022/0302352) and Yi (KR20120078344A).
Regarding independent claim 1, Hashimoto teaches a light-emitting device (Fig. 1; para. 0070+), comprising:
a substrate (2) that has a first surface and a second surface opposite to said first surface (Fig. 1 – the “second surface” being the roughened surface), said substrate having a thickness smaller than 80 µm (para. 0005 – disclosing 70µm and therefore anticipating the claimed range (MPEP 2131.03, I)), said
second surface having a roughened structure thereon with a surface roughness ranging from 0.5 µm to 1 µm (para. 0074 – disclosing “about 1µm” and therefore anticipating the claimed range (MPEP 2131.03, I)); and
a chip unit (3/4/5/17) that is disposed on said first surface of said substrate, said chip unit including a first conductive semiconductor layer (3), an active layer (4), a second conductive semiconductor layer (5), and an insulating layer (17) that are sequentially disposed in such order (Fig. 1; para. 0070, 0066-0067), and having a first electrode (21a) and a second electrode (21b) that are disposed on said insulation layer (Fig. 1; para. 0072),
wherein said insulation layer and said substrate are spaced apart from each other (Fig. 1), said first electrode and said second electrode being disposed on a surface of said insulation layer that is opposite to said substrate and being flush with each other (Fig. 1 – the electrodes are flush with each other at the surface between insulating layer (17) and the electrodes).
Hashimoto is silent with respect to wherein the insulating layer (17) can be DBR reflection layer.
Liu teaches a light-emitting device (Fig. 1) wherein the insulating layer (500) can be DBR reflection layer (para. 0031, 0043).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the insulating layer of Hashimoto such that it was a DBR reflection layer as taught by Liu for the purpose of increasing light extraction of the device.
Hashimoto is silent with respect to a current spreading layer.
Yi teaches a light-emitting device (Fig. 1) including a current spreading layer (60) (para. 0037).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include the current spreading layer of Yi within the device of Hashimoto to arrive at the claimed invention for the purpose of providing more even current distribution resulting in more uniform light output.
Re claim 2, Hashimoto teaches wherein the substrate has a thickness of 70µm (para. 0005), but is silent with respect to smaller ranges. Hashimoto teaches the thickness of the substrate to have an effect on heat radiation; that is, the thickness is a result effective variable (para. 0005).
Yi further teaches that smaller ranges are known (para. 0058).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to optimize the thickness of the substrate such that it was within the claimed range of “50 µm to 60 µm” for the purpose of improving heat radiation of the device (MPEP 2144.05).
Re claim 4, Hashimoto teaches wherein said substrate is a sapphire substrate (para. 0071), said chip unit being disposed on said first surface of said substrate (Fig. 1)
Hashimoto is silent with respect to wherein the chip unit is disposed via epitaxial growth or bonding, per se.
Yi teaches a light-emitting device (Fig. 1) wherein the chip unit (30/40/50) is disposed via growth or supporting (para. 0030 – wherein “supporting” is considered to read on “bonding”).
Yi is silent with respect to epitaxial growth; specifically, for the embodiment of Fig. 1; however, Yi teaches in para. 0004 that this is generally known.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to predictably form the chip unit of Hashimoto via epitaxial growth or bonding with a reasonable expectation of success because both are known methods of forming a chip unit.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto et al. (US Pub. 2004/0012958) in view of Liu et al. (US Pub. 2022/0302352) and Yi (KR20120078344A) and further in view of Shi et al. (CN109952641A; using US2020/0227395A1 as translation).
Re claim 3, Hashimoto teaches wherein said light-emitting device has a planar size of approximately 300µm*300µm (para. 0003).
Shi teaches light-emitting devices having a planar size of 3 mil*5 mil or 5 mil*9 mil (para. 0061), which lie fully within the claimed range of 3 mil*5 mil to 5 mil*9 mil (MPEP 2131.03, I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of fling that a smaller device size than that suggested by Hashimoto could be used such as the sizes disclosed by Shi to arrive at the claimed invention for the purpose of providing a smaller device. Furthermore, changes in sizing/proportions are not generally considered to be patentably distinct (MPEP 2144.04, IV, A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4 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
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 MOLLY KAY REIDA whose telephone number is (571)272-4237. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00PM.
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, Brent Fairbanks can be reached at (571)272-4237. 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.
/MOLLY K REIDA/Examiner, Art Unit 2899
/Brent A. Fairbanks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899