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 Amendment
Applicant’s cancellation of claims 2- 6 and 8 – 9 is acknowledged.
The objections to claims 5 – 6 are withdrawn as claims 5 – 6 are cancelled.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 15 to clarify the shape of the micro elements is acknowledged. The objection to claim 15 is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 7, 10 – 13, and 15 – 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140217423 A1 hereinafter Fujita in view of US 20170040491 A1 hereinafter Chao and in further view of US 20050194896 A1 hereinafter Sugita.
For claim 1, Fujita teaches A light emitting device comprising: a substrate having a first surface and a second surface opposite to said first surface (Fujita, fig. 13 numeral 10); a semiconductor structure located on top of said first surface of said substrate, and having a first semiconductor layer (fig. 13 numeral 21), an active layer (fig. 13 numeral 22), and a second semiconductor layer that are stacked sequentially (fig. 13 numeral 23); a first electrode unit electrically connected to said first semiconductor layer (fig. 13 numeral 30); a second electrode unit electrically connected to said second semiconductor layer (fig. 13 numeral 40) and a plurality of micro elements being a protrusion that has a base with a base diameter ranging from 400nm to 1000nm (Par. [0118 – 0123]), wherein said micro elements include first micro elements that are formed on said second surface of said substrate (fig. 13 numeral 50), wherein said first micro elements are made of a material that is the same as that of said substrate (fig. 11 numeral 50; Par. [0100] and Par. [0155]), wherein said light emitting device further comprises a light extraction layer covering said first micro elements and said second surface of said substrate (fig. 17 numeral 13), wherein said micro elements further include a plurality of second micro elements that are formed on a bottom surface of said light extraction layer facing away from said substrate (fig. 17 numeral 50A), wherein said second micro elements include said second material that is different from said first material (Par. [0100], Par. [0155], and Par. [0172]). Fujita is silent regarding the active layer emits light with a wavelength that ranges from 200 nm to 280 nm or from 280 nm to 360 nm, and that the light extraction layer has a thickness that is measured between said substrate and said bottom surface of said light extraction layer and that ranges from 400 to 600 angstroms. Fujita does teach that the wavelength of the light emitted by the device is a well known result effective variable that is controlled by the thickness of the active layer and the materials used (Par. [0087]) and that the wavelength of the light emitted by the active layer is determined by the desired emission wavelength of the device and is not limited to a specific wavelength (Par. [0137]).
Chao teaches a light emitting device (Chao, fig. 1) with micro elements (Par. [0027 -0032]; fig. 1 numeral 1). The active layer in Chao (fig. 1 numeral 123) emits light with a wavelength that ranges from 200 nm to 280 nm or from 280 nm to 360 nm (Par. [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the immediate invention to combine the active layer emission wavelength in Chao with the active layer in Fujita in order to effectively transmit a wider range of light, including green, blue, and invisible spectrum light such as ultraviolet light (Chao, Par. [0051]). Fujita teaches that he wavelength of light of the device is not limited and can be modified as needed (Fujita, Par. [0087]; Par. [0137]). One would be motivated to optimize the wavelength of the emitted light of the device in order to emit the desired color of light, or light in the invisible spectrum to avoid the light being seen, to increase intensity, increase absorption, or other aspects of the light that are changed by the wavelength of the light emitted. Fujita and Chao are silent regarding the light extraction layer having a thickness of 400 to 600 angstroms when measured between the substrate and bottom surface of the light extraction layer.
Sugita teaches a light emitting device (Sugita, fig. 1) with a light extraction layer (fig. 1 numeral 400) with a thickness that ranges between 400 angstroms and 600 angstroms (Par. [0062]; the layer having a thickness of 40 nm to 80 nm includes the range of 400 to 600 angstroms).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the immediate invention to combine the light extraction layer thickness in Sugita with the light extraction layer in the combination of Fujita and Chao, in order to improve the coupling efficiency in the device (Sugita, Par. [0062]) while also controlling the average refractive index of the device to help prevent internal trapping of light (Sugita, Par. [0048 – 0053]).
For claim 7, Fujita, Chao, and Sugita teach all of claim 1. Chao also teaches the light emitted by the device being in the ranges from 265 nm to 285 nm (Chao, Par. [0051]).
For claim 10, Fujita, Chao, and Sugita teach all of claim 1. Fujita also teaches said second material has a refraction index that is less than a refraction index of said first material (Fujita, Par. [0180]).
For claim 11, Fujita, Chao, and Sugita teach all of claim 1. Fujita also teaches said first material is selected from Al203, GaN, SiC, and glass, and said second material is selected from AL203, SiO2, Si3N4, and ZnO2 (Fujita, Par. [0051], [0163], and [0178]).
For claim 12, Fujita, Chao, and Sugita teach all of claim 1. Fujita also teaches said base diameter of said base ranged from 420nm to 720nm (Fujita, Par. [0118 – 0123]).
For claim 13, Fujita, Chao, and Sugita teach all of claim 1. Fujita also teaches said base has said base diameter that is 0.8 to 1.5 times, 1.5 times to 1.85 times, or 1.85 to 2.5 times the height of a respective one of said micro elements (Fujita, Par. [0122] teaches a width and depth of 20 microns giving a ratio of 1; Par. [0120] gives a width of 20 microns and a depth of 25 microns giving a ratio of 0.8; Par. [0054] teaches variable depths of the recesses and widths of the recesses being variables dependent on the wavelength of light desired to be emitted by the device).
For claim 15, Fujita, Chao, and Sugita teach all of claim 1. Fujita also teaches said micro elements are cone shaped, frustum-like shaped, cylinder shaped, polygonal pyramid shaped, prism shaped, or spherical (Fujita, fig. 3C – 3D teaches spherical and pyramid like shapes).
For claim 16, Fujita, Chao, and Sugita teach all of claim 1. Fujita also teaches said micro elements are arranged in an array of periodic square grid patterns, an array of periodic hexagonal-closepacking patterns, an array of non-periodic quasicrystalline patterns, or are randomly distributed (Fujita, fig. 18 – 21 teach a quasicrystaline pattern, as the micro elements repeat but do not perfectly repeat, as shown in fig. 19; figures 1A – 1C teach prior art known using a crystal line pattern and hexagonal shapes).
For claim 17, Fujita, Chao, and Sugita teach all of claim 1 Fujita also teaches the light generated in said active layer of said semiconductor structure is emitted along a direction towards said substrate (Fujita, fig. 8A and 8B); and said first electrode unit and said second electrode unit are located on a side of said semiconductor structure distal to said second surface of said surface (fig. 11 numeral 30 and 40).
For claim 18, Fujita, Chao, and Sugita teach all of claim 1. Fujita also teaches a method of stealth dicing using a laser (Par. [0237]). Fujita, Chao, and Sugita do not state the wavelength of the laser and if the base diameter of said base of each of the said micro elements is smaller than the wavelength of the laser. However, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the 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 was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The product in the immediate invention is the same as or obvious from a product in the prior art. As such, claim 18 is rejected as being obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Fujita.
For claim 19, Fujita, Chao, and Sugita teach all of claim 18. Fujita, Chao, and Sugita are silent regarding the bae diameter of the micro elements being smaller than 0.75 times the wavelength of the laser. However, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the 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 was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The product in the immediate invention is the same as or obvious from a product in the prior art. As such, claim 19 is rejected as being obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the immediate invention in view of Fujita. Further, Fujita makes clear that the diameter of the base of the micro elements is dependent on the desired wavelength of light emitted and is controlled by the laser method used (Fujita, Par. [0147 – 0150]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the immediate invention that the base diameter in Fujita can be 0.75 times smaller than the wavelength of the laser as both the wavelength of the laser and the base diameter are well known result controlled variables in the art and one would be motivated to optimize the wavelength of the laser and the base diameter in order to achieve maximum light extraction efficiency (Fujita, Par. [0117]).
For claim 20, Fujita, Chao, and Sugita teach all of claim 1. Fujita also teaches a light emitting assembly using the light emitting device in claim 1 (Fujita, fig. 28).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140217423 A1 hereinafter Fujita in view of US 20170040491 A1 hereinafter Chao, in view of US 20050194896 A1 hereinafter Sugita, and in further view of US 20130119424 A1 hereinafter Kang.
For claim 14, Fujita, Chao, and Sugita teach all of claim 1. Fujita, Chao, and Sugita are silent regarding the minimum center-to-center distance between every two adjacent ones of said micro elements ranges from 0.5 µm to 1.2 µm. Fujita does teach the period between micro elements in the art are well known variable (Fujita, Par. [0072] and [0116]). Fujita also teaches that the distance between two micro elements can be equal to the width of the recess between the micro element (fig. 5B numeral L1) and is in relation to the distance between the recesses (fig. 5B numeral L2; Par. [0055]). Further, Fujita teaches the micro elements formed at a high density, including wherein there is no distance between adjacent elements and also embodiments wherein that distance is very small (Par. [0104]; when B is small, the density of micro elements is increased).
Kang teaches a light emitting device (Kang, fig. 1) with micro elements (fig. 1 numeral 12). The micro elements are taught as having a spacing between 0.5 µm to 1.2 µm (Kang, Par. [0245]; fig. 1 numeral L1). As the overall distance between adjacent micro elements in Kang ranges between 0.5 µm to 1.2 µm, the center-to-center distance must also range between 0.5 µm to 1.2 µm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the immediate invention to combine the center-to-center distance in Kang with the micro elements in Fujita, Chao, and Sugita in order to improve light extraction efficiency (Kang, Par. [0246]) and to control the amount of light incident on the micro elements (Fujita, Par. [0105 - 0107]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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 JACOB T NELSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1031. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00 AM to 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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at 571-270-1435. 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.
/J.T.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2815
/MONICA D HARRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815